Okay, cut the music. Emergency, emergency announcement. What? Extreme court fixture Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, on last Friday night, executed for treason against United States and for engaging in acts of cannibalism. But in all seriousness, the adrenochrome ran out. You know adrenochrome, you look up. They ran out of, in other words, refugee Mayan and Filipino children to harvest adrenochrome from brains and to keep that old hag alive, explaining how she survived pancreatic cancer for this long. No jinx, I don't even like to say the name, but nobody survives that and they die very fast generally. Steve Jobs died from this and they were coming up with stories that Ruth Bader Ginsburg survived pillow over his head, and then the story changed.

His son did not want an autopsy, which is very strange, it's bizarre, it's very bizarre to begin with, because all people in any position of political importance, especially controversy, an autopsy is very common. They did an autopsy on General William Odom when he died in 2008, I think, and I will talk of him a little on this show. He was a very vigorous man of age 70 at that time, who would have been just an incredible thorn in the side of the warmongers and the gangsters of the derp state for the next eight years. And I believe he was murdered. His family had autopsy done. It's just what is done is in this circumstance. And you know, if I still used my troll leftist accounts now, I would be spreading rumors

that Trump killed Ginsburg, that he had her offed in a mob style with technique he learned Harriet Meyers was, for example, just a family lawyer of Bush family to be on the Supreme Court. And he had to withdraw her because even a Republican establishment and the Federalist society people and all of this, they were very mad over her lack of credentials and all of this and her supposed lack of experience. But in fact, in American history, that would have been a normal pick, just some family a retainer, some family lawyer that you choose out of loyalty, somebody of no special intellect or gravitas, you know, because judges are not supposed to be this important, okay? In American system, the three branches are maybe in theory supposed to share sovereignty equally.

But in fact, Supreme Court historically was intended to be the far lesser of the three branches and never to determine the path of the nation. And yet now Congress abdicates power, the executive is reduced to a figurehead, and all decisions come from bureaucracies, including local bureaucracy, and from the judiciary, and this is a very degenerate form of government. Look, if you want to have a rule by judges, which is a very Semitic tradition, it's not European, it's not Aryan, it's not Roman, but it's very old Semitic tradition deeply embedded into the blood of the Semitic peoples to be ruled by tribal elders who act as judges. There is, I believe, even part of the Bible calls this, the biblical word is Shafet, but to the extent that even… Okay, so you know what that was?

You know what that was? Is my neighbor from downstairs, an old hag, a ringed door, to complain about, she say I talk too loud, if you can believe this. So now I have to record the show for you, speak more softly. But this is what I must deal with, the apartment cucked, as I keep telling you. But so where was I? I was telling you that the idea of being ruled by judges is a very old Semitic tradition, is a part of Semitic blood of the Semitic peoples to the extent that even pagan Semites, Like the Phoenicians, before the Hebrews, they had a rule by judges, and it's the same name actually as in the Bible, as a sopet to the biblical Shofet. They speak the same language, in fact, Phoenician almost identical to Hebrew.

But if you want that kind of political system, then just say so, and then you can train your elites accordingly. It just makes me so mad this old hag dares to ring at my door, and it is late at night here it is true. But these people, like I tell you, they hammer randomly all day, and when I try to record polite conversation for you, they come to, they dare to come at my door. And I don't know what I can do, I'll have to move now. I will have to move. I'm hunted. When I tell you about their roles, detrimental robots, please search Richard Sharpe, Shaver, and wherever I go. But to be honest, in one year of recording the show, this has never happened. So let's see if she does it again. She might do it again. It might become a big scandal.

You watch the movie The Tenant by Polanski. I told you about it before, show number five, I think. He is oppressed by people in apartment buildings. It's very common. They're all Satanists. Every person in this is Satanist. But in any case, look, it's a matter of responsibility of your political elites. If you want to have a kritarchy ruled by judges, ruled by elder judges, then you should have your people raised in a genuinely legalistic culture of people who worship law books and worship actually the judges and are raised from a young age in deep study. So you might say, why not just be ruled by Sanhedrin of Talmudists, just be ruled by Phoenician judges? But what sense, if you do not do that, what sense does it make to outsource your national

decisions to a group of nine people who are chosen by haphazard political fight in Congress, by back deals, who might not have any special natural endowments or experiences, who have greater qualification than to have taken some college courses on law and economics. I'm sorry if I repeat myself from before, but this supposedly confers on them the ability to decide public good. These are legal terms, they say the judges have power to decide public good. But if you want a dictatorship of nine people, just entrust it to such a junta or to one man who then has to hold power in transparent way, who is held responsible. People know where the decision comes from. And there is no transparency in American political system, as I keep saying.

But look, I can't talk on this show about Wong Curry and the gaming of who is to be the next justice. This woman, Amy Barrett, that they claim to pick seems to be a terrible choice, just a corporatist authoritarian, as Barnes call her, look up Robert Barnes on Twitter, he very good account. But this woman is just a terrible GOP establishment status. And in my opinion, immigration is touchstone topic and she has a very unclear record on that. Her family very strange, but I have no idea who they will pick. All I hear is Trump is set on making a choice now, they will go ahead with it, but I do fear what will happen if they try and then fail in nomination before election. You can make up all kind of convoluted reasons why it might motivate Republicans to come

out, but it's very demoralizing to try and fail, so I would rather then that they nominate Cruz, because you know he will not be wobbly. So just choose Cruz by wobbly, I mean he will not switch to left, I am quite sure. He will be a reliable vote for our side. And then you promise the people, the suburban soccer moms, that when Breyer or whoever the other senile robot on the court is, you say in the second term you'll put a soccer mom like them in there, but right now I think stakes too high to go with choices they floated. And the pantsuit Latinx apparatchik they have in mind, I forget her name, but some woman I think from Florida, Latinx apparatchik. And then this Catholic girl, Amy Barrett, who adopted Haitian kids.

Didn't Jesus, by the way, say something about fairy season in this regard, this kind of public display of virtue in loving the Africans so much? This is a question for so-called trad cats, isn't this phariseism, the traditional so-called Catholics with their bizarre fetish for Africa? Although I think actually phariseism is too innocent an explanation for that phenomenon, but I'm afraid something worse motivates, let's say, Vermula or Dostat's love of Africa. Let's not get into that, it's for another time, this family show, but I would choose cruise the Cuban missile and so what if Trump said he would choose a woman this doesn't matter he changes mind very often people expect Trump to change mind and there is even opportunity then for them to make a trap joke they say

tranny a joke Babylon be breaking from a Babylon be ninth The 10th Jerked Court of Appeals overturns Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. Okay, I've heard this. You might ask, why not? But, I'm asking you something serious. Yes, it's a joke, but why not in the future? If the state can declare two men married, or if it can say that a man is legally a woman, why not just declare Ruth Bader Ginsburg trans-alive? You can say she's a trans alive and then get some clerk of hers with a cock on the breath and just push him to the front and he's a trans Ginsberg. So you know, then that's a legal switcheroo, why not? And just have him or it or whatever you want make rulings in her stead. I mean, isn't this the end of the trans project?

The world reduced to information, matter and nature expunged from consciousness and reality And this information is then controlled by legalistic casualty, decided by committees of people who took law and economics and race courses. Why not? Okay. But yeah, just say Cruz is a woman now and then he can switch back after he gets chosen. But this, of course, is a degenerate version or parody, you might say, of something very real, which is this idea of a rule by judges is deeply alien, actually, to the West. It's it's really a subject not studied enough very much confused by conservative and neo-con intelligentsia Which they have tried to conflate this idea of Western rule of law, which is very Western very real and very ancient

Completely ancient principle as they confuse this with Semitic rule by judges But the two are very different in ancient Greece as a law as a nomos as they call it was supreme But the Greeks were not ruled by judges who word-chopped, who interpreted texts of law in this way, and they were not ruled by magicians of the world who claimed to have special control over taboo language. And it's similar for the Romans, the Roman law. Very famous, yes. Romans as state-crafters and empire-builders are famous law-givers. By the way, the rule of law never disappeared, really, even during the empire. Don't believe the propaganda and in Byzantium, which is often sold to you as an oriented oriental despotism But in fact the Byzantines called themselves a Roman and in Byzantium the Emperor himself

Recognized the law as supreme and often it could be invoked against his power in audience with him but for all this famous Roman genius for law and almost theological respect for law. The Romans were not ruled by judges either. There is author who can introduce you to this idea. His name is Remi Bragg and he writes in French I'm not sure if it I think it must be translated but this is a very different model of politics corresponding to different way of life. The Roman and Arian on one hand and the Semitic on the other. Different outlooks of life and world and it's through some some very strange historical peculiarities that American and England too, to a large extent now, are critarchies, or ruled by judges, in which they became completely legalistic systems.

And my friend Thomas Severn from last time suspects that the English love of the Jews that began, let's say, you could say 1600s, 1700s, that it's because both of them have this penchant for legalism. I don't know. But to be ruled by judges is a senile, sclerotic arrangement, and it will have to end. It's caused many of our problems, and I think it will end because you see now the left too, all of whose achievements over the last few decades have happened only through judicial ruling, but now they are civically turning against rule by judges because they see court going the other way. So I think this very questionable arrangement will be discredited in all parts of American society. Conservatives already have no respect for these faggots in black robes.

I think if America turned actually to naked power, butt naked, look up Sierra Leone or Liberia, I forget which, but they had a general named Butt Naked. And if America turned to this naked practice of party and political power, it might be Look, it's not about my preferences and just what I want. America is at the brink of a civil war, or at least major civil disturbances now, beyond even what we've seen this year, unless you think going forward into 2020s and even next year or two that these two enraged camps into which America now divided if they can live together somehow, that there's any compromise that can bind together the America of trannies and white privilege education on one hand, with the America of Trump and even of Ned

Flanders on the other, I don't believe there is going to be either authoritarianism or some kind of cessation, there is no way around this, and I think the authoritarianism could be bloody, unfortunately very bloody, very much so if it come from the left. I recommend for you, Mike Anton's new book, The Stakes, it discuss this, I am not a fan of the philosophy of Americanism that Mike Anton and that whole Claremont group espouse, but he sees the situation more clearly than any normie, and I will discuss my own take perhaps on future show, because it's a very long subject, on why I do not think America will break apart, because I don't think secession can work. It's a refutation, a mild refutation, you could say, I have, of people who think that

cessation or reducing America to a rump state is a solution to the problems of either side. I don't believe that's possible, but I will leave this for a later show. Next segment I want to discuss related matter, which is the still powerful American establishment and what it wants abroad. Why certain factions in American national security establishment, the neocons, the Atlanticists and the CIA are all somewhat different, wanted different things, I will be right back to discuss this. A very calm show for you tonight. As I am back, I am still very angry of this old hag come at door, and I realize actually that she came within five minutes, even less, of my start to record the first segment. And I cannot believe the nervous energy and effrontery of these people as if it has nothing

better to do. But she came in her nightgown and everything. I did not open the door. I saw her through that, what you call that hole in the door. But I hope she does not come again or I might have to, I will call special police. But look, I want to talk to you about the future of America, what I hope to be its future, before I tell you the conflict between the Atlanticists or the NATO people and the neocons. Because it helped to realize when you see why both are wrong. I would like to see an end to NATO, and I would like to see a new alliance between America and Russia. The reason I want this is because I agree with Putin when he says the future of the world, let's say 40 or 50 years, the biggest challenges will come from the global south.

He doesn't say this outright because he wants to be diplomatic, but it's what he means. Not necessarily, of course, in terms of military mobilization, because for example, Niger will not invade Sweden with 100 tank divisions. Not the population's explosions, not just in Africa, but in much of the global south, and more especially the inability of that whole swathe of the world to provide for itself the fact that they will, you know, if the global north does not decouple from them, the south will really wreck the world to the point where we evolve universally to some dystopian Nairobi slum, or some kind of existence equivalent to what is now in Haiti, simply because of the famines, the epidemics, and minor low-level wars that will ravage much of the world.

And in the blob entity of the Han China, you already see some of this, where China has unleashed through, at the very least, through the filth of its way of life, but more likely through the incompetence of its military scientific institutions, practicing cargo called science. It has unleashed this pandemic on the world. And you can take this example as also the flooding of the world ocean with garbage, very vivid, concrete examples of what the global south means for the future of the world. And it's just a biohazard, in other words, that the global north has to isolate itself from. And I remind you, in terms of China, that going back very far into the last century, it was actually China that was always the spearhead or the leader of the colored third

world revolution against Western civilization, with the Soviet perhaps taking the first steps and remaining the figureheads. But in fact, it was Maoist adventurism in much of East Africa and elsewhere that forced the Soviet Union's hand to get involved as well. Many times Russia did not want to get involved, but had to because China did. So this is much forgotten. And for example, Ian Smith, leader of Rhodesia. He point out that the primary antagonist of Rhodesia and Africa was China, not the Soviet Union. And this was so in many other cases too. Angola, not to speak of their designs in Asia, which continue right now. And for a long time, I've warned the world about the Chinese problem, although neo-reaction

people and HBD people on our side, so-called those who believe in principles of human biodiversity, which on their own are sound, but who then make out a kind of cultism around the idea of IQ, as if IQ is what constitutes not only civilization, but even whose team you are on, as if IQ can constitute a basis of political loyalty. They are very blind to all this. And you know, unfortunately, a lot of it is nerdishness and dork ideation of people on on our side, because they hate and fear blacks, and they imagine that the Chinese, as these unphysical people of technology dorks, they imagine them much like themselves. I believe this is what motivates a lot of this IQ idolatry, and many work in tech and so forth. Others realise the danger of China. Not all neo-reactionaries are like that.

But this is very unfortunate because, like I tried to say in my book, China is a big antagonist of all principles of higher life, historically, and this is made in any case – you don't have to believe me – but this, what I just said now, is made concrete in China's aggressive meddling in the third world. It's meddling throughout the global south where it would like to see a coloured revolution, And it would like to see massacres of whites and the erasure of the vestiges of white colonialism. It is China that encourages this in South Africa and elsewhere. And it has been part of my great ambition to preserve and even expand and restart these vestiges of white colonialism, because I have friends who live there and so forth in part,

but more because, well, I explain why many times on this show and in book is not subject of this segment now. I believe power of colonialism because it's preservation of special higher way of life I don't want to discuss, but against this huge problem of the global south is where America and Russia will have to cooperate. The more you allow so-called colonialism or vestiges of a white civilization to recede from the global south, the more it will threaten to encroach upon every part of the world. And so, let's say, if you abandon the entire third world to China or to whoever, to its own fate, you have to somehow isolate the north from it. And even if the American political class does not know this yet, the interests of Russia and of America are in close alliance on this subject.

And it is this that has to replace NATO, which is an anti-Russian, and my view continues to be counterproductive alliance, but it would have been very difficult for Trump, for example, to cancel NATO in first or even second time. He did not run on this, and I think a majority of American people still wouldn't accept this. It would require really a change in spirit, a change in the facts they know about the world, away from the morally fake histories they are taught now and toward actual understanding of requirements for civilization and for securing a future free from, you know, where you have to shit in a communal pit and all this. You see the movie Elysium. How you escape from that? Well, you might begin by teaching people the real history of colonialism.

It's part of my occasional effort on this show. But China just launched the other day they're putting Tibetans into military camps to reeducate them. You must understand this, re-educate them not just away from Tibetan culture, but away from, they say, from laziness. In other words, they wish to turn these savage and noble people, the Tibetans, into work ants like themselves. And this of what they have in mind for you also. This trash world. Look up how factories work in China. With apple eye potato factory, I think they have suicide nets because of the overwork and the abuse. And of course they target the Tibetans, who are a noble, savage people. When sometime I believe after World War II, American was killed by Tibetan border guard

because they are complete, cannibal barbarians. And Dalai Lama, to make up for this, he sent to America the head of that border guard. I like these people. In any case, if you want to avoid this future where you work in a Chinese factory and they want to stamp out so-called laziness through re-education camps, and if you want to preserve the high life of the West, which depends in part on leisure, or at least for the possibility of its rebirth from the trash that we have now, this I have focused my political wishes at least on this, and to this end, those of you who are worried maybe that this implies too much belligerence toward China, I would tell you that it need not. My main vision, again, of a North that is well off from the dysfunctions and the hell

of a global South, and it's a Chinese idiocy. And I imagine there is a nice account, by the way, on Twitter called Europe Esperance, Europe Esperance, Europe Hope. His pinned tweet is, make America and Europe great again. And the photograph is a large wall separating the northern part of North America, the northern Atlantic and Western Europe from the global south. And this is something I could strongly agree with. In other words, you can even abandon what I've called vestiges of civilization and culture within the global south as long as you're able to vacuum seal the north. And he does not include Russia because, as a Scandinavian, you know, they are quite anti-Russian for all kinds of reasons, and I understand this. If you are Finnish or Swedish, you don't like the Russians.

There are powerful historical and even present-day reasons for that. The Russians still bully the Swedes, although from the Russian point of view, it is justified because of the Swedish cooperation with NATO. Which again brings me now to the problem of NATO and to what I said would in part discuss on the show, which is that the Atlanticists or the partisans of NATO are quite different from the neocons. And this, by the way, is one example where what I just gave you where you have quite nationalist Scandinavians and others from North Europe who are very skeptical both of Israel and of foreign adventurism for the sake of spreading democracy, but who also fear and hate Russia, and who see NATO alliance as central to their interests as they want close relationship with America.

And in any case, this worth talking about in some more detail, so to explain these kinds of views, I still think they're wrong, by the way, because I believe NATO must end, and for vast pan-Northern alliance of all white Christian civilization to come about. But these rifts nevertheless exist, and I want to describe some more about this, I will be right back. In some big way, the prestige of the NATO people has been very tarnished, and this is for good reason, because we've seen of course comprehensive failures of American establishment for at least 30 years, even longer. But this does not negate the rather deep rifts that exist between factions in American national Security State. There are differences that until very recently were very strong, as early

as the 2000s and even into Obama's first term, with Obama, of course, being a cipher of the CIA. As Steve Saylor has documented, he has a very detailed book about this, and I think the case is very strong short of just having access to government documents that Let's say Obama, CIA, you know, but this liberal democracy, by the way, is this it? When you have one of the security agencies has president, too, maybe with the Elder Bush, and when now they openly field candidates in elections for Congress like they did in 2018, same as KGB ran hundreds of candidates when Russia first supposedly opened in the early 1990s with putler actually, I believe he was then as a head of the Democratization and the pro-western front very interesting this another major advantage of Trump

He has made American derp state so-called show its face now They openly run candidates, but in any case you might imagine that one faction putting its own cipher In this case a man's country blowjob Obama as president putting installing its own non-entity, you might imagine that this upset other factions in America and the Earth state. And indeed, there are theories running around now, not just from a Q group, but in all spook-adjacent world, in all paranoid worlds. If you look from, for example, Steve Pichinik, who comes on Infowars sometimes, or if you look at my friend Eildwald from Frog Twitter, who documents these rumors going around from before Q. Rumors about how basically a group of still patriotic army faction from United States

military ran Trump, that's right, ran Trump as essentially a soft coup to redirect America away from the CIA program. In other words, they got tired, they say you cannot put someone like Obama in power is unacceptable to us. You have crossed the line. You have crossed the unspoken agreement we all had, so we are going to put our guy Trump and return America to some form of people rule. This is very interesting but hard to say, very controversial, and I do not want to cover on this show. There is nothing controversial on this show. I tell you instead about something I thought everyone knew, but very few I found know this. main rift in the 2000s and before, which was between the neo-Kans on one hand and the Atlanticists on the others.

And the CIA, in fact, as a third faction, if you can call it this, which had its own agenda and was separate from neo-Kans and NATO people, although it was as a whole closer to the NATO people, and in the CIA itself there are multiple factions, although going Going back many decades, I believe CIA is in fact a communist organization. I covered this several shows in the past and will return to this theme, very important. People get very mad at me for saying this. I was led to go in this direction because there were attacks on me weekly now. You might remember from a show or two ago how I mentioned Soros outfits are attacking me. fake news sites funded by Soros, academic sites and some Minnesota reporter, and then

that was followed up with a warm man, Luke Turner, who is Shia LaBeouf's catamite fixating on me, and this guy Luke Turner, he's heir to a $100 million stash in England. His father was a very successful shopkeeper for sure, and this Luke Turner, if you imagine being the heir to that much and spending your time being Antifa activist against, you know, five people online, me and a few friends, a frog avatar advocating for a platonic eugenic republic. Is that a suitable life for him? I don't know. Imagine talking about Bronze Age pervert in public. The only engagement this Luke Turner got was from my own followers and fans. But so then the next week, again, I'm attacked by something called Chapo Trap House, which is apparently a major leftoid podcast. The biggest.

I had not really heard them before, but they are the biggest revenue earners on Patreon. And I'm not sure what the name Trap House refers to, if it's actually for transsexuals or this. These are basically pseudo-Marxist, fake-Marxist slobs, nearly to a piss-dry male among them. They are genetic abortions, if you look at them, who repeat every leftist cliché you hear from college, a lecturer in cheap blazer, neoliberalism, this American imperialism, fascism, colonialism, corporations doing corporation-y things, oppressing brown people in Latin America, all the cheap coinages that they use, and so they threw a fit of when I call a CIA communist, and then when they attacked me, when I point out that CIA hated neocons and vice versa.

Now if you do this in a world of charged emotions, in a miseducated world of moralisms and emotional thinking, if you point out that even bad factions is that you disagree with both of them, but You say that even they may be at odds with each other, you are immediately accused, of course, of supporting one or the other. And I'm actually not sure of which they think I support, because they've accused me of being both. And they think that both of them are together, so I don't know. This may be surprising if you listen to my show, or read my book, or account, since I've attacked both as no one else. But they will reach for anything, to say anything, and a lot of this has to do with paranoid delusions. they've inherited, actually, from Bush warriors,

when you must understand that leftists of this kind genuinely think that America is a fascist state, and that neo-cons like Bill Kristol, or whatever like this, that they are fascist white supremacists in private, or that they meet and discuss, they go to fascist finishing school, and they discuss the virtues of white supremacy and white colonialism in third-world countries. And it comes from claims about how Bush Neocons were influenced by Leo Strauss, who was friends with Karl Schmidt, Hitler's lawyer. I mean, this is what these people believe, okay? I myself have refused mostly to talk about such conspiracy theories, Leo Strauss especially, because I believe he's actually an unimportant thinker, and I did not want to inflate the egos of certain Neocons who, you know,

they feed off some of this leftist paranoia because it flatters them. It flatters them to imagine of themselves as makers of conspiracies of world conquest when the truth is more like Yenta's reading club minus the briskets. But I can get into that another time. The reality, however, is CIA and neocons headed in for one another all through the 2000s and And the CIA did not as a whole support, for example, Iraq War, which is why the neocons around Bush had to create the Office of Special Plans in the White House. You can look this up, it's old record, but basically the purpose of Office of Special Plans created by Faith, I believe, and Wolfowitz, it was to launder false foreign intelligence. And it doesn't matter if this false intelligence was created by the some of the Arab states,

the anti-Bathist ones, the ones that hated the Ba'ath party of Iraq and Syria, or if it was created by Israel or by, let's say, a state like Ukraine or by all of them. But the purpose of Office of Special Plans in White House was to launder this fake intelligence from foreign sources so as to rope America into Middle East war on a false pretext. But why they had to do this? Because the CIA was not very hot about providing this false pretext. The CIA at least at the time still had Arabists and guys who ran units came out of the military or very red-blooded parts of the United States, plus of course the Mormons. And if you want a view of how much parts of the CIA hated neo-Kans, you can look at Michael Scheuer's writing from last decade.

And he ran a unit that was hunting bin Laden going back to 1990s, I believe. And he absolutely hated neo-Kans and frequently used to talk about how many of his colleagues in the CIA felt the exact same way and about how efforts to rope America into a pro-Israeli or probably could, you know, the Netanyahu party, into that whole orientation, and how he and his friends in the CIA opposed this. So the CIA was just opposed, although it itself is and was doing very bad other things, for sure. But if you want to see difference between CIA interference abroad and neocon meddling, you can compare the Obama era to the Bush years. Those were catastrophic in my opinion, but where Obama is a CIA cipher, he interfered many time abroad to disaster effect in Libya, in Syria and Yemen, other places too.

But mostly it was not done in the direct military sense that neocons wished for. And even in cases where America got roped into interfering maybe against Obama's inclinations, such as in Ukraine, where you had Neel Khan, Victoria Nuland as a fixture. Look up Victoria Nuland and her provenance and relations and so forth. I've mentioned before her relationship, she's not very far removed from somebody like Russ Dostat. But even there, Obama or CIA faction resisted efforts to become military involved or even to supply Ukraine with weapons after the Crimea thing, when Russia took over Crimea. So there were, and to a large extent still are, significant differences between CIA and neocons. The Iran deal, by the way, is another example.

Even though it is possible to say that during the Obama years, certain neocons were brought into the American establishment very much in a junior partnership role. But their orientation was quite different in general from that of CIA, and nearly everyone One I knew in the 2000s who was a CIA aspirant was quite hostile to Neocons as a faction and a Neocon worldview or a Neocon plans. And so then you might ask, what are these plans of the Neocons? Because it's important to remember Neocons is not just some made up word. For example, a neoliberal is made up word that largely corresponds to no real faction or gang in politics. Neocons are their own perverse type of gang with their own history, their founders,

they have their own aims and I want on next segment to continue this and get some into the problem of how Neocons versus Atlanticists or more precisely Neocons versus the pro-NATO group. I will be right back. Very easy to say a difference between Atlanticists and Neocons. Atlanticists are basically wasp, Anglo, old guard. Many from East Coast America states who always look across the Atlantic and in many cases they had relatives or education in Europe, spent time there, travel, sentimental ties. They look mostly to England but some to France and such and actually in Upper Midwest there is also strong Germanophile traditions that kept up with the trends in Germany into the beginning of the 20th century but the point Thomas seven seven who I had last week on show he

made is that these guys as a wasp Atlanticist establishment the man who established NATO they have no taste for Judea okay it's about as crude as that Is it allowed to be crude still? I hope I can be vulgar but vulgarity is Clarity sometimes is this of what it comes down to because okay What do most Atlanticists believe there's a pure ones at least they think that America's relationship to NATO is the most important thing in foreign affairs for America's own interests and when confronted with claims about the supposed economic importance of the third world They are fond of pointing out interesting facts, for example that America has five times more investment in tiny Belgium than it does in huge India.

I'm not sure if this is still the case today, by the way, but it was very recently in 2009 or 2010 still. And their point is a foundation of American prosperity and also of world peace is this alliance NATO. And they have no illusions about NATO. The honest ones follow the old saying. The purpose of NATO is to keep the Germans down and to keep the Russians out. Keep the Germans down and the Russians out. With the first part of that formula, keep the Germans down as the most important. And why is it? Because they hate Teutons. And it is not. Their reasoning is that by having NATO there and Germany disarmed, the other European states are assured they will not be dominated by a Germany that is very close to them geographically,

very big in population, very powerful, and that has expressed recent interest, let's say, in dominating them. So this helps to prevent a European militarization and arms race again, and it helps the Europeans to focus on peaceful economic activity instead. This is their belief. A lot of these NATO purists, furthermore, know very well that Europe and Germany, Germany especially, are free riders on America. But they believe this is by design because the fact that West Europe focuses so much on business and so forth, they say this actually makes America more prosperous economically than if it asked Europe nations to devote more resources and attention to military matters. Again I don't agree with any of this. I want to see Europe re-militarized and perhaps conquest in third world.

But anyway, so look, they're also convinced, the Atlanticists, that America is the only – at least within this Western sphere – that is capable of global reach. Now, you know, because I describe their views fairly now, because I try to, I will be accused of sharing them, but in fact I'm just trying to be clear and I remember having terrible disagreements about this subject with William Odom, although we also became good friends. General Odom is the first general to stand against the Iraq war publicly. He had been head of NSA, I think, in the 1980s, the first head. But he was a very strong Atlanticist, believed very much what I've told you so far. And we became friends and we had drinking times and such.

And he liked me because he thought I was a crazy, unapologetic defender of colonialism, of old Europe, and there is no one like this anymore. So we became to talk and historical matters and all this. And these are the things such people believe in. As you might expect, they are very, very anti-Russian. And when I asked, for example, Odom, why not form alliance with Russia, he scoffed at me. And he said, you're ignorant, you've never had to deal with the Russians, you're inexperienced, you know nothing. Well, you know, he said, whenever you try to actually reach agreement with Russians or with the Indians, they never follow through, they are not interested in any good faith agreements. Look, this is what these all-time NATO guys believe.

Many of them Scotch-Irish or WASP, very powerful people, very energetic, and they may even be right. Okay? I don't know. I've never had to negotiate with the Russian government or anything. My only point is that the concerns I say in previous segment outweigh everything else. The threat of global south is too great to all civilization and to only a remnant of of humanity that can rise above the subhuman morass of, yeah, this is what I believe, that the human animal is actually subhuman, yeah, the human is a miscarriage and it is only parts of the West that can rise above that. It is more important than anything else to preserve that possibility. So this is why I believe a Russian-American alliance. But in any case, let me get back to these guys, the NATO guys, the purest expression

of Atlanticist, which is in this faction that I just named or that people like William Odom represented them, an important faction among them, but they absolutely hated the Neocons and why? You can imagine, because the Neocons do not believe that America's interests lie in West Europe. Neocons believe America should shift its weight from West Europe and NATO and should shift from there to the Middle East. This is their big thing, okay? So you must understand, look, a neocon, if you want to use it as a slur word, simply as a slur, for a guy you don't like who might have aggressive or war-mongering views, or if you want to use it as a replacement word for Jew, that is fine. That's whatever, you know. But my friend Borzoi says this, that's how it's often used, the word, and that's okay.

but that's not what neo-cons are. They're a particular faction with their own history, and their history is in people like Irving Kristol, or other Trotskyists or Marxists – not just Trotskyists, by the way – Marxists or Marxist-leaning mainly Jewish secular men who visited Soviet Union, and after that they became very disillusioned with communism. So they become then anti-communist, but anti-communist of a particular bent, where they seek to to preserve the New Deal reforms, to preserve the 1960s civil rights reforms, because you know so many of them are Ellis Island fraternity people and to go against FDR or the New Deal is actually heresy if you come from that background, same reason they can never oppose immigration.

So they look to preserve that as well as the new understanding of America from civil rights movement and to make that somehow consonant with aggressive foreign policy militaristic. So you are all very familiar with this because it's the America as an idea, the America based on principle, propositional nation idea, which is of course a completely ideological understanding of what keeps America together, although the neocons themselves don't like the word ideology and would not put it this way, but this is what it is, this totally ideological understanding of what keeps a political system, or a regime, as they like to say, what keeps it together. It means they then underestimate the importance of culture, of history, of habit, of bonds of loyalty, of bonds of blood and kinship.

So then they overestimate how easy it might be to, let's say, impose democracy on a foreign society. And I say that this is in large part by design, this misunderstanding or overestimation, because their concerns, their fundamental secret concern, although they would never admit it actually maybe even to themselves, but their chief concern is Judea or Israel. And so you might consider this whole thing I've described about neocons just now is a convoluted cope, a convoluted rationalization to find some way to convince America to defend Israel and to oppose the Arabs and I think if you look at Walt and a mere Shimer Who are very critical of all this, of course, you know about them

But even they admit that Israel served some role for America during the Cold War or at least it's arguable that it did But after the Cold War it no longer does what so and even the neo-cons themselves admit Today that there are no strategic or real politic reasons why United States should support Israel Instead, they go back to what I just told you, the moral case for supporting democracy. They try to go back to first principles, the idea of democracy support, and that America must support Israel because it, too, is a democracy in a sea of tyrannies, as they say. This is their reasoning. I think this is absurd. is not actually a democracy in any Western sense of the word, and this is a subject of its own I might cover in future show, but I talk about this partly in an essay

I wrote about Hazoni in 2019. Look up BEP and the Hazoni-Israel problem, but you know I believe America should just completely disengage from the entire Middle East. Let it have its own history Let what may come there. If they conquer each other, if they destroy each other, let it come. If China wants to bleed in the Middle East, let them. But the point is that the neocon view is very much that America must shift its weight there and interfere to the point where it overthrows regimes to quote-unquote spread democracy, but in fact they mean I mean, help Israel. And they're above all threatened, by the way, not by radical Islam, but by secular Arab nationalism, by the Ba'ath party, although they're very shifty about ever admitting this in public.

So, I mean, you can see radical Islam is incompetent shit show, shit show. You can see this from experience of ISIS, or from how Mud Slime Brotherhood fucked up completely in Egypt and had to be removed by the military there and so forth. But the point is, this is all completely abhorrent to the Atlantic that I talked about before. For them, the American weight must remain in West Europe, not in the Middle East. And they in fact see no real reason for why America should support Israel more than the Arabs or why America should support Zionism and this. They are very hostile to what Walt Mearsheimer exposed as the Israel lobby, which includes of course also the evangelicals with their theological crazy reasons for supporting Zionism.

And furthermore, the Orthodox Atlanticists, let's call them Orthodox, the purest Atlanticists, they do not like idea of spreading democracy with military force. This is another big disagreement. So in fact, they're more clear-headed about democracy, they're honest, they know, you know, try to consider it from their point of view, but they know what matters is not democracy but the liberal part of that formula. They think to establish liberal societies, they identify as core of that a neutral third party enforcement of contracts. This is a somewhat sterile sounding thing, but you can imagine what it means. This is what is important for them, neutral third-party enforcement of contracts. And they readily admit that no one really knows how you can establish a society that

respects this, whereas on the other hand it's easy to establish a democracy but also meaningless. It doesn't guarantee any of the things these people actually want. And they believe there are historical and cultural precedents for setting up a liberal society as they favor, and they try to argue against the examples of, you know, the neo-cons always bring up Germany and Japan after World War II. They say if it's possible to set up these modern democracies, as they call them in Germany and Japan, which were fascist and all of this, then they claim it's possible anywhere. And all that is required in this model is enough force for destroying a society enough until they accept this. But against this, which is, I think, an insane view, but against this, the Atlanticists say

not really, because in fact Germany and Japan both had very strong liberal traditions of parliamentarism before the 1930s, and also they were major industrial powers with a very educated population, and so you know, they wink-wink, it's not really comparable, they They don't say this outright, it's a wink-wink, but it's not really comparable to goat herds in pea-stained robes who marry their first cousin, right? So Japan had carriers. It's not the same as the Middle East. So, even to Iraq, by the way, which was compared to other places in the Middle East, relatively better educated, more secular, and so forth. But even there, people like Odom and the Atlanticists knew it would never work.

So these people, the NATO partisans, the Atlanticists, have been against the Neocan's idea of promotion of democracy by military means. And instead what they favored is a slow expansion of NATO within European sphere, within Europe, is creeping expansion into East Europe as the best guarantor of peace and also extending this kind of liberal society they favor, this third party neutral contract enforcement. If you're interested in this view, please read a book I recommend before by William Odom, America's Inadvertent Empire is the title, and you must not see these people as your evil opponents. They may be wrong, but Odom used to say something like, if the Scots, if the Highlanders were pacified, we can pacify and civilize the Balkanoids. He He believes this.

He used to say why it happened in Yugoslavia, this terrible breakup and ethnic war, but not in other parts of the Balkans where you also have ethnic tensions. For example, why Romania and Hungary never go to war over Transylvania. And his idea was because of NATO expansion there. This is why he thought. And he believes therefore that as NATO expands into East Europe, as slowly perhaps into former Yugoslavia, it will manage slow, slow process over many decades to pacify and civilize that region. Look, I don't agree with this, but this is their hope and their view, and they see Russia as an antagonist. But they are not as delusional as the neocons in their emphasis on these historical and cultural prerequisites for the kind of society they want.

For liberalism, there is no such thing as neoliberalism, by the way. There's nobody who calls themselves that. It's a creation of people from outside, paranoid leftoids, who don't understand the factions in American establishment, don't understand how things work and so forth. It's a college campus creation. Just say liberalism. Why do you say neoliberalism? But in any case, such people as the Atlanticists, the ones I mentioned, they even say that it may require hundreds of years of cultural evolution for a liberal society such as the Anglo-sphere to come about. In all of this, in all of these claims, the Atlanticists come somewhat close to paleo-con views even at times. But it is only on intellectual or peripheral matters like this that they do.

on this. Whereas I should say right now, for full clarification, that both the Neocons and the NATO people, including the ones like this, are quite hostile to nationalism. They're hostile to nationalism of the Buchanan and Trump-type especially. So it may be that people are confused because in recent years the crisis brought on by people like Trump and Bolsonaro and Salvini and this whole Buchananite, Bannonite ideology, it's driven all parts of American establishment into crisis mode and into fear, and they have had to make temporary alliances with each other, you could say. But Odom did not like Buchanan-type nationalism because, for example, on trade, he believed free trade, with Europe at least, was essential for American prosperity.

So you know, the coming of Trump, again, somewhat changes the calculation here. It drove the remnants of this into a frenzy. In other words, both the neocons and the Atlantises, not to speak of the CIA, you could say they become allies of opportunity against Trump and what he represents. And this also partly because, you know, what I describe now, these factions as what they I'm describing them at their finest, or their most effective and honest form. But the last 20 years of pointless police action, so-called warfare, and especially since around 2010 or so, all these experiences have rendered them into a corrupted form. Let me put it this way, the Libyan misadventure in particular was very corrupting for all American

establishments. And the schizophrenic way is that America became embroiled in the Arab Spring, which was the creation of men like Brzezinski and so forth, where America got involved not knowing of what it wants, spreading disorder and de-civilization. Now from one faction vying for its interests, now from the other, the insane antagonism to Russia over Ukraine and the way they were all horribly embarrassed by a Russia takeover of Crimea also during Obama years. What I'm saying is that to some extent these differences I've discussed have been lessened by the partnership in failure and stagnation of the entire American establishment in second half of Obama administration and In this connection you can imagine that many also they want to feed at the throw of defense industry contracts and

Consultantships and so forth and so the Trump or Buchanan wing of nationalism represents a huge threat to them to their funding to their way of life, even if Trump is not an isolationist, actually, he didn't run on isolationism, it doesn't matter to them. They're locked into these pre-existing patterns of interference, this kind of pre-existing path-dependent failure and funding. So the Afghanistan war is a major example of this. There is nothing more useless now, but they all support this. McMaster who was on TV the other day saying not entirely negative things about Trump but he's a complete Afghanistan fanatic you know and Trump threatens all that it threatens this this pointlessness into which they've become trapped and nevertheless I think these differences that I've discussed on

this show are still important they still exist and more important it's how many Many people continue to understand themselves, they understand themselves in this way even when they don't act in full accordance with it, for now. And so what I mean to say is that these differences are exploitable. Quite aside from being exploitable, however, you must know these differences even if you oppose both. You should not fall into being a maroon, a moralistic maroon. For example, I remember I knew among the full professors supposedly of history or of law or of political science, and together with their grad Judens, their anodyne grad Judens, they became livid with anger when I point out to them that Franco and Hitler were different.

That they represented different views of the world, and these corresponded to different factions not entirely friendly to each other. Well, they just became livid when I say that. How dare you suggest that there are differences? These are just our hated demonic enemies who must be monolithic. These are fascists or Nazis. They don't even know the difference between the two, not to speak of the other factions. But I'm saying do not become like them. Do not become an ignorant moral fag. And I know most of my audience is not like this, but much of the left, including of what imagines itself as the dirtbag left or the rebel left, many of who are good people, who are simply Motivated by justified disgusted American establishment, but as they're simply ignorant of these things

And they just haphazardly have been taught to use words like neo-con Neoliberal whatever it doesn't mean anything But as a consequence of this they live in a confused mess and are unable to provide a useful attack on American Establishment they remain as I call them so far as they remain trapped in the in the left they remain fake communists, they remain footstools of this establishment, which is why the far left, including orthodox Marxism, always has protection even in the fake colleges in academia, and in the press and so forth, they always have a safe place there. They exist there, whereas anyone with our views is considered a demon and exiled. But in any case, I do think awareness of these different factions is very useful because, for example,

For example, once their terror of Trumpism or of Buchananism, once their terror of the establishment passes, and they become resigned to it, they are broken by it, they are broken by hopelessness, at that point it will be possible to peel off individuals or portions of them to our side. Or at least, even if you can't do that, you will be able to play on, you know, to press on the pressure issues that are important to them. the fractured points to turn them against each other. And in closing, I would like to leave on hopeful note and to say there is one faction that I haven't even mentioned when I would devote full show to in the future, and this is, for lack of a better word, let us say it is the Pacific faction, a very old one in American

history from 19th century when American geopoliticians were obsessed with China and the Far East, which did not consist of European-leaning people on the East Coast, but rather men who saw America's destiny as a Western expansion to the West Coast of the continent and beyond, to the Pacific, and who see the great geographic arc stretching from Alaska to Japan to Southeast Asia to Australia through Indonesia as constituting a new border of vast American Sea. And could it be so? the pacific as our americans see they say can these men be our friends if they still exist can this future america be the fabled continent of moo will we be given letters of mark as privateers animist nude pirates and privateers ravaging the coast of cafe could it be so the dolphin

legion of moo i hope so i hope this and see for the future bop out