Question is from Tommy James 81. Do you have an elevator pitch for trying to convince family members of the benefits of resistance training? Yeah you know by by the way one of mine pumps goals is to convince people of the benefits of resistance strength. Now the reason for this is because today even now resistance training still is not considered the the general health form of exercise for the average person. When the average person is recommended you know to to be more active you know if you go to the doctor and the doctor is like hey you need to improve your activity or increase your activity or they think God I should really exercise more to improve my health. The average person typically doesn't think about resistance training they don't think I'm gonna lift weights like my mom doesn't think I need to be more active I should go lift weights she thinks I need to be more active I'm gonna walk or get on the treadmill or swim or ride a bike it's all cardiovascular type of activity. Nothing wrong with that but if you compare them head to head and you had to pick just one resistance training is superior so here's the elevator pitch and you've probably heard us say this a million times on the podcast but the same amount of time that you spend resistance training versus other forms of exercise yields you far greater results. I can train someone for you know two at two hours a week that's it two hours a week and over time that two hours a week is gonna result in a much faster metabolism and an easier time maintaining a lean body weight than someone who did two hours of cardio a week or two hours of any other form of exercise so the pitch is really this what do people really want they they they want convenience they don't want to work out a lot average person's not working out so how can I do more with less sell them on that sell them on the fact you don't need to work out as much and resistance training will give you better results it'll speed up your metabolism so you could sit there and burn more calories without having to do more exercise those in my opinion have been the best like I think the best sales points if you will with resistance training you know that this is the really this is really hard right trying to convince a family member who who doesn't want to work out to work out and I haven't had a lot of success with this at all to the point where I've got to a point where I just don't even worry about it just I try and live my life as an example as best I can wait for them to ask and wait for them to ask and and that in my opinion is one of the best the other thing is this is this reminds me of something that like I'm reading this book right now called great great teams 16 things that all great teams do or something shit like that and it's talking about leadership stuff and it reminds me of the success that I have had though with some family getting getting through to them that wasn't working and the way I got through to them is to make them feel something right I could sit there and break the science down all day long and talk about the benefits of it and the difference of lean mass versus fat mass and blah blah blah blah and try and sell sell sell them on it and for the most part I'm not going to get through to them but if I can show them something and make them feel something then then maybe I can get the buy-in and this is true in just leadership but this is a very good important thing to do with your staff and building a culture and the same thing goes for for leading your family into the gym and for me I like to find something posture or aches and pains because I can show them something like right then and there that sometimes will just blow somebody's mind like somebody I'll have a family member that's like you know complaining of chronic hip pain or low back pain or shoulder pain and they've just and in their mind they're just old they're just old and it's always nagging them and when I can get to the root of what's going on if it's obviously not a acute injury where they they tore something or broke a bone and it's just chronic pain I can normally give them a few movements to to relieve it like instantly right then there and when they feel that and the and you just spent like five minutes with them doing something that's the things that normally would if I got somebody that would perk them up because most people just we all want to you know lose a little bit of body fat build a little bit of muscle look a little bit better than a couple sessions right you can't do that right you can't even do that in a great workout I can't I can show you a workout and it'd be amazing workout but you're not gonna give them that but a good portion of my family deals with chronic pain it's just as you age and get older and if you haven't addressed your movement patterns more than likely your family member is dealing with either knee hip shoulder back something and if you learn and understand the body well enough or you have something like maps prime pro shameless plug but if you if you've got a tool like that and you can help them by showing them that and then when they feel that man it's a lot easier to convince them on the importance of coming in and exercising and training that to me has been the most success with a you know quote unquote elevator pitch to somebody because I feel like I could try and sell you all day long on something and it just ain't gonna happen I've had a very similar experience and mainly mainly like waiting you know I waited out till till they'll come ask you know they obviously know what I do for a living and so it's like it presents itself sometimes to where I can kind of you know steer them in that direction but usually it is it is through like some kind of a pain or some kind of a condition or something they're going through that I know that okay this is gonna at least start building the conversation in that direction like for my dad for instance he's been doing the same routine forever he goes to the spa and he does the stair master and he does all stuff and now he's experiencing all this repetitive stress pain and for me to just kind of take him through and show like you know how to correct that through mobility but also through like proper mechanics and squatting and adding resistance to that building strength around the hips and you know has really been helping you know alleviate a lot of pain and so I think pain is a very, very effective tool to you know to really convince people that this is this is the best tool for the job is to get stronger overall like that's where you're gonna be in a place where you know doing the rest of your life is gonna be that much better your quality is just gonna go away. Oh yeah this is what you do as a trainer when you get a potential client right if you could show them paint what you could show them pain is the best conversation in one session you're gonna get a new client you ain't gonna show them fat loss you ain't gonna show a muscle building you know what I mean to be clear the only success I've ever had with convincing family members to do resistance training or ones who already made the decision to start working out. Yeah. Then it's a matter of what kind of right you know so they come to me and say you know what I need I need to start exercising I think I'm gonna start right what do you think I should do that's when the resistance right you never walked up to one of your family members who is morbidly obese or has diabetes or starts poking them in the belly yeah yeah and said or had a pitch that got them all of a sudden to wake up and train like those people aren't gonna live they weren't doing it before they got to this place they're not doing it like at dinner all of a sudden you bring the projector out now that I got you you know what though so I was that trainer in my first to early 20s.


Our first speaker is, of course, Dr. Murray Rothbard. Dr. Rothbard is the S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He heads Academic Affairs for the Mises Institute. He's the question, the most important Austrian economist now working, the founder of modern libertarianism, obviously the most important social and philosophical thinker within libertarianism as well as economics. And he's going to talk to us tonight about egalitarianism as a revolt against nature. Dr. Rothbard. Thank you. Well, I'm just going to come up with some. Thanks a lot. It's really a pleasure to be here. I know you have sort of a formal thing to say, but this case is absolutely correct. This is a large topic, so I was trying not to be so cold on my time. The first question I'm going to ask you here is why equality in the first place? This is something I've unfortunately never been able to grasp or understand. The standard approach is the very wordy quality is said caressingly and lovingly. And as if it's self-evidently beautiful and noble, I can't see it. And maybe I'm missing a gene or something. Now, equal means the same. This is very important. So if A and B are equal in height, it means that they have the same height. So therefore, genuine or complete equality, which is what the egalitarians are looking for, is total sameness, totally uniformity. Everybody being exactly the same as everybody else. This means people as identical homogeneous units. Now, it seems to me, well, that question then I asked is what's so great about the idea of uniformity? It seems to me this goal is profoundly anti-human. It violates the nature of man. The glory of humanity is the differentiation of the individuality of each person. And the fact that each individual is unique and irreplaceable, which makes each individual precious. I used to say that ants, this is contrast to ants, with various etymologists, excuse me, smearing ants. They're really different. But anyway, you get the point. So the fact that every person is diverse and individual, therefore, must mean that everybody is unequal. And that's great. I'm concerned. As far as I know, some of you can correct me on this. No important philosopher or writer but favorite equality or anything like it until the 18th century. I found a quote from great 11th century Arab scholastic Al Ghazali who denounced the idea of coercive equality as certainly one of the namesharing of wealth must be voluntary. So obviously there must have been some people who were in favor of coercive equality. But I can't find any important thinkers for it. Adam Smith gets in one of my favorite hobby horses here. And it was an 18th century environmentalist and an egalitarian in the sense that he believed that every individual is equal and uniform blob and has the same interests, the same ability, the same intelligence, et cetera. This contrast to the scholastics, my favorite founders of economics in the French school in the 18th century, who believed, quite the contrary, the specialization and division of labor are based on differences of ability and interest in addition to differences in natural resources. Smith, on the other hand, believing everybody's the same blob has denied that. And therefore he tried to explain exchange as quote, my quote alleged an alleged quote, propensity to truck, barter, and exchange, unquote. In other words, people are simply like lemmings determined in some way to exchange, even though they don't really benefit from it. Smith also held by the way, the differences in wages are therefore different due only to differences in the cost of training with everybody's really equal and equal blob. And this, by the way, is still the ruling theory in neoclassical economics that's including Chicago-wide economics. Gary Becker, for example, much beloved labor Chicago labor economist believes that the differences in wage rights only due to differences in training. So the only reason why architects get more money than ditch diggers for their, you know, have a longer period of training. In contrast to this, San Bernardino of Siena, the 15th century Italian scholastic, Franciscan, said the difference is in wages to do, in addition to the cost of training, differences in the cost of training, I do the differences in ability, energy, and interest. In other words, it's essentially, San Bernardino of Siena is a better labor economist than Gary Becker. So this is one of my themes, the history of economic thought, by the way, is a tremendous loss of knowledge and additional growth in knowledge is also great losses in knowledge through history. Okay, the turning from why equality, the next question is equality in what? What is supposed to be equal? Much specifically, well, one first, one classic item is equality of income. And this was the sort of the traditional, and call it traditionally egalitarian, post-18th century egalitarian, everybody should have equal income. Now, of course, the first thing I have to say as an economist, you can't just talk about money income. So it's meaning, let's talk about real incomes. What does the money buy? There has to be an equality of real income. So when you get to that, you find an additional goal of egalitarianism being monstrous and anti-human. It's also impossible. It's conceptually impossible because how do you equalize everybody's real income? For example, as location. Hungary is living on the banks of the Danube, dining in its wonderful outside cafes. People living in the Bay Area in San Francisco are living in a quasi-paradise. People, on the other hand, living in Union City, New Jersey, not too good a shape, or Northern Minnesota, where they're freezing most of the time. How do you equalize these real income differences? You can't, presumably, you can't bring everybody an equal portion of them every month. You'd fly them in different places. It seems to be impractical. You can bust them. You can, that's right. So then the question is, do you have to find out their psychic, the positive psychic incomes of living in the Bay Area, living in Budapest, and tax them and then subsidize people with negative psychic incomes from living in Union City, New Jersey? I'm yelling, how do you find that out? You can't calculate it. No way you can find that out because you certainly can't ask them because everybody will say, no, I'm suffering here. I have to be paid. Pay me. And there are, of course, some people, some eccentric types, who don't like the Bay Area, prefer living in Union City, New Jersey. What do you do with them? How do you equal, how do you find out what their subjective preferences are? Obviously you can't. So I think that's the quality of real income is in very bad conceptual shape. And by the way, I consider that utopian in the bad sense. I think it's important to differentiate between utopian in the good sense. For example, nobody should commit murder. That's an ideal which probably won't be achieved ever, but at least conceptually possible. You can understand it. It doesn't break down conceptually. But say everybody should have equal real income, it does break down conceptually. It's impossible even. Ponder it. Equality of opportunity is the next ploy here. That sounds more moderate, but it really isn't. It's almost as absurd as the quality of income. It's an ideal. How do you equalize opportunities? First, what you have to do is to make sure that family fortunes are the same. I've worked, it's unjust. For one person to inherit more money than somebody else. Therefore you wipe out. Either wipe out inheritance altogether, equalize inheritance, so that you can do that. But there's still more left. Inheritance is not the first. Monetary inheritance is only a first step. What do you do about the quote unfairness on quote? Of the fact that people come from different families. Some people were born as parents or wise, cultured and intelligent. Other kids grow up in broken, moronic and dysfunctional homes. How do you equalize that? How do you deal with the quote unfairness, which is one of the great notorious egalitarian terms. It's unfair for somebody, some kids grow up in a nice home with good parents. I want other kids to grow up in a home with crazy parents. How do you equalize that? So of course the classic answer to that, the egalitarian answer of many communist theorists, is to force everybody, every kid that we grow up in a state nursery and state home, state school, take them away from their parents and equalize them to state action. Except nationalize old kids from birth, in other words. And we are them in equal and identical state nurseries. But even there, even this monstrous setup, you still can't achieve equality, because first of all there's a pesky problem of location I already mentioned. There's some state nurses being in Bay Area, others being in Union City, New Jersey. How do you equalize that? For a while to Central Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, even the equal and uniform administrators will not be the same. Some nurses and teachers will be pure evil, others will be slightly less evil. There'll be differences in teachers and nurses and all the rest. Even administrators will be different. Even though the state might try its best to make everybody, degrade everybody, debase them and have everybody robotic and brainwashed, there will still be differences. Looking around the facts, some of you have nice nurses or competent others which you won't, there's fletcher types. So that again, equal opportunity can't be achieved either. Then we come to the third category, equality of decision-making power. Another important thing. This is by the way, how much shook in a great book, which I recommend everybody call Envy. There's a German sociologist, he wrote this book in German in the 50s, it was translated into English in 1961. No, 1970 and then was reprinted by Liberty Fund I think a few years ago, great book. He points out that even egalitarian achieved their ends of total economic equality, it will intensify the other differences, the non-economic difference among people and next step will be to try to wipe those out, make those equal. It will intensify, for example, differences in status and prestige and occupation and hierarchy and decision-making power. What do you do about that? What do you do about any qualities of rank? One guy's the president of a corporation or an organization, another guy's a rank and file type. Even though they're making the same monetary incomes and now the difference in prestige becomes aggravated. Of course, one attempt, the original communist Marxian attempts to wipe out all divisions of labor all together. So nobody's an architect or a dish digger or whatever. Everybody's everything. And Marx's famous quote about, everybody will be an artist in the morning and something on an artisan in the afternoon and be your capital in the evening, that sort of thing. So this obviously means everybody, if you put this in effect, everybody dies out pretty fast. There's no division of labor, there's no production, no longer any egalitarian problem. That's one way to handle it, I suppose. Aside from that more extreme view, in my view, this is a natural, a natural law and virtually a natural law. Every organization whatsoever, whether it's a corporation or a volunteer organization or anything ideological organization, they're always, or a bridge club, they'll always be a core of people actually running it. Those who are more able and more interested. They're the ones, there'll be a core that's running at the elite, the natural aristocracy, if you recall that naturally. The other guys would be the rank and files through any organization. Robert Michels discovered this in the famous iron wall of Aligvargy. Michels is a social Democrat in Europe in the late 19th century. And observe the Social Democratic Party in action in Germany and other countries. The fan out here, they were committed to totally quality and abolitionist division of labor here. They have a tight rule by power elite and the rank and file are listening to. I think it came to the conclusion that this is true of social democracy, must be true of everything. They always have an iron wall of Aligvargy. Now I see nothing wrong with this, that Sam seems to me it's a law of nature. There'll always be a core group. I know for example of a small but increasingly successful volunteer music organization in New York Music Society as a governing board, which is elected annually by its members. But for years the group has been governed by the benevolent but absolute autocratic rule of its president. As a lady who was highly intelligent, innovative and though employed full time elsewhere is able and willing to devote an incredible amount of time and energy to this organization.  Now that's what I consider. I sort of know nothing wrong with it. It's great when something like that pops up. It should be even more of them. Where a person of this sort come to the forum or chosen as the natural elite. This is Jeffersonian natural aristocracy so to speak. By the way as far as I'm concerned democratic voting is at its best when they have shareholders of the corporation who are voting their coastal ownership of the assets of the corporation. If you own one fifth of a corporation you have one fifth of a vote. And it's only secondarily useful in other cases as a method of displacing natural aristocrats or monarchs who go sour from time to time. Aristotelian in terms of change from monarchs to tyrants that this lady sort of went bananas at some point. Useful have a board which will dislodge it. So at best democratic voting is not a primary good. It's a let alone a good of itself. Simply a secondary method of checks on natural aristocrats. I'm doing a period of the mid 1960s the new left before it hives off in the Stalinism and bizarre violence. It's trying to put into effect which I think was a new political theory called participatory democracy. And it sounded great, sounded libertarian to this extent. The idea was not just that everybody should participate equally as one part of it but also that no decisions should ever be made by majority rule, majority rule was tyranny. Every decision should be made by unanimous consent of the members. It sounds very much like Jim Buchanan's unanimity rule and public choice. A friend of mine was teaching which was her main name was Protect the Guilty. I was teaching about history of Vietnam in a new left free university of New York in the mid 60s which is originally a scholarly organization founded by a young sociologist couple. The free university set out to be a total participatory democracy. No majority rule, no rule at all. Everybody's, and the members, the governing board of the free university consists of a staff which is a couple, two people a couple. Any students who are interested in wandering in, they pay a little small tuition and the teachers who were unpaid and then anybody who cared to attend was part of this governing group. They made every decision equally. That was no priority. And all decisions, I mean all decisions from the courses taught to room assignments to should this room need a paint job and what color paint should it be? I mean every possible conceivable petty point and decided you now have to be decided unanimously. Well, I think it's very interesting. I've participated in a couple of these things because I was taking the course in front of my teaching in Vietnam. And it was interesting sociological experiment for Steve Goldberg, any sociologist here. First of all of course, very few decisions were reached. I'm not pretty obvious. And second of all, the board meeting stretched out to become life itself. Endless. And this friend of mine would go home, they're sort of like a start to a no exit situation. If you left, the friend of mine for example, would go home every day at five or six o'clock to eat and live and separate. He was attacked for abandoning the meeting, for betraying the collective by leaving, by having a private life after five or one. Do you see what happens? It's maybe the current leftist political theorist keep talking about public life and civic virtue have in mind. No private life anymore. Everything gets wrapped up and tied up and mixed up in participatory collective, virtue is civically virtuous collective meeting, a lifelong permanent floating meeting. Well, it shouldn't come as no surprise that the University of New York is not last very long. As a matter of fact, what first happened is the scholarship is a very good scholarly group for the first year or so. And it quickly shifts to become to teach, to teach quote unquote, new left astrology, tarot cards, channeling your rhythm makes whatever other nonsense would be taught at the time. The scholar's all left and sociological Russians law was in work. And that was about it. The founding couple by the way, for those who are interested in that, female wound up in jail for unsuccessfully, of course, trying to blow up a bank. And while a male getting increasingly glassy eyed and a billion feet of sociological, let your domain or precedent agitation took themselves into the notion of the only moral occupation for a revolutionary sociologist is that a radio repair man. I don't know what happened with some babies in DJ radio repair work. Who knows? This reminds me, a new left educational theory was rampant at that time. Unfortunately, I was teaching in a very conservative engineering school, which only got parts of this in our little social science department, but the only part was touched by it. The doctrine then was not so much to be politically correct. The doctrine then was that the teacher student relation was intrinsically evil because it's inherently unequal and hierarchical because the teacher knows more than the student. You have to do something, you have to wipe that out. The way you wipe that out to make it truly democratic and egalitarian is not to have any content in the courses to sit around rapping about the student's feelings. Since the student, there's no student's feelings in any superior or whatever, in any greater value than any other student's feelings, or the teacher's feelings, that matter. That becomes the only relevant topic to students. They sit around all the time talking about the student's feelings. One problem with this, of course, was that why should the students, the question which I raised immediately in our little discussion department meeting, why should the students, or more correctly, they're no longer suffering parents, pay faculty who are qualified in other content. They are qualified in economics, sociology, whatever. Why should parents pay them sit around rapping about the student's feelings of the students? Anyway, that didn't seem to last too long. That way, I don't have the other politically corrects of that stuff. Okay, and then Shook points out that even if you somehow equalize income, wealth, opportunity, decision-making power, you've still got other things. Other inequalities don't become rampant. Namely, personal attributes. You have to eradicate them. And he mentions two works that I talk about in this essay that we distributed to you. Two fascinating books, the fictional works of, this still being fiction, one by a British writer, L.P. Hartley, called Facial Justice, written in 1961. And also he doesn't mention this as a short story that came across by Kurt Vonnegut, Carl Harrison Bergeron, also published in 1961. Later published in his essay, book of essays called Welcome to the Monkey House. What the sensitive view is, in the case of Hartley, he says, after World War II, he's looking at British life after World War II. And he says, after the Third World War, he says justice doesn't make great strides. Economic justice, social justice, and other forms of justice has been achieved. There were still other areas of life that are concurrently facial justice. Some women are prettier than others. That has to be stamped out. So there were, women were, or women's faces were looked at as three categories, alpha, pretty women, beta, pleasantly attractive, as you put it, and gamma ugly. And then the idea is to have compulsory operations, plastic surgery operations to reduce the pretty women that are pleasantly attractive and possibly increase the ugly women. And the emphasis is more on reducing the face of the alphas, the lebatas. And the operation is undergone by the Equalization Faces Center, Equalization Faces Paranthosis Center. At the same time, Kurt Vonnegut published, Harrison Bergeron's even pittier, even more bitterly, bitterly is a terrible story, short story about a comprehensive egalitarian society which had been achieved by the year 2021. He's writing some quoting, just a couple of sentences from Vonnegut. The year was 2021, everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God in the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, the 2012, the 230th Amendments of the Constitution. And so the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States, handicapper general. And the handicapping work partly as follows, quote, Hazel and a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts.  He was required by the Lord to wear it at all times. It was tuned on government transmitter. Every 20 minutes or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains. So the interesting thing about this is we feel, I think it's a particular horror at these examples of the Heartland and Vonnegut example. The reason is because these qualities are so intimately connected with each person. So it's only wrapped up with each person. On the other hand, we have people like the famous egalitarian philosopher John Rawls who claims that people don't deserve their personal quality. They didn't create them, like looks, intelligence, et cetera. And therefore, of course, they have to be compulsory egalitarianized. He doesn't quite go the root of the facial justice and the handicap. I don't see why not. One counter to this I would tend to make is, of course, that each person uses his or her free will energy and focus and concentration to apply these given qualities to the world. But Rawls says, well, that too is determined. All this energy and applications is also determined, therefore, you can't attribute any credit to that either. Well, my reply is basically, so what? See, these attributes are mine or yours and wrapped up for this intimately. And what right does anyone else have than to fear with them? It means far less right, much less dessert, and the rest of us will have these qualities. Okay, we go on from there to the next step, which is equality for whom. We're talking about different types of equality. What we might call now classical old fashioned egalitarianism says that each individual should be made equal. But now we have a new thing, which is even more bizarre. It's like on the previous one, even crazier. This is group equality. That's the current status, the current phrase. Groups that are made equal to each other. Particularly there seem to be two categories of groups. Those who are designated as oppressed and those who are designated as the oppressors. The purpose of social policies to subsidize the privilege of the oppressed while culminating and burdening the oppressors. The oppressors are supposed to supply a seemingly endless flow of money, prestige, status, and other hands of the oppressed all the time feeling enormous guilt for the centuries of oppression. And by the way, there seems to be no stopping point of this and no end point to say, okay, here's how much you have to pay to the oppressed. It goes on, apparently it goes on and on forever. Who are the oppressed groups? Actually, nobody knows, it seems to me, thank you. It almost makes me long to the nostalgia for the old days of classical Marxism. The Marxism is pretty clear. The oppressed are the proletariat. The oppressors are the bourgeoisie and the feudal landlords if any happen to exist. And there's a little bit of ambiguity about the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen. But that's about it. It's sort of, yeah, it's a fairly good shake. But nowadays, you can find new oppressed every day. There's no way of stopping it. And it takes a lot of pressure for lobbying and media attention and approval to get to the oppressed status. Make yourself, yeah, designated and recognized to the oppressed, and Joe Stillbrand writes, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim. So we find, for example, among the recently oppressed, we find that Smith College, distinguished college in Massachusetts, handed out from the Office of Student Affairs a list of 10 different kinds of oppression, allegedly inflicted by making judgments about people, making judgments itself of apparently oppression. These include heterosexism, defined as oppression of those with non-heterosexual orientations, which includes, by the way, not acknowledging their existence as part of oppression. And ableism, which is defined as oppression that differently abled. Apparently, in the old days, we used to say disabled or handicapped. That's a no-no, but that makes them feel oppressed. Oppression was differently abled by the temporarily able, the rest of us were temporarily able, right? Also, particularly relevant to the Hartley and Bonnigot is ageism, oppression of the young and the old by youngish and middle-aged adults. And lookism, or looksism, defined as the construction of a standard of beauty or attractiveness. And oppression, by the way, also consists of noticing the difference. In this case, noticing the difference about oppression.  I said, a so-called feminist scholarship guidelines. I found out, by the way, that the recent ones today, Heritage Foundation's now come out in favor of feminism being conservative. I don't know if I've accepted this yet. A set of feminist scholarship guidelines sponsored by the state of New Jersey for its college campuses, that's right here. Attacks knowledge and scientific inquiry per se as being as a male, quote, rape of nature, unquote. It charges, quote, mine was male, nature was female. Knowledge was created by an act of aggression. A passive nature had to be interrogated, unclothed, penetrated and compelled by man to reveal her secrets, unquote. And then we have oppression of forces, also broadly defined as any, as acknowledging this as many possible superiority in any area, because that's an occasion for envy. How much shook points that? Well, we've done with egalitarianism, institutionalization of envy or maximization of envy avoidance. But whether the highest value in life is trying to make sure that all envy is always avoided. Dominated literary theory of deconstructionism fiercely argues there can be no standards to judge one literary text superior to another one. At a recent conference, one political science professor referred directly to Cheslaw Miloge's book, The Captive Mind, as a classic. Another female professor declared the very word classic, quote, makes me feel oppressed, unquote. So the focus now of a little scholarship and criticism is supposed to be to avoid but to cater to any possible feelings of oppression, which means that nobody ever can be considered superior or classic or anything else. Okay, the really, but see the really almost infinite number of classes of groups that could be oppressed. I'm a member, every one of you is a member of almost a different number of groups, okay? High group, weight group, where you live, all the rest of it, all minorities and the world could be oppressed. I, for example, are some luckless graduate student that can coerce into it and do a study showing that all people have lower incomes than the haired. Okay, who knows? Because make us define athletes and say, aha, multiple oppressed, they're boldness. And then you have a group of age-old oppression of low people and why both people should have 10,000 years of haired oppression. They should be compensated for all the rest of them. Okay, to go through the, quickly, through some of the various allegedly oppressed groups. The women are supposed to be an oppressed minority. By the way, minorities are supposed to be oppressed or are they a minority, of course. And women, of course, are actually a majority. So, compared to the kind of peculiarity of women and minority. Also, I find it very difficult to figure out in what sense Jackie Kennedy on NASA's has been oppressed. That is, the Hispanics, I find it very difficult to figure out why, in what sense we have been oppressing Hispanics. And the only thing I can think of is that if they refuse to learn English, I don't consider that oppression. I mean, it's not sufficient criterion for being oppressed. There was, of course, a lot of bizarre happenings in this whole thing, including Hispanic, in particular. And San Francisco recently, there's a Hispanic quota in the fire department in San Francisco. So for people trying to get into the Hispanic quota, I should say, by the way, that the whole point here, of course, is to try to get out of the burdened category of the oppressor and trying to join, desperately trying to join the, happy category of the oppressed. You can get in on the mood or the goodies. So, as an Hispanic quota, now you have to hire a certain number of Hispanics. Who's an Hispanic? Well, it turns out, one guy was hired and was kicked out because he wasn't really Hispanic. He was Italian. Kick out, boo, evil. Kick him out. Another one, another fire department person, was not really Hispanic because he was Spanish. That doesn't count. The Spanish can't be Hispanic. I don't know what you're saying, of course. Linda Chavez is not considered Hispanic because she's not an authentic Barrio Hispanic. So you have to be an authentic Barrio first. There was also a question, case in Queens, New York, was an Hispanic quota, I think, for teachers and somebody changed his name from Robbins in the Lopez claiming he was Hispanic. I mean, it was an intricate genealogical analysis. Well, we have not, by the way, genealogies now at a high point in American life. I figure he's not really Hispanic. He's really, you know, whatever. And then the question is, the first thing is they didn't look Hispanic. Interesting question is how to define who looks Hispanic who doesn't. That kind of worms right there. And then, of course, it's a black question. The black question, who's black? The whole term, by the way, is a lot of peculiar because when I was growing up, the elderly people I was growing up called them the colored. That was sort of the genteel way of going. And then that was considered racist. Then everybody changed a negro. That was considered racist. Then it changed to black. And now it's supposed to be African-American.  At any rate, if you talk about black then, if I'm gonna stop there, I'm too old to learn another name now, at this point. Who's black and who isn't? What does black mean anyway? In what sense, for example, is Governor Douglas Weiler of Virginia black? It doesn't look black to me. I know several friends of mine are Italian-Americans. Much blacker than he is. Skin is much darker. So what is this supposed to mean? Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., one of my favorite rogue congressmen in the old days, was a black minister and black leader. Apparently he wasn't black at all. It was an article in the Newsweeks, sort of a bemused article in the Newsweeks, saying, well, jeez, a quarter of Cherokee or something. Not black at all. They decided they made a career, a conscious career decision early on.  What's that like? And how do you deny that? That's a really black. How do you prove this? It's a very strange situation. But just the other day was an interesting article in the New York Times off-bed page, right? Light, skin, black, literally attacking a new movie about Thurgood Marshall. But Sidney Plattier is playing Thurgood Marshall. And he's attacking this terrible thing. Whites are insensitive to the real problem here because Sidney Plattier is an ebony colored black where Thurgood Marshall lights beige colored black. That's terrible things.  So we can see this now. The next step is coming up with a very carefully calibrated colorometrics. What degree of tint is the person allowed by the other person? So we're into a lovely period here. But we have now, genealogical research, we'd say it's maximum, probably as great as Apex's Hitler because trying to figure out the genealogical reference of all these people. Probably the most, the best example of this is the distinguished Neocon journalist, Joshua Moranczyk wrote an article on commentary magazine trying to demonstrate the path you can as anti-Semitic. And he, and it's basically major proof was this. Ah-ha, he engaged in genealogical, brilliant genealogical research. He found out a path you can as masquerading as Irish, not really Irish at all. He's only one quarter Irish. He's half German, that's for through why he's anti-Semitic. He would have done very well with a slightly different ethnic background. It was done beautifully in Germany in the 30s. So the, then there's of course a question of compensation of blacks for slavery. That's a new thing coming up. Bill's already being introduced to the Congress for compensation, it's kind of an interesting concept. Who's, first of all, why am I supposed to compete? I mean, the various criticisms you can make of this. One is, why am I supposed to compensate blacks for slavery? Am I, I was not involved in slavery as a slave master, my ancestors were not slave masters. Why are we supposed to kick into this? Oh, one. Number two, even if you, even for, you have a, well, first and foremost, I should say, the idea of collective guilt is monstrous. The only guilt for anything should be the person himself and not his fifth generation descendants. There's no way which enforce another set of people to pay for somebody else's previous crimes. The, and even if I, even if my ancestors were slave masters, I wasn't a slave master. There are very few slave masters left in the United States, I think at this point. I have to be about a hundred and 10 years old in South Carolina, probably not left. And this person will not be able to pay the full, full path. So it seems to me that that, that itself would, but who should pay it? Obviously, nobody seems to me, nobody should pay it. The second question, who should get it? It's another interesting area. Who was, who gets the allocation of the $100 billion, whatever the total compensation is supposed to be for slavery? Because Governor Wilder gets it, he only got, he's only got 100th black, Marshall White, when he gets very little. Who gets what? Who's the authentic slave, slave descendant who isn't? Guess we're to get very dicey, it seems to me. Also, see who should pay the, I don't see why the Southern slave who should pay any compensation, compensation to be paid by people who did the actual original enslavement, which happened to be African tribal chiefs. And the Americans simply bought them from the slave, from the transport of them, from Africa. So the compensation to be the whoever the descendant is of King Walla Walla Walla, whatever. And try to get him to pay the $200 billion. It'd be interesting to see that too. Submit the bill. Also, of course, if you're looking at collective guilt, the collective punishment, there's another side of the coin too. Shouldn't blacks pay the following, for example? Pay the victims a little of muggings and the armed robberies and all the rest of it. And rapes, shouldn't they pay all the welfare payments back? Shouldn't they pay the costable privileges and quotas and set aside and that separate set and on and on? Shouldn't they pay transportation costs for bringing them from Africa? Plus, of course, interest. So, okay, I think I'll end this discord by final, final statement. I apologize for being personal now, but the new left tells me the personal is the political so I will, I might as well fuse it and take advantage of this. I come before you, my friends, as at least the quadruply oppressed person. At least, it means I deserve, at least four times I did whatever goodies anybody's getting, I deserve millions. Aside from my being oppressed as a libertarian and the state who's more libertarian than at least a couple of trillion. Aside from that, okay, all my life, my name began with R, all right? I've been down at the end of the alphabet as the goodies being passed out with names of being called in school or whatever. I'm at the end, I'm an R. I'm an alphabetically deprived, lexical graphically oppressed. I need big compensation for all the A's, B's and C's. Secondly, I am spectacle or differently eyed. All my life I've been called fluoride by two-eyed types over there. There are lots of, you know, hundreds of millions for that and represented my spectacle comrades. Third, I've suffered all my life as a bowtie wearer. I owe you foreign hand types. A few years ago, there was some monster, some evil person that got on television, I'll get his name. He was talking about how to dress for success, how to dress as an executive. You know what he said? I can quote your verbatim. He said, don't wear a bowtie because people don't trust people who wear a bowtie. They don't trust them. I deserve millions from that guy alone. Bowtie massive. Why I asked you, by the way, to Senator Paul Simon do so badly when he ran for president in 1988. It's not because of ideology. Well, the ideology is the same. Two reasons. One, he had big ears. He was differently eyed. Smeared an attack for that reason. And two, he wore bowtie and therefore wasn't trusted because of the propaganda of the foreign handers. And fourth and finally, and this thing, one of my favorite topics about press law in my life is a shorty of the tall types in the world. This is the evil, this is the evil oppression of heightism. A friend of my recently saying, he was trying to be parody of this whole thing about it. I think, well, how about heightism? And somebody else said, yeah, it's already there. That sure is.  But 20 years ago, there's an article written by Professor Saul Feldman, a sociologist at Case Western Reserve University has distinguished short himself. Talking about the impression of the shorts by the tolls. He bought together, he bought sociological, sociological science in this investigation. He reported that a recent University of Pittsburgh graduating seniors, those six foot taller received an average starting salary, 12.4% higher than graduates under six feet. In the marketing, Professor Eastern Michigan University at Quinn, 140 business recruiters about their preferences between two hypothetical equally qualified applicants for the job of salesman. One of the hypothetical sales was to be six foot one and the other five foot five. The recruiters answered as follows. 27% expressed the politically correct no preference. 1% would hire the shorty and no less than 72% would hire the toly. Also, he points out, Professor Feldman, that women notoriously refer to over short men. Obviously, terrible impression right there. He could have pointed out, he failed to point out Alan Ladd could only play the romantic lead in the old movies by standing on a box. Because the big of the Hollywood moguls who themselves were short, betraying their short comrades and pandering to the tall culture, made him do it. He also, Feldman also points out the language. Our language is filled with anti-short prejudice and such phrases of people being quote short-sighted, short-changed, short-circuited and short in cash. He also adds that among two major party candidates President of the Tall was almost invariably elected. And of course, he could have pointed out that the 1988 campaign were not only to push tower over Dukakis, but representative Charles Wilson, Democrat of Texas, was able to express the tallest bigotry of his region, quote, no Greek dwarf can carry East Texas. And he said this without calling forth any protest or marches by organized short-dumber. So the, and it also might be instructive to study whether the savage treatment accord of the martyred Senator John Power, and his confirmation hearings to do it was alleged, whatever, in fact, the order of the fact he was extremely short, should be investigated too. Now we have, so I raised the time, I think I will repeat that the, we don't, most of us don't hate tall people. We don't, most of us don't hate tall people. Recognize the systematic systemic. We shorts welcome progressive guilt-ridden tolls as pro-short sympathizers and auxiliaries in the shorty moment. Of course, we need 10,000 years of oppression, you know, lots of several, you know, whatever compensation. I must point out however, that some of our younger, more militant shorts, organizations such as Short Nation and Short Up do hate the talls and really be very militant about it. So I urge you, give us more responsible shorts, lots and lots of money, and we will, we will, you know, vamp on the radical short before they really tear it all up. Thank you very much.


Don't forget. Something must be forgotten. Shadow hunting me. I must hurry. My name is Daniel. I live in London at Mayfair. What have I done? This is crazy. Don't forget. Don't forget. I must stop him. Focus. My name is... 18th of August, 1839. I wish I could ask how much you remember. I don't know if there will be anything left after I consume this drink. Don't be afraid, Daniel. I can't tell you why, but know this. I choose to forget. Try to find comfort and strength in that fact. There is a purpose. You are my final effort to put things right.  If not, this will sound horrible. Go to the Inner Sanctum. Find Alexander and kill him. His body is old and weak, and yours young and strong. He will be no match for you. One last thing. A shadow is following you. It's a living nightmare, breaking down reality. I have tried everything, and there is no way to fight back. You need to escape it as long as you can. Redeem us both, Daniel. Descend into the darkness where Alexander waits and murder him. Your former self, Daniel. Alexander, is it inside the castle? In a manner of speaking. Come, bring the lamp. You've been to the refinery, have you not? I don't believe I have. Is it connected to the... what did you call it? The Inner Sanctum. My most precious chamber, Daniel. And it lies well beyond the refinery. In fact, it lies beneath the very stone of Brandenburg. 16th of May, 1839. The unflinching African sun has continued to plague our expedition, making it impossible to dig until dusk. How Professor Herbert managed to find the location in these vast plains of nothingness remains a mystery to me. When I asked him about the tomb again, he told me about the legend of Tin Hanan, the mother of us all. An interesting story in its own right, but I can't help feeling there's more. Later that evening, we uncovered a passage beneath the dunes, leading to a sand-covered stone structure. The professor was confident it was the tomb we sought and ordered the others to clear the way, late into the dark cold night. Tomorrow, I shall lead the men into the ancient structure, hoping to reach the burial chamber. No matter what the professor is keeping from me, the dig should yield something interesting to take back to London and the British Museum. 17th of May, 1839. My hands tremble as I write. I feel a need to document my tribulation before I fear that my memory will fail me if I linger. Today, I took some men and ventured into the dark, ancient passage we uncovered. Our torches burned faintly in the murky air as we slowly made our way underground. The men were superstitious and fearful. They argued loudly, and I felt their strange language getting to me. I mustered my strength and yelled at them to continue down the slopes and broken steps. The crudely carved passage confused me. It looked much older than the fourth-century structure we had expected. The twisting path emerged into a great antechamber. The walls were lined with statues unlike any I'd ever seen. Despite their unearthly quality, I felt a strange familiarity toward them, which haunts me still. At the far end of the chamber, a great slab of stone sealed off would ever lay ahead. I gave the order to raise it, and as I pushed through the narrow space, the heavy stone suddenly dropped, sealing me inside. I was trapped. All is old and I'm falling apart. We're just buying time anyway. Let's do what we can. There isn't much to be done about the walls. We should reinforce weak structures. The ground will tremble and there's a risk everything will cave in on us, especially downstairs. Here, here, and there. Let's get the servants working on it. 17th May, 1839. After pounding the unforgiving stone wall for what seemed like an eternity, I realized it was hopeless. I was trapped. I fell to the ground, gasping for air, trying to focus. That's when I saw a faint blue shimmer. My weakened body was heavy to carry, but I managed to push myself toward the enchanting light. It was waiting for me. Enclosed in dark nothingness, I felt myself drawn to the mystic light, closing it in my hands. The faint glow escaped my fingers and began to spark brightly and spirit me away, unlocking alien memories of aspiring towers, endless deserts, and impossible geometry. The next thing I can remember is the grating sound of stone being lifted. The voices of the Arabs pulling me to safety and grasped firmly in my hands are pieces of a most peculiar relic. You have to be swift when you activate the first one. You hear that. If it stops, you'll have to start over. Isn't all this a bit excessive? You can never be too careful with that. There should be more cooperant. There is dark in here. Yes, and there's a good reason for it. But you can light the lamp now if you wish. What's the reason for the darkness that is? Stay close. Be careful not to stray. What's the reason? Why is it so dark? Pay attention, Dandall. It's important that you keep going straight and make sure not to stray. 1839. It's been more than a month since my last entry. After the event inside the underground chamber in Algeria, Professor Herbert insisted I return to England. He said he didn't want to risk forfeiting the entire expedition lest I took a turn for the worse. An excessive decision, in retrospect. But I'm glad it turned out that way. I found my journal this morning in the haphazard collection of things brought home from Africa. Next to it lay the broken stone orb wracked in cloth. I tried to assemble it, but couldn't. The pieces wouldn't fit together as if they weren't from the same object. Could I have imagined it all? Was there ever a complete orb for the June 1839? I feel the need to continue this journal even though it was intended for my journey to Africa. This must be something very important. I just know it. I've taken it upon myself to piece the orb back together, but it's been more difficult than one might think. The pieces are behaving strangely. They seem to change colour, shape and texture, but ever so slightly. Yesterday I took careful measurements and notated any significant markings. Today I confirmed my suspicions. They were changing. I was terrified and rushed off to see the finest geologist in London, Sir William Smith. I approached the subject with care and we discussed how rocks change form. He told me about the nature of glass, how it eventually collapses on itself, like ice slowly melting over the course of centuries. Smith eased my mind a bit, but I can't escape the feeling that these shards have other worldly properties. 2nd of July, 1839. I received a letter today from the Algerian governor's office disclosing the fate of Herbert's expedition by departure. Abdullah, one of the men travelling with us, returned from the desert. He was badly injured, as if maimed by a lion. The man rambled deliriously about the expedition being attacked by something horrible. The French quickly dispatched a search party to look for the expedition. After searching for days, they found the camp abandoned without any trace of Herbert or his men. Tomorrow, I'll retrieve the things they recovered from Herbert's tent at the customs house. I don't know what to make of it, but I'm worried for him. 3rd of July, 1839. Today I picked up Herbert's things at the customs house. I dug through the trove of documents he had carried and found a lot detailing the expedition. The nature of this text ranged from quick notes to colourful accounts of transpired events. I skimmed the pages trying to figure out what might have happened. May 17th, the day I was trapped inside the orb chamber, Herbert dryly states, recovered Daniel after one hour of entrapment. This confused me greatly. I was suffocating within minutes. How could I have lasted an hour? He continued reading the peculiar text. Herbert states his facts without judgement or passion, but suddenly I could read frustration into his text. He pushed his men to investigate the underground tomb, an effort which seems to have strained the minds of his men. Madness spread through the ranks and Herbert had to take some extreme measures to continue. He finally visits the chamber himself, where he retrieves the orb to the surface. His account confuses me greatly. If he has the orb, what are those pieces in my drawing room? Fourth of July, 1839. It's done. The orb is assembled. I was awakened by an exhausting nightmare, shaking and sweating. I retired to the drawing room with a cup of tea. The relic pieces lay spread across the table as I'd left them, but somehow I knew how it was supposed to be. I fetched the tar, which I had prepared to fix the pieces together, and without fault I joined them, producing the orb I remembered so clearly. The tar proved unnecessary. It was pushed out from the joining pieces as they merged on their own, with no adhesive. The ancient stone relic now rests on my table. Its immaculate surface and perfect shape could have been molded by a factory. This is all too strange. Oh, there it is. I guess it is a good place to hide it, then. From the saw, but I can sense it. It's definitely there. I won't, Herbert. There is no shame in using a parasol in the den. As it happens, it's imperative to your survival. But it looks ridiculous. The shade will hurt much less than died, I assure you. Sending room. Will it take us to the inner sanctum? It will definitely take care of the vertical part of our journey. So, you have ridden an elevator before? Yes, the Colosseum or Regent's Park as well. It takes you to the gallery where you can view the panorama. Good. This ride might be a little longer, and in the other direction. Today, I went to the university looking for answers. I was able to sneak into Herbert's office and pick up an address book along with some relevant textbooks. Professor Taylor at the Faculty of History was very helpful, and I managed to approach the subject of the orbs. The most interesting aspect was the prevalent trace they had left in our culture. The mythic orbs may, in fact, have inspired the Globus Crucica, which so many royal regalia holds to this day. In ancient times, the orbs were held by priests as a symbol of the sun and its power. As I was leaving, I overheard a disturbing conversation. So William Smith, the geologist, was killed last night. Less than a fortnight had passed since I'd asked for his expertise. I know it's silly, but I can't help feeling responsible somehow. By 1839. I've read every book I can find on the subject. While rich in legend and hearsay, my knowledge is lack for the insight I crave. I've sent letters to many in Herbert's address book and received answers of varying importance. Today, I got one which differed greatly from the others. From a baron in Prussia. He said nothing about the quaint stories of priests in underground temples. He didn't even mention them. He simply wrote, I know. I can protect you. Come to Brennenberg Castle. Signed Alexander. What am I to make of this? Protect me from what? Is someone after me? I looked up Brennenberg and traced it to the Prussian woods near the Baltic Sea. While being the least informative letter I've received, it causes me greatest distress and interest. As I write, my thoughts are drawn to my nightmares in which her most disturbing sound calls to me. A sound defying description. A voice from the void. The last few weeks have been awful, with so many sleepless nights dreading a repeat of those horrid dreams. Tomorrow, I shall visit my physician, Dr. Tate, in hope that he can provide me with sedatives to help me sleep. July 1839. How has this escaped me? They're all dead. Limbs scattered. Head split down the middle. Their skin flayed as if boiled. I feel like I'm falling into myself. What's happening? So William Smith, Professor Taylor, now Dr. Tate. Is it following me? How can it not be?  Something is after me. I have no choice but to trust the Baron. He better know what he claims. If he is wrong, I suspect he'll regret it as well. One of my responsibilities as a Baron is that of a prison warden. This is where criminals are locked up. Like in a dungeon? Very much so. Come. Don't linger.  Look, this is no place for a young girl all by herself. She could be hurt all worse. There's no tenning. What horrors await down there? Just 1839. I have arrived at the village of Alstadt. It's a haven in the midst of a vast forest on the last stop before my final destination. Castle Brennenburg. It's late in the evening and the outrider, who has been with the coach since Bremen, advised me to wait until morning before I venture further. I've arranged for a bed at Der Mühle. The village is only in and I'm now waiting for the sun to rise. I try to sleep, but as I close my eyes, I see the man who fell victim in London. My fear and shame forces me to witness the same scenes over and over. They are dead because of me. For his own good. I deserve this? It wasn't my fault. Why did he have to go in there? Don't go into burning houses. He should have known better. 3rd of August, 1839. I feel like I have fled the world and all its worries. Brennenburg is a majestic creation perched upon a forest clad hill with towers reaching well above even the highest pine trees. Following the winding road leading to the gates gives the impression of discovering something forgotten as if journeying with Marco Polo to the hidden Zanadu. Alexander the Baron is a peculiar but gracious man. He seems well-versed in worldly matters and is not at all as eccentric as I assumed. My room is exquisite and I'm confident that no hotel for miles could even hope to match it. As the sun sets on Brennenburg, its fairytale varnish turns to an eerie gloom. Alexander's strange servants are never far away. They are a quiet lot and their behaviour could only be described as skulking. Alexander seems pleased by my presence. As he puts it, it seems like I got here just in time. 4th of August, 1839. The nightmares woke me in the early morning and for a moment I forgot where I was. Shortly after there was a knock on my door. Alexander had heard my screams and asked me to join him in the parlour. As we drank our tea, Alexander began to tell me what he knew. It seems like the orb I found casts a long and dark shadow. It's not only a powerful item, but a dangerous one. Simply by touching it, you invoke the powers within and if you are too weak to control it, it will devour you. The shadow is a sluggish thing, lagging behind the wielder, killing anyone or anything in its path to reclaim the orb. I said I didn't care about its powers and that I should throw it away. Alexander advised against this as I'd still be a part of the path to the orb and eventually suffer death. Having the orb, I would at least have the chance to fight back when the time came. I asked Alexander what he meant when he said he could protect me and he answered that things can be done but at a price. So you used the drain sewers as a means of transport? Yes. They were built to divert water from an underground spring and are quite spacious. It seemed only natural to incorporate it into the overall structure. But we won't be using them. Today, the flow is seasonal and when the spring runs dry, the damp tunnels produce a rather poisonous type of fungi. There is an antidote, of course, but we won't be bothering with you today. Come, this way instead. We're almost there. Why isn't he with us? Didn't he want to come? He wanted to, Daniel, but things don't always turn out the way we plan. Conserving water from the spring? Yes. It enables me to control the water in the drain sewers to some extent. Also, it can be used for all sorts of purposes. Like for drinking? Eh, well, that too. But mostly to run different machines.  Exactly. 1839. There is no denying that Alexander puts a lot of faith into what I can only describe as magic. I'm not surprised. Even while travelling across Europe, I assumed I would have to embrace the supernatural to save my mind and life. As a novice, I do everything in my power to stay focused and not dwell too much on my own doubts. Alexander woke me up early and told me it was time we got started on our work. He was obviously excited to get going and we headed downstairs to the old dungeon where he preferred to attempt his rituals. It turns out that Alexander is a true renaissance man, paralleled only by Da Vinci, I'm sure. He showed me several rooms fitted for specific research, such as anatomy studies, alchemy, and botany. The crown of Brennenberg must be the inner sanctum, a most hallowed ground where we shall attempt to permanently banish the orb's shadow. 8th August, 1839. I could never be certain until today that I was on the right path. Using my orb, Alexander managed to channel its power unto us. The inner sanctum flared with blue fiery light and I could feel the same things I felt in the dark chamber in Algeria. It was like standing in a mad whirlpool of impressions. It was terrifying, but Alexander kept calm and wielded strange tools of science in order to tame the storm. Suddenly, the blue light was stained by strains of red and the walls burst with pulsating tissue resonating with the scene. Alexander quickly covered the orb in some cloth and the unspeakable thing vanished. Apparently, the orb's shadow is closer than Alexander thought. He said I should prepare for a warding ritual tomorrow. I'm not sure what he expects, but I have a bad feeling about this. It's of August 1839. It is still early and Alexander is busy preparing for the ritual later today. Seeing him this worked up makes me question why. What does he stand to gain? I realize he is curious about it all, but surely there must be more. Is he so foolish he will attempt to tame the power of the orb? I must admit that yesterday when Alexander flooded the inner sanctum with blue light, I realized we had but graced the orb's true potential. This might turn out to be more than escaping a creeping shadow. It might be the beginning of something truly extraordinary. Daniel, it has yielded the shadow. Come, let's get this out of here so we can get some peace. Yes, let's. Where to? Just down the corridor to the morgue. Are there more dead men there? You did well, Daniel. Come, let's get going. Daniel, inch to your mind. Agrippa, I need you to stay awake. Can you feel the syringe? No, I can't feel anything, Alexander. Yes. Soon, I won't even be able to move, will I? Your life is safe. I do doubt that. But, will it be... Thank you. You have my gratitude. My name is Agrippa. Fall into the lion's den. Tell me, are you among the lions, Daniel? You want to stop Alexander? Oh my, so barbarian shall follow you, sir. You hurry too much. Alexander is toothless without an arm. That's not very promising, though. The sector is basically a marathon, but I'll guess that my arm... It could be bleached by an arm, but Alexander broke his... I mean, my arm a long time ago. Really? There, he tells the truth by all of you. Seek out some pieces of broken ore and mend the way. I believe he uses them for torture now. They practically lead matters, which is quite useful, I understand. There should be six of them. Look around the choir and the transect. You should be able to find them there. 9th of August, 1839. I can't stop sweating and shaking. The warden ritual was not something of a sane mind. I did not even realise the dungeon was still in use. Alexander had his servants bring one of the prisoners, a murderer, he told me. Alexander made all the arrangements, but he said I had to perform the ritual in order to have the right effect. The shadow could be led astray by the blood of another. Killing the man would provide us precious time. What else could I do? Alexander said it had to be done.  I don't have the luxury of argument. Just a little further. It's like Orpheus descending into the underworld. Are you hiding something? What do you mean? Never mind. Your intuition is remarkable. I'm not sure I'm following. It doesn't matter. It's just a myth after all. 8th of August, 1839. The banishment ritual is taking longer than expected and we have to do what is needed.  Being around these degenerates makes me ill. None of them even tries to face their punishment with any kind of dignity.  What can make a man fall so far from the grace of a civilised existence? They are all wicked men and I remind myself of it constantly. Still, I am thankful for God sending these monsters our way as they will serve as the instruments of my salvation. I try to study the different tools in the torture chamber and learn how to use them effectively. Last time was messy and the effect suffered from my inexperience. When the next warning is to be performed, I shall be ready. These cells are meant to hold prisoners who are under treatment. The people you send for will end up here. Remember that the confinement itself works as a preamble to the torture and you should pace yourself. Don't take anyone before they are ready. Understood. Sounds from the torture chambers are shuttled in through those pipes in the ceiling. Manage your victims well and let one prisoner's pain instill terror in his cellmate. You're all ready. I know this taste. The taste of Damascus rose off the skidding truth in the dead man. They may sweep the traces from my memory, but my body remembers. He has cut spit volumes. It is a great reason and this one's quite important to you. Far and Alexander has sustained my soul in this dead house for years. Who knows how many? Hundreds of souls. This one, prepare him. You all right? He is one of the wicked. Don't pay his lies any attention. He's set a man on. It wasn't my fault. Why wouldn't anyone listen? That's horrible. Of course. He's coming. You seem to have found all the ore pieces used in the transfer. Go to the choir and find the rest. Seed any further. I'm sorry, my friend. There's something else. You got the doors open? Good going. 15th of August, 1839. The blood wards are failing. The shadow beckons and its cry disarms my actions. No time to spare.  Alexander produces a knife. He wants me to cut the flesh. Do it. Save yourself. He is a murderer, Daniel. He is evil. A cold-blooded killer. Hurry. Alexander, you must let me be. I have to concentrate. Paint the man. Cut the lines. Cut the flesh. Watch the blood spill. Let it come. Oh, oh, oh. Please, I didn't do anything. Paint the man. We must act swiftly. I will do whatever it takes. Tensions, Daniel. Salvation. It used to be yours, but now you only seek misplaced revenge. How do you justify your violence? Is it for the greater good?  It is you who caused all this pain and death. If you had accepted your fate and submitted to the orb when you first discovered it, none of this would have happened. It is curiosity in league with your selfishness that is killing us both. Good for keeping your victims still during the procedure. They can be bound around the circumference or simply stretched across, tying limbs to the spokes in rim. All tools are by this point useful, and you may administer the torture in any way you like, but the forte of the wheel is the gaps. When you have decided that the victim shall die, you can smash their limbs with a hammer, making them fold in between the frame.  No, don't worry. The human body is much more resilient. They can survive for days until they finally succumb. The recipe sets out might still be a challenge. Listen carefully. Alexander is working on opening a gate. A door to another world. It's where he wants to go. If you could put your anger aside, let him open some portal before you take your revenge. Let me pass the gate down. Please, find the ingredients that the positonic via disguise, and do so before you assemble the orb. The barrier keeping you from the inner sanctum will only be breached for a short time, unless everything is taken care of before mending the orb. You won't be able to save me. Much the same, you and I. And save our work. It's the shadow hunting me. I feel it closing in on me, and I fear for my life more than ever. Just outside Olstadt, there's a small settlement. A Zimmerman, a dairy farm, lives with his wife. Our visit was unexpected. Alexander was able to strike Zimmerman down without a letter as he went to take care of the farmhands. I began to look for our prisoners to finish the ritual now. The chance of collapse. The laboratory might be accessible now. Now, pay attention. 1839. I cannot believe what I have become. One of the girls escaped, and I chased after her all the way upstairs. I hunted her down, and what is her life worth? How many lives can I take before I surrender my own?   To save myself? A cold, blooded murderer. To August 1839. It's not fair. I'm not to blame. I've been manipulated by that demon. He plagued my guilty conscience and duped me into facing the shadow alone. That vile, conspiring man. He expects me to meet my death as he steals power beyond imagination.  If only the shadow had caught me in London or Algeria, I wouldn't have to suffer this humiliation. You made me a murderer. A monster. I merely await my death. I am too weak to press on. I can hardly stand as my knees fail me. I cannot see as my eyes are dressed in tears. I am as broken as the man I've tortured. If only I could wipe my fear away as we did with them. I'm going to show up. I see a gripper convinced you to run, son. Tell me, is everything nice and clear? You are so close. I am a prisoner of circumstance. Deny me mine, my greatest triumph. You think I was afraid, fleeing Brennenberg? Quite contrary. I knew it was my purgatory. Hellfire made to wash away my sins. There's no denying the things I've done, but I have paid my tribute. I gave them that awful man. I did the right thing.