Caribbean Rhythm with Bronze Age Pervert, episode 53, welcome, Caribbean Rhythm. And you may notice perhaps this time also somewhat lower volume than usual. But by next week, I should be back to full volume, full power voice. I am still in same horrid building where Tenants Association oppresses me and they possibly report me to municipal police. But I realize I get very depressed even if I stay in one location for maybe longer than one or two months. So now I move. I will decide move much more frequent. There was a poet, Stefan Gorg, a very great man, a poet in Germany in the 1920s. He moved every two weeks. And I think I will do this schedule. You realize nomadic peoples, they never had time to brood in these horrible ways.

The depression is a symptom of static settled peoples, whereas when you have tribes on the step from location to location and quest to quest, that is the way human life is meant to live. At least for me, I am born a nomad, perhaps. But you know, I watched a debate, it was very tame. I don't understand how people complain, I wanted a lot more blood. I want Trump needs to hit harder. The complaints, by the way, are this disingenuous thing where you have, in America, a string of clown presidents for 30 years since Clinton. They start losing wars, they sell national secrets to the Chinese, they give up the most prosperous province of a continental empire. California, I mean, they just wreck it. And they preside over a coarsening of mores and of culture that's far worse

than what was going on in Weimar. You have minstrel show presidents talk about underwear on television and this, presiding over collapse of the family. And then they fret about decorum and about our declining norms. And they try to ring somber and moralistic about how a rather boring debate is the end of all political life. And this is the fake prostration to decorum, is the last fig leaf they have to cover their shape. This government that exists now is a mixed government it is, indeed, a mixture of ochlocracy, mob rule and oligarchy. And look, if this is what awakens the normie to national decay, I suppose it's better than nothing, but I would add that in this debate there actually was a moment of clarity,

a moment of policy choice, if you will, about direction of country like there was not before in any debate I know, and the American political, I mean, when they disagreed about national lockdowns going forward and about whether to open the country, and that's about 30-somethings minutes into the debate, I think. So maybe Trump should play that clip over and over, because rarely have voters had to make a decision about such a matter of national importance. And the contrast between them is very clear. So in matters of substance, you could say this was a much more important debate than those in pre-Trump years, where candidates differed at most on maybe two percent of policy in any direction, and where they trade platitudes under the guise of decorum.

But you know, this does confirm the suspicions many have that the American regime is near an end, just not in the way they thought. Because in fact, in functioning modern polity, elections aren't really supposed to amount to a complete change of a national course, as that really only happens in the third world. In developed countries, since 1945, not so much. Elections not change so much, you know. So I guess in this way the fact that voters now have a very clear choice, it does signal end of things in a sense. And they have this choice even if Trump is not the best at explaining what this, in the moment he's not very good. Look I think a lot of first opinions of this debate, even from supporters, it's not always

so clear because if you're a supporter deep into your own candidate on either side you parse their every word that you get disappointed when they don't deliver a kill shot argument but I remember I was very frustrated with many of Trump performances last time in 2015 in 2016 debates I mean even in primaries and for example when I watch the South Carolina primary debate it was not a great watch on first viewing because there was a red curtain I think behind them and Trump's face was very red and bloated like he had been having beers before debate and there was just this screaming and contention and it seemed like Trump did not land word kill shots that he could have but in retrospect and I mean even a week later it looked like a total win because he called them on the fake Iraq war.

He said to Bush the weapon of mass destruction was false and that they knew it was false and that it was an obvious lie. And in the context of South Carolina, where you had so many military in that audience, but then they went for Trump overwhelmingly in the primary because they are tired, of course, of getting used as fodder for oligarch wars. So I mean to say that a general impression left by debate on a normie may not be the same as your own, as someone who closely follows all political happenings, and I'm telling you what you see on this stage last time was Trump crushing two faggots. It was very clear image contrast between an energetic, tan, blonde man and this depleted old husk of Biden, who's being aided by a constipated, a pale Wolochinsky creature,

someone who never left the shtetl, not really, apparently. And yes, I would prefer Trump going forward to hit Biden harder on the fact, for example, that Biden is and has been his whole life a cocksucker tool of the oligarch occupational class, that he's a cipher of the big banks and of Wall Street. You know, recent article, Wall Street abandons Trump, Wall Street gives five times more to Biden than to Trump. The same thing like in 2016, same contrast or how he could emphasize how Biden in 2005 was a co-sponsor of a bill that denied bankruptcy protection to average Americans. So, you know, just press this point on how Biden plays this working class Scranton boy television while he's actually the biggest shill for the banks. By the way, you should call

moldbag on this. Call also the white nationalists among us who say this election doesn't matter. Let them give perhaps this advice to Wall Street because Wall Street seems to think this election matters. They donate a lot of money to Biden. The big pharmaceutical companies think matter. they are all in it for Biden. Please alert the artists among us who want you to throw in the towel with, you know, tell Antifa Eric Stryker about this, please. But look, Trump must emphasize this lockdown problem is what presses on average men harder than anything else. His whole world collapse. He needs someone to tell him, I will send you money and I'll open as a country is just Trump needs to hammer this point through the election. But look, this is just my thing.

I want Trump to emphasize these differences as he did in 2016. But this is all inside intrigue. This is a wish. This is just punditry. And I think instead to tell you what effect of that debate was, an energetic young man, Trump, very young energy for his age. And as my Argentinian friend, Lady Astor says, Trump is a man with Peronist energy, the energy of Juan Perón, but the Peronist populist party in Argentina, this kind of macho populist nationalist energy just obliterating these depleted old husks of the oligarchy like Biden and Wallace Walachinsky, which is why a report I see just now, Pelosi, David Lynch face Pelosi, She says she has not slept in two days because of this debate, okay, just it destroys them

and the fact that the image, I mean the image contrasts that what this brings me to a big difference is a Trump versus the establishment, which is embodied in these Clarotic Biden as much as it was in Hillary and Jeb or Rubio last time of what this means. What is this establishment? What is its political ideology? What would you call it? Many of you like to use the word neoliberalism, but if you do so, I say that you have been mindfucked and I ask you not to get caught up in that third-rate Chomsky construct language because this word neoliberalism, it blinds you to the truth. Because for all its cynicism and gangsterism, in fact, the global oligarchy, what I call the occupational class, it promotes a very left-wing ideology.

And sometimes this is called neoliberalism, wrongly, other time it's called cultural Marxism, also wrong. Other time it's called Gramsci socialism, which is only a little closer to the truth, but more generally is the new left versus, you could say, the old left. So think perhaps Tony Blair, Ibrahim Kendi, woke corporations versus on the other side, let us say, Stalin, or the German Democratic Republic, something like this. Or in other words, Foucault versus Marx and Lenin, or what have you. And I'd like on this show to talk. It's a very big topic, actually. I could do several shows on this, and I think I will. I plan to have very soon a poster named Pigdog. Some of you may remember him. He is a very old friend from Original Frog Twitter group. and he is a strong Russian man from Russia.

He will come on my show soon to give me his perspective and also a Russia view on this. But there's a big topic, the New Left versus the Old Left, very hot topic right now. I talk a little bit on this show. I will be right back. There is a whole biome of Antifa adjacent and leftoid writers and podcasts. Midwest Chapel, Dork House is one of them, the biggest one. And there are straggler strivers from our own side who are seeking to make nice with that whole crowd and angling to redefine what went on in 2015 and 16, the whole frog phenomenon, in other words, or what used to be called the alt-right, the whole four-chancing, they try to redefine it in leftist terms. And all of this is motivated by a disparate,

dishonest desire to be seen as edgy or to look like a rebel, this whole wretched biome of the left, I mean, and there are brown-noses. You cannot be a leftist, however, and also be anti-establishment. There is no matter how much you try to twist to present yourself as edgy in this, the fact remains that the Marxist left, and I mean the old Marxists, the Labour left, the Stalinists even the Maoists, in any shades of those, none of them are actually discriminated against in academia, for example. Many of them have honored positions in almost every college department, even hard sciences, but certainly in the humanities, anything like that, you will always find at least one orthodox Marxist, something along these lines. At most, they are sometimes smirked at as quaint or something like that.

But none are seen as an enemy by any establishment. The attitude is, oh, you are me 1.0. They are seen as an earlier version by the dominant left. And whether you go in the college schools or in the mainstream press, where you have actually many open communists, or at Obama White House, where they put up Christmas decorations, Christmas tree decorations with Mao, or in much of the federal bureaucracy where I personally know people very high up in some departments who are open communists, people who dream of gulags, literally, who are full of murderous rage against millions of Americans, and I exaggerate nothing at all in saying this. It is full of them. So when you see a bearded pudgy slob who live in Brooklyn or would like to be part of that

clique and who plays the Marxist rebel, they're counting on you maybe not knowing about this setup in all organs of the establishment, where in fact classical Marxists or whatever you want to call them, in fact they are very secure if minority position, and their analyses are in any case politely used by others, including the token conservatives they sometimes rarely let in. Nothing equivalent, of course, exists for fascist or hard right. Forget it. Anything like this, you get hunted down. These people really show themselves on immigration. I mean, on this one matter, immigration, and I'm talking now of the podcasters, the people who play the left on the internet and who would like to present themselves as rebels. But on this one matter of immigration, they show themselves.

is the most important matter of all because it determines the next generation of citizens. It determines also the labor market and many other things, but the so-called dirtbag left or classical Marxists or anti-woke left, they call themselves sometimes, what have you. These leftoids in a popular culture, in other words, who would like to sell themselves as anti-establishment, they are with the establishment on this one One most important matter of all, they carry water for establishment. They do not oppose it, even to the level that Bernie Sanders did a few years ago. And this is what really exposes them. Why was Trump attacked and boycotted by Macy's and many others? They still try to destroy him now, economically and every other way. Why to be a Trump supporter in Blue City?

You get corpulent girls who chimp at you. I had one, I think I told you before, she said she was triggered when I merely mentioned that I was Russian or that I study at the University of Moscow. I say nothing else. Why does this trigger them so? Why Russia hoax unprecedented in America history to claim that Russia determines the presidency? Because of his announcement that first day regarding Mexicans and immigration. That is the entire reason, and it is this one thing that is the most dear to the establishment. So if you do not oppose them on this, it's really nothing, you know, asking for better health care or better trade deals even. Nothing upsets them as much as immigration issue, because in the long run, it's the Trump card over every other thing.

And in the short run, it's their most important battering ram, their most potent battering against their enemy, which is the white middle class. And closely related to immigration is the race issue, on which also the so-called anti-vogue or dirtbag left, or the partisans of the old left, they would never oppose the establishment on race, but in fact they copy slavishly all of its orthodoxies and lies, and they repeat them only with this veneer of youthful meme language, to the point where, just to give you a small example from our own side, you had these entryists, these dorkaloids even on our side, guys pretending to be frogs or alt-right, what have you, but who are actually Antifa and who call themselves the irony bros in this, and their whole line was racism isn't

cool bro, racism is boomer, racism is cringe, can't we have the frog energy and memes but without the racism, this was their line and you know, no you can't, why not fuck off back to the left and try to get a Brooklyn apartment, and you can get pats on the head from teacher. So it was all very cynical, you see, and no matter how you turn it, whether you try to dress all of this up in pseudo-Catholic garb, or whether they sell themselves as incels or misogynists or anything else, they are frightened to touch anything having to do with immigration or race. things most of all they are complete frightened of because this is the establishment ruling religion the orthodoxy on this more than anything else is their religion so it's really it's a touchstone of whether you are a

rebel against them at all can you talk about immigration and the race in straightforward way what we have on our side what makes us different as a frogs is that we have the truth about immigration about a race and it's It's framed not from a literary or theory point of view, but from science, from biology and nature. Plus, of course, we have humor. But the true humor and satire that can only genuinely emerge when you actually provide something different, something that actually challenges a ruling religion. And I'd like on this show to tell some of you who are savable from the left, but who have been misled into joining it, maybe without realizing that you are joining one of the militias of the oligarchs and of international leftism, which is identical to the oligarchs.

Actually, I don't know if I have many leftist listeners, but let's say I have one or two, and perhaps you know in your own life or acquaintance somebody who's young, energetic, but dumb, and seems to be attracted to a maxoid thought, perhaps you can set them right away with... But look, I can only tell such a person that I suspect, when they are well-intentioned, that they did so out of the desire to fight, which is noble, but this desire to fight rules them. And I hope to tell such a person why, in fact, you have been misled on this, this desire to fight in you has been misused by the left, as also has been your compassion for the weak or the poor, which is also a noble desire that perhaps attracts some people to a somewhat leftist point of view.

But that too perverted and misused by the left. The left can never be your home if these are your genuine motivations, let's say. Because why left is in all ways a demonic project of human levelling and of the destruction of what is high in men. And I hope to tell you how the differences between the old left and the new walks, called left, aren't really as great as you think. But how, in fact, the new left is very much a continuation of old left and its aims. And one of the ways some try to hide this continuity between old and the new left is through this word neoliberalism. And in our own time, this fake word, fake, fake word neoliberalism, is a way of denying responsibility for the Left's failures. Neoliberalism, an incoherent term, a shifting definition that will confuse you and lead

you dead ends if you really believe it exists. If you use casually once, or my enemy is a neoliberal who cares, but as a tool of analysis is worthless. It adds no meaningful content to discussion of liberalism or of the Left that you could not get from text from 150 years ago. It allows young, dumb Marxoids to hide the continuity between the Marxist project and modern identity politics, which I will discuss next. And now you see this word neoliberalism even used supposedly on the hard right among Wignats especially where its use, this fake word, its use neoliberalism is very cynical because It's intended to unify the dissident right with Antifa and with other anti-localist ideologies, for example, cop obsession, obsession about police and this.

And the purpose of that is to ensure that more power is consolidated upwards. Neoliberalism, power structures, yeah, corporations, man, this kind of thing. No, please stop feeding this idiocy. And even I will say this Fed-supported idiocy. Again, if you use the word casually to mean your enemies, okay, whatever, you used it once. But any serious thinking based on this dumb, fashionable word is impossible. And in any case, I will try to tell you now next on the true difference between the old and the new left, and I hope to convince some of you who have mistakenly identified yourselves with Marxism to abandon that gang and to join instead as a mainly populist party, the party of healthy and honest demagogues, the Caesarist Party. I will be right back.

Now it is very easy, on aesthetic level at least, to argue for a difference between the old Marxist left or what gets called the tankies, in other words the vigorous Stalin people, the World War II Soviet soldier or NKVD cruel hard officer. But between this and the new left, could there arguably be a giant gulf at least, in terms of personality types, you know, and if that is true, what could be bigger than that? But I think this is a true but misleading argument to make. You can see, however, how some can come to believe it. There are even very serious arguments by men like Yochi who say that the Soviet Union in many ways was preferable, from a rightist point of view even, that it was preferable to the liberal West, is less corrosive, maybe you could say, you know, the Soviets did not

bring in the refuse of the third world, they didn't do population replacement, although I would add that they would have if it suited them. But the argument goes, in having to preserve militancy and the vigor of military virtue, you can see that it very much opposes the complete unloosening of the spirit and of the body that you find in the modern new left regimes. I speak now of the Soviet Union, this Spartoid military virtue regime, very different, right? So there is even a funny meme about this. Hitler and Stalin are both in the sky, and Hitler is smirking at Stalin as they both look at what a modern left has become, with the tranny stuff, the fagged commie mobilization and pink stripes, and the various biological detritus that you see now on the left.

I mean these physical types, the face shape, and the such that you see on the Antifa mugshots from Portland. You know, if you can find any kind of lump and crawl holdover of some pre-humanoid atavistic types, if you know what I mean. But look, for all this, all of this is right in a way, these differences, and I think but actually is a wrong argument ultimately, because the New Left is in fact with its focus on anti-white agitation and with its focus on pro-gay this and everything you know about this is actually a superior historical understanding of Marxism and of the current material situation. The new left in other words has superior historical understanding to what the Orthodox or the old Marxists have. Now this may sound

outrageous to you if you're a Marxoid of the classical type and you are just disgusted by the ruling establishment and you realize they are in hock with oligarchs in this and you are hoping that Marxism is actually the revolt of the poor against the rich or of the worker but you know that's not really what it is and it never was Marxism is not compassion for the poor Marxism is an inversion of sorts of Hegelianism which may be called a scientific socialism or scientific historical materialism and at least on outward intention, it makes very precise claims and predictions about man's nature, about the world, and about predictions about the course of capitalist economy. Now you know these predictions just did not come true, and this is problem Marxists have.

And of course they come up with all kind of cope argument, convoluted excuses for why Marx economic predictions never came to be. They tried to say, for example, that Marxism was not meant to be adopted by agrarian society like a Russia Empire, but instead by highly developed one like Germany. And they tried to say that, and this is really what all their arguments amount to, that as they were wrecked, right, that Marxism was not allowed to show what it could be, because it was always sabotaged by capitalism, by outside forces. Now I can see a fascist rightly making that argument, because fascism was indubitably destroyed from the outside, but communism lasted 70 years in the Soviet Union, was quite secure in its position for much of that time, and many decades in other places, including

by the way East Germany, where it developed, you could say, much healthier form maybe than what existed in Russia. And by the way, such people who make the argument I mentioned before about how Marxism was not suited to Russia, I believe Lenin addressed many of those concerns in his writing. But these people don't read Lenin, and in any case, it did exist in East Germany in much more vigorous form, you could say, than in the Soviet Union, and yet it failed in all of these places by its own inner decrepitude. And all the arguments you heard on previous shows I did about CIA and this, their extension of this co-op argument that Marx-oids make to explain their failures, their atrocities, why in fact Marx's economic predictions never came to be.

In other words, they have a convoluted conspiracy theory about how CIA has always been this Nazi organization that work with fascism to undermine communist or socialist movements around the world. complete nonsense is not what CIA was, in fact, quite the opposite. And on previous shows, I tried to explain to you, in fact, how CIA many times work close with international socialism against European colonialism. But that is subject for another time. I mean to tell you that Chomskyite or other leftoid over obsession with CIA is extension of what I just told you, a cope argument, a convoluted excuse for why leftism failed. But you know, the big irony about Marx economic predictions, which in fact never happened,

but with mass third world immigration and with outsourcing, one of Marx's most important apocalyptic predictions, you could say, is a popularization of the proletariat, where labor becomes so cheap and the laborers of worker loses, so to speak, all hand in negotiations in society. But this is becoming true in a way, but the left, including the old left, is unwilling and unable to provide a coherent counter to these developments because they do not want to touch immigration or race, they cannot touch that. So on the only point where Marx seems to finally be correct in our age, the old left will not I'll get to this later, but I just say to you that within the West, in fact, living standards rose dramatically after 1950, including for the working class.

Which is why, again, this is very interesting, I see on show before, but why do you have the gay movement? What is gay movement? Why it come out after World War II in 1950s? And it's the fact that before 1945, almost all gays, they got off by paying poor working-class straight guys. Still work that way in third world, okay? But because of dressing improvement, a living standard in 1950s, anyone but a gay Hollywood Weinstein, perhaps somebody think like Geffen or Bryan Singer, but anyone who's not that or who is not a gay, who is not a billionaire, is basically priced out of that market because of the dramatic increase in living standards for working class. So the gay movement is an attempt to replace sexual access to straight working-class guys with a social activism.

To use social activism to make up for that or to use legislation that the middle-class gay hopes will restore some of that sexual access somehow this also by the way why gays support third world immigration but again different topic these are all very interesting social aspects but it is consequence again of fact that working class experienced major gains 1950s through at least let's say mid 1970s and even recently when you hear people say that those in the trades do well for example If you're a construction guy, my friend Stud, I hope he come back. The Stud, the body builder, you all know him. But using construction, making huge amount of money. Or a plumber like the Spanish plumber Cornelio, my friend from Salo, they make a lot of money.

This is a meme now, Jordan Peterson and others spread it. I think, by the way, you shouldn't necessarily follow it, because the trades are quite difficult and well, that's another topic. But the point was, these people go on nice vacations if they want, they have plenty of money and worst of all for the left, such a great working class, they all voted for Nixon in the 1970s. So that was a major realignment, Roger Stone was part of that story by the way. But the working class firmly rejected the Markzoid left and its predictions never came true. Of course, right now, working class doing terribly, even middle class doing terribly in United States and several other countries. These are recent developments, however.

I'm telling you, for decades, white working class, white middle class doing very well. And as a consequence, they abandoned the left. And the leftoid Marxists, the old left, they felt betrayed. So what did the left do? Did they rejoice? and how well the working class was coming to do in the West. Okay, no, again, because it was never about that, it was about control. And it was more than about control, it was about what James Burnham realized, that Marxism is a desire to replace one civilization by another. There is something very profound, this simple formula, but what it means to replace one civilization by another. In practical sense, today it means that actually the New Left, with its anti-white agitation, in which its rage is directed against the white working

and middle classes that they feel betrayed them. You know, the New Left, in other words, more historically aware, historically aware of their present situations than classical Marxists are. And from a classical Marxist analysis, it may be true that feminism, identity politics of all kinds, in fact, that this cuts against class analysis and class mobilization. In fact, it possibly stops it completely. I posted recently a clip from classical Marxist Alain Sorel that shows this very clear. That may be true from a theoretically pure point of view, but in practice, the class struggle is something that at least exoteric, naive Marxism already lost long ago, because again none of its economic predictions panned out.

And this is why the New Left continued the actual and true Marxist inner intention, which was to replace Western Christendom by a different civilization, and the New Left realized that class struggle was not the way to do this, but in fact saw that in the end the white race itself, and all of its traditions, that this was the problem to solve. And its reconciliation with capitalism, the reconciliation of the New Left with capital, isn't something called neoliberalism, it is rather the very old identity of Marxism and capitalism that has now finally surfaced. Because both are driven by a similar desire to corrode the West and to reduce the human to a low form, to the walking stomach, to reduce the world to a giant global tenement full of economic calculators.

And this is why you can have something, for example, like John Rawls, a so-called thinker, who is one of the great gurus of the modern New Left and of the liberal occupational class establishment. And what is Rawls? John Rawls, who represents the final victory of Marxism over liberalism, where liberalism and its language are, you know, its supposed intellectual traditions in Kant and Locke and so forth, they are actually redefined and used to attain the original Marxist goal of wealth transfer from the global north to the global south. Because it is this that was hidden, and not really so hidden, the intention of Marxism from the beginning. So all the onslaught, the cultural atrocities inflicted by the left on the west since the

1970s, for which the modern, let's say pure Marx-oid would like to abandon responsibility. But this was actually a very rational historical decision by the left and entirely consistent with the original Marxist intention of replacing Western civilization by another. Foucault or Derrida analysis is a mere means to transmute Marxist struggle over ownership of means of production, to shift that struggle over its status to one over cultural product, or to memes if you will, or to who controls media and consciousness. And as much as this is weak from original classical Marxist economic analysis point of view, it is very much in very effective continuous Marxist project in practical terms and even Rousseau project from before Marx.

In other words, it continues project of dismantling the West, dismantling privilege. The projection of elevation of big-titted Barney Frank type to position where the hated world of the white man and his civilization is gone. The civilization that, for example, forced you to eat with a spoon and a fork and to stop farting in public, where all that civilization can be eliminated, where the humiliating memory of that world of civility can be erased. What did John Murray Cudahy say about Marxism? Marxism or communism, John Murray Cudahy says, was a project designed to eradicate the difference between the refined Nordic protestant and the vulgar shtetlbilly Ost-Jüde. Why? So that the emotional pain of being socially inferior is eradicated.

And here at bottom, generalized of course from the shtetlbillies to all of the Negroids in spirit, you have actually the rage that drives Marxism and the whole of the left. And it is not compassion for the poor or anything similar that drives them, but rather this. This rage, this desire to replace, to destroy. And it's proven by the fact that the Marxist end state, which is, by the way, identical to the paradise of the capitalists, both want actually the same thing, or say they do. But it's just such a boring and pointless afterthought, this Marxist end state. It's a kind of planetary nursing home that no true man could like. But I would say it is so banal and grey and stupid because they have no intention of achieving that joke anyway.

It's rather a different itch that drives them, I mean. And I will be right back to describe this some more. Another thinker you may want to look into to understand origins of the new left and its relationship with the old, or I would argue actually even its superiority to the old left, is a thinker named Kojev, and F. Roger Devlin has a book about Kojev. And what did Kojev do? Kojev replaced the Marxist desire for, let's say, material equality at the end of history. He replaced this with the desire for universal recognition. And what does this mean? It means that you have a desire for the greatest number possible of humanity to recognize your worth as an individual. It is this, I'm great at simplifying here, but it is this that Kosev posited as most

fundamental human historical drive, you could say. And this fully explains the modern left's obsession with identity politics, with having everyone recognize your worth, with essentially having teachers say it's okay. And what I mean to say by this is that the new left is on more solid historical ground and possibly on theoretical, philosophical ground than the old Marxist classical left. And to understand again, read this F. Roger Devlin book on Kuzhev. But look, even if you don't fully buy this case I made in previous segment about John Murray Kadehi, although Kadehi in his book, Ordeal of Civility, makes very strong case for the origin of Marxism, I said previously. But in any case, the revolutionary and messianic desire of Marxism to remake civilization is obvious.

It is recognized by other thinker, for example, Karl Loveth, when he says that Marxism is continuation of biblical prophetic desire, and basically it's a form of secularized Judaism. So again, you do not need to take this angle if you consider it perhaps too Jew-centered or what. Although I would tell the well-intentioned Jews who might listen to my show that they will need to confront at some point a very long legacy of resentment, real resentment I mean, that is the engine not just of Marxism, but of many derivative social movements that seek not just equality or this, but that use that equality as a pretext to make a civilization, excuse me, to remake civilization or more precisely to blot out the traditions

and distinctions of a civilization, because it is felt that its privileges and the things it values are too humiliating for others to endure. This fundamental drive that you understand behind the new left, both if you read Khadija to understand the true secret origin of Marxism and, I would argue, even if you read Kosev, because it is this impulse that is behind Marx's thought. If you're very naive, if you believe it's to give a worker holidays and dental care and this, the dream of the Marxoid is to see nuns raped and murdered as was in Spain or in Africa when the symbols took Stanleyville and Congo and so forth. It is always that same impulse. And what I'm saying is the apocalyptic claims Marxism made about capitalism ending in economic

collapse and this bloody conflagration, that never came to be. So the real Marxists, the new left, the historically aware and correct Marxists, they decided instead to recognize that the working class was its enemy and that its real plan – see, this is hidden intention of Marxism, which is no less strong because it is hidden – but it's to rile up the dispossessed and the deformed, the detritus of the world against the well-formed, revolt of the low against the high, of the biologically wretched finally against the eugenic. You see, this is what my book is about, because in describing Yist life, I go to the root of what motivated the left, and what has always motivated it, which is the

resentment and rage of the chandala and the outcast, of the slave. It is pure slave morality. And remember, The sentiment, such a misused word today, it does not mean just hating a political opponent. It doesn't even mean, by the way, hating a ruling class. It is rather the subterranean will to power, that low and the deformed practice against the high, in which it hides its desire to kill or to maim or to dominate. It hides this under humanitarian pretext, under calls for compassion and equality. And it is this desire that has driven the left, I say to you, since its inception, which is in the modern world really start with Rousseau. The left goes back to Rousseau when it attacks all tradition, and even finally when it perceives any vestige of white Christendom as an enemy.

Because what was Rousseau's main political goal, you could say? It is the elimination of all intermediary institutions, at least in the short run. Ultimately, his political goal was the elimination of all privilege, all distinction. He felt humiliated in some way by this, but in the short run it's the elimination of all intermediary institutions. What means this? For example, the church or really any local authority or other authority that alienates, you would say, the citizen or the individual from the general will, from participation in the new society he wanted. To explain this better to you, let me give you some concrete example, because there's historical precedent for this that is in some way very reasonable.

So for example, when Athenian democracy was created in 500 BC, they remade in Athens the traditional Greek tribes, they remade them into new ones, because they did not want, let's say, a local Nabab or strongman or a man with positions of distinction in the traditional tribal system, they did not want them to be able to interfere with how people voted. This is a reason, by the way, why democracy does not work, modern democracy or any kind does not work in traditional society like Iraq or Libya or Central Africa. Okay, it makes sense this way, you understand why the Athenians needed to do this. But of course, Rousseau and the left turns this into a principle of perpetual revolution, Which is why the left, once it has taken over all the levels of power as now, or of capital

and corporations as they have now, they nevertheless cannot conceive of themselves as in the position of power or responsibility. It will deny its own myth about itself. So it goes out looking for systems of oppression, right? And this of course must be the family, the nation, the race, white privilege, white supremacy. And so the white middle class, holders who are still holders of much of the collective wealth of the nation, excuse me, both in America and Europe, they are targeted precisely in this Rousseauan sense, they are targeted as the intermediary institution of all institutions, meaning as that which stands in the way of the desires of the left to remake civilization entirely. And what I'm saying is they are not wrong, but they continue actually the true intention

of the Marxist project. They are not wrong to do this, from Marxist point of view, I mean. They actually do continue Marxist project tempered by realization that the economic clockwork predictions they made never came to be, but that the real way to destroy and corrode all notions of privilege and superiority, so they think, is to destroy the family and the white race. And then there was another element, by the way, in their historical understanding of the new left timing, which I will leave in more detail for another time. But you know, when they introduced Marxism to the third world, they noticed something very peculiar. They noticed that tribe, that race and nation, that ethnicity always trumps class identification.

They saw this time and again in Africa, which is why, for example, book like Pierre Vandenberghe's ethnic phenomenon, I've discussed a few times, written by a Marxist from the Congo, why such a book could come about. But Marxists, other than him, came to very similar conclusion, and they conclude that struggle had to transform from a class struggle to an ethnic one. I don't mean to say, by the way, that Pierre van den Berge wishes for this, but the content of his thought, where he realized that ethnicity thumps every other form of human identification, this is based on very strong historical observation as well as experiments that Marxists made in Africa and the Third World. This realization they came to, that politics must turn to an ethnic struggle or more precisely

to an identity politics struggle, the real meaning of which, by the way, is the destruction of white privilege or white supremacy, which itself to them is a proxy for all distinction and privilege and for all superiority in general, and again it was in Africa and Asia and the third world that it became clear to many of them that the ethnic revolution, the racial global revolution was the real realm of the struggle, and that it had to replace class or economic revolution, because man is not a class or economic animal, overall he is ethnic or tribal animal, and I mean when it comes to political to social life, he is ethnic or tribal animals. So for these two reasons that I discuss just now segment, the new left

actually shows greater awareness of historical situation than do classical Marxists who are stuck in a frame of the past. But what then, the outrage that could result, you say, when a genuine Marxist looks up and sees the world now with giant multinational corporations and the state, they are allied, and both are in turn spouting the identity politics and the LGBTQ and trans woke nonsense. How could this be a continuation of the left and of Marxism, somebody could ask? It is not, is it not after all an abandonment of economic equality, because it looks in many cases like these groups act in the most, you know, self-interested way, they want to pillage and extract wealth. And they seem to use concerns, let's say, about gays or women or race as justification for this.

They're common jokes, you know. We have women drone operators to blow up people in Afghanistan and that makes it okay. Leftists realize this. How ridiculous is it? You know, I make joke on this too. The lesbian mulatta drone operator, we're not so far from it. Gamal Harris will drown me, for example, if you fools ever let her step in. But so this look very different obvious from classical leftist concerns now to let Jeff Bezos continue to have slave labor and then put in communiques within Amazon that promoting identity politics breaks up unionization. So it seems to be a very obvious subversion from classical point of, classical leftist point of view, they say, where corporations are fucking us every which way with identity politics.

Is it not an abandonment of, in other words, of classical Marxism? And the answer to that is yes and no. It is certainly an abandonment of the working and working middle class, okay, and very openly in fact it's a desire to overturn and to properize them, the working class and the working middle class. But again I add that this is by design. I repeat to you that simply the care for the worker, whose lot in the 19th century was indeed very bad, but the care for the worker, for the middle class, whose life now of course is much worse than it was 30 years ago. But this was never the concern of Marxism, never, it was a pretext. And you can find, in fact, many on the right, and not just the right, but other political programs.

But certainly you find many on the populist rights, where we are the ones who genuinely care about these things and who, look, if all you care about is leftist policies, and for example, once people not to be enslaved by employers, or to have high standard of living or three-day weekend or care for the environment and animal welfare and these things, we support those same things. But we do not weaponize them in order to delete Western civilization, or to carry on a covert racial war, or to attack all distinction and all privilege as does the left, as do the Marxists and they always have. The convergence of Marxism and capitalism is not an accident. They are at bottom the same thing, which was recognized by the great German thinkers, by Nietzsche and Heidegger among others.

But it was recognized they are inhuman forms where man is reimagined as a walking stomach, as an entirely economic and material being, whereas it was the great destiny of Europe and of Germany to provide a human alternative to these monstrosities. Capitalism and communism are the same, and it is only, for example, the way of Mishima that provides a different, a spiritual alternative, different path. The incredible stupidity and poverty of imagination of American education where you are told that these two systems only exist, that capitalism or liberalism or as they call it now neoliberalism under this fake name, that this is some all hegemonic global domination and that only communism can offer as the alternative.

This is line sold by American educational system is completely false, completely fake. There was an idiot on Twitter a few years ago, her name is Babet Babich, and this was full professor somewhere, I don't know, some school of lower learning. She became livid with rage when I said that Nietzsche attacked both capitalist and socialist. She couldn't believe it. She thought that because Nietzsche, for example, was anti-capitalist that he must be socialist. You know, they do not understand that there could be some other way. And these two human, excuse me, these two inhuman ideologies, these reimagining of a man as a machine, they have worked together as the cover religions of a predatory gang and of the human refuse they rile up.

Their alliance, you could say, in our time is not new and is not an accident. And if you are, let's say, young and dumb and on the left because you imagine that the left is a way to rebel against something that you rightly recognize as stultifying and oppressive, or because you are motivated by compassion for the weak, or for those who you value and want to be protected, you are, look, maybe you know somebody like, maybe you are not like this, but maybe you know somebody like this. And I would tell you that your noble instincts have been misled by very bad people. Because on one hand, it is a fight. It is the war that you like, the struggle, and that is very good. But in struggling for communism, or for the left, you are actually engaging first of all

in a fake struggle, because it is one supported, or in any case, it's given an honored position and sanction and cover by the establishment. In other words, you're getting a pat on the head from teacher, and you know it. So you should stop pretending. But second, both you and this occupational leftist class that gives even the orthodox Marxist sanction and position, you are both engaged in a struggle, the end of which, if you achieved it, I mean, it would bring the end of struggle in life. It would lead to a universal loosening and leveling. And look, for example, what Nietzsche says about liberalism, because you can apply just as easily to the whole of the left. And I quote Nietzsche now, this is from Twilight of the Idols, an aphorism called my concept of freedom.

I'm quoting Nietzsche now. He says, sometimes the value of a thing does not lie in that which it helps us to achieve, but in the amount we have to pay for it, what it costs us. For instance, liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established. Once it is attained, no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions. One knows of course what they bring about, they undermine the will to power, they are the leveling of mountain and valley exalted to a morality, they make people small, cowardly and pleasure loving. By means of them the gregarious animal invariably triumphs. Liberalism or in plain English the transformation of mankind into cattle.

The same institutions, so long as they are fought for, produce quite other results. Then indeed they promote the cause of men, they promote the cause of freedom quite powerfully. Regarded more closely, it is war that produces these results. War in favor of liberal institutions, which as war allows the illiberal instincts to subsist. For war trains men to be free. What in fact is freedom? Freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves, it is to preserve the distance which separates us from other men, to grow indifferent to hardship, to severity, to privation and even to life itself, to be ready to sacrifice men for one's cause, oneself included. Freedom denotes that the virile instincts which rejoice in war and in victory prevail

over other instincts, for example over the instincts of happiness. I must stop reading now, but you understand where Nietzsche goes with this, and you understand why it was so with liberalism and it is so with socialism and all leftism. What you fight for, if you achieve it, would be the end of what you love, the end of this sense of fight and adventure and struggle that you want. And this, of course, I'm addressing to those who might have mistakenly cleaved to leftism Out of a sense, you could say, a noble desire to fight because there is also a rancor and ignoble desire to revolt against all distinction, and those people are not reformable. You should not waste your time on them. But second, as to the problem of compassion for the weak, leftism, or let's say if you

are a genuine leftist or someone you know is really motivated by this, but what is forgotten is that man is not a unified creature, is not homogenous even internally, not usually. So when you coddle what is weak and deformed, you suffocate and deny space for growth to what is mighty and beautiful. It is so inside you and also in a nation. And I don't mean, of course, casual kindnesses to the poor or the infirm, or you know, for example, the way olds are mistreated in these countries today is complete scandal. What I mean when you make the central preoccupation of your society to be the promotion of the weak, the care for the weak and for the last, the last shall be the first, and all this. Well, you will get a society of infirm and incontinent women as you do now, and a society

which aggressively seeks to suffocate anything great, where great plans become impossible. And it is same inside you, where actually you should be compassionate, but you should be compassionate to the high inside you and to that which overcomes the low human ape in you. And it is mutually exclusive to be compassionate to both. So when you cuddle what is low and weak and effeminate in you, this is path to gluttony and masturbatory stagnation in all ways, to character dissolution. And every time you indulge this weakness for comfort, you are neglecting and living in the lurch and suffocating what is great in you. So I ask you, why you have no compassion for that? And if you start to have compassion for what is great, brave, hard and manly in you, and

will overcome what is low and weak, you will necessarily have to be cruel at times to the human ape in you, or tyrannical even to it, and it is the same in a nation. I wish for compassion for those who are high and great. It is those who must be nurtured and not be forgotten. Society must be organized for their benefit and the lying left seeks only their elimination in fact Because it makes the human aids feel inferior and slighted their very existence does I mean so I would hope that some Who mistakenly? Identifies themselves as old left or as classical Marxist or this that they will come over to my side once they realize that as the left is a perversion of their noble instincts and

and ultimately it's a self-defeating path, something that cancels out the impulses that actually motivate them. If I may mention my own book here, I know probably most of you have read it, but the reason I found, you know, I found people completely uninvolved in politics who it appeals to, men who travel and such, it's because there, in book, they can see revealed to them the Iron Prison, the Kingdom of Shadows, And if not yet a key out of the kingdom of shadows, then at least a remembrance of another world that was not suffocated, like the life in the world they are in. And unlike the left, I mean, I identify the true source of this sensation, that the world has been made less as if by a maniac demiurge.

But there is available to us still the path back into nature, the power and rush of nemesis that renews the word in conflagration, barbarization!