I was worked up today because of the Joker mess. I know many of you like, you see movie, I know this, but not the point. I went to see it in a packed cinema, it was Monday night, but completely full in Brazil even. It's a worldwide phenomenon. Some of you think by the way I'm a Brazilian, but this not true, I Russia. You know, there's a lesson there for you. This country has within it all the power to generate its own culture, a culture that is very attractive to outsiders. It had Samba and Bossa Nova before, and many other things. It could combine elegance and the tropics in a very attractive way, as it has before. But now they slavishly follow all the trends from America. And this is even as American culture has become more basic, more cretiness and repetitive.

There used to be good American pop culture, the Beach Boys musics, interesting movies. But now there's much less of these. There's avocado toast at all the cafes now in Rio and in Argentina as well. They try to copy the Brooklyn style, which, of course, is a poverty style. The coffee and some of the food may be better than before because of Brooklyn fashions, foodie obsessions, but otherwise it's a hipster IKEA poverty style. They try to import all the catastrophic racial stuff even here. They could have generated their own culture, but instead they let the controlled shadow press piss into their empty brains, and I see you let Hollywood and Silicon Valley and whoever do the same to you when they when you get this excited about some as they call it a capeshit remake a

remake of a remake of a remake Completely exhausted Hollywood you keep saying this and recognizing it But you build such hype for one of their productions nevertheless I saw the video of extreme excitement from New Delhi India where they were so giddy the Joker put on a bright paint on his face Aren't you happy Johnny to see as a bright paint? Don't you want to be a part of the global hive mind culture to breed with Colombian Pakistani subclass? Automaton don't you know don't you want to promote the mind of the new man of the New World Order? Order the Colombian Pakistani peasant that is sent forth as labor unit X 987 dash b2 here is your culture for the day sheep. Here's your memes for the day Here's five dollars guy go buy yourself a pound of baloney and mail guy

They put an Asian nerd face on it and slipped some reddit language in what's your purpose in all this anyway? I have to ask you I don't get excited about TV or new movies It's useful to see the controlled shadow plays on the wall and in that sense I've watched them But to become excited about it to become used as pawn and marketing scheme I'm doing this because I want a regime change Never forget that and ask yourselves are these forced memes these marketing campaigns coming out of Hollywood or Silicon Valley? Are they really promoting your goals? Are you just getting involved in the fight of one wing of the left against another? Are you being manipulated? Are you being used to promote something through centrally produced so-called memes that come out

of nowhere, that do not evolve, they're not organic, that you and your friends have not been making or perfecting, but that someone else has. I get angry because I'm trying to preserve my independence and yours. We are it. Do you understand? Do you understand that outside this small corner of the Internet there is no free speech and free thought left basically anywhere is why everyone comes to listen and to look at what we're saying. Even if they do not admit this, free thought now is a groiper tweeting about how he was felt up by old hag on subway. That's it. Everything else is Capricorn One. It's all tightly controlled, all in the service of some faction or interest. Nothing reaches the public that isn't filtered through some interest.

Read Bel Ami by Maupassant, a story about how media works in a mass democracy. This is why these people are hounding me and a few others who aren't owned. Free thought exists on this corner of Twitter, sometimes on 4chan, sometimes on a few forums, in our private communications of platform and other such. Then we let these external marketing ops take over, we lose. I will talk on this show however, not this, let me just say, I don't like online drama so I leave this behind. You want to watch movie is good, you want to become pawn of marketing scheme, not good but you do what you want. On this show however, I will talk to you movies, I will talk to you movies I like and I will talk also at the end, so-called OPSEC, that you can protect yourself online.

I want to talk to you about a black pill movies, dark movies, go to break please. Movies about dark characters has always been a great love of mine. I am connoisseur of movies like Joker or what Joker tries to be. I love this book Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky and other his less known work The Double. Many of you who listen carefully to my show know how much I love these books. I frequently reference them hidden. He spent two years thinking how to get back at officer who wouldn't give way in street. The question, of course, is if you're copying this out of fun like I am or if you actually are like this without realizing it, which is how most of the journalists and social activists you see are. They are the real incels or rather femme cells.

Let me ask you if you're a 40 year old hag with dry pussy and you pine to get 20-something a bodybuilder to plug your dry hole, but he won't do it and you get mad Are you a femme cell? Is that is that called femme cell? The femme cell problem is much more serious when it come to effects on the culture at large What about women of color who don't get the white men? they think they deserve. How many times do you see this on Twitter and you have middle age Jewish or woman of color who does not get the Aryan water polo cock she thinks is her due. So then she vomits terror onto the media culture at large. That's what mostly motivates the left gaze by the way also. Anyway, if you want story about alienated outsiders, Defectives, insanoids read these two books is better than a movie.

Notes from underground, you get origin of word bug man. He say this at end. The modern world didn't even let him become a bug, an insect. They are stories of extreme ugliness. But when you present that, you also have to be funny. You can't just be grim and self-important and although these men in the Dostoevsky stories may self-pity. They don't do it in that self-conscious social worker sense that you see in the Joker movie. You have to understand what really offended me about the Joker movie itself. I went in hoping to like it for the same reasons many of you did. Anything that the left media is so frightened by must be good, right? But I couldn't accept. There are two lines in there in particular I could not accept. At one point, he writes in his diary something like,

the worst part of mental illness is that people don't know that you have it. Something like this, he writes. And then in his climax speech, he talked about himself as, these are his words, someone with a mental illness. Someone with mental illness. He's a cripple who wants recognition. He wants victim recognition for his crippled identity group. This is not a super villain or anyone interesting. This is someone whose mind has been replaced by social worker word distortions and medical use constructs. This is someone who has medicalized his own mind as a condition, who is distant from it, who can only understand himself in a second order sense. Can you imagine if a prophetess like Cassandra or a prophet like Moses, if they heard voices

and started to refer to this as a mental illness and a condition, and to demand sympathy? The Jewish Medical Establishment has invented the false category of mental illness to lower the confidence of certain seers in themselves so they no longer can become a conduit for augury and out of this possible connection to arcane forces. This movie reduces it to a social problem, something that could be fixed with funding, something that needs to be fixed. I can't share these assumptions because they cut the knees out from art as such. I'm sorry, but the parts about social cuts to damp programs are emphasized in the movie too many times to be incidental. This is an advertisement for mental hospital and for hospice funding, and it's a movie in any case so full of lies.

I will get to that in a minute, because it could have been a great movie if the Joker had been possessed by a righteous rage against degeneracy and ugliness, but instead he promotes only their rhetorical goals, not yours. I will get to this in a moment, but compare this Joker creature to even the protagonists of recent similar movies that make the point about alienation and madness, but do so much better. I mentioned Nightcrawler, his excellent Black Pill movie, it's the Paul Town movie. The lunatic in that movie is completely amoral, like the Joker pretends to be, but is not. But in Nightcrawler, you see a complete psychotic who never second guesses himself, whose peculiarity isn't treated as some aberration that a Jewish physician will fix by giving you a white pill.

It's treated instead as a great force, as the spiritual buttress of the main character who is inseparable from it. The climax of Nightcrawler is when he talked to the middle-aged woman into sex hours in the restaurant and she just can't say no. Let me ask you, is that Incel or what? It's a scene far more powerful and funnier than anything in The Joker. That's what draws you in. It makes you share in his madness and it makes you cheer for it. And if you think I mention Nightcrawler, just because I praise the movie because it's about Psycho who wins rather than one who loses. But let me ask you, does The Joker really lose? It sounds like they want it both ways in the movie. He's a loser, but he's a winner.

But even before I knew this Joker was going to come out, do you remember I posted a clip from Roman Polanski movie The Tenant, in which I also mentioned in episode 5 of Caribbean Rhythms. Well, the main character in that movie, he just gets crushed, okay? He gets crushed. He's persecuted. In the apartment building, he's crushed by French society. by his neighbors. He's bullied. He starts to dress as a woman. He's mummified and sissified. And you see what you think is the mental unraveling of a man. But because it's presented by an artist like Polanski and not by a social worker, you can't really be sure. Because you're seeing it from the inside and it draws you in. It makes you share in it. So you never really

Only now how much is insanity and how much actually there is something occult going on in that apartment building in the tenant. Polanski presents similar schizophrenic profile in the other apartment movie Repulsion. And the difference is that these aren't characters who are aware of the so-called condition from a medicalized or social policy point of view. So you get here entry into another world. You don't get basically agitprop social realism, which is what the Joker is. And if it's not so women you want, David Lynch is full of those. At least, again, if you take the normie interpretation of Inland Empire, David Lynch's Inland Empire, it's about a schizophrenic woman's mental unraveling and her unwillingness to face her past and what she did.

And the bizarre and convoluted stories she makes up to reinterpret her past. That is what Inland Empire is about. But again, it's presented from Lynch's personal experience. And you can tell he loves this woman in trouble. He gets into her mind. And I think, how can I put this? I think if you're not careful, if you're on the edge, it can actually make you snap this movie, Inland Empire. After I saw this movie, I made prank calls all night long. By the way, that's the name of another movie about true despair. You want despair? See, Japanese movie all night long, Oru Naito Rongu. But I spent all night long making phone call to Department of Justice, National Security Division. My voice is impetuous. I had phone sex with Peter Strock. I will eat your children. Praise be to Allah.

Wait, where was? Go to break. Immediate. There's another David Lynch movie about a woman in trouble. You may have seen Mulholland Drive. Much better known. I happen to believe in an unusual interpretation of this movie where everything you see that happens is real and not a dream or delusion. But I will discuss this next time maybe. It's very interesting interpretation where actually what you're seeing are cuts from different movies. But nevertheless, the normie interpretation of Mulholland Drive, you all know if you've seen it, it's the second half is real whereas the first half is the dream of Naomi Watts character in the second half. This reduces it I think to a cheap psychodrama so I don't like this interpretation even though on the first watch this is what comes to you naturally.

But even so, even a cheap psychodrama, it is far superior as the study of a crazy person to Joker, and even more so because it makes all the points in Joker far more powerfully. Naomi Watts is never really crazy in this movie, but a girl with innocent intentions and longings who is abused by Hollywood. And do you hear, by the way, not by nebulous, so-called rich people, but by very specific and very nasty ones, by the people who run Hollywood? And she has her longing crushed and her dreams pulverized, and romance slip away from her along with everything else. So she's reduced to, it appears from this interpretation, she's reduced to drugs maybe, But certainly she's reduced to despair, murder, suicide. But it's presented with a lot of humor and a lot of very enticing strangeness that draws

you into her mind again. I mean, there is a scene where the hitman wrestles with a very fat woman. It's worth it just for that. It's not a movie made from a point of view of a public policy communique. It's seductive. makes you join in to her delusions, and then it crushes you. So even under this interpretation, I was left with a great sadness at the end of Mulholland Drive, whereas at the end of Joker, you're left with what exactly? Because it's yet again a remake of a remake, so it's just the origin story of a multi-part franchise. And it left me at the end with the same feeling that West Wing might leave you with, Of a nebbish, overtalkative, socially conscious putz who wants to lecture you about something. Or you see, the poor rose up because their condition was bad.

Do you know what a jackerie is? You need to look it up. It's a peasant revolt and it always gets crushed, it's inconsequential. That's not how revolutions take place. So I'm trying to tell you that all these themes that you might be attracted to in Joker have They've already been done so much better in other movies and many books you could go for instead that deal with madness or with dark characters of this kind and I found The Joker to be inadequate retread of a retread. Those two lines I told you about are unforgivable to me. No great madman ever refers to himself as someone with a mental illness who was mistreated by society of all things. True madmen are not even aware of such. For books there are almost too many to count and I've recommended a couple to you already.

But if you want dark and twisted characters, read Mishima, story Sailor who fell from grace with the sea. Or you read Par Lagertwist, book The Dwarf, which is what the Joker movie should have been. There is a Robert DeNegro movie called King of Comedy. The Joker is almost a frame-by-frame remake of this, which was a very bad film to begin with, but I guess the writers thought they were being very art-conscious and writerly in making such allusions. Oh, how branch! They're paying tribute to a classic, don't you know? It recalls the other movie. But why? For what purpose? Please just watch Mulholland Drive instead and see the same thing but a hundred times better and then make your own memes about that and promote your own excitement with it. Not some unknown marketers.

You know, the poster Peter Cosi, he's an amazing cartoonist. He was banned but now he's back. You should be excited about his productions, not a marketing team that infects us with pre-made memes. But you know, the point of our memeing shouldn't be to promote this or that movie because it makes us feel chosen or is artsy or you like it for some other... The purpose of all our memeing, as I thought, I thought I was in this for regime change. I thought it was about ridiculing the ruling class. Which brings me to other problem with Joker. It's lying political message that leads you into forgetting enemies and confusing friends. Be optimistic. A friend says this about the Joker. In some sense it is a good movie.

It could lead actually to what we'd want, which is a shitlord remaking it, or making a similar movie but with certain edits. We want, for example, with a joker who attacks explicitly clown world degeneracy, the qua degeneracy, instead of just this nebulous category of rich people, which is completely mendacious. Does it need to be said? Waspy Wall Street bros are not attacking people on subways. a fantasy out of Dick Wolf's fevered, ashy mind. Do you know who Dick Wolf is? He's the guy behind LOL and Order. LOL and Order, the show documenting the rich wasp crime wave rocking Manhattan. LOL and Order, where the main villain in every show is for example a wasp Anglo Wall Street banker who communicates with neo-Nazis by night with ham radio and

strangles his Guatemalan maid with a condom after raping her. That was literally one of the plotlines of a law and order show, and you guys are falling for it because it's represented in The Joker with a little bit more self-conscious film school artistry. This mobilization of anger against a really vague category of the rich is stupid. It's a stupid lie. We all know that in large part, high finance and certain other parts of economy are behind the mass immigration. The large corporations behind the degeneracy in popular culture, the restrictions on free speech by big tech and such, sometimes behind the wars. So the mainstream conservatives, the Paul Ryan type, they have their head up ass when it comes to their respect for big corporations. But even there, you have certain distinctions.

Because if you think that all so-called rich people are behind the troubles that afflict the West, you're a step away from being one of the weaponized lumpenprawls that your actual enemies want to use as a battering ram. Let me ask you, is Santander the rich? I mean Santander Bank. I'd say they're pretty rich. But what was their role in the crisis of our time? Forgive me if I could be wrong, I am not economist, I am not finance reporter, but from what I understand Santander was one of the banks that prior to 2007 didn't make the same mistakes others did. And even if I'm wrong about this one bank, there were many smaller entities and also individuals who didn't make mistakes before 2007 but who saw what was coming. Remember fewer than 2% of economists saw the financial crisis coming.

But there were a few guys who did see it coming and who did not participate in the piggery. So when you had the bailouts, guess who was the loser? Of course it was you and me, they threw us out the window instead of themselves. But you know who else was a loser? Sometimes they would have been there to pick up the pieces and because of the bailouts given on behalf of others, who were better connected politically, Santander was denied its due, which would have been to become maybe top dog in the world, maybe to clean up Santander and again quite a few other individuals who were rich but who were not politically connected, so they did not become the mega moguls. Maybe you wouldn't have big tech snot noses as the biggest moguls today, but the people

and the few banks who made the right calls before 2007. Maybe they would have become the big moguls. My point is not all rich people, haha, not all rich people, yes, even the very rich, not all are politically connected, not all have any say. Some end up being cash cows, they end up being taxed to death like middle class, just like many of us. Not that I'm asking you to weep for them, but to be directed against the rich as a category is stupid and dangerous because it's really not the issue. Also, by the way, never believe the crap people say about these banks paying back the bailout money aside from the fact that it's not true and I'll deal with it another time. But the truth is probably many individuals face tough times in their lives and many businesses

to, or they go broke, and many could use a similar bailout, and many could probably pay you back eventually. That's not the point, never except when they say that. It's a denial of how capitalism works, capitalism which they claim to defend. It's not supposed to work like this. That politically connected businesses get a one-time bailout, thereby avoiding bankruptcy, But thereby denying those like Santander or others who made the right calls the rightful chance to ascend to number one or to top tier. This is not capitalist economy. It is as well known crony capitalism. But okay Paul Ryan and his bunch destroyed the name of capitalism for a generation by defending this crap. It's actually fascism or would be if unlike in fascism where corporations work with government

for the sake of the health of the state and the people, the national state and the people, but here instead you have corporations working with factions in the government to plunder states for the benefit of a transnational elite that is accountable to no one, that cares about no particular states. But it's only some transnational elites and only some corporations. The blanket attack on the rich as a category is ridiculous, and would the world be any different if these companies had been allowed to collapse in 2007 and 2008? And if others like Santander or Peter Schiff, for example, if they had picked up the pieces, I don't know. But the world would be different if you could, for example, still start your own brokerage

firm on Wall Street with a million dollars or less, like used to be the case. Therefore the regulations of many so-called socialist clamour for were written, and actually were written by the big financial institutions to raise the barrier of entry so high that you could never hope to start your own firm like that today with a few guys, which used to be possible. So again, now you will accuse me of defending the rich, or capitalism. But understand there are many among the rich who have no political power and who are not responsible for these disasters, and quite a few people who are on our side. In cryptocurrency in particular, quite a few on our side, and I'm guessing some will fund future ventures during the times of trouble that are coming.

And how do you know you won't be weaponized against them by an academic feminist lesbian full of rage? How do you know, in hatred of the rich, that you won't actually be weaponized against the middle class, which is still the largest repository of wealth in the country? You know, that is the holy grail for all these people, the big plump chicken, the savings and earnings and property of the middle class that, put together, far exceeds that of billionaires, except that as a group the middle class are not cohesive politically, so they have no political pool, so they're going to be cut up every which way like a big plump pie. But every often, very often, when the left says the rich, they mean actually in the end not George Soros who funds them, but the middle class.

That's who always gets fucked in the war against the so-called rich. Because without a dictator, usually they have no one to stump for them. So forgive me if I don't sign on to this pseudo-socialist crap and the Joker's a brave crusade against the oppressive rich wasps who took away dem programs. Forgive me if I'd rather have Mulholland Drive that shows you very specifically who it is who destroys lives and dreams. The story told in Joker is surely sad and grim to see, but if you want socially conscious movie, let me give you a different story that could have been told. Imagine a guy from Appalachia who goes to fight in one of the retired wars of the last 20 or 30 years. Most of the combat soldiers in America are white guys from Appalachia, foothills of Tennessee

or rural New England and such. They join the military out of honor and out of a family tradition. America owes it to them to use their gallantry judiciously and for the win. Instead, people like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, John McCain, a traitor, and unfortunately much of the top brass of military which cares only about its Chinese funded pensions. Their line is, sorry loser, it's a volunteer army, you get what you signed up for. In other words, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, that's their wise and prudent message to the men who they hope will put their lives on the line for the country. Actually to be fair, Bill Kristol's son was in the Marines. But he's quite unique in this regard, and it's really not the same, I'm sorry, but it's not.

I tell you small story, I almost joined, I can't talk about why I did not, I had close friends who did but who were joining in my case out of love of adventure and in the case of the guy I knew who was a close friend he was joining for careerist reasons because he has a political ambitions and in general there's some of this with every soldier who joins the story told that all our boy scouts who do it out of love of our ideals is bullshit and actually it's destructive to soldiers if you talk to them they don't like that because because it's a fake kind of homage, a fake kind of piety towards them that is actually a cover for abusing them. Andrew Bacevich talked about this in book, his son died in military.

But still there is a distinction if you join for the reasons my friend did or Bill Kristol's son and if you join because it's a family tradition and you do it out of honor for country. That's a big distinction I think and it's not even a moral issue here. You have to get your combat soldiers from somewhere, and the military needs to think about this. They can't rely on the relatively few people who join, for example, out of wanderlust or out of ideological commitment, which is very few actually. The backbone of the military is the Appalachian, Scotch-Irish, border-river folk. The same that Obama and, strangely enough, the National Review targeted for elimination. Oh yes, you get eliminationist rhetoric coming out of that vile octoroon, the gay Kevin Williamson at National Review.

But anyway, let's look at possible story of a border-river Scotch-Irish guy who joins out of family tradition, out of dedication to country and he gets maimed in Iraq, not in any noble fight, but by some wretched explosive device, without even seeing the enemy. They say a few thousand died in Iraq, which is bad enough, but tens of thousands got maimed. That is real casualty statistic. You forget about that, but that is a real casualty rate. There are people who would have died in the Vietnam War in 1970s, but did not because of advances in trauma battlefield medicine, but nevertheless, although they didn't die, they are maimed for life, often in horrible ways. Trump gave a very moving speech this week about this.

Many of the small communities in Appalachia have so many maimed men and have been ruined by these actually very disastrous wars with very high casualty rates, because the real casualty rate is tens of thousands of maimed men. So one of these guys comes back and let's say Obama, the real joker, decided to flood his community with Somalis or even with Iraqi refugees. So you have the absurdity of his sister gets groped on the street by the same people he was sent to fight, forgive me, to pacify. This is what he gets when he comes back. The jobs move to China or Mexico because of globalization and de-industrialization. So there's unemployment and despair and otherwise you can be part of this service industry which

is to say a waiter or other kinds of make-work often part-time with bad pay, with a boss who will humiliate you because they think there is a glut of labor so that you are a replaceable cog. And this is the life of a veteran who returns in the new liberal world order America of the neo-cons and the neo-libs. In Jennifer Rubin calls him, should he complain about this, calls him part of the old Virginia. This is what she called those parts of Virginia that supported Trump, which is where all the combat soldiers come from for the wars that she froths at the mouth's over. Vile dwarves like Ben Shapiro or Jamie Kirchick going on air to literally froth at the mouth. I'm not exaggerating there's spittle on the side of their

mouth on TV calling for blood in Syria. Blood everywhere. Who had the chance to go in the military but never did. They call on others or who went instead into the IDF like David Brooks' son. David Brooks' son went to serve in the Israeli military, not the American, but Brooks lectured Americans about ethno-nationalism, not his son. In any case, do you see the story I'm telling you? I don't know how frequent it is, but this is the man I would feel the most for, the most sadness and despair for. Not someone like the Joker who is made up. How about if Hollywood told this story of such a man sympathetically? Do you think they ever would? What if such a man decided to transform himself into a so-called villain like the Joker? Except in going after imaginary wasp Wall Street hooligans,

he went instead after the Sackler family. I'm talking about a movie now. The Sackler family that devastated his community with opiates and dope? How many of such have known people who overdose? What if he decided to go after the people in government who flooded America consciously and deliberately with fentanyl from China, which the Obama administration changed the scheduling of so it could be imported? What if he went after the people pushing sex change procedures on vulnerable autistic boys? Do you think Hollywood would ever dare to show you such a movie? What do you think would happen to them if they dared? I want to continue on this subject of possible future depictions of the Joker, of what the Joker could have been and what a missed opportunity this was.

But the filmmakers would be crucified if they showed you the Joker, right? But yes, this could even be done in quite a sneaky way, where there would be a villain, someone formerly presented as the bad guy, but is actually someone that your intended audience could identify with. Maybe a little of that they did try here. But there are ways to cover yourself. The movie 300 was gay propaganda for war with Iran. But it was also a subconscious rebellion against degeneracy. It showed, maybe against itself and against its own overt wishes, the power of healthy nobility against yeast and slime. We face an enemy that mobilizes the minds of millions of broken, disgusting, ugly, ins-mouth creatures against us. But the right has health and nobility and always will.

And that's always going to be more attractive, always going to win out over six foot four negro trannies lecturing you about pronouns. Shit libs were mad as hell at the 300, but what could they say? They could call them gay. Oh look, men who glory in their own bodies with six packs. It's what all their swarming little accounts try on me as well, not knowing I've been at this for 10 years and know how to deal with this oldest and lamest of accusations. They wither in the presence of health and nobility, which we can always present in our messages, in our art, in our images, frankly, and without apology. They have nothing to stand up to that. You know, in Handsome Thursday postings lately, I don't even look for photos anymore

so much on internet. I have my own friends, my own readers who send me the progress they've made. It's amazing. The left, they've been made totally to have to own brokenness, to own deformity, ugliness. It's their great engine now after the collapse of their mythology about class warfare. They've been revealed. It truly is bio-Leninism and depends on whether whether they can mobilize the detritus of humanity, the zombie hordes, whether they can mobilize them against the careless strength and nobility that enrages them. But also the sight of it just weakens them. Imagine a joker made to embody that and a Batman who's a dope. The director could have a lot of fun with this. That's why Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is so much more a subversive movie and rose the left just as mad.

Why don't you promote that one? It shows the old California and it shows white men being awesome instead of the lying dystopian faggot vision of America that Hollywood otherwise presents of shiboon operatives sending men to the moon and other such lies Look, as my friend Lady Astor says, at who made Once Upon a Time in Hollywood it's people who are probably on your side and who presented in a happy and fun way the destruction of dirty, smelly, murderous hippies at the hands of old-type California chads. More movies like this, please. The important thing is to transcend your opponent's horizon, to go back to the root of things, to not get caught up in moral disputes. Don't get caught up in their rhetorical frame. Mel Gibson is very good at this.

Apocalypto should be the template for so many movies to come, but I'm afraid they've somehow stymied him. Imagine historical epics about the conquest of Mexico by Cortés, or about Lepanto, the Battle of Lepanto, or remakes of tales that endured for millennia because they're so good. Why don't they fund me, you think, to make a movie about Jason's Argonauts, but set in space, for example? And unlike socially conscious leftist movies, I wouldn't even need any overt political message. I would never do that, but would achieve much simply by showing the victory of health over brokenness and of vitality over degeneracy. Vitalism is worship of life, and all kinds of grotesque monsters of this spirit hate vitalism for this reason.

believe any of the crap they say about nihilism or paganism. Nietzsche says at one point that the priest needs brokenness, needs despair and disease and immersion in grim ugliness because then he, the priest, can present himself as the cure to all this. He doesn't of course cure it but waters it and keeps it simmering so he will be needed. This is the priestly type and what is the modern left by this type mechanized, mobilized on a society-wide scale, systematized into a mechanism of human brokenness, like the Joker, and produces them like on assembly line. It crushes people up in meat grinder by the millions so then it can stir them up, mobilize them, validate their grievances, and weaponize them against those men of vitality who refuse

to play this game and refuse to be broken, or at least to mobilize them against a social class they want to target. I want movies, should they have a political message, that depict this struggle and the unwillingness of vitality to be smothered by what I've called the long house. But what actually is embodied in everyday life as the placid, self-conscious woman, the medical establishment, the suffocating rule of everydayness, this is the long house. The modern liberal state is nothing but the crushing of all life under this everydayness and slowly it seeks to accept edited versions of the things that challenge it in order to pretend to accommodate them. It's a classic leftist move where, for example, the homosexual or the transsexual are hoping

for a teacher-says-it's-okay moment, a moment of acceptance. It's all about a return to mommy, you see? You want to suckle at the tit of the great mother. I don't know what I can tell you. You want to suckle alongside the transsexual. I don't know what I can say. There are people among us who aren't your friends and want to keep you in a cage but to put Christmas lights on the bars of the cage and make you be okay with it. It doesn't matter if they do so with religion or with the simulation of religion or with a shadow of philosophy where they say to accept your cage and think you're achieving anything merely by praying or merely by thinking or pretending to think. Here is a man survive the jive, and I'm absolutely not including him in the category of people I just named.

He's a handsome champion of antiquity, and I'm grateful he reviewed my book. He's a friend, but he says at one point that I ignore the contemplative life or the contemplative aspect of classical or pagan man, that I too much emphasize the warrior. And I'm well aware of the contemplative element he mentions, but I'm wary of promoting that path in public because it's been abused by enemies of freedom and by people frankly who have no concept of what the contemplative life really is, but promote it only because they are dumb and lazy and because a parody simulation of the contemplative life is easier to promote and goes along quite well with being submissive to the regime we are under. And again, I'm not including survive the jive in any of these judgments.

He's rather a man, I believe, much like myself and I think we agree in all major respects. I direct you to his YouTube channel, subscribe, he has a good review of my book. But I'm just trying to explain now why in my book and elsewhere I don't promote the contemplative man but only the path of vitality and action. And I'll just give you one example to explain this. You have to look in book of famous sculptor Benvenuto Cellini. He is one of my heroes. I use his Perseus statue as my banner photo because it represents everything I aspire to. But this was an artist, a sculptor, so you could say that's a kind of a hybrid between a purely contemplative man and a man of action. His book, My Life, is called. But you have to look at how he made this amazing bronze statue, the Perseus.

When he was melting things to pour into the cast, he was running out of material. So in absolute frenzy of power, he gathered whatever objects he could and brought them running to melt and to fill the cast of the statue and in general you must see the absolutely Herculean and vital action he put in making this statue and so many other objects of art as well. the obsessiveness, and then also the absolute, intense, uninterrupted focus he put in conceiving and visualizing these masterworks and this kind of mad frenzy he undertook as an artist. I have to tell you, the contemplative man, the truly contemplative man, whether you want to say the philosopher or the metaphysical man, it's like Cellini with his Perseus, but ten times more so.

But tell me if you've ever met one of these pretenders to the life of philosophy today or to the life of religion who has even any concept of all this, who is anything like this. They are rather piss-dry people who wish for an everyday middle class and undisturbed life where they're given respect by their peers and this pleases them and is enough. And they're motivated by fear of authority and the desire for respect. And I'd say I've never met one who even begins to understand what the contemplative life was for, let alone has any experience of it himself. I've never met one who had caught an inkling of an original idea, let alone to become possessed by a wild obsession for it. Because the mark of the contemplative man is true obsession.

It's Newton thinking about one problem for years and of nothing else. How many, as Nietzsche asked, pursued knowledge voraciously as a lion pursues its food? I don't even claim to be myself such a contemplative man. No such I think is alive today. We don't even have concept of what this is. So because we're in such a debased condition, where the life of contemplation is so far from us, I never really recommend it because it can be abused again to lead people into simply accepting their iron cage and diddling with themselves. I believe true movies, true art must show you the first steps to this higher path. But there are many false artists who present characters or stories you think are sympathetic but their purpose is really to lead you back into the crushing maw and swamp of everydayness

and into the bosom of their earth mammy goddess. They call it by different names, but you must not be fooled. Do not be fooled either by some on the online right and in dissident circles who pretend to be your friend but who are infiltrators. And in this way I want to bring up some simple OPSEC procedures to protect your own identity online. Why should you protect your identity? We are not at the level where you can forgo anonymity. Those who told you to come out in the open in 2016 were fools, or worse. What exactly do you gain by that? This also is the reason you should avoid rallies and all that kind of thing. You're a fool if you think you live in Weimar. Weimar was much better than us. You don't live in Weimar. Weimar had high culture, by the way. We don't.

You do not live in Weimar, where the right had institutional support, including many courts, many police departments, as well as the weight of German tradition and society behind them. You also had at the time communist terror and gangs far beyond what Antifa does now. It was a completely different situation. And not that I promote Nazism, now they will say I do. But for those of you enamored with that time, you're being misled by role players into historical reenactment. And the only thing that will happen is you'll get doxed and your opportunities will be less. So what is the alternative? I'm not talking here either about a long march through the institutions like the left has done. That's not an alternative that is open to the right. There is no time for that.

And in any case, it's already been tried and it failed. Some of you may have heard about the Strausians. Well, they tried an infiltration of that kind, the Strausians, but it's a dismal failure. They are purged out of university departments even, and although they've put people in government a few, they are powerless to change anything in the bureaucracy or to drive policy in any one direction, though some on the outside imagine they can, in fact they cannot. Furthermore, their young have been infiltrated by the public religion of the regime much more than the other way around. They are firm believers in all its dogmas and many of them don't even realize this about themselves. They love so-called liberal democracy, they're toadies and flunkies of NATO.

They had a revulsion to Trump when he came about because he challenges their religious beliefs of which they are not even aware. So it's a complete route. The right simply can't do the long-term infiltration game in the modern world. It is the leftist state that rather infiltrates you. And again there is no time for that. So then what is the alternative? The only alternative is the Soviet model. Right now we are in the Soviet Union and I don't know if it's Soviet Union in 1970s or or 80s, or even before an incipient red guards a mini cultural revolution moment. But that's where we are. And so if you oppose this state of things, whatever you may be, right, left, traditionalist, religious, secular, whatever, if you oppose, then you should copy the Soviet model, the

model of the Soviet dissidents. A couple of them doxed themselves and make figures out of themselves. And you can leave that to me or to others. I was less careful than I should have been with my own obsec over the years, partly because I didn't care as much, and I am more or less untouchable by them. But you should care, and you should protect yourself. They'll try to destroy me for sure, but most dissidents stayed anonymous. There's no advantage to doxing yourself in their environment. But being anonymous, they were powerful, they continued to chip away at the evil regime in various ways, whether by anonymous samizdat, which is what I encourage you to do, mockery of the authorities in various forms of media, the bringing of truth to light, or they did

it by gaining positions in various vital organs of the state, which is a strategy quite different from a long march of infiltration. Because when, for example, Putin goes into the security services, that assumes a change within the same generation. And ultimately what we need is the military, the police, and the local bureaucracies. It's not sexy work, but I wish Bannon and these types would teach Midwestern whites to get into local government, local bureaucracy as well. Look at how even minor bureaucrats are hampering Trump with rather small moves, small bureaucratic moves that end up having big consequences. Recently, there was an article about how Soros has been taking over local governments, which is what the right should be trying to do also, instead of intellectual wankery.

In any case, the work of regime change, which we must pursue in the same way Solzhenitsyn pursued regime change, it is multi-pronged and must take place simultaneously on many levels, cultural, political, and so on, and there is room here for action for a variety of types among you, a variety of types of talents. But in the meantime, because of infiltrators among you, you must beware. Some of these online circles pretend to be your friends but are actually collecting information, doxable information, and maybe you don't see the reasons why they do so, but they will be able to use it against you in five years, let's say. So you should be careful and here are some basic tips. Don't trust people who ask for your identity, your real name, for example, too insistently

or repeatedly or try to find your address or such things, just common sense. I'm not saying never meet anyone but usually wait a while, see, for example, if they're an infiltrator or if they are stable. Be one of those, especially those who use their real names and faces, who claim to be your friend and ask you to contact them in private and get you to let your guard down and to give them your real name or doxable information, which, by the way, includes files. If you use Google Word documents when you are signed in to your Google account, they can see that. If you use Microsoft Word or various photograph programs, You should wipe these files of metadata before you send it to someone who you do not trust.

Often when you can, you should drop mistaken information about yourself in order to misdirect. You should, of course, use a burner email. This goes without saying for your social media accounts, and usually you shouldn't use the same social media name on every platform. Use a different anonymous name on different platforms. You can use fake phone numbers, either from a burner flip phone, or otherwise you can sometimes set up a Google voice number for verification, and that adds a layer of anonymity, although to get a Google voice number, you will need a real phone number to begin with. You should, if you can afford it, use a VPN, Virtual Private Proxy Network. Private Internet Access, or PIA, is a well-known and is a reliable company to use,

and this is generally good even for normies to use to protect their online information and traffic, even when they're not anonymous. You should use, ideally, ProtonMail or Tutanota as safe emails, although realize that many social media today refuse registration, I hear, with ProtonMail. Use DuckDuckGo or other safe searches like Yandex or Yandex Browser, not Google or any Google products. For messaging apps, WhatsApp is not safe, but Telegram and Signal apps are safe. But you must always realize, of course, that state actors will have access to anything that you do, and that all of this is merely to protect yourself against private third-party observation. This is usually sufficient, however, to protect yourself against doxing.

You should also, for example, consider going to CVS or Walgreens and paying in cash for a prepaid credit card, which you can then use to make online payments anonymously. I know people who use this, for example, to get 23andMe, although of course that's useless now. So many people are getting 23andMe done that they can find you by the relatives you have who also take genetic tests. But aside from this, a prepaid card can be useful for many kinds of anonymous payments. I know many of you prefer Bitcoin, but that can actually be traced. It's still relatively safe though. If you take certain precautions, Bitcoin is good. And so here is Monero, but I've never used it. Now as for myself, I am soon in city where I will have other forms of protection as well. You don't need to worry about this.

I'm special case, but I have different needs at the moment. Where I will be in a few days, I will be able to cross at least three international borders in under one day with no airplane travel and no papers. Yes, there are places where you can do this. I also have various hideout spots within a city that is not so well policed, a rather chaotic city, and where there is no paper trail on my whereabouts. and I can spend time in various safe house. So I can't really be found by people who I don't want to find me, not without great difficulty anyway. I also have contacted personal security, people I know who can provide me with private security. I was inspired by a video of Roger Stone where he has a very muscular man behind him while he talk to Alex Jones. He says, personal security.

And I warn those who would wish me bad that I have contacted mulatto and italian personal bodyguards and that I can't necessarily completely control them they are phonetically dedicated to my protection be careful