The hard right, or the real right wing, is divided in general between the traditional branch and on the other hand the radical, or you can call it progressive, or I like to call it the futurist right wing, and these two branches come on one hand from men like Joseph de Maistre and Donos Cortes, these are thinkers of the traditionalist right, men who support the monarchy and the rule of the church. read St. Petersburg Diaries by de Maistra, or you can say they support monarchy or dictatorship as a means to preserving the rule of the church, and there are Russian varieties too, like Dostoevsky for the Orthodox and this. And on the other hand, you have thinkers like Nietzsche, whose root really of all the radical

or progressive or futurist rights of all of the movements, 1900 to 1940, are avowed the Nietzsche movements, whether it's very intellectual ones like Stefan Georges circle or you have political mass movements like Mussolini or Hitler or such all avowedly inspired by Nietzsche and the political states that embody these ways of thought are the ones I just aimed for the radical right and Franco or Salazar for the reactionary traditionalists, right? There are others, too, but these are main examples and it's very easy to distinguish between the two branches in these neat ways, maybe too easy, where one type of right supports the preservation of traditional Christian society, the so-called throne and altar with everything that implies, and on the other hand, where it rejects that.

The futurist right rejects the church and Christianity even, at least in its pure form it does. It rejects also monarchy and the traditional orders. Not just monarchy, but you know, it's not just monarchy, right? What is the rallying cry of the Spanish traditionalists, the Carlists in the Spanish Civil War and before it? Their motto is Dios patria fueros re, where the fueros, I assume you know what the other words mean, God, country, fueros, king. What are fueros? They are the traditional feudal orders and rights. And as you can see in the formula, these come even before the king. But all of this is rejected by someone like Nietzsche and his followers in favor of a new order and a new hierarchy, you know, the famous saying of the Falange, this is the

radical right in the Spanish context, viva la muerte, long live death, quite different from the Carlist or traditionalist slogan you just heard. But Nietzsche believed a new aristocracy to replace the old, although it should be emphasized in his conception this is still an aristocracy of blood. It's not merely one of so-called spirit, as you hear some people talk this, I will discuss this in a moment, but it's a new aristocracy, new orders to replace the old. And he believed, I quote, that the petty democratic and nationalist and petty dynastic struggles within Europe must end, I'm roughly quoting now, to give way to a new era of global politic in which a European super caste would be bred eugenically to rule for thousands of years.

But look, this distinction between the two kinds of right-wing, and this after all would be the real right, right? Because you can tell they both stand against communism but also against liberal capitalism. So they would consider something like America to be a left-wing project. Although that is debatable itself, I understand. This is longer talk, but I think what I just said now might be a little bit unfair to my American reactionary friends, because they do have reactionary ways of thought and traditions which look far beyond the so-called founding of the 1770s, and they understand the founding perhaps to be older, and some even interpret maybe actually the founding itself of the 1770s in a reactionary way, and furthermore there is the question of the followers of

Cunard-Ledding who see liberal capitalism as preferable but as compatible only with monarchy, and they actually see it as the real right wing. This gets into some complications, you know, because Cunard-Ledding, he has some good historical evidence for this claim, very simply, that the liberal party sat literally on the right wing of parliaments after the French Revolution and they sat literally next to the monarchists. So I don't have time on this show, you know, this is such a huge topic, I'll tell you why I choose it in a moment, but often on these shows I have to figure out not new content or what to talk, others have that problem, not me. I have to figure out how to cut down what I have to say for one hour, or one hour and

a little show, and beyond this I am a bit frustrated, I have many topics I keep promising you that I've never yet gotten to, I keep delaying, for example, long ago I tell you I do show on strange figure Marsilio Ficino, he's a Renaissance Platonist and many such unusual things, but I always delay and in fact this show I think I told you I was going to talk Robert Guiscard, Robert the Fox and continue on the Norman conquest of Italy, but again I have to leave that for another time because now I'm preoccupied with this other topic. I have to talk what interests me on that day and for the last two days I've had yet again serious problems. I have lately the prickliness and sensitivity of Shaboom and all her aristocratic

majesty, the chip on the shoulder of a black woman. I'm not sure why. It might have to do with lack of sleep, but I've been terribly bothered by even, you know, so much as a wrong look. So I go out this weekend after Christmas. I hope you all had good celebrations with pork and wine. I go to bar and as soon as I get out of camp, it's almost to ruin my night, you know, as soon as I get out of camp, this waiter come up to me and starts asking in loud voice if I need something, if I need a drink in broken English, okay, so, you know, don't worry, I didn't do anything bad, nor on the other side dishonorable, I ignored, but merely his presumption in addressing me in this rude way, and I've been so angry about it for, it's really an underground man impulse, I know you shouldn't indulge in this.

You know, it's maybe not underground men, it's a hard, arched, boon impulse where, you know, they get dissed at the bar and they come back and shoot everyone. That's not called an Elliot Rodger act for some reason. Why not? Why does it mean? Because that's the motivation behind so many of these so-called gangland bar shootings. They shoot up a wedding, it's because they feel they've been dissed. But I wanted to go back to this and burn down this bar and destroy everything in it because If my health, if anything happened to me, this is now another slightly different subject, but if anything should happen to me, you must know it was a set up. Since last May, I have been travel, many airport, no mask. I go into hotspot areas of the world, no mask in packed bars and restaurants.

I have seen repeatedly, I'm not saying this to brag, but just so you understand the nature of this so-called epidemic. I've been seeing regularly since September women of bad repute, okay, skank this type, and nothing happened to me. Now it could be that I'm immune natural to this or that I had it and did not know. I doubt I got lucky given what I've been doing since basically this epidemic began. So if I would have gotten it, I would have gotten it by now is my point. So if anything happens to me from this point on, know that it was a set up that the Zog inject me with something, some poison, and do not let them blame on this disease because it cannot affect me based on what I know about so far and my behavior, therefore you must

know in that case to avenge me, see, this is why I say this, I think vengeance keeps you alive, you know, this message of old Korean movies like, well it's not old, but old boy, you know, this and that whole trilogy by the guy who made old boy, vengeance keeps you alive, and I have in me, I have immersed a will to vengeance against people in particular from my boyhood, when I remember, look, I can't get into doxable details, but really I await a worldwide state of lawlessness because I have scores to settle in particular on people who mistreated animals. I remember from my boyhood in particular, evil public authorities or semi-authorities who mistreated poor doggies such as I used to play with outside. I can't think of it without choking up, so I have to not talk about this.

But vengeance will be mine. I hope Trump has this spirit, we all chose him for, but I hope he does not wait many years but strikes back now. Please don't talk to me about election, you know Trump has a chance now, I'm listening to Infowars and it's bullshit, they have people call about how he must declare martial law and have military sees CNN and replace Don Lemon as if Don Lemon is so important. I mean look, this is misdirection if anything. You don't need martial law. his chance now not only to save himself and his family who would otherwise surely get sent to jail but to break this satanic system for good or at least set back their cause worldwide in a way that has not been possible since 1950. It's a great opportunity has shown itself to him and he can just seize it and the outcome

would be very easy I think right now. I mean if he made a call not for military and martial law and this cartoon villain thing But for the people, all he would need are, let's say, 10 to 20 million, although many more than that would come out if he called for them, but that's enough, plus maybe the truckers to strike and to blockade the cities, just stop breaking food, and maybe a few other vital sectors like the bikers or maybe miners from West Virginia who should have already been organized into Trumpist unions, by the way. But this all he would need because the military won't stop it. They won't get involved. The police won't stop it. And the other side, it only has a few Basiji Antifa types. They get a lot of press, but there are very few, actually very few numbers.

And beyond that, no one would show up, you know, beyond their few Basiji militia, no one would show up to defend Bidan, you know, the sclerotic zombie. This candidate promising people pain and a dark winter, nobody voted for that guy, okay. Trump probably got 60, 70 percent of the vote. I'm not exaggerating. I don't think anyone showed up to even vote for Biden. This whole election is made up. But if they're allowed, in fact, look, I don't even want to go there. I don't want to speculate if they're allowed to steal and this because that gets into fedposting land and this is a family show. You've listened now to more than 60 episodes. Most have not been on politics. You know, I unfrog Twitter, we've been around since 2015, excuse me, since well before 2015

for a while, okay, before Trump came along and were not primarily a politics ball commentators. You know, it's enough. There is an exhaustion with the topic of politics, this, and that's all I'll say for now. Let me talk, this show about differences between the two branches of the right, okay, Nietzsche versus the maestras, the two main branches, and to tell you why, despite the rather neat distinction I made at the beginning of the episode, an easy distinction it is to make the two, where they seem quite different from each other and even in some fundamental ways they seem opposed, yet I think this is incomplete, actually the two are much more brothers than anything else. And also ultimately I want to say why neither is maybe directly relevant to what we're trying to do now.

They are relevant, but not directly. The spirit of both drives us, I think. But we are not a state movement, nor are we trying to be, really. So the relevance of these to our aims is somewhat indirect. I will explain this, I hope, on this show. But first, I want to go on some tangents for you next segment, some odds and ends from debates this week. I tell you next segment, I'm in this mood, I told you. I want to get into petty fights with shit lib on internet. I tell you next segment. I'll be right back. Yes. Welcome back. I spend this segment on attacks. I see things on Twitter that make me chimp. I see on Twitter these leftoid leaning libertarians twist themselves in knots because they do not understand where their own ideas come from. Here is someone called Kathy Nobody Vites.

I don't know. She says something like, okay, this was big discussions this week. I saw people commenting right and left. She says something like, the left has ignored the problem of atomization and allowed the right to come up with, I quote, batshit solutions. So now it's time for the reasonable, of course, left to tackle this problem of atomization and not ignore it. Okay, so where this whole lives, where this whole lives, what's she reading? These leftoids don't understand their own side, even what it's about. Look, you go to Soviet Union, to East Bloc, okay, one of the most popular plays was Death of a Salesman, okay, they love this play, why? Because it shows the supposed alienation and, yes, new word filtered down from Wellebeck

and from frog language, by the way, you know, these debates that go on on Twitter among the self-styled intellectuals, the face lords, these are often worthless debates, but a good beginning to go off on tangent, I mean, look, they just copy anons and all of this, they copy in this case with atomized language, Wellebeck, and men from among us like Menaquinone 4 and Delicious Tacos who spread Wellebeck ideas before others knew of them. Wellebeck mixed in with a good dose of science and of natural knowledge of the woman race. I speak now of Delicious Tacos and Menaquinone, heartiest too. But so yes, communist nations loved to put on things like Death of a Salesman because supposedly show the alienation of life in late capitalist society, and it is a mainstay

of leftoid propaganda that capitalist life causes alienation, or if you want, atomization, beginning with alienation of the worker from his work product, and all of this, okay, and contrary to what this leftoid girl is saying, a big part of the left's PR, whether commie or commie watered down otherwise, is the focus on community, okay? Don't ask where it comes from though, don't ask why a community and why this kind and why I should sacrifice my rights or self-interest to this particular leftoid community based apparently only on redistribution of material goods, do not ask that. Because the dirty secret of the left is that it's based on a kind of enforced community, which as I've said many times on show and in book and other times, this kind of community,

this solution to atomization is far worse than what it's trying to cure. And if you don't believe me, try driving through East Block. I mean, I'm not telling you something crazy like go live in a transsexual commune and this, but do something like go to East Europe and drive through East Block and go in particular to seaside resorts inherited from commie times, whether on Adriatic or Black Sea or go to Carpathians in Slovakia, you know Carpathians extend into Poland I think, but go to some of those resorts there and see the atmosphere. It's just hello fellow workers, this your time off from work, rejoice, time to have fun. Okay, it's very bleak, artificial force, the kind of carnival theme park, a kind of carnival

theme park atmosphere in all these places. There's nothing authentic, okay? They like this word, authentic, but leftism can't ever provide you with any authentic community and I know they will say, well that wasn't real communism, you know, we're smart, we're not like those East Europeans will do it, you know, okay? But it's all the same shit. The leftism cannot provide you with any authentic community because at bottom leftism is a scheme for robbery on a massive scale, no matter how you dress it. And in this respect, leftism is actually very vulnerable to liberal, so-called classical liberal or capitalist counter-arguments. Which do I have to say this to you, by the way, after all this time? I do not agree, okay, with the man I named before, Cunard Ledin, or otherwise with similar

monarchist liberal capitalist thinkers like Friedrich von Hayek. But the arguments against the forced communitarian projects of the left are, I think, very powerful and almost unanswerable. And my point is, if you descend to argue on this ground of atomization versus community and so on in the abstract, you will end up nowhere, because it's a fake argument in the end, both the leftists and the liberals, two species of the same thing. In the end, they're both wrong. But in this argument, the Hayek people, the Austrian so-called thinkers, they have the better hand of it in two ways. First of all, because Hayek says any leftist scheme, no matter how you arrange it, will depend on a class that actually does the redistributing.

And this will simply be a grand, senorial elite in the end, of course without trappings of glory and of medieval barony and so on, but with all the powers that both the leftists and the liberals imagined such lords had. In any case, it's deeply injurious to freedom, and while I see, for example, the advantage which is sacrificing your freedom for the sake of something like Sparta or for the sake of God in ancient Israel or ancient, you know, under the kingdom of whatever, even under the ancient Egyptians you can say, I don't see the leftist argument, I don't see this value of the leftist argument that you must sacrifice freedom in this case for the sake of freedom or still less for the increase in production of butter per year, okay? I don't see that.

Their so-called communities that they provide for you as a cure to atomization is people like that girl who made the show, not Friends, Girls, Lena Dunham, okay? So you have to live with her in a commune and you have to lick her cunt and this they They call it community, but they force you to do it. Is this what you want? Do you think it's better? Don't imagine that the men who erected the communist regimes in the East weren't educated in Marxism, by the way. Most were much more so than American leftoids. They had pure intentions and they had enough practical experience. I'm talking about the people who made communist regimes in the 30s, 40s, 20s, and so on. They had more practical experience, enough in the world to try to make appropriate adjustments

for the societies they were taking over. They knew very well, Marx was not talking about agrarian societies, nevertheless they made adjustments but it failed for the reason, look up Lisek Kolakovsky, this writer Kolakovsky, look up what he explains. The reason is that Marxist societies will actually always look like this. They will always look like Stalinism and not like anything else. Furthermore, if your concern is atomization, the solution Frederick von Hayek and pure liberals or libertarians of this kind, the solutions they provide is much better than the left. They say you have freedom of association, and this includes, by the way, the preservation of pre-modern or would have included the preservation of forms and orders from before 1950 or 1933

1914 or whatnot, and today whatever remnants or role-playing attempts to re-establish these now, it would preserve them. But in any case, freedom of association, which isn't something we can be said to have now under whatever this is. Call it what you want, whatever we have now, but it's not a way of freedom where, for example, communities of whatever kind, including racial communities, would be free to discriminate at will and to establish a bond between themselves voluntarily or to live apart a certain way. In other words, we don't have libertarian freedom of association. If we did, probably real communities could form. Now in our lives, many of us had jobs we did not like. We lived in bleak and squalid cities.

And often some may feel, you know, that there is work and you come home too tired from work to do anything else and it is hard to meet new people for anything after college. And so this state of things goes on indefinitely, this supposedly adult life. And I'm listing what I just told you, almost from phrase here from Willabek, he says this, and I don't deny that our trash world gives this depressing existence to many, but I do doubt that leftism or Marxism can solve this problem for you in any way, either economically or spiritually, in terms at least of what's being discussed now, providing a genuine community. In fact, socialism and leftism exist for many today, right, this well-known for the very rich and for the very poor, which is why many in the middle class or in the middle end up

with the experience I just mentioned, because you are the worker drones and the tech sponges which the state can squeeze and deal out your labor and body as patronage for votes and other things. So the left cannot solve this problem any more than free market so-called economics Excuse me, to Austrian economics and liberalism, monarchist or not. Hans Hermann Hoppe is a great man, but in the end he seems to turn to something quite different from Hayek style liberalism. Hans Hermann Hoppe is this, some say, extremely Bertardian, but he becomes something more like a monarchist reactionary perhaps. In any case, this is not shown to attack liberalism or, by the way, since that is a huge subject but since I brought it up, let me say what is wrong with liberalism very quickly.

Liberalism in saying anything goes, you know, a king, a real king, ends up privileging men of science sometimes. Men of art, okay? Would this monarch of the Austrians or of the, let's say, liberal monarchists, would he be able to elevate such types of men, the men of science or the men of art, above others? Would he have this power to elevate such men? And would such elevation harm others' property rights or dignities? Because if your answer to this is yes, what you're advocating for is ultimately not as such a system of freedom. I believe Hayek and Kunelt-Ledding genuinely wanted a system of freedom. But what they really end up advocating is a system of money and power. And this is what I mean to say is the problem with all versions of liberalism, whether the

the monarchist kind have been discussed on this show, or whatever parliamentary kind, it becomes simply a system of money power. You are well acquainted with this criticism, but it's something quite different and a tawdry affair in the end, it's quite different from a system of freedom. Because plutocracy and oligarchy are bad forms of government and you can consult history or political philosophy for what happens in them, I don't want to discuss now, but specifically in a modern context what happens is, what did happen, I mean in the 19th century, where the bourgeois democracies set up precisely such a system of freedom and money, but whether it was monarchic or parliamentarian, the liberal 19th century states were in the end unable

to be a dam against the great tide of popular sentiment, including socialism and communism, which were merely attempts to redistribute and accelerate this great bounty of capitalist liberalism at the point of a gun. And the reason they were unable to stem this tide is because elevating the monument to the height of society, you discredit society. It is easy for the people to respect great knights with their pomp and great kings, but not so much the industrialist or the capitalist. They despise him and then they will despise also your state and all of your institutions. So I mean to say that the liberals, the capitalists, they can never stop the communists. They are too weak. This is a constant.

It doesn't matter how you dress up the communists, they cannot stop this, and they cannot inspire and mobilize the people, I mean, the Hayek faction, even in its pure state. Which by the way, 19th century bourgeois liberalism is not system I like, but compared to what we have now, they produced very high culture. But again, they are unable to stop this tide of democracy. They cannot mobilize the people. Only fascism of one kind or another can mobilize the people. If you can't do that, you end up like the powerless reactionaries or social democrats in Weimar Germani who, you know, the reactionaries with all their pretensions of the old monarchic order. And in that case, in the German case, they had even retained some of the old pomp and honor of a martial society.

But even so, they are unable to mobilize the people, which is why Nazism ended up winning as the only viable opponent of the communists. There's no elite solution to modern communism. There's no elite solution to the problem of modern communism. Elite guys tend to forget that. The only solution is to be able to mobilize the people, which doesn't need to be Nazis. It could be something like Peron or other things. But I'm afraid if Trump fails now, they will use his example to say, oh, see, populism does work. Trump's fault. Look, let's see what happens. But his fault would be not that he didn't have institutional support, but that he successfully did mobilize the people but never pulled the trigger. We will see. But I hope he has the nerve now at high noon. We will see.

In any case, yes, where was I? Twitter fights. So speaking of Marxism, I'd like to talk about another Twitter fight I saw. It's really absurd, related to what I just said. But it's very absurd. I don't want to, I'll find his name right now, let me find the tweet. It's another face fag, newcomer face fag. He just copies Mobug almost word for word without giving any attribution to Mobug. Now this is big account. I think he has hundreds of thousands of followers, but let me read this, let me read this tweet for you. James Lindsay, yes, I'm reading his tweet now. Captivism is the Calvinism of Hegelian phenomenology and Woke-ness is its Puritan phase. Marx was its Calvin. So my friend Zero, H. P. Lovecraft, you know, he points this guy, he's copying Molbach, no attribution, nothing.

But this is what these flags do, they leech off anons, they try to pass it off as their own. That said, Molbach is wrong here, okay? Modern leftism, wokeism is not Calvinism, it's not Puritanism. This common idea, many people try to, they love this idea that the cause of modern political correctness or now of wokeness is Puritanism or Calvinism, okay, it's not true, Marx is a Jew, he's not a Calvinist, okay. Normies just love this Mollbach theology, I guess, because it sounds nice, it's also a way to blame Puritans, which is safe to do rather than a more obvious party, but Puritans Since their descendants, they were against, for example, FDR. They were against socialism, and they were against the Left's reforms in America.

It was the Ellis Island fraternity, rather, that group of immigrants who arrived after the Civil War when the WASP consensus, the Puritan consensus broke down in America. And the new immigrants came, and they were the FDR power base. And these are people who came from parts of Europe unaccustomed to modern liberalism in its best sense and who brought with them machine politics, big city machine politics, which is to say what? These big city machine politics is just a patronage networks of old world Italian, Irish, Jewish collectivism, inherited uninterrupted from medieval times, in other words, groups that had never really gone through a process of modernization, of modern civilization. And this was the base of Marxism in America, of FDR reforms, the Puritans, the Calvinists

oppose that, okay? As also it is this same group that is the base now of the so-called woke revolution and Marx is not the Kelvin of anything, he's the Marx of something, which is to say a Jewish phenomenon through and through. Marxism is secularized Judaism. Don't take my word for it. Look and you say, that is an online Nazi, he's anti-Semite. I know, you consult Karl Louvith, L-O-W-I-T-H, the well-known Jewish Nazi Karl Louvith. Actually it's funny, he would be called a Jewish Nazi today for saying this, but he had the distinction of teaching in all the Axis powers during World War II. It's a very funny example. He taught in Berlin, then in Italy, then Tokyo. Apparently Heidegger visited Karl Louvith in Italy and showed up with a swastika armband

apology for Jewish behavior in front of the outsider. I tried to give you a simple version of this here, but in other words, Marx was deeply ashamed in front of modern Gentile society, modern advanced Gentile society. Marx wants to be part of it, he's assimilated into it, but he's very embarrassed by his tribesmen's brutish backward behaviors. This very common phenomenon among ethnics who are assimilated or half-assimilated, their unassimilated cousins deeply embarrass them, and in this case he was embarrassed in particular by Jewish usury and speculation and other dirty financial practices, and this stereotype at least, which you know as a stereotype it was mostly true, but Marx's rejoinder was

to reinterpret all economic life, and especially all modern capitalist economic life, as similar exploitation and trickery. In other words, he says, yes, us Jews may be grubby usurers and exploiters and shylocks, but you Gentiles are too, without knowing it. This is what Marx said, you know, it's classic ethnic apologetics, ethnic resentment move. And by the way, if you think it's speculative claim about Marx that this was his motivation, please just read Jean-Marie Kadehi's book, or at least this chapter, because he actually goes deeply into Marx's correspondence and his own stated motivations for what he was doing. It's a very strong case, in my opinion an unanswerable case. And you might call it, it's not this kind of dumb antisemitism, you know, because it

places actually the Jewish struggle against the Gentile. It places this in the larger context of other peoples who were also late comers to modernity and who had similar problems and tensions. In other words, it's not just the Jews who had this tension with modern civilization. Modern civilization being based on what? Individualism, specialization, decorum, distance, abandonment of tribal identity, but all marginal peoples, whether Sicilians or later others who joined, tried to join the Western world like the elites from Pakistan or wherever, and it's a very common phenomenon you see among ethnic, whether they are Brahmin, Indian in the United States, or they're even a Colombian or a second generation especially, immigrant, African or this, who feel simultaneously

humiliated by the achievements and beauty of Western Christian modern civilization and they want to copy it and to be part of it, but at the same time they feel deep pain because Because enjoining such civilization means abandoning tribal, clannish, pre-modern consciousness, this way of life, which has its advantages, right? It feels very warm and decent. So much of Marx as a Freud is a desperate attempt to recapture, to justify the continuation of that pre-modern, boorish clannishness within modern individualistic civilization. modern individualism and distance and specialization that hurts them so, the kind of social relations based on civility and distance. And if you look at the woke revolution now, the so-called woke revolution, it is this exactly what it is.

It's got nothing to do with Puritanism or Calvinism, which you know, Puritanism or Calvinism, whatever their worth or lack of worth, they are genuinely universalist and moralist aspirations. But the woke revolution is not that, it's a restatement of Marx and of Freud, of the Jewish ordeal with civility, with modernity, which demands that you abandon your narcissistic self-conception as a special ethnic, your tribal existence, and all associated uncivilized This is what modernity demands, okay? On the other hand, these people want to demand special respect from others. I demand respect! You know, the Fredo, this, oh God, this, okay, anyway, you understand why this whole woke thing is just a restatement of that struggle with modern civilization.

It wants to destroy modern civilization, depends on this, you have to join it, you have to destroy within yourself this narcissistic, ethnic self-regard, this is very difficult. This is where all of the woke things come from. So Lindsay, however, is doubly wrong on this. Now enough of this, I will return on next segment to main problem of this show, which is related to this, although I will admit, you know, I get carried off on tangents. I want to get into this wrestling fight against Twitter personality. I'll be right back. I demand you respect me and acknowledge my tribe's self-conception of its own worth and uniqueness. That, my friends, is not attitude that comes from Puritanism or Calvinism. It comes from somewhere else, as also, by the way, does the whole kit of speech restrictions

plus the accusatory atmosphere of, do you denounce this? You talk to some of these guys, they think they're leading an NKVD tribunal or this. But look, I go on tangents, you know, long interviews, but I feel like attacking, I feel like sniping dogs sometimes. But this subject of the two branches of the right, there is famous Nietzsche quote from his book Twilight of the Idols, very famous, very relevant for this program, quote you should know, I will read it for you, some of you know it, whispered to the Conservatives what was not known formerly, what is known or might be known today, a reversion, a return in any sense or degree is simply not possible. We physiologists know that. That's very important by the way. He speak here like physiologist.

But anyway, I keep quoting, yet all priests and moralists have believed the opposite. They wanted to take mankind back, to screw it back to a former measure of virtue. Morality was always a bed of procrustes. Even the politicians have ate the preachers of virtue at this point. Today too there are still parties whose dream it is that all things might walk backwards like crabs. But no one is free to be a crab. Nothing avails. One must go forward step by step further into decadence. That is my definition of modern progress. One can check this development and thus dam it up degeneration, gather it and make it more vehement and sudden. One can do no more. Isn't that great? Do you like that? Do you like that? Real accelerationism. Well, you can tell where my sympathies lie in this argument.

This is what I always believed. I've never pretended to be a reactionary or a conservative. You can call me a futurist rightist or a radical rightist, whatever you want, but my sympathy is live with Nietzsche on this, and in that paragraph you can see he's laid out the difference in attitude between the futurist right and the reactionary right. And yet I wonder if the harping on this passage, this particular passage, as also on the simple and clear differences between the two which I try to lay out in opening segment, but maybe Maybe these differences are too neat and too nice. You know, this has a whiff to me about of let's you and him fight, no thank you. Because in fact if you look at practice, at history, at what actually happened, it becomes

quite a bit harder to distinguish between these two kinds of right wing. Ernst Junger, for example, so beloved by many of us. He start as very strong doctrinaire even Nietzschean. Very much futurist right, you read Storm of Steel, but especially his later essays like on pain or the worker, is very much Nietzschean radical right, and yet by the end of his life he becomes a kind of traditionalist Catholic, but this doesn't actually involve a repudiation of his earlier views, and his Catholicism, his mysticism even, is very much tempered by the views of his youth. And Mishima is another writer I talk about, on the same episode of Caribbeanism I discuss Jung on episode 13 I think, and in Mishima, Yukio Mishima, it's very hard to distinguish

between the radical right and the traditionalist right elements. Now on one hand when I first read Mishima, I was 20 or so, and I read his first book Confessions of a Mask and then the others, and it read to me very much like, here's a man who read Nietzsche, digested everything, and here embodies all the vision of Nietzsche for the new world, the new right, all of its spirit. But on the other hand, if you talk to Japanese friends, they say actually allusions to Japanese traditions very frequent in Mishima, allusions to Japanese history, Japanese self-conceptions very rich in Mishima work. And I'm not qualified to discuss the details of that, but you can see even as an outsider, very strong for example, he has meditation on spirit of Shinto versus spirit of Buddhism

within Japan and what this meant for its history and its people. But this turn of Mishima I just mentioned, now it's common I think for non-European traditionalist thinkers. So, again from what I hear, Muhammad Iqbal, who as you can see is the spiritual founder of Pakistan and in some way in general of Islamism, because Islam is the only basis of Pakistani existence, right? There is nothing else uniting the many ethnic groups of Pakistan, which is why Pakistan government has to support Islam powerfully. Nothing else holds that country together. By the way, on this subject, another tangent for you, another internet That's right, you notice how you have the China booze, the cinephiles. They now comment, I saw much chatter this week on how China is building replicas of

European cities and some of these cinephile people on the right are coming up with all kinds of crazy theories that China will invite white men of high IQ to settle in these cities you know as if you want to move to China and live in something like a copy of Amsterdam. I don't understand what they're thinking, but they're claiming that China is building these because they want to poach talent from the West in these. If they did that, if they did want that, they would send you to Shanghai to work. They wouldn't put you in a lager that's built like New Amsterdam. But all right, the China boussinephile wing is lit up with such speculations these last few days. It's crap. China is a retarded country and they will not invite any such thing.

Like my friend Norman said, these are probably tourist Disneyland type destinations for internal tourism. So a Chinese peasant can go and take photos for social media and this is very similar actually to how Willoughbyke described Europe's future as a culinary kind of Disneyland for Chinese tourists. It's very depressing, but the point is that Chinese contempt for the Bizuo, for the white left, right, it's very common on Chinese commentary for them to have contempt. They see disorder in the West as an opportunity for themselves and are laughing at it in the way you laugh at an opponent when his house is destroyed by internal weakness. They don't want to help you. They see it as opportunity for them.

This way always very stupid for Western rightists to respect China or to think they can make alliances with Muslims. These are alien traditions and they have only hate for you or disdain. It doesn't mean you need to go to war with them, you can self-isolate, but neither does it mean that you can ally with them. That's another tangent for you then, but the point is many foreign traditionalists like this Muhammad Iqbal, spiritual founder of Pakistan, or Mishima. I don't mean to compare them, Mishima much better than, you know, but they took inspiration anyway from Nietzsche, who is a thinker you might think rejects all traditions. But it's not that simple, right? Nietzsche does reject traditions in a way, but it's because he goes to the source of

traditions and tries to see what is vital there. And I guess I'm trying to tell you this because the traditionalist right and the futurist right are not actually opposed either in theory or in practice, okay? You can add many more examples to the ones I mentioned so far, but if you look to practice now, you see many forms of cooperation, which include not just alliances against the twin dangers of communism and plutocracy, right, their common enemies, but also within the same men and people sometimes, you see people who straddle both worlds. For example, Leon de Grelle, look up Leon de Grelle. In many ways, Leon de Grelle is a man more hated now in French societies than Hitler is simply because de Grelle survived the war and he lived in Spain after the war.

By the way, it's a very exciting story. He flew to Spain from Norway single-handed in a plane at the end of the war. This is how he escaped. But this guy was an SS guy from Belgium. He fought on the Eastern Front, but he was a Catholic traditionalist. He was not this kind of, what you might hear, atheist, racist Nazi. He was racist, but he was a Catholic traditionalist. And yet he joined the SS, and when you hear him talk, he sounds like orthodox Nazi. And he tried to continue Nazi political activity after the war ended. He tried to found Nazi parties throughout Europe. And he was hardly unique in this. As my friend Thomas Seven points out, most SS men remained practicing Catholics who attended Mass and took Communion.

You know, I'm sorry, tradcats, I'm not referring to my tradcat friends, but of course the fedcats who spread lies like, oh, traditional Catholicism is not like that, it's anti-racist, this, But no, fat cats, your liberation theology bullshit has no historical basis. Vermula and that whole bunch are not traditionalist right, by the way, they're not reactionary right. Don't let them fool you. It's thinly disguised liberation theology, anti-racist, shit-liberty, and Catholic bells and whistles. That's all. Ignore. They just managed to take GOP faggotry and make it even gayer. It's quite an achievement. But what I say just now with Leon de Grelens is there are many such cases, and yet it's easy maybe here to make a case that, well, even that guy, they were forced to make an

alliance or even to adopt a radical right, a futurist right, posed merely as a matter of historical circumstance because both shared a common enemy in Bolshevism and in plutocracy. But on the other hand, you cannot say this for the hybrid examples in thought and not not just in actions that I gave before of Junger, of Mishima, to which you could also add of course Evola, Guenon, and that whole bunch, right? But even you can add, by the way, Stefan Goerge and his group, they're less known. They were mostly anti-Nazi, by the way, the Stefan Goerge group, a collection of writers and artists of very high ability, but they were anti-Nazi because they had this kind of faggoty snobbery, oh we're aristocrats and we look down on the street urchin Nazis,

but they were just as radical in their thought, they were not technically traditionalist, right? And yet if you read Goerge, they mix this kind of Nietzschean futuristic right or pining for a new order and a new aristocracy, but it is mixed with deep meditation on German history and German destiny, and it's not merely, you know, resurrecting some of the aesthetic forms or geopolitical desires, as you can say with Mussolini and the Roman Empire, where nothing essential that is Roman is resurrected, but merely some of the forms of propaganda and so on. But in the case of people like Stefan Gheorghe, it's really a full attempt to resurrect idea of German destiny, grounded deep understanding of German history and experience, and to make

it the basis of a future state funded on spiritual aristocracy. I don't want to get into the Stefan Goerge circle is very, maybe another time, very interesting episode. You might know of them from Stauffenberg, the guy, they made a movie about him. He tried to kill Hitler and they tried to make him out to be a humanitarian liberal, but actually he was a disciple of Stefan Goergen. He was an extreme German nationalist, extremely anti-Soviet, extremely anti-Western. Now look, I guess I should say something about neo-reaction here. I'm not expert on neo-reaction, but if I had to say something to classify briefly, it would be to say it's a variety of the futuristic, obviously not traditionalist, right, and therefore it's not really a reaction, they shouldn't have called themselves that.

But it is futurist capitalist, if I understand it right. Something like monarchy as the safeguard of a capitalist technological elite, whereas Nietzsche, and at a lower level, the Nazi or other similar futurist right, elevates military aristocracy, not technological capitalist aristocracy. Both advocate for eugenics, I suppose, which I'll get to in a moment. But in this, you can see that neo-reaction is a little bit like the so-called right-wing liberal monarchism that I mentioned earlier. And in fact, some neo-reaction people even go so far as to say a modern technological and commercial elites are the inheritors directly of the old aristocratic martial orders or the spirit. And they give examples like the East India Company to make their case of the connection

between the old pre-modern medieval military aristocracy and the modern commercial aristocracy. I think this is very wrong, very wrong. The basis of the modern commercial elite is spiritually opposed to that of military aristocracy. commercial elite seeks the end of war, because it is bad for business, and therefore the end of national hatreds and of nations, the end therefore of peoples. And like my friend Menacquinone says, if you want technological and scientific advancement, if you want martial virtues, you do not look at that. If you look at recent history, you see that only the highly centralized racist social democracies or fascism, only they achieve this, whether it's the Nazis or the Soviets or America before 1960s, you need this kind of state to achieve scientific advancement

as well as a martial virtue, a mobilization, and not any other kind of state. And Menelikin on four laments in a humorous way that on the right today this position is a little bit rare, because neo-reactionaries love capitalist technological society without understanding however what makes it possible, I would say. And on the other hand, so you have the neo-reactionaries on one side, on the other hand of the neo-reactionaries On the right today, you have people who are for so-called social democracies or for fascist or corporatist states, but they disdain science. So you know, like he say, he made joke, it's hard to be a radical centrist these days, but that's what frog Twitter is. So look, I went on somewhat of a tangent here, but why I say this, and what is all this to

do with the two varieties of right-wing I talk on this show? The two seem to be united in some way, that is what, but what is it that unites them? Is it just temporary common opposition to the same foes? For example, Carl Schmitt, he says this about liberal democracy, right? You all know the formula liberal democracy, but he says that it only comes opportunistically as an alliance against absolutist monarchy. It arose historically at the moment when absolutist monarchy was the thing, but that liberal democracy is a formula that doesn't really go together because liberalism opposed the absolutist part of absolutist monarchy, while democracy only opposed the monarchy part. Democracy by its own nature, it tries to be absolutist.

And so when the foe of absolute monarchy disappeared, when this foe, the absolute kingship, when it disappeared, the inner incoherence of liberal democracy showed itself. Democracy always, in the end, ends up having the upper hand. You might ask, is what we have now a kind of degenerate, totalist democracy still wearing a liberal skin? Maybe. I don't know this for another time. But there are two kinds of right wing I mentioned. Are they also just opportunistic alliance against the common foe? Well, not really liberal democracy, that's not their foe. But as the hard right understand it, their foe is communism on one hand and plutocracy on the other. And is it possible then to understand the reactionary right and the futurist right?

They are friends only because they share these two common foes. But then I would ask you, don't these two foes have in common, you could say, maybe their internationalism, their egalitarianism in the sense of reducing all mankind indiscriminately to a homogenous mass of consumer or producer units? In other words, understanding man in entirely an economic, borderless sense, as homo economicus, and therefore ultimately actually as a slave with no identity and no higher aspiration beyond the stomach. In this regard, is it any wonder that when this erased, indistinct, universal slave finally revolts against his anonymity, their solution, that is, of the liberals, let's say, the solutions they want to propose now against dissatisfaction with what I just said is a similarly homogenous

universal recognition. You can take this from Kojev. The desire, in other words, of the slighted for universal respect, universal respect for his chosen individual faggotries and quirks or, in the very common case, ethnic self-inventions. And isn't the man of the right, whether reactionary or futurist, someone who is in a revolt against this debate? I don't want to say animalized because animals are actually infinitely superior to this kind of botched being. But against this domesticated bug-like, yeast-like last man that I just described, this kind of economic unit, this erased slave who is then assuaged with promises of universal recognition by all of his worth as a human being, which is to say, I can't even get into this.

But in other words, isn't it just that the futurist and the reactionary right share a love for one's own that is threatened by the, what do I call it, I don't want to call it internationalism because actually it's very parochial, it's rather a homogenizing thing, it's not internationalizing, it's homogenizing. So do the reactionary and the futurist right share a love of one's own that is opposed to the homogenizing tendencies both of Marxism and of plutocratic monopoly capitalism. But then, if that is so, I mean to say it's not just love of one's own, but more because the love of one's own is perceived by the reactionary implicitly and by the futurist very explicitly and in scientific terms, in terms of eugenics that is, but the love of

one's own is understood as a vehicle to a man that transcends the homogenized domesticated animal, the kind of being that is shared as an end goal both of communism and of capitalism. And a people is understood then as a path, a very specific path to a higher type of man, which has to be achieved through a people because it is by necessity a closed and local project. Why God in Bible chooses to reveal his law through a people? Remember in Bible story, he first tried through ideal man through Adam and he failed. Then he tried through universal man through Noah and he failed. Tower of Babel failed. Finally God chooses an insignificant and obscure people as a vehicle for his secret teaching. And you can see in this a parable.

Nietzsche sees in this and in similar stories from the Greeks and from a couple of other peoples but he sees a parable in stories like this. You see this in his passage the thousand and one goals from Zarathustra. Each people, which is necessarily a limited closed localist project, but it put above it a different god and a different goal, and it became in essence a eugenic project to that goal, something to transcend the mere beast domesticated ape of beaten-down agricultural man. And I speak now, and right now I speak only for the futurist right because that is language and I know how to speak, but I believe that I share this, we share this in common with the reactionary and even the religious friends, that we seek an order of society to be preserved

or to be refounded, not merely because it is our own or because we like order for the sake of order, but because these are means to answer the call of something within nature of man that seeks to overcome itself, or however else you want to put it. And whether this is achieved through traditional implicit or modern technological, scientific and explicit eugenics is unimportant to me, but the eugenics part then that is important. And I will end the episode with reading you again from Nietzsche. This is from Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism number 208, where you can see in clear terms the pure aspirations of a man of the futurist right for the foundation of new orders. It's somewhat a long passage, but very interesting, I will read it for you.

And he speaks here of a physiological condition which in everyday language is called weak nerves and infirmity. And I'm reading Nietzsche now. It occurs every time races or classes which have been separated from each other a long time suddenly and decisively cross-breed, and a new generation which has inherited its blood as it were different standards and values, everything is restlessness, disturbance, doubt, experiment. The best forces have an inhibiting effect. Even the virtues do not allow each other to grow and to become strong. The body and soul lack equilibrium, a center of gravity, a perpendicular self-assurance. But what is most profoundly sick and degenerates in such mixture is the will. These people no longer know the independence in decision-making, the bold sense of pleasure

and willing. They have doubts about the freedom of the will even in their dreams. Our Europe today, now this is in 19th century is talking, okay, so our Europe today, the The scene of an insanely sudden attempt at the radical mixing of classes and consequently of races, that's right, that's right, of classes and consequently of races, is as a result skeptical in all heights and depths. Something with that flexible skepticism which leaps impatiently and greedily from one branch to another, sometimes a glooby, like a cloud overloaded with question marks and often sick to death of its will, paralysis of the will, where nowadays do we not find this cripple sitting and often how well dressed in such seductive outfit, this illness has the most beautifully splendid and deceitful clothing.

For example, most of what presents itself in the display of windows today as objectivity, the practice of science, art for art's sake, purely disinterested knowledge, is only dressed up skepticism and paralysis of the will, and I'll stand by this diagnosis of the European disease. The sickness of the will has spread unevenly across Europe. It appears in its greatest and most varied forms, where the culture has already been indigenous for the longest time, and it disappears to the extent that the barbarian still, or again, achieves his rights under the baggy clothing of Western culture. Thus, in contemporary France, we can conclude as easily as we can grasp it in our hands that the will is most seriously ill.

And France, which has always had a masterful skill in transforming even the fateful changes in its spirit into something attractive and seductive, truly displays its cultural dominance over Europe today as the school and exhibition hall for all the charms of skepticism. The power to will, and indeed to desire a will that lasts a long time, is already somewhat stronger in Germany, and in the north of Germany even more so than in the middle. But it's significantly stronger in England, Spain and Corsica. In Germany it's bound up with apathy, and in those other places with hard heads. To say nothing of Italy, which is too young to know yet what it wants, and which must first demonstrate whether it can will. But its strongest and most amazing in that immense empire in between, where Europe so

to speak flows back into Asia, that is, in Russia. There in Russia the power to will has for a long time lain dormant and built up. There the will waits menacingly. Uncertain whether, to borrow a favourite phrase from our physicists today, it will be discharged as a will to negate or a will to affirm. It may require more than wars in India and developments in Asia for Europe to be relieved of its greatest danger. It will require inner revolutions too, the breaking up of the empire into small bodies and above all the introduction of the parliamentary nonsense along with every man's duty to read his newspaper at breakfast, he's saying these are the things that would destroy Russia. I'm not saying this because it's what I want to happen, the opposite would be closer to my heart.

I mean such an increase in the Russian danger that Europe would have to, excuse me, that Europe would have to decide to become equally a threat, that is, that it would have to acquire a will by means of a new caste which would rule Europe, a long, fearful individual will which could set itself goals for thousands of years from now, so that finally the long spun-out comedy of its small states together with its multiple dynastic and democratic wills could come to an end. The time for petty politics is over. The next century is already bringing on the battle for the mastery of the earth, the compulsion to grant politics." Yes, end quote. So what do you think of this? This eugenic European case as a means to grant projects. What an amazing thing.

He only values Russia as a counterforce to inspire this resistance. We are very far from that. And now, of course, as we on the right lack a state or any means to achieving one, any easy means at least, we have been and are pursuing a quite different path. So I'm sorry if I leave you on a bit of an ambiguous note. I told you before that the old reactionary and futurist right solutions are not directly relevant to our case, because everything I've told you so far applies to people with states and refers to state-based solutions, but we don't have this. So then you see why expression of our thinking and all of this are very different from that of people on our side who came before 1950. Look at how Willa Beck talks and read between the lines instead. So we have no state at our disposal.

We can't convert an Anthony Wiener either. In other words, we don't have any ability to speak to people who rule a state. Not for now anyway. And we wouldn't, even if Trump won now in January, by the way, we wouldn't for a long time.