Are you haunted by idea of lost cities? Hidden civilization. Do you know about Nam Madol? City of the gods in Micronesia, Pacific, built by legendary navigators, the masters of the ocean. I tell you in a moment, but I always dream about this. Real ones, real lost cities, not just fantasies. You know, you cannot just be a fantasy cock or a lit cock, literature cock, where everything remains in writing or so. I mean, there are good fantasy stories about this. For example, Jules Verne. I visited a cave in Iceland where a journey to the center of the earth, this famous Jules Verne story, begins in this cave in the Snaeffelsnes Peninsula, a very beautiful peninsula in the west of the island. At the hotel, there was a handsome Thursday specimen who showed me the ways through some lava fields,

and I feel bad that I didn't try to proselytize him to our evangel, but you know, I was very tired, and I couldn't, I see this as a missed opportunity, because with the Nordics, you have to take the initiative. You have to talk to them, promoting our views, because they are very reserved, almost autistic people, unless they start drinking this, As soon as you have a Finnish person drink, or Icelandic, they immediately become extroverts. Then it's different. But I see this in celebration of Leif Erikson Day, Trump to celebrate this holiday, will you see this peninsula snifflesness in the west of Iceland, it protrudes to the west, is where all the great voyages to the west lands began, the journeys to Greenland and to the Americas.

And who knows actually how far the Vikings got if they got to Minnesota, some people say to the Great Lakes, but have you ever wondered why all the big trade and commercial centers in Iceland were on the west coast a thousand years ago, actually? In other words, on the coast furthest away from Europe, where all the richest cities in Iceland were. In the middle of nowhere, it seems. And also, many of the Nordic sagas come from Iceland. If you don't believe me, you look it up. So much of that literature comes from Iceland. Why is this? What is the connection, if any? Why are all the rich, first cities of Iceland on the coast furthest away from civilized Europe? And he tells me this theory, but I think it's true, they just had enormous money, right? So why?

How did they get all of their money to finance the voyages to the West? They launched these voyages to Greenland and so forth. And all this literature, well, they hunted the narwhal, which is a whale with a huge tusk. They didn't trade fish or wool or this. They hunted this whale of the Arctic, it grew in Greenland and the Arctic, the narwhal. It has a huge straight tusk. And they took this tusk and they sold it to the kings of Europe as the horn of the unicorn. And they were selling these for just untold sums of money. And this is where they got the gold that led to the flourishing of Norse literature in Icelandic Free State. Very appropriate to know this for Leif Erikson Day. Look up Njals Saga, N-J-A-L-L-S, it's one of the best sagas.

But where was I, it was the fantasy to tell you about hidden cities and lost civilizations, you see, they exist, real voyages exist, and I'm interested in a real thing, not the fantasy, I say. For fantasies, there is even book Italo Calvino, it's called Invisible Cities, in style maybe of, you say, Borges, very short story, sometimes one page or one paragraph long on various imagined cities. And there is something very attractive about this, as also in Borges, that perverts pleasure in twisted logic and a kind of fantasy presented in a matter-of-fact way. But I think this is a cop-out, okay? I agree with Camille Paglia, this kind of literature, it's a kind of pomo, postmodernist literature, maybe the best of it even, the Calvino and Borges at least is funny, but

still it has its fault in that it is game playing, it's too cerebral, ultimately it's too cutesy and ironic, this Calvino and Borges thing, there is this somewhat cutesy side to Borges, and I'm not interested in game playing. When I tell you in my book that irony is fake and gay, and that I never use it, you must believe. I mean this, okay? Everything I say is literally 100% true. Humor is not the same as irony, okay? I don't use irony. Everything I say is literally 100% true. Just as Nietzsche meant 100% literally everything he said. Everything Nietzsche say 100, he does not use metaphor or irony. Anyone telling you otherwise has had a brain sucked out by academic maroons, the people who repeat college classroom notes as revelations.

By the way, you hear about Donna Zukerface, Mark Zuckerberg's sister, she had this magazine, bye-bye Donna, buh-bye, she closed down her rag Eidolon, do you hear this? This Mark Zukerface sister, okay, who had this aggressive sign, Eidolon, that some of you hate red, you may have seen it, but basically the point of Eidolon is, look, there is no point, it's just quenching about how the classics, Greek and Roman antiquity, is being appropriated supposedly by the far right as they see it. But they, you know, Donna Zuckerface and her flunkies, they try simultaneously to argue that the classics are as such problematic and masculinist and racist and all this. But also at the same time they argue in fact they are not any of this and the ancient Greeks

were into open borders and open legs and all of this. You know the story. It is much like they say now about the Vikings. They were actually dreadlocked gay mulattos into ganja and rainbow pride and so forth. So they don't know what they are saying. But basically the point of Donna is she was mad at her brother, like Steve Saylor says, and mad that non-Kapanized white youths were taking too much inspiration from the classics. And she saw that the way all classics academics, they think you're infringing on their guild, do you see? They see this as their possession, the classics, and of course it can only be used for the dissolution of your nation and civilization. When it can be instrumentalized and politicized on that side, they're all hot for it.

But not when you use it to get inspiration for your life or to support your nation. So they get very upset, for example, when Quintus Curchus, a friend of mine, or when I use an example of Greeks or Romans to take political or aesthetic inspiration for the cause of human ascent and for the rebirth of vitality, because they want rather to drown everything in the miasma of swamp-like effluences of their vagina minds. And I have to tell you, I hear reports, without revealing anything, I hear reports from well-known institutions of lower learning, even supposedly conservative places, where professors are very upset at me, they say I'm destroying the classics, and they're comparing me to Nietzsche and to Schliemann. Schliemann is the discoverer of Troy in 19th century. He

happened to be a businessman, German businessman, and he also infringed, as the classics guild keepers see it, he infringed on their turf, you know. So while they diddle their puny clits worrying about me, they on the other hand love Donna Zuckerface, who's a complete propagandist, but they love her for really taking the fight us blasphemers, and instead she's using Plato or Euripides to support whatever the directive of the DNC is that year. So not the decade even, but that year, because it changes so often. So if it's open borders, you know, they can have Euripides or whoever. It doesn't matter, you know, with the reading techniques they use, like I say before, they can make Aristotle or Lucretius sound like Elena Kagan if you need to. I mean, if you believe that kind of casuistry,

but their problem is nobody wants this. Nobody believes it, nobody bites. Donna Zukerface had a book a year ago, published by Harvard University Press, with full supporting blurb reviews by leading so-called academics and dinner parties and cocktail party launch and all this. Really, people who are imagined classic scholars, Sometimes they abased themselves to suck up the Zuckerface family. I can find no other explanation for it, but they tried to boost this very polemical, very dumb book she wrote. But like I say, nobody bites. You know, a week after Donna Zuckerface book was published, it was selling much worse than my book was at that same time. That's a year after I self-published my own book with no support, no fanfare, no publisher, no ads, nothing.

So you understand how upset this makes these humanoid vermin. Not sure you understand by the way, it's been two years now, and my book is still regularly in the top 10,000 on Amazon, and that is site-wide. It may not sound much to you when I say top 10,000, yes, but there are millions of books on there, and to give you a rough comparison, mine outsells still, right now, the vast majority of conservatard pundit books published this year with major publishers. And certainly toilet paper like Donna Zuckerface, which is in the hundreds of thousands rank or something like this. And I praise myself because if I don't, who will? I have to sing my own song, but you know, I'm just a humble online poster. This is the truth.

And like I say, I'm a humble shit poster and I have a kind of contempt for irony as a gay and fake. for all the status concerns around modern irony I have content, because really it's a cheap way to hide the same status concerns that makes Comey and all these yokels into such insufferable strivers. Irony, same impulse behind that, they are scrounging for any chance to join what they think is the elite of the big shitty. I mean, I remember once two shitlimbs, okay, I'm in this coffeehouse in a very urban setting at Cold Brew Cafe, and I'll admit hipsters make very good coffee, and now they import the so-called flat white the last few years from Australia. I love my Australian friends, they have Australian rules football, which is played basically

nude, but okay, so they do good coffees, I go to have a cold brew, nitro brew. and this new male and his strong cheek, she has very strong cheekbones, strong jaws, this bish, testosteroneized bish with strong jaw, and they're sitting in the back there next to brick walls, they have this polite conversation, very polite, where passes for intellectual matter, literary thing, very literate, very polite, and you know, they're just lightly touching on this book and now that name and just lightly touching on topics and moving from one to the next without any real meaning, like it was quiz hour, and even they have to pretend to each other, they'd hear the books, and names of authors and all, but all very polite, just lightly touching on each, you know, Pinchon,

Thomas Pinchon, or whatever his name, or some bullshit like, things like that I don't care about, and remind me, since we're on the subject of academic cunts, you meet women, and now, women, even in the sciences, and hard sciences supposedly, who they just move from one academic program to the next and they think this is science, moving from one fellowship or one degree to the next. Forgive me if I repeat myself, never having any notion of what it takes to have actual idea or insight into a scientific matter, not a notion of it, but this is what science gets mistaken for in large part, this is what science is today. To women and to the Chinese, this is what science is. So anyway, it's this insufferable couple, and they're kind of interlocking their fingers.

I still see it, it makes me crazy, but this couple, okay, sitting there, having this conversation, and it made me think of a scene of where, you know, I just imagine the more extreme version of it, where two specimens like this are sitting there, and they are discussing, you know, they just start saying only the names of various figures to each other in turn. You know, why not? Just drop all pretense of any connecting word. Just start saying to each other words, like Pinchon, Borges, Rousseau, Plotinus, Hannah Arendt, and so forth. Just back and forth, just keep going. The conversation gets more intense, if you can call it conversation. They start to raise their voice, and you know, each one of them in turn continues this, saying a name in turn with more vehemence,

Don DeLillo, Anne Applebaum, or whatever this garbage, but just why not? just keep dropping names more and more aggressively. You know, I can see this happening. I think many such conversations very close to this do take place, who knows? I imagine this is extreme version of what I saw to amuse myself, but who knew that this, what I just said now, would become a style of posting on Twitter and elsewhere on pseudo-academies discourse, where, you know, people just ask others if they've read X. Oh, you haven't read Cassirer? Oh, man, you have read David Foster Wallace? Well, get back to me when you have. I mean, this is a style now on Twitter or academia or coffee house. Ask Donna Zuckerface what it means. Ask Reinhold Niebuhr. Ask Tara, my journalist stalker.

Also, I'm happy she stopped lately a little bit. Ask them what it means. Look up what Yokel Stryver means. I will be right back. Madol, built on coral reefs. No one understands how it got built. The stones were carried from our other side of the island in Pompeii. Now you know this is Micronesia, so think northeast of Papua New Guinea in the middle of the Pacific, middle of nowhere. Think maybe between the Philippines and Hawaii, just roughly, but it's middle of nowhere, you know. So it's a line where you can see a kind of racial rift in Polynesia very clearly, because Because Polynesians, very common word, but what it means, it's actually a catch-all umbrella term. It's not real. It's a hybrid race, right? So it's a coming together of Austronesians, what Gobineau called malaise.

But yes, the same people who reached Madagascar in a different direction. So they look Asian-like, they are animists, and they are gracile. They have very fine features, good-looking people, and they are amazing seafarers. Gobineau have much respect for them, he considers them, he doesn't use this classification, but they certainly qualify as a heronfolk, a master race, the powerful ships they built out of the strength of their blood, they take to open seas and great adventure, this from Gobineau reflections on them. And they colonize such huge swathes of the world, but it's them, the Austronesians, so So kind of Asian-like people. And on the other hand, it's the Melanesians, so think what you see in Papua, but also much

South Pacific has the blackoid-type people, so Melanesians who have a kind of, you could think of almost aboriginal-type look, abos, you know? So then Polynesian race is the hybrid of these two in various gradations, actually just a a catch-all name for these two races in the South Pacific, and their various mixtures on the islands. So you can think when they mix the Austronesians, who are otherwise a gracile people, they become more robust, they become bigger. But where does the cannibalism come from, this interesting subject on its own? But in any case, Micronesia, you can see what they look, a preponderance of the Austronesian element is in the South Pacific in Micronesia. On this island, there arrived sometime around, let's say, 500 or 600 AD long ago, not known,

but around that time there arrived two twins that were later known as the Saudelors, and don't know if I pronounced this right, but the Saudelors, two great founders of a state that would last more than a thousand years. You know, it's very interesting this, the twin founders, the twin founder myth, you see this in many cultures around the world. In the Ashvin twins in India, the Kastor and Pollux, the Dioscuri, among the Greeks Romulus and Remus, among the Romans, and among the Saxons you have the Horst and Hengist, many such cases. This universal, of course, as I just hinted now to Indo-European cultures, but others around the world too. Here come the two charioteers of the sea, of unknown provenance, the Saudelures, and they found Nan Madol, where this is the name now, Nan Madol,

but original name was Sun Nanling, the Reef of Heaven, and is amazing city built on coral reef, the only one known, I think, in the world. They built this on coral reef, so now is city on sea, like Atlantis, among mangroves and jungle on coral reefs that is overgrown by jungle, and very much not visited. Maybe I should make this public because very much still not a tourist hangout, not known. Maybe one of you can visit now. I would imagine during this quarantine, it's completely empty, but how they managed to carry these gigantic stone to build the city from other side of island, there's volcanic stone. I'd say the safest bet is they carried them on the water somehow, floated them with, I don't know how, but amazing feat, because the cornerstone

of one structure is 50 tons, just one stone. How they do this? 50-foot walls and higher in some places. Now, look, they're not built very carefully, okay? So you look at the structure, and it's interlocked, basically logs of stone. These volcanic stone come in a kind of a long log, so it look like log cabin, not super pretty masonry, not as well-constructed as a European castle, but if you want to talk well-constructed, you look at Incan or Andean architecture, and there is a real spurgery, the real autism comes out. Every stone got to fit every other stone precisely. You know, the Indus Valley civilization has some similar artistic features, by the way, but these are gigantic stone in the Andean architecture, I mean, and they're precisely cut. So you look at European castle

is not as carefully built as that, but some say that the people who built those Incan palaces were also of some kind of alien origin with elongated heads, and all of this, they had elongated, long heads. And I have friends there in Kari in Peru who explores the jungle. I don't know if you saw 2016 movie, Lost City of Z. It is not bad about people who search for ancient hidden city in Amazon, but this what my friend Inkari does, or Indiana Jones in Temple of Doom. He goes to Peruvian jungle, and he search for lost ruins. Also, now this worldwide quarantine has made his life very difficult, no doubt. You know this. If you let this take over, when you get demented Yentas, okay, I hear story now from friend Yenta renting out rooms to students in this case,

and they are not allowed to go into stores, so she has renters in her house, she does not let them do shopping, only food delivery and this, when the crisis starts, at least, so now they have to pay for deep cleaning, also, if they ever go home to visit parents or this, and just elbow-length gloves, insanity, they cannot use bathroom without texting first to alert her not to exit the room, this kind, But at the same time, she insists on joining their dinners and bringing, you know, two tomato to dinner. But she wants to join their dinner for exchange of ideas, a polite exchange, so look at the complete pictures this paints, is this the world for you now where you are captive to demented yetas? I mean, who can take this? Who can take this new world?

When you look at Sun Nondlen, the Reef of Heaven, built for the glory of Poseidon by charioteers of the ocean who calls themselves the Sodulures, and the gigantic structures after they recruited the natives to their divine power, because power and strength are like magic. They bring those around you in almost a magical kind of orbit, and you look upon the cities and the temples built out of the strength of belief, and the strength of their manliness, and if you don't feel like a faggot looking on that, there is nothing left in you. Now why I tell you this? Because gods hide. Gods are hidden and are special, and they only show themselves to certain men of destiny in dreams and in walking visions and such. And in many ages of the past, they

taught them to build great structures of different kinds. The gods came and taught certain men how to build great structure. Each one presents a different special vision that is seen only by the founder of a great state, like this, like I describe for you now, the mysterious ancient state in Micronesia. Now tell me how many of these are lost even in Sundaland, which ancient, very ancient land that connected land masses of Borneo to much of Southeast Asia, this during past ice age on which lived humans on that land for many thousands of years before it was submerged under water. And are you saying they had no chance to build great cities there or in Doggerland in North Europe where there was great Delta of the Rhine.

Now you suppose New York, make comparisons, suppose New York gets volcanoed and then it gets covered by a glacier and submerged. So how much do you think would be left of any trace of skyscraper or civilization or technology or anything like this? And I see as completely possible that great and advanced civilizations equal and greater than our own existed many tens of thousands of years ago and disappeared in disasters just like this, and please don't start with stories of how you are sure that modern humans evolved only recently, and stories about the ice agencies, because they change this story every year based on what they find, you know, every year, first out of Africa, now they say it's not out of Africa, it's out of Arabia, now they find ancient remains of modern human

in Europe, so you know, but what I mean to say is these gigantic structures shown as in a dream by gods to men of destiny, like you see in Lost City of Nan Madol and others we don't know of, so why does this impulse not exist today? Where is it? Could it really have morphed to where all that is left of it in our age? Could it have morphed? Could it have transformed to where all that is left of it now are a few hedge funds or or a few casinos, a few PR men or desk generals, bureaucrats, men who really run online cab companies. This is what our great technology are. Online department stores or advanced secretarial enterprise like Google or Facebook. Because that's all it is, Google or Facebook, complicated secretary or accountant.

Could it be that any of what exists now among such people is adequate expression of men's Or are these rather just specimens of the people actually, variations of the people, maybe more clever variations of the people, more cunning and covetous ones, but really in the end just more iterations of the human animal that covers the earth and is the same everywhere you go. This is what I tell you. The human animal is the same everywhere, everywhere a blob. This is why you can have, for example, this is why you can have a stew in Mexico, you eat the pozole or whatever, you eat Oaxacan stew, then you go to Senegal, or you go to the Balkans, to Albania or wherever, you go to Germany or Japan, and most of these stews, the slops that the people eat, they almost all taste very much the same.

Now I'm not attacking all of them, I myself occasionally enjoy peasant stews and this This is very nice, but I'm trying to tell you something, that in character of life, the people is almost the same everywhere you go. Which is why when those like us care so much about preserving national identity, and this, to a lot of the human animals, this is incomprehensible. And it's not so much because they have any kind of people's or worker's solidarity that cuts across racial or national lines, no, they have no solidarity or loyalty at all. That is the point. distinction, any identity or difference between the peoples, this all comes from the aristocracy, and without an aristocracy, humanity devolves to the same slop. With minor variation, but the same slop.

And there is famous passage in Herodotus, maybe you know it, let me read for you. Now I am reading for you from Herodotus, I'm quoting. For if it were proposed to all nations to choose which seemed best of all customs, each, Each nation, after examination, would place its own customs first. So well is each convinced that its own are by far the best. It is not, therefore, to be supposed that anyone except a madman would turn such things to ridicule. I will give this one proof among many from which it may be inferred that all men hold this belief about their customs. When Darius was king of the Persians, he summoned the Greeks who were with him, and asked them for what price they would eat their father's dead bodies. They answered that there was no price for which they would do it.

Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called the Kalatii, who eat their parents, and asked them, the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said, asked them what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud that he should not speak of so horrid an act, because they ate their parents, right? So firmly rooted are these beliefs. And it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is lord of all, custom is king of all. Okay, end quote. But I think there is something that Herodotus takes for granted in this very famous story that needs to be made clear to dumb moderns, okay? Because what ultimately he means when he say custom is king among men is that aristocracy is king.

Because it is the aristocrats who are the preservers of custom, of ancient lore and occult knowledge, who in ancient times they knew how to preserve the laws of the different tribes. Now it's true in many cases there was no aristocracy worthy of the name, in some cases they were just elders, tribal elders. But even there, the shaman, he passed down his knowledge to initiates, sometimes over many hundreds if not thousands of years. And it was through this knowledge that the special being of the tribe, however small, that it was preserved this way. This fight in Mishima, I read for you a passage before, but there is a very nice line in Runaway Horses, how without the samurai class to protect their honor, the gods would become just objects of indeterminate superstitions for the masses.

They would become spirits, sprites not honored but lost among the reeds. And it is the aristocracy that is the preserver of religion, of custom, of the honor of the gods, and therefore what makes any nation different from another, and that determines its particular mission and destiny. Without which, like I tell you, there is neither distinct way of life nor great megalith or structure or cities of glory, but just the yenta haranguing you because she's afraid to die of chink-bat AIDS, okay? And I'm afraid that many of your peers are old and sclerotic in spirit. They are born old. They have no vitality in blood. They are lovers of comfort and mere life. And they give aid to such creatures and are turning our world ugly, homogenous.

So what you must realize about Herodotus' famous passage, beloved by conservatives, is that it isn't custom as such that is king, but ultimately biology, spirit, vitality, Because it is only through the higher men that are the preservers and defenders of custom. And more important, when custom has ceased, when custom has stopped, it is these higher men who are the founders of new customs. So I ask you how long we will take this. You know, the character of the world I describe in the book in part two has now fully shown itself in this pandemic that turns the world into a huge hospital, a nursing home. But their world, the world of the yentas, of the human blob and the bugman, it was not actually so much different before this crisis either. In spirit, at least, it was the same.

So I ask those of you who are not faggotized in spirit, how much longer of this can you take? Can you have the yenta boot on your face for another 10 years or for 10,000? When we take again to the high seas and find our own club tropical excellent, our own non-madol, our old Atlantis, our Sun Nanling, our own Reef of the Heavens. Different topic entirely, I saw recently much argument from people on the left about the character of Central Intelligence Agency, and they attack me and others when I tell them CIA is and has always been left-wing organization. I want to say a word on this, why you have these enormous efforts by the so-called Dirtbag left or the anti-woke left. In other words, these are leftists who recognize on some level that the whole woke crap, the

identity politics crap that is garbage, that it is in some ways very different from classical Marxism and that it seems to entail abandonment of class struggle and class economic analysis. It turns you into a repulsive schoolmarm. So they seek to reject that and they want to claim that in doing so they are being the real rebels and fighting for the common man against the establishment and all of this. What is the big reason you see such types, they are obsessed with the CIA. Let me explain in case it's not clear to you by now why. Why they are so concerned with CIA? What was doing CIA 60 or 70 years ago? And they're trying to make claim that the CIA, which of course now you see it's one of the biggest promoters of this global woke regime worldwide and carrying out a color

revolution against Trump at home. So they're trying to say, however, that the CIA is actually a nefarious Nazi organization, that it worked with Nazi scientists. You look up Operation Paperclip, that it bullicided communist regimes in Latin America. They got so insanely mad at me when I supported the overthrow of Evo Morales, which, by the There is not much CA involvement proven in that. There may be, I don't doubt that there is, but there isn't special evidence of CA involvement in the overthrow of Evo Morales. It's rather that the white middle class of Bolivia had had enough of his demagogic rhetoric and the way they try to dispossess them, so they overthrew him and it happens frequently in South America that they overthrow such, they're not rightly called populists because

they're actually racial demagogues in the case of Evo Morales or Chavez. But when I supported that as a leftist on Twitter and so forth, they're livid with anger. How dare I support the genocide of the commies? You know, you're supposed to stomp for commies when they use pseudo-nationalist rhetoric, right? But in any case, this is their claim that the CIA bully-sided communist regimes in Latin America are that there is some kind of grand CIA conspiracy of assertion of worldwide white colonialism, or what have you. They actually believe this. This is Chomsky tedium. Why are they doing this? Why do you think? They do this because they're clawing desperately at wall, like I see on last show, to stake out some kind of anti-establishment position, which in fact they know from inside that they

do not. They cannot do that. They're not anti-establishment. They're very much of it, and they're promoting one of its main lines of thought. But they do the CIA ops postings, this kind of lazy genealogy, what my friend the bureaucrat, he describes as low energy genealogy to stimulate narcissistic defense reactions. The conspiracy theory grift. You see so much on the left now. Many among them in this same vein are trying to revive the 2000s Bush era paranoia about Leo Strauss, supposedly Leo Strauss Nazi infiltration of the right. You know, it's amazing to see now they go back to that, you know, as far as I can tell, they have no idea what Straussian means, by the way, they just think it's synonymous with fascists, and they also think this means neo-Khan,

and it also means Jew and Zionist, it's a catch-all slur for them. It also means of white supremacy and colonialist, and this series of deranged equivalencies out of the leftoid mind, as if, you know, Bill Kristol meets to talk of white supremacy in private or something like this. Let me not get into that. Almost all the Straussians, by the way, are leftoids themselves and pussientas. But to go back to the left, why they do all this, the CIA stuff and what I just said? They're doing all this because of bad conscience in knowing they're merely an ideological appendage of the establishment. The left, including the old left, the Marxist left, has, like I said, a secure place in academia, and much of what you hear from Chapeau and from Maroons who try to ape Chapeau, much

of the talk of neoliberalism, which they adopted from Chomsky and things like this, this stuff you can hear in academia. You don't need to go online for this and you certainly don't need to use a pseudonym. It's not dangerous to say that. And by the way, what did it tell you about these people that they try to repackage the academic garbage and put online and try to pretend it's something new, that you supposedly have to stay under a pseudonym? Why do you not just say it under any number of leftoid publications or from an academic chair? It's the same thing in there. Look, Shadia Drury, for example, or Chomsky, they all repeated all this crap during Bush years than before. But maybe the bad conscience over being establishment lickspittles is not what bothers these online

leftoid peoples, like Chappo and Chappo aspiring, but rather the fact they couldn't manage to warm into the very extensive leftist grift program. You know, they couldn't even get that Soros money or whatever, I don't know. But look, this is the point, there is no way for you to be on the left and also to be anti-establishment. And focusing on, by the way, a completely false history of the Cold War is not going to make this case for you. You know, again, this, what they're trying to do, they think they can prove the Chomsky-Oliver Stone view of Nazi supremacist, neoliberal CIA, then it means they're not just teachers' pets. the whole meaning of their CIA obsession, which of course they are, they are teachers' pets. But look, the claim they make about history of CIA is just false.

Entire history of CIA. It is true, let me make disclaimer, that in very few cases CIA worked with a rightist and even far-right organizations. I've spoken before about Operation Gladio. It was a very, actually minor operation in CIA history, and as somebody on the hard right, and proudly so as a reactionary, I am not happy about Operation Gladio because I see it as a kind of deuterium almost, or a way to contain, let me put it that way, is the safest way to contain the hard right. That's what Operation Gladio was. To use it to fight communism, but also mainly to contain it. But aside from this, you know, yes, occasionally it may have worked with rightists and even far-right organizations and individuals to achieve concrete goals.

In the same way they work now with the Azov battalion in Ukraine. But these are exceptions, and at most they are opportunistic, temporary alliances. They are made furthermore by minority factions within the CIA, which is not a monolithic organization, and they were made to achieve specific ends. Whereas on the other side, the cooperation of the CIA with international socialism and even with the Soviets is not occasional or cynical or opportunistic. It is far bigger and it is not occasional but systematic. I've already given you actually many examples on this show, The Angola Show episode 2, I talk about this, but also at least two other episodes on the Cold War, I don't remember if it's Caribbean reason 25 or this, on how it was the CIA that in fact created from scratch

as a communist liberation movements in many third world countries. Angola, Mozambique, where the leader of that particular movement in Mozambique was educated in America, Monglane, I think his name was, but where there is a clear record of cooperation between American security state and anti-colonial third world Marxist movements. By no means what I just said now is exception, is the rule. And I will continue to treat specific cases of this, because I like the history of this third world conflict is very colorful if you know how to tell it, but in fact the names are known. It is not a supposition or invention like neoliberalism, again which refers to a group that never existed. But in the case I'm talking about, they are actually specific individuals who are known.

And Vietnam, for example, is one of the worst cases of war, and most misunderstood. What happened in Vietnam in the 1950s, after the French left, the CIA promoted the Diems. You all know Diem. You think he's conservative. No. The Diems, they were members of international labor socialism. Look it up, they spent no CIA money or aid to fight communists, and they received massive money aid from America. But they spent none of that to fight communists. They directed all of their energies against the vestiges of French colonialism, against the Vietnamese emperor, and against traditional Vietnam, including Vietnamese religions and so forth. This is what the Diems did, members of international socialism that the CIA promoted from a position

of powerlessness to lead South Vietnam after the French left. But this hardly is the only case, as I say, since CIA promotion of marksoid movements is very strong in Africa. I gave examples and blah blah blah. But even occasionally, actually, Latinx America, okay, so even in our own time, if you look recently in Honduras, Hillary Clinton came out against that coup. But I don't want to get into that, but throughout 60s, 70s, American support for right-wing dictators in Latin America is not what you think it was. Just as often America supported left-wing also in Latin America. Now look, the main counterclaim these people have is an old argument. It's used by both the far leftists and the liberals that America's consistent and actually systematic support for international socialism.

I mean, look at Obama's whore mother, okay? But this was some kind of a Machiavellian plan to promote its own version of the left so as to deprive the Soviets of control. Okay, this is the argument. Arthur Schlesinger says something like this. So idea is, this is their excuse. It's false, but this is their excuse. You go into country X and you have to support your own socialist movement to prevent the Soviet supported version from coming to power. But this sounds nice on paper only, in reality, this basically never happened because in many cases, Angola, Mozambique, Vietnam, the three I mentioned already, there was no local taste for socialism or elifism of any kind. The Soviets were not making gains with that, and America came in and had to promote its

rival version of socialism out of necessity, excuse me, it did not have to do that out of necessity, that was their excuse. But instead what America actually did it created leftist or socialist movements from scratch, like I keep repeating, and it often imposed them against the people's will. Again, case of Vietnam, Angola very similar too, by the way, where, you know, I had to kick out the Portuguese. And the reason for all of this was not to counter the Soviets, but to cooperate with the Soviets as FDR and Stalin openly agreed in the 1940s to go on a crusade against European colonialism. Look this up. This was open, overt agreement between FDR and Stalin. And that is what they both then did together. So America's support, for example, for Ho Chi Minh, it dates from the 1940s.

And America supported him against France in the same way as they supported Algerian jihadists against France. despite the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a known communist agent since the 1930s. He was known to British intelligence in Hong Kong, and for example, during Japanese occupation, Ho Chi Minh did nothing at all to fight the Japanese. This is the excuse, because again, it's very much known that American support for Ho Chi him in dates from 1940, so the excuse is, oh, he was not a communist then, he was just a nationalist, and America was supporting him to fight the Japanese, well, he did not fight the Japanese, and he was a known communist from the 1930s, okay. But you know, this is the argument such people use, like a cat tries to hide its own shit

in this sneaky way, both the far left and the CIA use false arguments and would like you to forget their extensive cooperation, not occasional but systematic and it's a cooperation of family. It's really a cooperation that stretches back to well before the CIA was ever created. For example, FDR saved the Soviet Union with land lease. This is transferring huge weaponry and machines to them during the 1930s and then teaming up with Stalin to burn Europe down in World War II. Okay? This is what FDR did, alliance with Stalin. Harry Dexter of White, a known Soviet agent within FDR's regime. He was not unique. FDR's entire administration, very much communist, infiltrated. Harry Dexter of Vice, okay, was not an agent of neoliberalism. He was an agent of international Marxism.

And when the OSS precursor to CIA was created, it attracted precisely the kind of red youth you see yapping today on Twitter and elsewhere. You know, I want to ask these guys on Twitter, the reds, who are saying, oh, the CIA was always far, far right, working with Nazi operation paper clips. You know, I want to ask them, they were nice, red, polite, red boys like you, pink boys like you in the 1940s. What do you think they did? They joined the OSS, these were communist men who wanted to fight the scourge of Nazism, and they joined the OSS in the beginning when it was created. And I know from someone directly involved in Southeast Asia at the time that OSS agents, and I quote now, they danced a little jig when they found out Ho Chi Minh was making

gains in Vietnam in 1940 against the French, by the way, not against the Japanese. Oh yes, they danced a little jig, but why because they were red subverting gloniger commie pinko garbage. Very old story. That is your typical OSS CIA agent, and Brennan and commie being members of the Communist Party is nothing new. It's very old. You want to talk neo-cons, by the way, it's the same thing, a rival faction to the CIA. When I praised Alfredo Strösner, this was the dictator of Paraguay for many decades until 1989, I think, and I praise, I always praise Alfredo Ströstner, I like him. I praise him on Twitter, he's a man who kept communism out of Paraguay for decades, yes, with some assistance from factions, minority factions in American government, and he was

a man of power that I will devote a future show to. But do you know who jumped at my throat when I praised him? It was Neil Kahn's, okay? They hate that. They hate it so much, they don't like Pinochet either, by the way, they come from families who are tortured by South American dictators in many cases. In this case with Ströster, they come from filthy, nation-destroying, communist subverters. That is where their family sympathy lies. And neo-cons never supported, let's say, pro-Western dictators in South America or anywhere else. In fact, the whole neo-con thing, right, is to install democracy, or dumb-bo-crazy, directly. Not through supporting pro-American or pro-Western dictators. But I am telling you, actually, the CIA as well, which was, like I say before, it was

anti-neo-con in most cases around the world, I say this without any kind of merchant hedging or qualification of words, by most, I mean the vast majority of cases, CIA deposed pro-Western dictators or strongmen or traditional leaders and replace them with pro-Soviet or socialist ones. And in a few cases, with people like Mobutu, who may have been anti-communist but were also anti-Western, Mobutu very much so, anti-white, anti-Western. But everywhere, CA only support the global south, the third world morass against Europe. And in those places where CA pretended to promote the non-Soviet left, really it turned out in those cases it was in fact this non-Soviet left was just as bloody and corrupt as the Soviet left and in many cases actually they were exactly the same.

The non-Soviet left was just opened the door to take over by the explicitly Soviet left. Because like I tell you, the precondition of globalism is to get rid of colonialism. Globalism not continuation of colonialism. This is why the new left and the old left wants to hide, together with the liberals of which they are a party by the way, but they want to hide this because a colony extracted goods and services for people of the mother country. Belgians, Englishmen, French, they all profited, let's say, from direct access to raw goods from the colonies, or from access to those markets and so forth. And the colonies were themselves a refuge and a space for expansion and adventure for certain types who needed it.

But more importantly, the average citizen in the mother country profited directly. It was not a global thing. But if you are a large multinational cartel, you will use the American security state and the Soviet, let's say, for example, to kick the Belgians out of Congo, because you want those resources for yourself and not for the benefit of the Belgian people. So you will use communism as a pretext and a muscle to end colonialism. And that is what globalism is. That is the power behind the new left. this civilization dissolution cabal that used first Marxism and now the international sodomy brigades of the new left as a battering ram, to dissolve whatever vestiges are left in the third world of civilization that stand in your way of resource grab.

And so if you are like this, you will use China if you have to, or you will let yourself be used by China. So I should have added, perhaps a show or two go, that the area of greatest cooperation I could foresee between Russia and America is not just the global south and China, but chiefly the destruction of this hidden cabal, which actually tried in the 1990s to grab hold of Russia and to squeeze it dry. Only that Putin, putler, was the backing of most of the Russia security state. In his case, this is Trump problem, he does not have this, you know, but Putin had that on his side in Russia. And he managed to kick them out and to free his people, mostly, okay? Which is why he's so hated now by them. Why you see ape Brennan fagging off on Twitter the other day about how he wants to remove

Putler and replace him with Navalny. They're insane, okay? And this cabal that a Russia-American alliance could take on was the 500 names or so, like I say, to hunt them around the world, to hunt them down. And I just see a complete vision of a world where the West can free itself from this sect that never sleeps. That has used the West's technology and comfort to smother life. That has tried to put the vitality under the heel of the Earth's mammy to homogenize life to the condition of the same dreary global work camp. I see an alliance perhaps of free nations of the North to liberate a world from this. Now what they used the Soviet Union to achieve before, they tried to use mass immigration, climate change, or now the Chink Bat AIDS crisis to achieve.

They tried to use this for the same purpose. So who will oppose them? Who will be able to name them? And in the end, have they miscalculated? Because once you open the door to the people, to the use of the people as a dissolving agent of traditional society, will there be, like I keep saying, men of enterprise, like Salvini or Bolsonaro, who are actually in the end better seducers of the people, who can better mount and ride the people against this enemy? But these men, like Bolsonaro or Duterte even from Philippines, are small compared to what will come. I believe this. In other words, democracy, even women, who were used as the tools of dissolution of traditional societies of the great structures erected by men of power of the past.

But in turn, the great specimens of our time, I am almost sure, I am sure, they will be able to use the people, and even the eternal woman, to crush our ultimately calculating and therefore second-rate enemies. Some among you, I mean to say, will show them what democracy, what Caesaristic Democracy really means. Bap out.