It has been announced in the past week presidential election news breaking Kanye West is a leader Kanye West leader of the black Hebrew Israelite nation has now entered the fray. He will surely be on debates presidential debate. He will be there to strong style on Joe Biden. So against the conservatives who were horrified at Trump's kitsch, at Trump's showmanship, this was a mainstay of conservative criticism Trump 2016 and still is. That supposedly with Trump America politics entered the reality television phase. I always thought this was good. It was appropriate of what necessary for dumbbell crazy right now, but that it was not enough. the pretense that American politics was somehow dignified before Trump is one of the biggest hoaxes of the last few years.

You had a string clown president since Bush 1, whether it's Clinton, who is the white trash minstrel show for the masses, who talked about his underwear on television, or the Alfred Newman duo of Bush W and Obama, and Obama, if you remember, he used fake Greek columns, put plastic Greek columns behind him during Obama rally. People forgot about this. The main country gay bathhouse Obama third world cult of personality promoted by Brooklyn shysters and Hollywood human traffickers. Or otherwise you have an entire political class on Epstein Charter Express to the island. Or you have Dennis Hestert, the high school boys' locker room goal. He was head of the House Speaker for a while. Rose, head of House Speaker, Dennis Hestert, look it up, completely mysterious, very rapid rise.

Then it turns out he's a diddler, a child diddler. So tell me, does the play-acting decorum that they saw on West Wing, or where they're trying to copy a Boston Brahmin with middle Atlantic accent. Does this make up for this enormous show of faggotry and vulgarity among American political class including string of clown presidents that bankrupted nation before Trump? Now some people would say yes, that fake decorum, a copy of a copy, that it makes up for it. But I think having Kanye West in presidential debates would bring up the question of who are the true children of Israel. Just this other day, I see a news report breaking story, college Republicans, some 20-year-old guy with Botox, he says that a famous basketball player that he is anti-Semitic for engaging

in such quotes about the black Hebrew Israelites. Let me quote it for you now. So this black basketball player, he say, I'm quoting now, because the white Jews know that the Negroes are the real children of Israel and to keep America secret the Jews will blackmail America. They will extort America. Their plan for world domination won't work if the Negroes know who they were. The white citizens of America will be terrified to know that all this time they've been mistreating and discriminating and lynching the children of Israel. He's talking about the proud black Hebrew Israelite nations that Kanye West now finally give a representation to. I don't know. People think that fake middle Atlantic accent style, where they all act the statesmen, the

Roman statesmen decorum, that it makes up for the vulgarity, I told you, for the corruption of American political class, that for a very cheap price it floods the nation with masses of third-worlders. They don't see any immediate benefit from it, but their donors do. And some people would call this corruption, but completely legal. Somehow you're supposed to overlook that and to focus on Trump vulgarity. I'm sorry, it's not true. I think that Kanye West will bring a breath of fresh air, will bring up important national questions like what is the origin of a black Hebrew Israel? Are the Dominicans one of the lost tribes of Israel? I've seen this on a placard. I saw this on placard. Well, look, don't blame me. That's what the text says, what I read for you,

what this basketball player says, what the text says. I'm just repeating. I'm just quoting George Floyd from the NBA. I'm not in the mood for humor on this show. It's serious matter. I think there will be civil war in America. And what timeline this is, nobody knows. Maybe five or 10 years. My guess would be it either happens now around election, which is too soon, in my opinion, or it happens around 2024 election. But if you compare America right now to time before civil war, and America became divided into two militarized camps in the 1850s. And so it may be argued that right now is not quite like that yet, because there aren't clearly defined geographic breaks. And it's not regional, there aren't really, also there are no overt armed organization

And yet, there are not real ones, at least, not overt armed ones, not even Antifa or BLM is armed in this explicit way I say, they're not ready. I mean, the militias that you saw stopping people on Twitter and so forth on news, they are trying to get supposed white militias, which don't exist anymore, but to get them to fight in the streets. And as this whole effort glows and everyone knows it, it's a provocation. attempt. Is John Schindler listening to this show? I use his favorite Russian words. They all are disinformation, provocation. Well, this is classic provocation attempt. The militias you saw on the streets that are armed, they are not real, not so far. There aren't real armed camps in ways there was in civil war in 1850s. But everyone knows the divide among

Americans now, in beliefs about what is good and necessary, and even about what is necessary to survival, that actually this is far beyond division of 1850s. It's a more fanatical difference now between a social justice freak and a normal American than between a northerner and a southerner in 1850s. And I've called them the Interhamwe Left after the Hutu nationalist organizations in Rwanda who were engaging in a genocidal rhetoric against the Tutsi before the full war broke out over there, Rwanda. And I've asked if you can spot any significant difference between the rhetoric of the left now against white people and against what they call whiteness, which is of course sophistry, they mean white people. See if there's any difference between that and the rhetoric of Interahamwe.

And when I wrote this in, I think it was American mind response to Mike Anton, I was attacked by libertarians and by conservatives as an agitator and oh, I'm spreading fear and this. They are not laughing now, none of them are laughing now, they are being deplatformed and being attacked, some of them in the streets or at least threatened with very violent rhetoric. I don't think there was this kind of rhetoric in the 1850s. We have to exterminate people from the south, I mean it's exterminationist rhetoric if you read Michelle Goldberg and New York Times and this. But they do not matter, as in the conservative establishment that exists now, their foundations or their pundits and blowhards, they're not going to figure at all in the calculation

of forces or what gets called order of battle in military terms in the coming years. These people simply don't matter, Rick Wilson and Heritage Foundation, but I have no way of knowing if there will be civil war. For sure, I can't predict for you, but I suppose it's possible there will not be. But you look even before the recent controlled outbreak of hysteria, because I believe most of it lately, what you see now, the riots are coordinated and astroturfed. But even before that, you have already mobilization of America into two camps that have no way to live together in the future. And you have, before this, the normalization of political violence, real violence, look far more significant than these riots, which have actually, they have terrorized people,

but in fact, if you look, they've killed very few people, but before this, you had a wave of political violence against Trump supporters. You had Bernie Guy shooting congressmen, including Congressman Scalise. Some people say the Las Vegas shooting was a political shooting by Antifa guy versus Trump supporters. I don't know if that's true. That you could say is a theory. But the Bernie guy shooting, congressmen shooting Scalise, that very real. Rand Paul getting physically attacked several times, having his ribs broken. And I believe that's because he stood so strongly against foreign wars. But you had many other such cases that are not covered, that are not part of national discussion. For example, there was a Pennsylvania Republican official who ritualistically had his throat

slit in his own home in front of his wife. You have massive violence against Trump supporters in reality in 2016, including San Jose, where I think there is still ongoing litigation against city government San Jose for letting that violence happen, letting mobs just attack Trump supporters. So examples of this as well as major journalists like Matt Tomato Iglesias or I mentioned before Michelle Goldberg or pick any other Berg who are openly calling for violence against Tucker Carlson family or against whites. And then you have most weirdly Republican senators like Salt Stick Rubio or Romney who are making open excuses for Antifa violence, this well known. So this well before the riots, and my point is, I don't see how going forward into 2020

with such environments that violence will not continue and accelerate. It's inevitable. So whether Trump wins or loses now, I think he will win. But in 2024 or after, each election will seem to both sides as the last election. That's something they cannot afford to lose because in large part that is true. At least for our side is, you know, they will flood country with illegals and Biden said he will amnesty all illegal alien. Now they say it's 11 millions, more like 30 million, then they get to bring in their families. You do, people are outraged, I would say a hundred billion in four years. It's I think that is perfectly doable because you have chain of migrations they can. But I want to look forward a few years and speculate about what a civil war in America

or other parts of the West might look like. I don't think it will be great armies being mobilized like in civil war or in Spanish civil war, big armies moving against each other or as some black pillars as they fantasize where you have Antifa or BLM in large army formation in uniforms moving against red states, For example, moving on West Virginia or Texas to impose trainee surgeries or to dispossess as a middle class for reparations or seize guns or other such. First of all, it would have to be that you would have to deputize a new military because 80% of combat soldiers in America are rent staters themselves. There are guys from foothills of Tennessee and Appalachia or from red blooded portions of fagged states. So for example, much of inland California is red-blooded Americans.

They vote Trump, they serve in military combat units, rural Massachusetts is same, and people like that will not just be sent to shoot their cousins on behalf of Global Homo or Joe Biden and so forth. And even, let's say, if you do create an Antifa BLM army, which could only happen, of course, under a Democrat president, and let's say they establish that with various illegal measures against all opposition. I think that also is an unlikely scenario because by the time it gets to that you would have perhaps military defecting, or at the very least you would have state national guards in many of these places who would be willing to fight back. I don't think, for example, Texas or other places would allow BLM Antifa to invade and

dispossess citizens. Even, by the way, if they have national guard composed of, let's Let's say Bieners and such, if any of you know Bieners, they will not tolerate a BLM. They will crush them with far greater brutality than, let's say, a Paul Ryan. But that's still not likely scenario, I think. Not likely to look like that. I think instead civil war will happen, but will take a kind of low-level urban violence form, which is not to say it will not be brutal and will not cost many lives, but low level in the sense not clashes of large militaries. And it perhaps will not be called a civil war while it's happening. And for this model, I have something like what happened in Argentina during especially 1974 to 1976.

And some people confuse this to when the Argentine military junta actually stepped in in 1976 and stopped this disorder and installed a dictatorship. And then at that point, they started to waste the commies. And that period after 1976 goes under the name of a dirty war. Please notify some of the fed cats like Vermula, because the integralists, the real and original ones, many of them were from France. Please notify Russ Douthat. But these integralists were quite active. These Catholic reactionaries were quite active in that war in Argentina, especially after 1976 on the anti-communist side, teaching the Argentine military anti-insurgency, counter-insurgency tactics that they learned from Algerian war. But I'm actually talking about a period right before that, before order was restored.

So let's say 1974 to 1976, during the presidency of Isabel Perón, who was General Perón's third wife, she was a very weak leader. the American Consul I think in Argentina during 74 or 75 reported back that Buenos Aires was effectively in a state of war under her presidency. And I'm talking there were daily bombings, daily assassinations of prominent figures on both sides. So somewhat beyond as a time of trouble that existed in America in the late 1960s and 70s when although you did have left-wing terror, in fact not very many people died. I think barely any people died in American attacks in 1970s, whereas in Argentina it was daily, daily deaths, almost like Iraq or Afghanistan city bombings. Police chiefs, policemen, union leaders, politicians, CEOs, this type of people, members of the

press, professors, they all got wasted by various urban factions. And I say urban because it's quite a different image of terror from what you're used to in the news in the last 20 years. I will be right back. One moment. Speaking news, analysts call for Trump to appoint Bannon head of campaign. It can't be worse than whoever he has now. I support this. I wish Bannon would do. Well, I'll get to Bannon in a second. It's interesting. You know how civil war in Argentina, as I mentioned, it developed in 1970s when it was much like Iraq violence on the street, I mean with the daily bombings in cities and the The brutality was far beyond what went on in America or Europe at the time that also had its leftist guerrillas, the Badr-Meinhof Group and others in their 70s and 80s.

But in our time, for reasons still mysterious to me, terrorists choose to blow up people in pizzerias and nightclubs on public transportation, which is not a really politically effective move. And somehow, again, look, I'm not recommending anything. I am just a shitposter on the internet, I have a funny radio show, but it's a political and historical observation. It is odd that no one important ever dies in these terror attacks over time. Whereas you can see from example I'm giving you now, and you know the original assassins of Hassan-i-Sabah, the Hashishin, they were like this. This was a radical Ismaili sect, and they targeted important people for assassinations. They didn't just go into marketplace. But certainly in Argentina in 1970s, both sides, this is what they did.

So let me give you a short background because Argentina, strange country, you can think almost and exaggerating, but almost if somebody like Bannon, an economic nationalist populist took over in 1940s, Perón was somewhat like that. But this story of Argentina, in general, very informative because it was one of the richest countries in the world, if not the richest, around 1910, 1911, and after World War I. And now it's a basket case, barely above, let's say, Venezuela, on paper at least. So it's as if a cautionary story, and it should be a cautionary story for the accelerationists among you, left or right, however, because it had what many of you wish for, it had actually collapse of the regime many times.

You had leftists come in, or rightist succession of regimes, or Peronists, which is a kind of in-between, and you had economic collapse over and over again. For example, in 2001, they had something called Corralito, which is when government came in and seized people's bank accounts, which didn't even happen in communist countries. There is a very extreme cycles of economic collapse, regime collapse, many times over and yet nothing fundamentally changed, or at least not as a kind of change that many of you are hoping for, where you get entirely new society. After 100 years of cycles of collapse, if you go to Buenos Aires now, it's still a nice elegant place, more elegant than most American cities, in fact, almost all, and life goes

on much the same despite even the general impoverishment of the country on paper and its decline in power and prestige. But you see, well, not now is these lockdowns, which by the way, the lockdowns, they've done nothing to stop the disease there, and Argentina enacted the kind of lockdown that every panicked glue sniffer among you had hoped for, and there was no slowdown really in the spread of the disease in Argentina or in Brazil, which is also under very strict lockdown despite what you hear, whereas neighboring Uruguay defeated Wuhan flu, even according to mainstream media sources. If you search Uruguay, you see Uruguay defeated COVID and this, but with no lockdowns at all. But anyway, aside from this latest freak occurrence this year, I mean, life Buenos Aires went

on much the same. There was no collapse of social life or economic life day to day in the city. There was no fundamental change in people's way of life. And this is actually is there some interesting contrast here to the Eastern Bloc, by the way. And this is for those among you who are commie lovers, you're commie pinko communists. And you might think that a commie revolution is something that you can just recover from. Is there commies among you or those who say, well, let the left have its way. It will burn out. Yes, it might burn out after 50 years. The Eastern Bloc countries have not recovered in 30 years, I think, since end of communism. It destroyed social and economic lives there to an extent that you just can't recover from it.

It's reflected in the difference between these countries and Argentina in that, for example, the diversity of businesses when you walk on the street, the wealth you see in daily life. And I'm not referring to the bling of the upper classes or a nigger in a Humvee or this, but the infrastructure, the roads, the way even small things like the way the gas stations look. And you can see the Eastern Bloc societies, some of which have enacted much more significant capitalist economy since 1990s, but they're much poorer, they're much poorer than Argentina. And part of it is, well, they're poorer overall. Argentina is actually a very large territorially country of only 40 million people, but a large territorially, exceptionally wealthy in some agricultural and mineral deposits and this.

But it's not just that, because, you know, you go to Holland, look, it's the legacy of anywhere from 40 to 50 years of communism that just destroyed all private economic life, which is not just about the GDP. When you say that, by the way, you're letting Paul Ryan define what capitalism means for you. I like capitalism. I believe in national capitalism. Why nobody makes this ideology national capitalism? Because private economic life being bustling is not just about a GDP or about the enrichment of oligarchs. It has to do with your day-to-day life on the street, the diversity of businesses, which is very important for quality of life. I think I say this before, you go to somewhere like Tokyo and compare unfortunately to some

American cities that have been hollowed out where you no longer have small shops and this you just have. But the difference between something like Argentina, despite the claims that it was socialist, actually you never had total destruction or nationalization of the economy. You had private business continued despite labor reform and all of this, Perón was, you could say, economic populist, but he was not a communist. And you see the resulting differences in day-to-day life is very stark and is not solved. For example, when Prague becomes a tourist center or this, and you have hostels with American tourists and smoking pot, it doesn't do enough to bring back 50 years of total destruction of economic life. And there are levels of destruction of life is what I'm saying.

But to return to it, let me give you a short background history to how Argentina came to civil war of this type. So 1940s, you have charismatic General Perón Juan comparing, maybe not good comparison, but you can think in his economic policies, somebody like Bannon on steroids and he rise to power in 1940s on a kind economic populist nationalist program. And it's because, you know, conservatives do not want to understand this. And now I'm talking about the mainstream conservative, the Paul Ryan types, the boosters for capitalism. They don't want to understand that Argentina had huge industrial sector. It still does. And the workers in Argentina, the laborers, were some of the most radicalized, some of the most attracted to communism with some of the most powerful labor unions.

Many Italians, North Italians were very given over to communism and the country has in fact always been ruled by the same few families. They have massive tracts of land still in the countryside on the old Roman Spanish latifundia model and it was the same with industry there where the employment conditions of the working class were very terrible, so the workers were justified in their attraction for communism. I say this in book two, when you allow that, it gives an opening to communism, which I understand as a civilization-destroying ideology in which Marx and oriental people, oriental followers of Marx, misunderstand Hegel, but this for another time. So Peron you can think of as a necessary evil because he came in and he enacted anti-business

you could say reforms, pro-labor reforms, pro-quality of life of the worker reforms, but thereby he stopped communism, which if you know the character of the Argentine Italian, I think it would have been one of the most murderous communist regimes in the world, far more than Castro's Cuba for sure. There is a kind of vicious, passionate, kind of passion that you can see easily transformed into fanaticism at the heart of Argentine-Italian, you see this. So Che was an Argy by the way, Che Guevara was an Argentine, be careful, he was Basque Irish, not Italian, but Che Guevara, Irish occupied government. So anyway, Perón comes in in the 1940s and then until the 1970s you have various reactions by the military on behalf of the oligarchy, or in some cases of the middle class or portions

of it, reactions against Peron and his programs, followed by changes on the other side also with a leftist prime minister coming. So Peron gets ousted, he comes back, the leftist prime minister, he gets ousted. So by the 1970s, Peron is back in power, he comes from exile to retake the presidency in 1973. He had been ousted in a coup, exiled then, come back since 1973, and by then however Peronism, which was a kind of third position movement, mixing elements of capitalism, socialism and fascism, but of a very mild kind. It was not a fanatical ideological regime. It was more like, again, somebody like Bannon saying, look, the oligarchy has too much power, of workers have too little power, we're going to enact populist reforms, build hospitals, try to improve worker protections, and this.

And you can think of it maybe as a slightly more left-oriented banner, but with far greater state power, and enacted by a charismatic general. But by late 1960s, and certainly by 1973, Peronism itself, which again, you can think of a kind of Trumpism, I shouldn't call it even just Dannonism, it had split however into a left and right wing with Perón representing the so-called right wing of it and various overt Marxist and Trotsky groups, they represent the left wing of Perónism. So then Perón died in 1974 and his wife Isabel Perón became president. So you can think of a slightly more competent Hillary Clinton and she was better looking and more charming than Clinton for sure, but just Isabel Perón was actually a very weak

leader and under her watch there developed this condition of civil war. Let me describe it for you a little bit, but the following what I will read from you in paraphrase is from Wikipedia, which is usually crap, of course, I normally would never use Wikipedia to inform me of something, but occasionally you find good things on it and you can see this particular article was written in part perhaps by a right-winger because otherwise for history, history books for this very interesting period, I cannot recommend anything. I haven't been able to find. It's all in Spanish anyway and it's written generally by very left academic people which you know the typical third world inferiority complex things that mold back talks about

where they try to blame everything on the CIA, which in the case of Argentina is not true. Even to the extent that, for example, Argentine secret police, the CEDE, was very capable and they were the ones, by the way, doing all the actual dirty work for the CIA across South America. And especially with the contrast in Argentina in 1980s, the actual trainers, I believe, were from CEDE, the Argentine services. So here is a description, actually let me take a break. I need to go rest for a moment under a birch tree, my favorite tree, white tree. I'll be right back. So here is a description of Argentine civil war, let's say 1972 to 76 or so, actually technically 74 to 76, but leftist attacks started well before then.

So I'm reading now from this article, atrocities were also being committed by left-wing extremists organized in 1968 by the mysterious Roman Catholic-oriented anarchist Montoneros. So just think of the left cats, Antifa cats, some of you know them. But so continue, they murdered former de facto president Pedro Aramburo, popular CGT Union Secretary-General Jose Ignacio Ruchi. CGT Union is basically the biggest union, the umbrella organization for, it's the Union of Unions. Very powerful organization in Argentine history. Construction workers union leader, Rogelio Blas, so he is listing all the people who are killed by leftist urban guerrillas. Interior Minister Arturo Moroig and U.S. Consul John Egan, among other murders and kidnappings.

Actually this might be written by a leftist because it's many, many other murders and kidnappings. Throughout 1974, the rise of a new and nearly as violent Trotskyite group, the ERP, added to the cycle of violence, having gained notoriety after murder of fiat executive Oberdan Salustro, The ERP began the year with a violent assault on military barracks. It murdered, among others, a criminal court judge, Jorge Quiroga, the writer, and now at least writers, publishers, the kidnapping especially of ESO executive Victor Samuelson, freed for a ransom of US $12 million, ignited what would become a rash of such crimes. So you know, they estimate 300 to 400 Peronist leftist Montoneros guerrillas, and they attack especially CEO executive.

So they bomb Goodyear Firestone distributors, Reicher and Eli Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Xerox Corporation, Pepsi-Cola bottling companies. You can imagine such things. In 1973, a Ford Motor Company executive killed in a kidnapping attempt. A Peugeot representative was kidnapped, later released for $200,000. F.A.P. Guerrillas killed John Swint, the American general manager of Ford Motor Company. In December 1973, the director of Peugeot in Argentina was kidnapped. F.A.P. Guerrillas killed labor relations manager of Renault Motor Company in Cordoba in 1970. You get the idea. And then eventually, although this article has them mixed, so they put the right wing reaction at the beginning. So you think then that the left was a reprisal, whereas what really happened was you had leftist

urban terror attacks from late 1960s, accelerating in early 70s, and then late in 1973, you had the beginning of rightist militia reprisals. So now this Wikipedia article describes Lopez Rega, who was a very interesting character, head of Argentine police, who was into esoteric magical practices, and I think he was a devotee of Evola, but he recently formed Argentine Anti-communist Alliance, the AAA. This is what you might call a base group, so a right-wing paramilitary force between late 1973 and late 1974. The AAA had already carried out nearly 300 murders, including that of the professor... You know, they call it murders, but they don't so much call the leftist ones, if you heard they use much milder language, whereas these are basically reprisals.

But they killed, for example, a professor Silvio Fondizi, Congressman Rodolfo Ortega Pena, activist, father Carlos Mujica, Buenos Aires Province assistant police chief. This is a Pinco police chief, Julio Troxler, former Cordoba vice governor Atelio Lopez, Chilean army head. This is the guy that actually Pinochet ousted and then he took refuge in Argentina. His name is Carlos Pretz. He was killed in a car bomb by the AAA. Other prominent public servants like Senator Hippolytos Solari Irigoyen and left-wing University of Buenos Aires President Rodolfo Puigros, that is a Catalan name, I think, remember what I told you about the Catalans, but these people narrowly survived apparently AAA attacks. So you get the idea, you had leftist terror attack followed by rightist reprisals, is

model I think very similar to Iraq in some way and Afghanistan with various factions fighting in urban centers, committing terror attacks, urban centers. And I believe this unfortunately is a future of America. The only thing that might stop it in modern context is that the state seems actually to be very good at surveillance, at tracking and so forth. You would think, I mean, when you see Jason Bourne, it seems they would be able to stop that code. But then you remind yourself that Tsarnaev brothers were people without any training, teenagers from the Caucasus who shut down major American cities, cost billions in damage. They had no local network of support and still for days they couldn't be found. So I don't know really how good is American state capacity if so-called this hit the fan

and there is a general conflagration like I described. It might, they might not be able to stop it and America might degenerate to this. Now they will say I am endorsing it. No, I am predicting this of what will happen. So now as the end of this disorder, I tell you what happened in Argentina, let's say toward the end of 1976 or the beginning of 1976, 75 and so forth. Following the murder of Buenos Aires police chief Alberto Villar as well as, so they're describing just increasing chaos, increasing murders and so forth. So then, finally, Isabel Perón, Perón's wife, who was a weak leader, was persuaded to declare a state of siege, state of emergency, and on 6th November she suspended Habeas Corpus. She put censorship on various organs of the left, and I believe of the rightist press.

This article doesn't say that, but she did. And then Operation Independence began in Tucumán on 5th February 1975, I'm quoting Wikipedia now. military campaign, though successful from a military standpoint, gained notoriety for its brutality. In addition to going after insurgents, it attacked elected officials, magistrates, University of Tucumant faculty, and even secondary schoolteachers. Imagine that, American military taking action against the universities, the dens of inequity. Well, I don't know. Could it happen? There's something to be said now that should be clear to many of you from the last thing I said in the last paragraph, in that such situation is very important if the reaction against the disorder comes from the right or the left.

Because when you have such disturbances, there reaches a point where the people or the society at large call it what you will, factions in society, interests, they demand order. They cannot take state of siege, they cannot take daily bombings and assassinations anymore. And at that point, it matters a great deal whether you have a Trump as president with somebody like Barr for attorney general, or if you have Clinton or similar with Janet Napolitano or some other horrid bull dyke. And that's not happening now, by the way. It's not going to happen for years in America, I would guess, the kind of move that I just read for you from right before the military regime got established in Argentina. But again, it matters a great deal if that reaction will be from somebody even half-friendly

to you, or if it comes from somebody who is out to purge society of all reactionary elements, so to speak. Both are going to have a mandate of the society, of the people in that situation. So it matters which one it is. I know, again, many of you are disappointed with Trump, but I think you should see the last four years as a game of chicken, whereas the other side, which is coordinated, like Like I say, by a few hundred names among oligarchs and in government. But the other side is essentially saying it's willing to take the country to civil war. They want to do it. They have nothing to lose, they think. And Trump is refusing to do so. You should understand last four years this way. I believe Trump refuses to do so because he's too much of a patriot, which is a virtue,

but possibly it's also a weakness. And it's not what I or you would have done. We would want to get rid of these criminals running much of the West now, but in some way you could consider me and my friends more radical than the Wignats, than the white nationalists, or than others who blackmail about Trump who want to engage in excessive despair and pessimism. They thought that Trump would solve their problems, that he would establish policies as they wanted. I was hoping he would do more than he has but I think despite their overt rejection of the political process, I'm talking about people who are despairing about Trump now and their reaction is reject political process and this they say and they claim their accelerationists

and this, but I think they are still working with blinders on, they're actually too optimistic, they do not see imminent danger of civil war or even if they say they do, they don't see the form it will take. They aren't preparing appropriately for that time. Which is part of my great purpose, to get people to understand the dangers of the next decade or two and to be able to organize and prepare even informally for what is likely to come. Because if they understood this, they would see it's not a question of rallies or of writing essays or of playacting as a community organizer in this. It's of having friends be in a position in, let's say, five to ten years to act effectively in conditions of the kind of civil war I just named.

And for this purpose, it is essential not to have somebody like Obama or Clinton in power, at least not now. Because Trump and even somebody actually a little worse than Trump, he provides some measure of protection. Now you say, oh, he's not doing anything. Protection from what? Trump supporters are getting attacked. That's not what I mean. The Left's move in every country for a long time is using an event as a pretext to purge their enemies. And I told you I think they tried this with Kennedy, with JFK assassination. In other words, Kennedy had outlived his usefulness for the Russians, so they killed him knowing that Bobby Kennedy was a vengeful, stupid little man in power who, if the assassination could be pinned on the right, as was the initial plan before Oswald got discovered.

But the initial plan was to pin JFK assassination on the far right. And they thought if they could pin it on the right, then Bobby Kennedy would have a mandate for a nationwide purge of all anti-communist elements. And this really is the dream of the left. They're no longer called anti-communist elements, but it's the same thing. So this is a scenario that must be avoided, which Clinton especially tried to provoke several times during his administration. For example, right now there is no Waco, there is no Oklahoma bombing, there's no Ruby Ridge. And those events in themselves are actually less significant than how they are used as a pretext to destroy the right wing, to purge and liquidate possible organizations of right-wing resistance to the oligarchy.

It's always used, you know, they say this word Reichstag fire, but actually the Reichstag fire was done by the left. I think that is the latest historical research, but that is the idea. Have an event that precipitates, it gives you a mandate for change, so to speak, gives you a mandate to purge your enemies. And this is not a paranoid fantasy of mine because it was already done. You see, in each Democrat administration, the government gets the enemies it wants. I say this actually in general, whether it's Muslims under Bush W, or whether it's veterans or right wingers under Obama or Clinton, which they're trying without great success to provoke, even under Trump. Elements in FBI and so on are trying to provoke that, you know, violent veterans.

But they get the enemies they want, and they want nothing more than a pretext to crush opposition through a nationwide clearing, retaliation for some kind of attack or event like Oklahoma bombing, it goes beyond just Oklahoma City, by the way. For example, under Clinton you had definitive purge of military under something called tailhook scandal, which I will devote at some point a whole segment or another show to, because they purged in 1990s the top brass of all alpha males. They got kicked out of military under so-called tailhook scandal, sexual harassment scandal. Me Too is nothing new. The fact that top brass of military, both in America now and for different reasons, but in Brazil, that they have been neutered and that they are now inhabited by zombies and apparatchiks.

This is one of the main reasons that Trump or Bolsonaro especially, they're having great difficulties enacting many of the more serious reforms because in fact they do not have the military on their side at the top level, I mean. The rest, sure, is still pro-Americans, middle ranks, the soldiers, which is very important. But that lack of top brass support is major problem, makes things much more difficult. And it wouldn't have happened if Clinton with tail hook and then Obama with different fake scandals if they had not purged the military of men like Michael Flynn. And you see this also right now in Germany, in fact, which is very weak country in Germany, has very weak government, very weak society. You know, it's interesting, under international law, the government of Germany I think is

still the Third Reich, because the transformation of the Weimar Republic into the Reich was done legally within Germany under German law. But the establishment of the present regime in Germany, the Bundesrepublik, has no basis in German law or international law. It's simply victor's justice. It was installed by the Allies, which of course I believe in victor's justice, but they say they don't believe in it. So anyway, so in Germany, this also just happens, they disbanded a special forces unit just this week, I think, and it's not the first time this happened because of supposed sympathies for the far right. But in fact, this special forces unit were supporters, I believe, for the very milquetoast alternative for Germany party, which is a legal entity.

So it's like, imagine leftist government in America disbanding special forces or disbanding SWAT units or parts of the military because they were too much into MAGA. Well, we are almost there, in fact, even with Trump. So he's unable to stop the insanity of so-called federal bureaucracy, which is acting under somebody else's orders. So you see, they want to do this even with Trump there, but it's very difficult for them. So anyway, the point is, in a situation of civil war, like I believe it's coming, who the central government is at certain points matters quite a lot. It matters most of all right now when it is important that Wacos and Oklahoma cities and other provocations are not staged that could round us all up and we are still able to communicate

now to make friendships, to know each other, to try, which you all should have been doing over the last few years to me, but to try in some cases to organize, to take over local city governments, county governments, this should be an aim. The local bureaucracies, what you can see is very hard to remove a bureaucrat for anything. You know, you've never heard of a bureaucrat getting canceled. Now, you could say it's because they're all leftists, but in fact, they cannot really be canceled. You can't fire a bureaucrat. And very important, if possible, to take over the local bureaucracies, where you can see very small decisions have very big impact. bureaucrat can stop federal government, can stop a president.

Bannon should have been spending time teaching mid-best whites to do this, to take over their local bureaucracies, the local GOP and so forth. And funders, donors should be supporting this instead of a whack of conferences and essays and such. This is my opinion. But if enough is done this way, I would imagine that maybe prospect of civil war can even be averted because I believe there is in fact the basis of the left in this country for all of their power and influence seeming now. I think the base of the left is very thin. It really is 400 to 500 or slightly more than that, a few hundred names, their foundations and various tools in the media and so on. And I would imagine a scenario where they can be exposed and prosecuted legally by someone

like Trump, or whoever Trumpist follows him, hopefully at least somebody like DeSantis, with the American people awakened and called out for support, if necessary, in the streets the way that Manish Purtu in 2013, the boomers in France got called out. But how much more effective would Gilles Jean, the yellow vest, be right now in France if If they had president on their side as opposed to them, it would give him protection and mandate to enact reforms. And the prospects of a civil war, like I described, can in that case can maybe be averted if there is enough political action of this sort and organization. But if you look at events of the last four years, I believe still that all that violence into the 2020s is inevitable.

again I'm not endorsing, I'm just, you know, but you have to be a thick head to not see it coming, given the height of passions, the rhetoric used by the left. But anyway, I wanted on this show to speculate about this, about what form a civil war might take when it comes to America, and I think actually with things being geographically fractured that the two camps are not organized in distinct regions with standing armies. This has potential to be a lower level kind of violence but in fact much more brutal than a conventional war because what I mean by lower level is not big armies but it can be far more intense at the local level. It would happen within neighborhoods and even within homes and families and it's precisely

such wars where things are not geographically clear, it's such wars that become the bloodiest and the worst. And so this great conflagration is almost surely coming. And in any case, such things must be considered and thought about. Very nice, just think about it. He is very prudent. I'm very prudent. I'm a moderate thinker. And I actually want to announce on this show for the first time the creation of a political party that will embody the views of a Bronze Age. It will be called the moderate centrist party. What do you think? I will be right back. I keep putting off discussion of Buddhism because you have to be a mood spiritual topic but I was thinking about something else this week I want to say at end of show I made post

on how Nordic men are very handsome no homo I'm sorry if this offends you but you have to be crazy not to notice such differences in nations even if only for very self-interested reason, let's say you want girls, but then you go to this nation where you hear Women's are beautiful and it may not work out in your favor if you do the the ruche I guess he no longer does it he's become but if you go to nation looking for sex oars It may not work out in your favor if the nation is famous for beautiful women But the men are even more so or are engaged in either a generations long a breathing for beauty project or in merely cultural looks-maxing as a temporary fad, as a form of competition for females and then you will find that your prospects are not better in that land.

But I think, for example, Roosh actually noticed this too about the Nordic countries, that the men look very impressive and this is very hard to miss, so now the reasons why such things are so are very interesting to me and it isn't just recent people who think about human biodiversity, so-called, who have considered such problems. But many others in history asked similar. So one wild card of what I mentioned is, depending on what your goals are, in many such nations where the women are good-looking, this completely unrelated advice, I am giving you game advice. This, you know, I follow Hartiste, Hartiste is the one who brought many of us to Twitter you know a long time ago but you go such a women are good-looking in such nations and then the men

are more than the women but nevertheless in such a country the women can still be loose they has loose women so although you will have a high competition and especially for the top females as a prize there would be high competition in such nations but because it would be quite easy to get your ashes hauled anyway in such a society, especially if your standards are low for example, or if you will accept average. I am unable to get excited for any grail who is less than 8.5 at least, or who otherwise presents me with a gift of no less than $300 worth. But anyway, so Brazil is such a country, by the way also, I think I said before, similar Scandinavia were at the very right end of the bell curve. In fact, very good-looking men far outnumbered very good-looking women.

And so the competition for the very pretty women is extremely difficult, and in the big cities they are correspondingly of a kind of reckless arrogance. But because of the culture and biology of it, sometimes the sexual morality is loose. So getting your ashes hold is easy, and even average girl is much better in Brazil than a Juan Creatura female that looks better, merely because of the sexiness of the manor and also, let's face it, the hygiene. The Brazilian girl hygiene very good for all the wanting of the urban dweller with cosmopolitan magazine and grooming and such in the coir. Many American woman very gross personal habits. I wanted to puke on her back, let me not get into this, but the one reply to my ethno-biodiversity

reflections on the Scandinavian races, it reminded me of something. So this guy say in a reply where I said, well, the Scandinavian man, very good looking, he said, well, in equatorial Africa, the female rule of sexual selection leads to niggers, and in Arctic Europe, female rule of sexual selection leads to snow niggers. So let me pass this for you. He says important concept to think about, sexual selection, the female selects. Now I don't agree with this concept of female sexual selection, except in the sense that it's a truism. What I mean is that the woman does the choosing, but that's true in every society. So it's a truism. It isn't really the men ever who choose, it's women. It's true in every society and people like Peter Frost, the famous HBD blogger or whatever,

who wants to believe otherwise are cucks, literal sense, I mean cuck fetishes. You'd have to think through why this is because they are trying to make the case that European and Asian evolved to have beautiful women because it was the men who did the sexual choosing in a cold climate where they had ownership of the means of food production during the Ice Age, sorry if I repeat myself, but it's an important concept. So that is the case somebody like Peter Frost would make, but I don't know if Frost studied either Ice Age tribes, which are not necessarily equivalent to present-day Eskimos, who do not in any case conform to his predictions, by the way, or if Frost studied history to see if what he claims is true in societies with similar economic arrangement.

But the point is, wherever you look in history, despite the fact that men control women as the position of the family patriarch or the clan or the father or the rule of the father or husband in some place, and often the marriages are arranged, at least in remote history, there is actually ample evidence most women reproduced and most men did not. I'm saying in the remote history, and this is true, something like 80% of women reproduced and anywhere from 20 to 40% of men only. So what this tells you is that no, actually men do not in fact do the choosing, the female does the choosing. And by the way, this disparity I mentioned in rates of reproduction and remote antiquity is not exactly explained by formal harems either, because as far as I know, such things

do not exist in very primitive societies. So I do not agree that Scandinavia or Apfrika would be any different from any other place in this regard. It is in fact the woman who sexually selects always. And so from a purely natural point of view, there would be pressure in every tribe, every Every population in the state of nature, I mean, to evolve toward robust and powerful men. See Schopenhauer's essay on women to see what kind of men women prefer and why. I will not be surprised to many of you, but such awareness of women's natural preferences is actually built in, I believe, to every traditional society, by the way, even when it is then warped or denied by law and custom, which perhaps it should be.

But it's the beginning point of this law and custom as the first brutal reality of nature. But even though I disagree with this HBD cuck concept of its female sexual selection versus supposedly male sexual selection, which again in my view does not really exist, but there is still truth to the idea that something links the Nordics and some of the ape-freakans. That part is true from the observation of a crazy reply to my reflections, which this similarity between Nordics and apefreakans was noticed by the ancient Greeks and by the Romans as well. The stereotypes that ancient Greeks had about Euro-Nordics, temperate climate Nordics, about their temperament, their character and their physicality was actually very similar to their

opinions about some of the Africans, so I don't think, in fact, they had full contact with West Africa and so forth, although Homer does know of pygmies, which is very true, so they did know about things in sub-Saharan Africa. But the blacks they might have known about were, let's say, modern-day Sudan, Ethiopia, Upper Egypt. It is these that are, in fact, described sometimes in a remarkably similar way to the Nordic barbarian and this might make sense you'd think a first explanation since the Nylots for example Nylotic tribes of this area are a pastoral warlike people so and so are the Nordics of that time I think these two would actually be the only two pastoral warlike collection of peoples really known to the ancient Mediterranean if you're thinking

of the Scythians as a third case I think actually the Scythians fits into the definition of Nordic by the way, I'm using Nordic loosely because if you just look at the specimens from Afanasievo and Andunovo and such places in Siberia where you have Scythian burials and the Scythians you can see were Europoide Nordic people, in other words they were not East Asian and in fact it's not even clear how much the Germanics and the Scythians were The Bible, the reason Ashkenazi Jews are named Ashkenaz, because that is the word for Germany in the Bible, but it's also the word for Syria. So at that point, the Germanics, they came out of Asia, by the way, within times that are remembered. The Germans came out of Central Asia, and this awareness was in Europe, I think, actually quite late.

As a matter of course, it's just assumed, for example, why Adam Smith, as an economist philosopher, he refers to the Scythians as part of, I'm quoting, our Germanic and Scythian ancestors, or I think he says, artutonic, a complex of nations that were related. So the Scythian were the other free barbaric people that the Greeks had admiration for, and they too were pastoralist people. So you know, it's very interesting, I say this in book, but the stereotype from Aristotle of the Greeks as the balance between the free European barbarian who's uncivilized and wild and free, and on the other hand, the intelligent, civilized, but slavish Asian or oriental, and he means Near Easterner, Middle Easterner, but the two were not valued in the same way. I will be right back. I will be right back.

Both the miloed Africans and the North Europeans and the Scythians were all pastoral peoples. Does that explain it? I don't think is enough or is at the most just beginning of explanation. But I should repeat that the Greeks always looked longingly at the free life of the barbarian and admired them in some way. And they did not consider them stupid, by the way, I mean the northern barbarians. Intemperate, maybe, boorish, uncivilized, without the pleasures of life that you find in the city, but not stupid. And you can have a barbarian who is very smart. This is an attitude that is preserved even by the Byzantines when they discuss the Crusaders and you can see in the show The Last Kingdom for modern popular representation of this. This is actually quite a good show you can find on Netflix.

But where the Vikings are barbarians, and yet they are considered quite smart. They are very good at laying traps, they make ships, ocean-faring ships, and other such things is the same even today with Mongols, who as far as I know are not distinguished for great discoveries and so forth yet, but they are a free people and very robust. I met once a Mongolian and he loved to want that people in Mongolia just can drive off road and experience the freedom of open space and they have contempt for people who cannot do this and they very highly value that. But when you get them to take IQ tests, they have 105 I think or in any case they have high IQ compared to other peoples on average. And if you ever meet Mongolians, you can talk to them, you see very intelligent people.

But they value their freedom. So you can have smart, manly barbarians. But the same is not necessarily true for the African in the Greek view, I mean. Because to this extent, the ancient euros were seen as very different from ancient Africans. Believe it or not, the Greeks did have a theory, and you see, especially in Aristotle, about people who live in very hot and dry climates as being typically stupid. This was stereotyped. They considered two people stupid. The people who live around the Black Sea, Herodotus says this, they're some of the stupidest in the world. But he also say, Aristotle now I mean, but other Greek physiologists too, they have mechanism to understand people who live a hot dry desert climate or very hot climate Africa to explain

why they're stupid, so they've always been that. But the point is the same was never said about the Germanics or the Scythians, who also live around the Black Sea, but Herodotus does not mean them, in fact, very high respect for the Scythians, they defeated the army of Darius, Persia king. But nevertheless, in temperament, despite these differences, intelligence, whatever, but in my opinion, temperament, character, very important things, very important things for the Greeks too. So something did link for the ancient Greek or Roman world the stereotype of the Nordic and the African, and I think this demands some study, and I don't think any purely economic analysis of the means of food production or the climate can explain this.

Such differences are always found, I think, in the will of a people, whether to breed themselves in one direction or another, to become… You see also in our time, by the way, the Nailots, unlike other Africans, and this includes the Tutsis, but in particular certain Nailot tribes in the Sudan, the Nuba for example, who actually, I think they technically, many of them don't speak Nailotic languages, They speak Niger-Congo, which are Bantu languages, but they themselves are physically and in temperament and way of life very different from the Bantus. And they've become notorious because of Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's favorite director. By the way, why is she Leni Riefenstahl not celebrated as a great woman?

Is it because the Allies were a masculinist supremacist alliance against the Reich that promoted women like Leni? The Reich promoted women like Lenin, where women made the selection for Hitler. And the white supremacist, masculinist allies wanted to destroy the Reich. But anyway, after the war, she went among the Nuba, these tribal people of the Sudan, and she had a photo documentary of them. You can still find her photographs, very artistic and glorifying them. And this is a small tribe that practices war and wrestling, pastoralists they are. They measure wealth in cattle, very much like Indo-Europeans, and they live nude, and probably over hundreds of years they bred themselves to be handsome people.

So she admired this, Leni Riefenstiel admired this, and she wanted to celebrate it in photographs. But of course the Kvetchers, they developed an entire theory about this. They latched onto her, you know, the way the critic who never makes anything, they latch onto people who do. So look, please have patience, I'm getting to something here. The quetchers like Susan Sontag, they developed the vile theory of so-called fascist aesthetic, precisely in response to this photoshoot of Leni Riefenstahl. And part of this was the desire of people like Sontag merely to advance their literary careers by making hysterical comparisons. But the other part, I believe, was genuinely felt by them, because they found Leni's unabashed celebration of physical health.

Now obviously in this case she's talking about the Nuba, the primitive tribe. It has nothing to do with Nazi authoritarian totalitarian state. It has nothing to do with the political aims of the German people. It has nothing to do with any political goal, you can tell, but it offended them deeply. Because they found this unabashed glory of physical health to be just so Nazi. And some of the photos, admittedly, they have the nubot holding spears pointing at the sun and such, which I guess reminded people of Nazi art. If you are caught in a hysterical fear, it reminds you of that. It reminds you of Nuremberg rallies, if you have, you know, if you live in a hell labyrinth of hysterical fears in the same way that the old woman, David Frump, for example, and people

like him, they bring up Kristallnacht as a weapon in a political argument. I remember Kristallnacht, he was saying this in an argument, I think, against Steve Bannon, which I think the audience cited, even so, the audience cited with Bannon in that argument. So anyway, what this reduces to in the end, this logical result of this attitude I just It is very simple and what my friend Spindrell called bio-Leninism, but which in this case you can understand as a hatred of all strength. It's all health is now considered political. It's politically dangerous. So this word is becoming used too much, but all beauty, particularly beauty understood as power and energy, which of course this hatred and suspicion of these things is the root of all political inequality and oppression.

This is the defining ideology, if you could call it this, of the Thirdoid World Revolution or what you call the Vogue, this suspicion that health, energy, power, beauty are the root of political evil, the original sin, you could say. In other words, the original sin is nature in its fullness. And you see Camille Paglia make fun of this. She discussed Moses' statue, Michelangelo's statue of Moses, beauty as power. She considers it a great rebuke to the liberal, a great rebuke to the feminist in particular. And she was writing about this in early 1990s. So these views that are exploding now, or seem to be exploding, I think they're coordinated, but they're very old, at least several decades old, they've been simmering.

And this is seen, power, energy, beauty, vitality is root of evil, because it is the root of political inequality and oppression. Now I believe that standards of beauty, or this innate attraction to power, I believe that these things are objective and inborn, they are instincts in all of mankind, so that in fact, in different degrees, in different populations, sure, as is everything, but if these instincts are given free reign in a nation or a tribe, if they are strong enough, if they are allowed to guide, you could say, political regime, but more in particular to to guide cultural appreciation and to guide sexual selection of both men and women if these impulses are allowed then to drive breeding over time, over centuries. I believe that they will converge to much the same thing.

This is what I've been trying to drive at in a segment of show is unusual idea. I know, very controversial, very controversial, but I believe we'll all converge on the same thing when driven by these instincts, or at least very close, insofar as they would be different would be only in very small detail. So for example, dolichocephalism, the long skull, or the preference for long skulls over squat brachycephalic white skulls, this seems to be so universal in mankind, some kind of ancient inborn memory of all men, that this way you find skulls deformed even to be elongated in many cultures where the biological development alone could no longer allow for that. So people were born with short or round or very wide brachycephalic skulls, and it was

considered necessary for the ruling class, nevertheless, to have a dolichocephalic long skull. So they used deformation of the skull since childhood to achieve that. It's an innate, somehow like, for that skull shape it is seen as superior. But this is only one example. The shape of the male body or skeleton, in particular, it can come in different shapes. You can see, for example, Perseus statue, which I use as my bannerhead, is quite different from other Greek, that's not a Greek, although you can say Chilini was secretly a Greek man, but my point is, that is one physique, you can see other physiques among both your friends maybe and then statues, polyclato statues, whatever, they all have slightly different

shape of the male skeleton, but it's instantly attractive shape which gives, and that is so, I'm copying by the way Schopenhauer here, I'm sorry to say, but it's because the male skeleton in particular is what gives characteristic form to the human species and into the particular tribe in question, insofar as it varies slightly from that in some characteristic way. This also is of primary concern, the shape of the male skeleton, more so than the female skeleton for many reasons I cannot get into here, but you can figure it out. I'm not being coy, I just don't feel like talking about that, but it's just the female skeleton, this doesn't mean that people don't appreciate female beauty, but the female beauty is not in the skeleton, and so the female skeleton is not selected for that.

But anyway, another interesting universal preference of mankind, very controversial, but Steve Saylor talks this and many others talk universal preference of mankind for lighter skin. And you find this in almost any tribe, even very primitive ones. It's impossible to, you know, the lefties of course want to say this is false consciousness and that people are oppressed by internalized Western beauty standards, to which they're attracted apparently because of their lack of the power of the Western world, or by the prejudices of the Enlightenment, or pick your theory of... So they want to say that primitives should not have this preference for light skin, but of course they do, even in cases where contact with Europeans would have been dubious at best.

So unless you believe in ancient Viking explorers spreading this preference to every corner of the world, I think an easier explanation for this, as for the like of the long skull and so forth, is that it's an inborn preference of mankind. Inborn, you call it aesthetic, but I think that it means something far more profound. And this reflected also in the scramble for white mates today. I mean, this is just very obvious, where every darkie in the world, man or woman, hungers for sexual union or a relationship with a white of some kind, I'm sorry to make it blunt, but yes, there's something that I mean here, which is that you have to make the most extreme case for what I'm saying now, is simply that some of the white races, or what may be properly

called the Aryans, among the Mediterranean or the Nordids, that what are they? They are simply tribes that have cleaved on a path closer to these inborn drives than other peoples have. So this isn't the only preference in man, there are many other natural drives and preferences that perhaps conflict with this. There are many things that can and most often do confound the people from walking on this higher path, necessities sometimes of various kinds, false gods and so forth. But insofar as physical and spiritual excellences are concerned, the Aryan peoples and the few other isolated samples, who I would consider cousin Herrenvolk, are the only ones that have followed the path of distinction in nature.

And this is the reason, by the way, why traditional or mainstream conservatives who prattle on about religion or prattle on and talk only about culture, they only want to talk religion or culture only. This was important, no, the body is vulgar, we don't want to talk biology, and they want to pretend the nation is based on a secondary product of the human languages. I want to tell you here, you understand already why they are short-sighted fools. Because let's say in case you can found a religion or a culture, even a nation through an act of great will, an act of genius, much like Rousseau or Machiavelli say Moses founded the Hebrews, or Mohammed you could say refounded the Arabs and such and so forth.

There are other peoples like Kyrgyz for the Spartans, they say, although that's not really true. The Spartans were quite similar to other Greeks, but the point is if this act of foundation is successful, if it is to be lasting, then in the long run the laws, the customs will become second nature and then in time that second nature will become first nature, which is to say the people after many generations of a successful nation, whether it was founded Whether that's one or whether you believe, as I do, that many nations are organically formed through shared historical experiences. Nobody founded, for example, the Venetian peoples, they were forged together by common experiences in the lagoons and so forth.

But whichever way a people comes about, such a people will actually have a biological basis simply by virtue of cohabitation long time and by breeding or selecting for these desired traits that I'm talking about. So to despise biology as a foundation of a people in favor of religion or culture is absurd. It's equivalent to hating the successful finished product, the successful end product embodied and right in front of you, to disfavor this in favor of the blueprint, which may may turn out bad, may turn out well, may fail, based on events, based on chance and many other such things. The religion and the culture are only the blueprints for the new biological people. And then the converse of all this is what motivates the left in their hatred of whites.

I mean when it is genuine hatred of whites and not merely a proxy for wanting to despoil the middle class, or when it's economic or political rivals you want to destroy them. This is my belief about the oligarchy, by the way, they don't really care about white as such, they just want power and money, and they consider the middle class an impediment. Because it happens to be white middle class, both in America and Europe, they see that as a point of attack. But in the cases where this hatred is genuine, I say it is actually very appropriate. Not good, I mean, but it is appropriate. It makes sense because they hate whiteness and whites, not just because they don't like the hue of the skin or this, but it's a signifier of life ascending to a condition of power and beauty.

This is what I talk about in book and it is this that they hate and fear more than anything. Not just when it exists, but as a drive within human species, they consider this drive or flame to be the root of evil. And from their point of view, I'm saying they are right. Intersectionality does make sense. It is this and it is why it is, for example, the disabled, not by accident, not the ones, not people who happen to be disabled and live with it, but people, I mean, who make a thing out of it, who make a virtue out of being disabled, an identity out of it, or the obese, same thing, the fat apologists, or those of perverted and self-destructive desires who embrace them, who make perverted sexual desires into their lives.

The nations of mankind of the wretched, this most important, those who have valued their Their ancestors have valued in many cases the opposite of what I have described in this segment and who have turned out after many centuries of dysgenic breeding have turned out as a group to be vicious or ugly or scarified both in body and soul grasping for advantage in this and they have then all this refuse this bio-Leninist refuse of mankind have a natural alliance against the white race or more properly the remnants of the Aryan race which whatever the exceptions at the individual level, it has always stood or embodied this drive I talk about. So is why someone calls Europe, well, I'm not going to be calling to you, it's Nietzsche, but he called Europe as this peninsula out of the great Asia

that has always wanted to stand against Asia, it has always wanted to stand for progress. And it's possible that it is this ancient memory of the men of Atlantis, I don't know, possibly eight foot tall men of Atlantis or of the continent of Mu who colonized much of the world and who left their seed behind in the various peoples and I believe I found by the way location here by the beach there are black mounds of stones by the beach what is underneath them I'm not just being coy I look over the horizon of the sea I tell you truth now and I remember seeing very high up in the air great cities the silhouette of these soaring cities i see as in a mist over horizon over the ocean horizon i start to remember it and i start to remember how i live there