Have you ever gotten into a fight with an Arab? A physical fight, I mean. And with all due respect to my Arab friends, because I have very close associates, for example, in place of Ancient Carthage, Hello Long Face, and some others, I strongly respect for noble lineages of the Arab people. Steve Saylor mentioned how the Arabs in East Africa were much admired by the homo-English explorers because they had a kind of aristocratic repose, whereas the Indians, the Tamils who were brought over for hard labor, they are always busybodies, they always want to be a merchant, they have merchant mindset, as opposed to aristocratic lazy mindset of Arabs. So this disclaimer, strong respect for Arab, noble lineages of Arab people only I mean, But have any of you ever gotten into a fight with an Arab?

I once beat up an Arab boy in an elevator. I must have been nine years old, and I attacked him for no other reason than I despised his fat, ugly mother. Look, I will not give you details about where I grew up in this. Just telling you, around the age of nine or so, I was living in a kind of city you could call multi-ethnic kind of neighborhood of city. It was not a United States, of course, but was very multi-ethnic environment. I just couldn't stand this kid's fat, loud, ugly mother. She yelled. She yapped like a Bedouin dog. You know, the Turks have this word for a woman, kadun. I think it just means woman in Turkish. But I even know how to say, let me show off for you how multicultural I am if you want to really impress Turkish woman, you say to her, kadun, tenizleh.

It means something like, woman, clean this shit up, you know, you say when you're done drinking with your friends, but I always thought the way the word sound, kadun, is a kind of this oriental Near East, and I mean Near East woman with slight mustache and fat who put arm on hip in doorway and start yelling at poor husband outside and just, This isn't just Islam, by the way, that encourages the production of this kind of woman. It's old behavior of women from that part of the world that includes Middle East, much of Central Asia, North India, at least much of Eurasia continent. So Ibn Fadlan, the famous Arab traveler, ethnographer also, went on a journey north, this medieval times. And I think he met the Vikings, he met Khazars, and he tells many tales of people in Central Asia.

Actually, I forget what time this was, but sometime it must be 800s or 900s AD. So he took a trip north into Central Asia. He met the Rus, the Vikings that were at that time traveling down the Volga into Russia and form nucleus of Russia Kiev nation. But at one point in his travels to the north, this Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan, he meets this Khwarezm woman. I don't know how to pronounce this, it's a Khwarezm, it's some kind of benighted obscure tribe from a tent somewhere north of Turkestan on the desert plains of the steppe and something like this. She's fat, she's hairy, and they're in a tent together and she just shows her fat belly and scratches her dirty pussy right in front of him, spreads legs. I mean, you

like this? Because this woman in her natural state, for many people, this image has always stuck with me. And for many people in that part of the world, the woman has always been So it's no wonder this sector of the world coincides with what the great explorer, English explorer Richard Burton, he called the sotadic zone. Look it up. You can find, I think, on the internet, sotadic, S-O-T-A-D-I-C, sotadic zone. Look it up. A certain region of the world he hypothesized where pederasty was widely practiced. And so, of course, this could be explanation. I mean, if these are your women, you can say no wonder the men become penerates to the extent that Schopenhauer mentions this you can find in his appendix to the metaphysics

of sexual love, where he discusses this subject of pederasty, whether it has a natural basis. He concludes that it must because of its universality, many different cultures share, and he actually has very interesting Aristotelian explanation for why men of a certain age, especially old men, are given over to this vice, but he mentions that medieval Arabic poetry, love poetry, Arabic love poetry, it's just as if women didn't even exist, and this is the truth. How this makes you feel, third positionist, how it makes you feel, this is still the case, By the way, in some of the Gulf states, I may have told you a story. An Arab Saudi man, he tried to touch my thigh. I'm sorry if I repeat myself, but I must have been 20 or 19 years old and he tried to do this to me in public at food court.

It was very traumatic for me. It's what led me to research Islam, what led me to consider the shocking possibility that I may one day go on pilgrimage to Makkah and I wondered before about this what would happen if I went there during the Hajj pilgrimage completely nude and I walked there toward the throngs of people totally nude just covered in olive oil glistening in the sun, my brown skin muscles glistening in the summer sun and all the believers would come out of their houses. They would look out from the shrines and be in amazement. But anyway, I hated this kid's ugly pig of a mother, a big sow, and we were both the same age. I beat him in the elevator and later that day she came with him to door to yell at my mother about my aggression.

So you know, it was just like the Palestinians on CNN after a drone hit or this, they're wailing and screaming. I had very early introduction to multi-ethnic environment and ethnic conflict, you see, what I'm telling you. The scroll I went to, it was no different. It was a kind of international scroll where English was spoken and the multi-ethnic flavor was so wonderful that, how to put it to you, I mean literally the feel of blood in my mouth during fistfights, each one very different. Every single one of us students got to feel his teeth getting kicked in by every nationality almost. So I'm not complaining, by the way, I started fights as much as any other. For most of the time, my best friend at this school was Filipino boy, possibly some Negrito ancestry like many Filipinos.

The most powerful race in the whole world, as you all know. So why I'm telling you all this? You see, I grew up multi-ethnic and I'm expert in multi-ethnic politics, and this show is about Caribbean rhythm episode 45. Many of you will be quite familiar with most topics on this show, but I wanted in particular to talk whether different ethnic groups can co-exist in a state, in a modern state, whether they can share state equally. If something like a multi-ethnic state can truly exist, ethnic pluralism, politically meaning not just if ethnic groups can exist within a state, but equal political recognition. Let me put it that way for now. So I will talk such things and maybe I do two-part show with another one on caste, idea

of caste and origin of all political order because I will tell you right now, I believe in the end, all states, all stratified societies, distinctions encased or class will never come from within. This is what most historians and archaeologists now believe, that caste or class or hierarchy is a result of internal economic specialization, modes of production specialization and things of this sort, that they develop by some kind of endogenous project. But I believe the opposite, that always is the result of external imposition and conquest when you find inequality, and by extension when you find a state structure of any kind. So that indeed, you know, diversity is our strength, but just not in the way the sloganeers of today imagine who like that phrase.

It is our strength in different ways. But it can also be our weakness, as I will describe on this show, in modern versions of pluralistic, ethno-pluralist democracy. I will be right back. I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say

But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say But I don't know what I have to say No se que no que tengo, y al pailar todos me mira Cená por oque le sacrida el rico que yo mante Pero mira como ti segua Cinturita Haballero mira como a vengo y tlaigos sabros a la Cinturita Yo fuerta Francia por hola Cinturita En la mora mi chamaca con la Cinturita Y mejor con la comida también con la Cinturita Our friend, the bureaucrat, city bureaucrat, second city bureaucrat, about a chapter from Pierre Vandenberg book, The Ethnic Phenomenon, which I will keep recommending to you. He is an ex-Marxist, Pierre Vandenberg, who switched to understanding ethnicity instead

of class as a driving force of history, or you can say of a society and ethnic relations, in particular ethnicity as a proxy for kin selection, because he understands the ethnic group as an extended kinship group, an idea that Steve Saylor has adopted. It is, in other words, a kind of Darwinian Marxism, if you can. It's another form of materialist reductionism, except I think maybe it's improvement of Marxism, because for Marx, as a final result of man's need for material goods, of man essentially as a walking stomach, which is all that Marxism or capitalism can ever understand man as, a walking stomach. But the final result of this, the way he dresses it up, is in a society that is able to meet basic animal need, and that in exchange offers the end of the pain of specialization and

of necessity. So you will not have somebody become anything anymore, they will be reduced essentially to human biomass. So think basically everyone on universal basic income where you are free to live on a reservation and to vape and you are given your locust rations by the nice Chinese man while you live in a kind of project pod. So Marx actually makes the fatal mistake, you see, of describing his end state or his earthly paradise. And when you read what it is, it's the most pointless and boring thing you can imagine. You know, it's a famous phrase from Marx. I've discussed this before, but bears repeating it. You know, you paint for part of the day, you fish the rest and this never ends. It's I'm going off the royal path here a bit.

But the entire objection to Marxism, I repeat to you, is already you can find in Schopenhauer condemnation of the leftist Hegelians who, with their ugly word, jestzeit, I'm sorry to get abstruse, but these are the leftist Hegelians who are in all purposes the same as Marx, in their vision, I mean, of the end of humanity, of what the final purpose of humanity, the earthly paradise of humanity would look like. But in talking of the spirit of the times or the spirit of history, Schopenhauer show it was just an elaborate way to elevate the stomach, to elevate brute material need to the status of an idol. So actually, neither Marxism nor capitalism has ability to elevate the type of man, only to degrade him, which is the reason many of the followers of this god are obese, like

the Fred cats, the people who I've called federally Catholics, who all use Catholicism as a cover for Marxism, McIntyre started this, but they've proliferated beyond anything now. They all look the same. You know, in fact, like Heart East, I've never mocked the ugly or fat girls. You must know this. Anyone who knows me knows I've never mocked, let's say, a fat girl or a maimed girl or a maimed anyone as anything. Or this, especially if girls or whatever make effort to improve themselves or if they at least do not broadcast or promote their obesity as an aim. But the hordes of Bio-Leninism, the detritus of the modern Marxist project that oozes out of the latrines of academia, they cannot help but do that, but to display and to promote this ugliness. But why do I make this aside here?

Because there is one scarce good, one very rare good that cannot be made plentiful and which Marxists and all communistic systems have not accounted for, no matter how much you can meet man's need for food or shelter, even animal man is driven more by sexual lust. Once these are satisfied, this becomes paramount sexual lust and that becomes much more of a concern and that will always be scarce. So their futile efforts are then to promote polymorphous perversity and various unconventional sexual practices in the hope of adulterating, you can think of, they are trying to adulterate the demand side of this, changing the demand so that there is no longer a scarcity for the satisfaction of sexual lust, and the promotion of ugliness and obesity serves this same purpose

by basically homogenizing the supply, ruining it, thereby somehow you think you get rid of this problem of scarcity, but you can't. In fact, there will always remain this sexual scarcity, which is why Aristophanes is much better understand the end state of communism than Marx did. You read Assembly of Women, and the end of any kind of materialistic communism is that you get matriarchal authoritarian society that coerces sex. It has to have it which way. It must be based on a sexual coercion in the end. And this is access to females in this case, to desirable females, the scarce good, to desirable male stores. In assembly, women of Aristophanes, they make legislation that handsome young men have to sex the old women first.

But these kinds of laws are not so far from where we are now, and it must be the end result of any communistic system. But this, take other side desirable females, the scarce good, this is what Marx missed. He missed this. What other materialist reductionist understanding of human animal all missed. And they can never account for this, no matter how much you search, is reason why someone like Pierre Vandenberg is much superior because he too is materialist but he understands like artiste understand or F Roger Devlin does from material point of view materialist point of view the desire for sexual access to females to reproduction is much stronger and once you think through what this means once you think it's true it means that even in the society of plenty if you could

establish it, you would have bands that formed to fight over this axis, ultimately. And after the sorting out process is done, after you get the sexual winners, which will happen through a war, by the way, and not through bonobo mating the way hippies hoped, but then you would have the nucleus of new kinship groups emerging. That is to say, of ethnic groups. So you know it's like this Talmudic saying which you can always turn around on people. You can cut off the left side of the log, it will still have a left side. Now you know this. You can do turning of tables on the Talmudists yourselves, this famous saying of theirs. But it's true, there is no escaping this, the ultimate reality of ethnic groups because it's consequent upon ultimate centrality of breeding practices to all human life.

It is the source of all law and all order in society. And I would say to a large extent, in the case of the average man, the personality formation is in large part a response to pressures of the search induced by sexual lust. Or in the unfortunate cases to traumas resulting from that. You see this, some people, you can tell in their voice when they had trauma in adolescence and thus. But so for Vandenberghe this is the base of political and cultural life for him, to put it crudely, instead of economic modes of production and so forth for orthodox Marxists, which in the end this realization leads to positions that are depressing by the way for Marxism because the cleavages of ethnic group, I'm talking about Pierre Vandenberghe now, because

in his vision of world the cleavages of ethnic group in society will trump economic class interest. And therefore, worker solidarity in many cases will take second place to ethnic solidarity. But that is a longer talk for another time. I will give you some examples this time. I was talking to a bureaucrat about a certain chapter in this book, Ethnic Phenomenon, which by the way, this is sociology or history books that contains very little of what I've said in this segment just now. This has mostly been just my own preamble. But the bureaucrat mentioned something that possibly bears on the recent history of America and of the near future. And this chapter on proportional democracy or multiethnic democracy, or as it's called

in sociology, in sociology is called consociational democracy, is fancy word really to describe something very simple a kind of representative democracy of where a share in government is given roughly according to ethnic proportion in the country so you can think Switzerland or Belgium or Canada which are the three main examples Bergey discusses it sound boring maybe but it's not boring I'll be right back because very much bears on future of America and condition of the left right now. I'll be right back. He chose these three examples, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, because he wants to consider consociational democracy or multi-ethnic democracy in the best possible light. Highly developed, very rich countries, peaceful first world nations, where of course he could

have chosen examples like Lebanon, which was actually praised in the 1960s as a great model for how a multi-ethnic society could work. And what happens there, as many of you may know, is ethnic civil war of immense brutality. Are you listening? Nassim Taleb. It reduced Beirut, which sometimes was called the Paris of the Middle East, and even now is called, it has recovered somewhat. It's called Nightlife Las Vegas of Middle East. I met Nassim Taleb there recently in nightclub, but it was a rubble because the different Christian sects, the Muslim sects, the Druze, not the Jews, but the Druze, you know, the Druze, they wear an apron. I may have said this before because they believe their prophet will be born of a man. And I believe actually this referred to the emissary of Aldebaran.

This is what the Druze sect believes. But through the fights of these different sects, this beautiful city of Beirut reduced to rubble and they fought each other with most bloody abandon. And that is more often the result of multi-ethnic society, democracy or not. But that is the result. And even in the best case, Berge shows how actually it makes people very unhappy. So for example, people of Belgium and Canada. In the case of Switzerland, it's not a really good example of this regime, because the central government is not very strong. So what's Switzerland? It's basically independent cantons of provinces that are mostly ethnically or at least linguistically homogenous. And the common life of the country does not take place in the political capital of Bern,

which is, you know, is mostly out of the picture. It's just the bureaucratic capital. It takes place rather in Zurich and in Geneva, around financial centers and around Geneva also which serve essentially as a resort for international organizations and diplomats. So what this means is there is essentially no intrusion on the local life of the different provinces or cantons by the central authority. So the fact that it's shared between different ethnic groups isn't really an issue, because it's not very strong, whereas in the other two cases, the way Zwandenberg describes it – and now, remember, this is multiethnic democracy at its best. It doesn't really work. I will quote him. I will quote him now. He say, the Canadian experiment seems headed for a failure, a failure which appears all

the more probable as Quebec secession is a viable alternative. Let me take a moment here to interrupt. When he wrote this, Quebec was headed on the path of independence, secession. And there were referendum very recently and they could have had a secession except for the fact that the Quebecois had a collapse in fertility rates, and so they did not have enough children since the time Berger wrote, actually starting from before that, children that reached majorities. There were fewer of them, so they could never vote to succeed. But they want to, is the point, the Quebecois want to, they just no longer have the numbers to do so. So the fact that they haven't done so is not proof that multiethnic democracy work in Canada.

It's just they are stuck with it because of mistakes they made, not having enough children. So now I continue reading from Bergen. So he finished, the Canadian experiment seems here for failure, Raabla. He continues, the Swiss experience, while relatively successful, really does not count. For Switzerland, it's but a loose confederacy of largely self-governing and monolingual cantons. As for Belgium, it limps along as a bi-national state, not so much because the experiment is successful, but because the alternatives are worse. An ethnic split would leave Brussels, and by implication, much of the Belgian economic, political, intellectual, and cultural elite, both Flemish and Walloon, stranded. For Belgium, consociationalism, multi-ethnic solution I'm talking about, is a solution

of less resort. For Switzerland, it is a convenience. For Canada, it seems a failure." End quote. By the way, their famous joke, as he called Belgium, are bi-national states, their famous joke. So you have Flemish and Walloons. The Walloons are the French speaker, same as, by the way, root word as the Welsh. It's just the Germanic word for foreigner. But so you have the Volunes and the Flemings, they meet in a city square, they hate each other. They're about ready to get into ethnic riot, fistfight, pogrom, they're about to pogrom each other. Okay. This is joke. Okay. So they're at a standoff. It's about to happen. And the prince of the city, he come, he say, okay, please, Belgians get, I mess up the joke now, I mess up the joke. The prince does not say Belgians.

He say, okay, so the Flemings, you get on this side, Voluns, you get on this side, we will talk it out. And there is a group of Jews there. And the Jews say, and us Belgians, where should we go? So that is amusing joke, amusing joke about Belgium binational state. So now I continue to read one more thing from Bergen about why he chose these three states. He say, the card were deliberately stacked in favor of consociationalism by picking three three prosperous, peaceful countries with a long-standing reputation for being a democratic and libertarian. A random sample of countries that attempted some kind of this system would have yielded such ghastly failures as Lebanon, Nigeria, Zaire, and Pakistan, Bangladesh.

Of the third world countries that attempted to institutionalize a democratic multinational Only India has been relatively successful, miraculously so, considering its economic and social circumstances. Among socialist countries, the Soviet Union claims success, but hardly qualifies as a democratic state. Anyway, I don't want to keep reading from him for now, but what was very interesting about this chapter is the way Berger describes this kind of state where proportional representation is given to different ethnic groups in central government. government, what is it actually in the end? It's essentially, it's an immobile or conservative, very pro-elite arrangement. It sounds nice to say ethnic pluralism, but actually it only serves benefit of the elites,

and that doesn't mean the aristocracy, it means the self-appointed elites. It's a way very much to end, or in any case, very much suppress class conflict, to end demands for equity from labor by making the chief political platform of national life be one centered on whether fair representation is given to each ethnic group. Which means in practice you have elite or chosen representatives of whatever groups are given public position and recognition. Does this begin to sound familiar? Because it should. And I will say more on next segment, but now I should remind you why I am against a certain kind of white nationalism, because actually I would be very much for the supremacy of the Anglo-American nation or for them having a state of their own.

They should have never let in immigrants from other parts, even of Europe in my opinion. But I am against a certain kind of white nationalism that reduces white people to yet another ethnic faction vying for Gibbs from a centralized authority. It would leave the central extractive criminal regime in place, in other words, and instead would just elevate certain hucksters. For example, think Richard Spencer would become like Al Sharpton. I'm just picking on him. Maybe he's a nice guy. I don't know. But people like Spencer or others, it would raise them to level of Jesse Jackson, of white Al Sharpton. normie conservative criticism of this arrangement for blacks or any other minority, I think by the way is true. You have to give credit to the normie conservative who by the way

in this case are in almost total agreement with the orthodox Marxist criticism that it's a way to keep the black masses or Hispanics or in the case of feminism women, it's a way to keep them hypnotized and enthralled to the central state or to state capitalism or or to keep them on the plantation, you know this saying. Because what you do is you elevate key chosen figures and thereby appear to be giving recognition to the whole group, while actually the interests of the rank-and-file black or Hispanic, or in the case of white people if this was accepted, the rank-and-file white person, is this argument. And you have to judge whether it's true. But the common interests of the poor or of the working class or so forth, in reality, They cut across ethnic or racial lines.

But by giving recognition to Hillary Clinton, it allows you to pretend that actually you in some way helped some random working class woman, when in fact her lot has not changed. You see, so what I'm telling you, yours would be some outright figures who want to style themselves a white rights activist. If they got elevated to positions of prominence, that would not necessarily help average white. In system of what I'm talking now, proportional representation by ethnic group, it's only the central state and the elites who participate in it, who benefit. And it's not an elite worthy of the name, by the way, but it's fundamentally in other words a conservative system, in the bad sense, to freeze things into place and to end politicization

Class by means of the politicization of ethnicity instead So this why you have some minor awakening to this fact now on the part of the so-called Dirtbag left or the anti-woke left because it affects them the most why are they so interested in us? They're very interested somewhat in my book, but especially in accounts like city a bureaucrat who they thought they thought he was great, they wanted engagement with him, Glenn Greenwald followed him, Mike Tracy, they all love him. And other friends that we have, like Eco Otis, you know them, and a few others who are trailblazers in this straddling of left and right, like Menequinone 4 especially, but he disappeared for a while, I hope he come back. But the left, this kind of dirtbag so-called left, they understand the view on the orthodox

Marxist left like Amy Therese and Anna Kachir and a few others, they start to realize that what gets called idpol, identity politic, or all the woke things in this, this is how Occupy Wall Street was destroyed and is fundamentally tool of capital to destroy formation of any class consciousness or any awakening to the gang of vampire that runs America now. This is obvious, it's from internal Amazon documents, everyone has, you've seen this I'm sure, how they believe that identity politics is a good way to stop unionization. And I will read a bit from Berge again on next segment to show you how relevant this book is to all these things happening now and how well this ex-Marxist, Pierre van den Berge, how he was able to describe precisely these things when the book was written some

time ago, I think in early 1980s, but describe problem of our time very well. And as to whether the left can essentially be anything other than what it is now, whether it can abandon the woke garbage and the ethnic identity politic and the tranny thing and other such things, I very much doubt, I very much doubt they can return to some kind of populist Marxist or post-Marxist thing very soon. I think instead that people like Mike Tracy and Amy Therese and Anna Kay, they will all become devotees of the thought of the bureaucrat, of Menaquinon, and they will worship my book also as a totem. They must abandon the left entirely. It's not salvageable. In fact, here is a claim I make that will upset many of you edge lords.

It is Q. It is the Q movement that has the most immediate and true grasp of political necessity. And I mean of all political movements now, it is only Q that has been successful at mass mobilization and awakening people to a truly political mindset, which is to oppose the few hundred hyenas and vampires at the top of modern pyramid. And I will say more on this next segment. Vanden Berge on ethnic pluralist democracy. Let me say something on politic matter, on Q and such. Many reject Q for very bad reasons, for irrelevant things. And I myself, until very recent, I dislike Q because I thought it was a way for people to fool themselves into inaction. And I'm sure many of you still believe this and the whole thing about, for example, stealth

sessions and that things were secretly being done behind the scenes when they were not and that Trump was secretly taking apart the deep state or preparing to and that therefore people should trust the plan and to do nothing. And this is all true. I dislike this because I look at France in 2013 and I look at 2010 Tea Party and unlike many of you, I see boomers in those two cases, France 2013, America 2010, boomers are strongest political force when they can be mobilized. So I was always upset at you because I thought the only weapon Trump had for leverage is to bring the people out into the streets, to put pressure on the Republicans and on Paul Ryan and his donors to not let some filthy constipated judge abrogate absurd powers to

the judiciary, like for example, not letting him put immigration orders in place that were clearly within presidential powers and so forth. I was thinking what if what going now with left I wanted something like this on the right to give Trump leverage to enact populist reforms of power to break the monopolies and this maybe not always as a violence of the left now but maybe making a Federal Reserve uncomfortable maybe even truckers saying you know maybe we shut down your cities and this kind of thing. Trumpist unions, this was my dream. Minors coming in from West Virginia to teach Washington DC a lesson. This one of my dreams. And I thought Q stood in the way of this and maybe it did. But what I'm saying is, okay, the seeming inaction that belief in Q seems

to promote, I'm aware of this. And at the same time, I dislike their overt political ideology, many of their messaging, the normie conservatism, the Multiracialism and this, but I think both of those things are irrelevant and I've come to this view The only thing that matters is that by now Q has actually successfully mobilized the boomers It's organized them in a way that you haven't been organized. You are unaware of this. You don't know how organized they are You know complaining about Trump on Twitter about how he's not doing enough and this that's not political action Many of you complainers, you have no plan. By contrast, the Q people are organized. They have networks, and they're amped up. There is the thing, when the time comes, they will fight. I am sure of it.

There is no way around it. Now Flynn, General Flynn endorsed them. If you haven't seen this, go to his account. General Flynn has a video up. He say Q phrases, supporting Q. And when time comes, all it takes is a word from Flynn or somebody equivalent and They're organized to take enormous action and maybe it's true that it seemed to lull many to inaction earlier But maybe maybe it was too soon for them Maybe not yet crisis enough situation for the boomer to get energized to that level Maybe took these years of exposure to legends of Q for them to get flaming mad But they are mad now and I'm telling you they will only accept a Trump win this fall a resounding Trump win They will not accept anything else make of that what you will but be careful

They will not accept anything but a Trump win is the truth There is no way that people who've been awakened to vampiric nature of occupational class And who believe for example that Hillary eat babies with Huma Abedin and this that they're just going to go home and keep posting and hoping for a secret plan. It's actually, I don't know how they did it yet, whoever did this, because I have not studied in detail, but it appears to be amazing psychological achievement, the mobilization of a huge, vital portion of American Boomer class to a pitch of dedication that, you know, when you see this, you will overcome your doubts if you look into what they are now. Although it is imperfect garb, it comes in imperfect clothing, in ugly clothing that maybe you disagree with.

The legends, the mythologies, the political ideologies, trust the plan. It sounds hokey. Think of that what you will. But once you strip that away, the core, you see the pill they've been given under that sugar of mythology and legend. What's at core of that is very powerful, because they've been inducted to actual political thinking and political actions, they know it is a few hundred names of the occupational class that is the problem. Some things that are very simple that seems to elude both Dirtbag Left and the many sectors of the edgy Hipster Right, you know, many of the Wignats, let's say, not the ones who are feds, but the ones who are genuine, they miss that. And the Q people do not miss that, as they know this more than the left does, more than

Antifa who are actually the tool of the oligarch starts they know this more as a void Nationalists and again more as a new doomers and pessimists and it's amazing thing to see how fundamentally an Apolitical people because the Americans are trained from youth never to think in friend enemy political terms but how the unpolitical Unhistorical boomers have been awakened to an entirely political orientation in this way That's very precise and possibly very effective is amazing to see through this cue thing I suppose we will see maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's too optimistic about them, but I don't think so I think path forward from here on is very hard might come the hard time might come sooner than you think but I know this that Trump will not be permitted to lose and

The oligarchy will not be permitted to steal this election now one more related politicking matter I put election map 2020 2020 prediction up I put this in tweet and it got many people very mad It was very nice to see it did the viral the tweet did the viral I think I don't know what it's at now 600 retweets and 2,000 likes in less than a day I did not expect this why why so much attention to that tweet because the map itself I put up About my expected Trump win, which is I think I think 340 something electoral votes, but it's not that different from the 2016 map. And many who complain about my prediction of a Trump win, they seem misinformed. You must educate yourself. By the way, I love this phrase. If you want to get on somebody's nerves, you say, I like to use this. Educate yourself.

For example, many find it incredible that I predict Trump win in New Hampshire. I guess because they see it in the Northeast, so they assume it must be deep blue state. But Trump was only within a few votes of winning New Hampshire in 2016. He certainly actually won it if it was not for voter fraud. And the same for Minnesota. It was, I think, very few, I think under a thousand vote that Hillary win in New Hampshire. And Minnesota only a few thousand vote margin for Hillary and Nevada too. So my map is not so incredible. It's based on the realizations that Biden is actually weaker candidate than Hillary. Again excuse this excursion brief into punditry, but is election approaching on everybody's mind. But Biden much weaker than Hillary. Hillary actually had a dedicated base of support.

She had the first woman thing going, whereas Biden cannot break a hundred viewer on live stream. He has always done very badly in national elections, and it's based on many other reasons, you know. For example, many of you don't realize many Normies conservatards, they stood out the 2016 election or even voted for Hillary because they were sure that Trump would start a nuclear war. This was a very common view, even in Europe, and they will not sit out this one. They will vote Trump. Many Normies I hear about are completely frightened by what the left is doing now. Yes, they will vote Trump. So Trump has considerable advantages for 2020, incumbent advantage that he did not in 2016, while Biden has no advantage over Clinton. You do not win with a May candidate, NEH.

You don't win with a lukewarm so-so candidate. You don't win if you rely on the idea that people will vote against this thinking, oh, they want to come out to vote against Trump. Well, maybe hatred for Trump is unprecedented among the base of the left, but not among independent and normie centrists. And this same idea, it failed for Republicans with Obama and Clinton, the first Clinton, I mean. Both of them were very hated, not to level Trump derangement and so forth. But they were very hated by Republicans. And yet the challengers, Romney and Dole, did very poor, despite fact, Republican base were very angry at those two. And Romney, I think, was stronger candidate than Biden, but he did very poorly. It's never enough to say, oh, people want to vote against.

You know, I despise the bongo. I hated him. But I could not get myself to go vote for Romney. I didn't vote for McCain either. You do not vote, you do not win with so-so candidates. Biden has no hope, okay? The only reason you cucks think he will win is because of the polls. But the polls were so wrong in 2016, and now you believe it. Why is this? By the way, people who say, oh, they weren't wrong, national result, very close. The national result doesn't matter the fact that they turned up people in California to win. Polls last time were off massively on state by state level, sometime by 12 points. Okay, so Trump won Ohio by 10 points. With this Ohio, very rare, it was considered a prize for Republican to win. Of course, Trump not Republican, but I remember election,

it was considered such a thing, oh, you won Ohio. But no, Trump won it 10 points, similar for Iowa and so forth. The polls were completely off in 2016, and all the measures are now off. You have to understand, every measure you see, economic measure, coronavirus measure, is fake. I hear from normies in various industries, various corporate environment, they write me, they tell me, bap, I work in economic or I work in finances, nothing to do with politics. My own coworkers are not letting me put out figures Completely objective figures having to do with economic output or production or whatever GDP They are not letting me put out figures because they think it might help Trump in the re-election Everything in normie polite society now is mobilized to bring down Trump

You cannot trust the polls Okay All the institutions of America societies that have to do with corporations with the left with the media All of them are arrayed against Trump. You cannot trust the polls. And aside from the polls, what else do you have? The idea that there is chaos in the country, so you think Trump will lose. But that makes no sense. That can work either way. That can work to his advantage. I don't see an advantage for Biden in that, especially Biden took very wrong position, for example, on coronavirus. He wanted continued immigration from China or travel from China. And Trump can just replay those clit of Biden saying that. So I don't understand why people, many of your concern are product of media agitation

and the swing demographics that count, which get no representation in mass media. For sure, you do not have access to their opinions and they have minimal representation even in social media. Many of you do not go to MAGA, Twitter or other many, many working white working class people don't go on social media, but the white working class has been swing vote in election last few elections and they experienced record wage growth under Trump and return of manufacturing, which again, I repeat, no one thought Trump could bring back manufacturing or the factories and that he's brought back even a few of them and he's brought back more than a few. It's an amazing thing for every white working class guy who get good job. There are many more around him who hear about it.

So no, I could go on with this, but it's not a punditry show, it's not a politicking show, but Biden has no advantage compared to Hillary with blacks or Beiners like Obongo did, for example. And in fact, the Mexican race, the Aztec race, are mobilized with much anger right now against the Floyds. You don't see that. here. I hear from many soldiers and veterans who live in Bienaar environment. The Bienaar do not approve what's going on now at all. If you think Mexican guy, Colorado, New Mexico will come out to vote, Gamela Harris and Biden who has to de facto support Floyd DNC riot, you're crazy. I have many other reasons, you see, but I've learned reasons actually are are boring and reasons are in bad taste.

So let me just end a political segment telling you I have the best antennae of anyone you know for political matters, any cult. I never make precise predictions, I don't do that, I'm not wonk with Nate Silver making math predictions. There is no way to know if the map I put up will be correct in this many months ahead Although I will place bets in the public markets on that or similar map. No way to know actually even if Trump win, it is in hands of the gods and you must remain in awe of the gods. You cannot go around saying, oh, the number is this, the gods always punish that. It's disgusting to me how Hillary and her Katamite, they pop champagne and probably use poppers on airplane in 2016 on election date. They were sure they would win.

But I was up late never being sure of Trump win but instead focusing psychic energy I never take anything for granted but I did throughout that year predict Trump win and I have good record of sensing what will happen in places I've lived. I am disappointed that many of you are weak-minded enough to get steamrolled by media demoralization campaigns and above all if you are let's say poster frog or so forth you should resolve not to be the plaything of the neo-cons. If you are a supporter of nationalism in any form and you might become, let's say, discouraged a little bit by Trump or any other nationalist around the world, Orban, Bolsonaro, you should nevertheless never despair about them because if you do so, let's say you have a public

platform of whatever, medium, small size, but when you in that position message against Trump or Bolsonaro, you become the placing of the neo-cons, you become the placing of never Trump, of Rick Wilson, and of similar smear machines they run. Let things be where they may, I continue, support Trump because I don't like to be manipulated by such people as I know they are interfering, you can say, or colluding online and elsewhere, you see. So I must set it in your mind that Trump will win, that he must, and actually that there is no alternative and that along with the legions of Q, you will accept no other result. No other result will be accepted. Do you hear me? Derp state. The awakened American people mobilized by Q will accept a resounding Trump win only. Deal with it. Deal with it.

Deal with my erection. I will be right back. It is dawn here. I will go outside in yard and I will jerk off, excuse me, and be right back. This concept, consociation of democracy, a kind government apportioned according to ethnic groups is always easy to make confusions historically because similar arrangements have always existed merely in non-democratic political system. Most famous maybe is the millet system of Ottoman Empire. It's called millet system. There were different millets, in other words, well, to put it, there was one dominant group and religion, the Ottoman Muslim Turks, but minorities had group recognition and group autonomy. So, for example, Christians who were part of a Christian millet would be subject to Christian law, Jews were subject to Jewish law, and so forth.

And this kind of imperial tolerance and clemency existed in roughly similar form in many other place historically. Ancient Persia Empire had regional governor or satraps, but local nations had much freedom to follow own customs and the religions, much same true for Roman Empire. Only Roman Empire had added possibility of assimilation. So for example, the people of southern Spain became loyal minority to Rome and Romanized and others too. So ethnic and religious pluralism, syncretism like in Rome, many such things are compatible with imperial rule and many other kind of pre-modern rule. Often this was condition of Jewish community in various European states. For example, in Dutch Republic, it was the responsibility of the Jewish authorities to take care of their own crazies.

So if somebody stepped out of line, they had to excommunicate them. Of course, they did this to good people like Spinoza, but it was a similar method. You give local authority, autonomy, to various communities that then act like a corporate body within empire. But in any case, it sounds like the same, but it's very different from in modern states, modern democracies. ethnic pluralism is not quite like this because it's not one group dominating the other. And so it's much more difficult and also they do not live under a different legal system like in millet system. And like I say, it works only in very few cases and basically no truly successful ones. It's a system that exists not only in Western democracies or what Pierre van den Berge calls bourgeois democracies.

It also exists in so-called people's democracy. So for example, both Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, they both had this system, very much like a consociational democracy, where different ethnic groups are given recognition. There was an equality between them of sorts and in proportional representation in central government. But Berg's words on this are very relevant to our time. Many things we care about. So let me read a bit from his book again, I'm quoting him now, you know. A Consonational Democracy exists when the class interests of the ruling elite in preserving a unitary, multi-ethnic state prevail over countervailing interests to break the state down into ethnic components. The Consonational Democracy is thus a special case of bourgeois democracy, it's a special

case of this, of a state run by a capitalist, technocratic, bureaucratic elite through supposedly representative institutions, elected officials and other paraphernalia of parliamentarism. In a plural society, however, where primordial attachments to ethnic collectivities compete with class affiliation, the illusion of democracy can only be maintained if the elite itself is multiethnic and in proportions approximating those of the constituent ethnies in the general population. If that condition is not met, then the political system is perceived by the underrepresented groups as undemocratic. Does this sound familiar now? Because dominated by the overrepresented group or groups. Proportionality at the elite level is thus a key feature of consociational democracies,

For it is through proportionality that the multi-ethnic elite preserves the democratic fiction of representativeness, and thus its own legitimacy. If one accepts the principle of ethnic representation, then the ethnicity of a member of the ruling class contains the validation of the right to rule. An essential corollary of the ethnic proportionality in such systems is the muting of class conflicts. To the extent that ethnic sentiments are politicized, class consciousness is lowered. If the main line of cleavage in a society is ethnicity or some feature of it, like religion or language, if the political game is seen primarily as an ethnic balancing act in the allocation of scarce resources, and if there are no glaring disparities in ethnic representation

at various class levels, it follows that the significance of class cleavages within each ethnic is correspondingly decreased under such circumstances the class interests of the multi-ethnic elite are best served by a system this system of government okay so the more politicized ethnicity becomes and the more ethnicized the polity the more attention is deflected from class conflicts and redirected or redefined in ethnic terms therefore the less blatant the pursuit of class interest by the elite becomes this should all sound very familiar to I will comment on it in a second, but listen to how Vandenberghe continues the model of Consociationalism however is not incompatible with the people's democracy in several socialist countries

most notably Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union have evolved toward a Consociational type of polity which means polities Officially and legally recognizing ethnicity as a basis of political organization representation, incorporation into a multinational state ruled by a multi-ethnic, bureaucratic and technocratic elite. Where some nationalities were initially greatly overrepresented, as were European and especially Russian groups in the Soviet Union, attempts were made as the communist bureaucracy became firmly entrenched to co-opt underrepresented minorities into leading positions. This had the double effect of creating a communist party elite that transcends ethnic boundaries and perpetuates its own class interests, creating the illusion of a representative democracy.

Consonational mechanisms of elite accommodation are in fact remarkably similar in peoples and bourgeois democracies, and they achieve in both cases an impressive degree of immobilism. In other words, they keep society in a frozen state. Consonationalism serves the elites quite well in both cases. To recapitulate argument, consonationalism is a special form of elite domination based on ethnic proportionality. It can work if it is based on ethnicity or some special feature of it like language or religion but not if it is based on race. Race is intrinsically invidious and therefore cannot become principle of egalitarian group association. Consociationalism seems to work equally well and remarkably similarly in both capitalist and socialist societies.

The consequences in both cases seem to be conservative because it reduces class consciousness by politicizing ethnicity. In other words, it serves only the interests of the government or state class and their hangers-on. my comment, but should sound very familiar, I think, and it's very possible that America, or what Berger called bourgeois democracy after World War II, that it attempted as part of a goal of a new occupational class. If you want to look into this, you read another author, his name James Burnham. He wrote a famous book, Managerial Revolution. Probably if one of you knows Marxism, even the title alone, even if you have not read this book, it can tell you what it means that as states grow complexity, they require administrative

class to deal with the logistics of large complicated modern states and this bureaucratic class eventually aggregates political power to itself. I'm greatly simplifying Burnham argument, which was by the way updated by Sam Francis. It formed a major part of attack on modern elites, modern states, this James Burnham, Sam Francis dualities at core of so-called paleoconservatism, and was recently updated by somebody who used to be a Trumpist or pretended to be, his name, Julius Krein. And he wrote also on managerial revolution and the managerial elites as a way to understand the modern American state that populism and Trump and nationalism opposes. But you know, Julius Krein is a big pussy. I don't know if he listened to Shaw, but maybe somebody he knows listened.

And he is a spineless coward and will always be remembered as such. Well, there's always time to redeem yourself, Krein, stop being a coward. But in any case, you can read James Burnham for part of this story of what I'm telling you now what Berger calls bourgeois democracy, although it is not the whole story, but story of how a technocratic bureaucratic elite in alliance with certain portions of the mega-capitalists, how they captured the American state. But how this new occupational class, this my commentary, now I'm not quoting anyone or anyone's opinions, but how this kind of bureaucratic elite in alliance with certain oligarchs, not even all great capitalists, but certain portions of them, they captured

American state after World War two at some point and they perhaps they said oh, well, we're in charge now Let's it's a good deal Why don't we freeze as a political process in place and consolidate power and how you do is you turn America into a kind of? Consociational democracy or ethnically pluralistic democracy so-called like I've just been describing so far which as you can see at bottom is nothing more than the cynical cover for elite imperial control over a state. Now to achieve such a thing which is inherently unstable anyway even when it work it's unstable for example Lebanon can become that way because once you politicize ethnicity you open gate to ethnic entrepreneurs ethnic nationalists to mobilize people on that line to

promote separatism or similar projects but it was a complete failure in Lebanon other parts of third world for just this reason but to achieve even that you need special conditions that in fact America did not have and Berge lists these conditions what do you have to do excuse me to achieve ethnic pluralist so-called democracy you need three things you need a certain interpenetration of the ethnies to begin with, especially in the capital city centers, territorial interpenetration of the different ethnic groups, genetic interpenetration, marriages in common and so forth, and functional interpenetrations. The other two are self-explanatory, but this last meaning, functional interpenetration, it means you don't, for example, have one ethnic group with monopoly on certain

economic functions or ethnic guilds or this kind of thing. And I think much of what you've seen in America history since 1950s are attempts by the occupational class including especially the WASP elite. This explains almost all WASP academic sociologies 1950s, 60s and so forth by the way. But the bureaucrats, city bureaucrats talks about these attempts by the WASP elite and by people like Robert Bellah, that's B-E-L-L-A-H. It attempts to craft a kind of new American civil religion that would justify and speed up this process I'm talking about. But yes, attempt to achieve these three conditions of social interpenetration to set ground for a kind of ethnic pluralist democracy of the cynical type just described now to freeze elite control over the American society and state.

for example, would have been a tool for this, in the hope they thought maybe that parts of the black people can be raised to elite status, they can be accepted in proportion into the new ruling class, and that therefore the black people at large, who have been, by the way, in a condition of stasis or revolt for hundreds of years in America, any classical thinker who look at black people right now or at any point in American history, they've in condition of perpetual, what get called Ancient Greece, stasis, revolt, civil war against the American state and American people. But perhaps ruling class thought black people would be assuaged by the participation of their representatives in this pluralistic system, their chosen elite representatives. And same for other minorities.

But of course, it didn't pick up, it did not work that way. inherent instability of ethnic pluralism, which again Berger give examples in third world of how it easily break apart, it's unstable, but it made that much worse in American case because while you can have a kind of ethnic pluralistic democracy, you cannot have racial pluralism. It's not that you cannot have different races living in relative harmony within the nation, But once race is politicized, cat flow out the window, it's over. This was America big mistake, inevitable, but big mistake, and compounded after World War II by these wasp Jew eggheads who really now, there's no coming back from what they did with politicizing race. As Bert just describes it, easy to understand, I read from his book again, in countries,

I'm paraphrasing now. In countries where races live in relative harmony side by side, I'm reading from his book now, no political recognition was given to race. Racial groups have not become organized as political constituencies and where the state has legally and officially been non-racial, not multiracial. I'm continuing reading from Bergen now. In the previous chapter, I analyzed the misguided effort in the United States to try to institutionalize a consociational model of racial representation by giving increasing official and legal recognition to racial categories, thereby encouraging racial groups to become increasingly self-conscious and organized for political action. The basic reason why racial consociationalism cannot succeed in creating a more egalitarian

society is that race as a social category is always invidious, and that, therefore, any policies based on recognition of race inevitably have stigmatizing consequences. This is doubly the case in situations such as the United States, where objective ethnic differences between racial groups are minimal. In the nearly complete absence of ethnic markers between groups, racial markers become almost purely invidious. The only purpose for retaining racial markers is to be discriminatory. Even reverse discrimination cannot be anything but a demeaning form of paternalism since it implies inferiority. Ethnic distinctions can be made invidious, of course, but they are not necessarily so. There is nothing invidious, for instance, in an Italian-speaking Swiss child attending

an Italian language school or a Franco-Canadian child a French medium school. But there is something intrinsically invidious in an Afro-American child attending a black school or for that matter, in his being accepted on special terms in a white school. Ethnicity can, in special circumstances, be a viable basis for conscion- I cannot pronounce these stupid sociology, social science words, but he's saying ethnicity can, in special circumstances, be a viable basis for this kind of plural estate, but race cannot be. Race is necessarily stigmatizing, not so with ethnicity." And so now you see results that actually with racialized politics, American technocratic egghead elites have never been able to co-opt minorities, they've only embittered everyone

on all sides, they've allowed for actually ever more intense and radical claims of race privilege and political action based on race, leading to confusions and chaos of the present time, from which there's no really coming back what's going on now, there's no coming back from this. But I ensure, if not positive note, at least pointing to different alternatives by saying that even if it had worked, if there had been, let's say, a Belgium-like solution of power sharing between ethnic groups and not racial groups in America, that is still an unhappy solution even in the best case. Berge goes into it a little bit, how actually despite great prosperity of that part of Europe, for many centuries that northwest part where Belgium is phenomenally wealthy, one of the

wealthiest areas in the world, North Italy, another one by the way, since antiquity, one of the richest parts of the entire world. But despite this, despite the great wealth of Brussels as a city, the Belgians were actually very unhappy in daily life with their situation, even in his time, something that's now been made surely worse by increased mass migration from third world. And this is because fundamentally what you have in ethnic pluralist democracy is fancy word for makeshift solution to terrible problems. It's a kind of degenerate regime, a third or fourth best option for people who find themselves in difficult geographic or historical circumstance, and they must make do with some solution. But it cannot become setting of higher life. This what I mean.

The Longhouse, what I discuss in book, this kind of turgid regime, this come in many form. The elite so-called of such societies are necessarily degenerate elites. engaged at most in a kind of balancing act with foreigners of Different feelings different outlook in history and the state therefore devolves Necessarily only to what unites them which is always something low Economic interest usually or merely holding on to power share of power pie But this can never be foundation of great achievements or of a magnificent national culture never and by the way there is also a kind of immediate biological effect I can tell you immediate effect on life of youth who grow up with people so different racially or ethnically from him it

introduces a kind of stress a kind of stress that doesn't lead to good development of a mind to high mindedness that always comes from homogeneous states. For the same reason you can think analogy when Nietzsche say the best literature come from nations that only spoke of one language. He give example of ancient Greek and French literature, highest literature because this allow for great concentration of feeling, great concentration of memory and will and all great things are only ever achieved with focus and concentration of will. If you want magnificent high-mind national culture, you need a kind of, yes, ethno-state, whereas with many languages in your head, such nations do not achieve as much in literature, for example.

This is why I look forward to resurrecting ancient Greek languages as a living language. As a new stronghold, cities are formed in the tropics as the Leviathan power fails. My myriad grandchildren will speak Greek once again, and the language and tones of Hyperborea once again, the strong words of Homer, will resound on the watery waves. BAP OUT!