Ricky Vonn is a political genius, and he will defeat the Chandler refuse commissars of this defunct occupational class who are persecuting him. Let me tell you why they attack him. He is quite a unique figure, and so it's unclear if this is the start of something against many others, against all of us, a general persecution, or if it is just their obsession with him, a kind of underground man-type obsession they've had for five years. You know, where in Dostoevsky Underground Man, a military officer bumps into him on St. Petersburg Street, and he plans two years his revenge for that. And this is like that, five-year plan revenge against internet figure. I mean, the Underground Man is not noble, but he is entertaining and somehow morally

superior to most of us because of his self-awareness. But these people are like Dostoevsky said, they are like underground men without knowing that they are like him. They're even less than a cockroach without realizing what they are. And Dostoevsky was in large part talking, of course, about the leftists, the leftist agitators of his time, whose psychology he exposes most of all in his book Demons. And he had occasion to know these people very well because he, as idealistic youth, he mingled among them and then he served prison time and he realized what they were. And he, Dostoevsky, very clear vision of future of Russia, maybe future of world, out of what psychological degradation the Bolshevik Revolution came. Which is, what is it, it's the lower orders of the soul, rebellious.

And closer to our time Solzhenitsyn continued this very typically Russian and religious critique of modern psychosexual problem. Although it remains to be seen if Putin, Russia can save itself from them, because many of the young there are just as deranged, right, where does pussy riot come from, okay? So you look at protests now with Navalny, who knows what will happen. So this is the spiritual swamp out of which Ricky Vaughan's persecutors come out. And in a better world, meaning a world where we were not ruled by old pussies, Ricky Vaughan would be the chief propaganda master of a refurbished national populist GOP. He's a political genius, okay, and you know I don't throw the word genius around like this lightly, but whatever Ricky Vaughan touches becomes great.

Any message he takes hold of to propagate, it just spreads ten drills very fast in all audiences. He knows just the right things to say, always the right positions, the right instincts, and the most acerbic and correct humor, able to bridge the kind of corrosive cynicism from the 4chan world and the frogs, able to bridge this with the popular mind while never condescending to either, never compromising or watering down the message on either side. And when he left, after he was doxxed by a variety of sub-cockroach beings, I knew at that time that things would come apart politically for the so-called alt-right. And he was holding it together, in part. This was one of its powers. It still is. It could be.

The other power he had was in extremely effective messaging on behalf of Trump and populism in general during the campaign, so much so that he was named one of top 50 election influencers by some MIT study, so he was not just some guy posting memes, and I think Tucker Carlson and also Andy McCarthy and Anna Rowe, they both defend Ricky Vaughn, that's good, we will take any defense for Ricky that we can get, but they miss this, and you cannot defend someone simply against the stated legal claims, even if they're weak, and I talk to many lawyers by the way, they think the claims against Rickey are absurd based on misinterpretations and on theoretical extensions of statutes that have never been tried before and that he will easily get off with a good lawyer.

Perhaps it would have to go to Supreme Court or this, look I don't know, but Zog is enraged, the NWO is enraged. And even if he does get off, as you know, the process is the punishment. In some ways the process is worse than jail, the stress, the bankruptcy, you know. But even if the legal case is weak, I mean, especially then, you must go to the real cause of why a friend, in this case Ricky Vaughan, is being persecuted. Because if they didn't charge him for this ridiculous meme posting or supposed vote suppression, they would have charged him with anything, with overdue library book or whatever. But the chief reason they come after him, why the slithering, spiteful, less void enforcers of the Biden regime are enraged against him, I even, I have not said this yet, why, the

real reason, it's because he relentlessly humiliated them every day, the Neura Tandens, you know, her pussies sweat every day because of Ricky Vaughan's, excuse me, because of Ricky Vaughan's psychological abuse of her, okay, the CIA flunky journalists, sleepless every night, you know, every day he does this to them, which is why they come after him now every day in 2016, I mean, he was not chosen at random. Like a friend said to me, he haunted their dreams, they woke up in terror weekly during the Trump fears, but especially in 2016-17 because of humiliating blows Ricky gave to their fragile egos. Because you have to understand, as big a surprise as Trump was to me or you, and he was surprised, I personally did not think, let's say 2014 or 15, that Americans headed in them to promote

someone like Trump. Nationalism, any reaction, a serious reaction against this regime was absolutely nowhere. It did not exist before Trump. But the events of that year, as surprising as they were to me or you, they were incomprehensible completely to these petty careerists and conformists who had bought into the Obama myth, the new Obama world, the new America in year zero and this, that was the Obama admin to the technocrat and the media class. This in 2008, the coming of Obama was like a messianic event for them, as they thought the real America and maybe even the reality itself was something of the past. And suddenly in 2016 with Trump, the world no longer seemed to work the way they thought. Everything they thought they knew came crashing down in 2016.

They never recovered from this, which is why to us if Trump lose now, we're back to where we were. In fact, I think in some way we're better off because these ideas and the power of this new movement has spread, but for them it was something they could never recover from and it is Ricky Vaughn on who they concentrated all their angers, their feelings, Avengers. They don't talk about this in public because they know they sound mentally ill when they They say this to outsiders, just like Hillary destroyed herself when she was ranting about Pepe the Frog and deplorables and this, but these people actually really believe Ricky Vaughan was the cause of 2016 and he torments them in nightmares and at first they surely thought he was a Russian psyop.

You hear now the leftist imitators and the podcast proletariat. They all have the same Chomsky conspiracy mindset of the left stretching back to the 70s. Everything they don't like, everything they don't feel a part of must be a psyop, okay? But the big part of the Russia hoax was the convictions that we, the frogs, and Ricky Vaughan specifically was a putler, Kremlin psychological warfare ploy. And then when he was doxxed by a subhuman called Luke O'Brien, and don't forget that is the journalist who did the doxxing article, and don't forget the people who gave him the information. I will just repeat in case you forgot. They are Paul Nalen, Chris Cantwell, a known FBI informant, and I believe also Lauren Feldman, who was at one time Ricky's business partner,

I think, I don't know the full story, but Lauren Feldman confirmed the docs, or voice docs or something, to Luke O'Brien. Sorry, you know, this is just a general advice for people who docs or do these kinds of things. These things are never forgotten, okay? And there are so many of us frogs, you know, all over the world, so many of us, and long memories. Anyway, so this is why they come after Ricky. Because of the psychological world-turning humiliations they got clobbered with in 2016, they blame Ricky Vaughan for that, primarily. And it's hard to remember, maybe even for some who were in the fray, how big he was and how much he terrified them. They devoted an entire episode of Homeland, you know, the Showtime, I think, CIA-adjacent show with the schizophrenic transsexual

Claire Danes, an entire episode to wish-fulfillment fantasy where she physically destroys a channer, a fraud from 4chan, and this is how much they were rattled, you know, making up Hollywood fantasies about getting back at us. And it's very good that Tucker defends Ricky, but he should understand why he's being attacked, And it's not enough what Tucker is doing, okay? In my opinion, Tucker sucks, okay? Tucker dropped the ball on the election. He scoffs at Trump, actually from what I hear, he thinks Trump is a Bulgarian who brings a bad name to nationalist ideas, as if they were anywhere before Trump was. What was Tucker believing before 2015, by the way? And all this, you know, the typical attitude of the elite-oid wannabe, you know it.

And I told all of you before what would happen if Trump lost, if he went. All these critics of Trump, supposedly from the right, whether it's Tucker somewhat, but Coulter, the DC Nationalist, Brain Trust, people who have no plan, their only existence is criticism, analysis, kvetching. And I told you what they would do. They would all wring their hands as we are surveilled, prosecuted, persecuted, arrested, or set up in other ways and they would give heartfelt condemnations, oh no, look what's happening, how terrible, we live in this terrible regime and they would sit on the sidelines and watch and do nothing. Because they are best, at best, okay, at best, they are blowhards and windbags. You know, all ideas they have come from us.

But they seek to turn them into a kind of minstrel show to carry their careers because they have actually no ideas or energy of their own. So you know, in a certain context, that's fine, because we want these ideas to spread, but it's not fine when these face fags manage to replace us, when they watch as we are arrested, and when they replace any possibility of political action, which was all Trump, to replace that with this endless sketching and complaining and so-called analysis. When you talk of Tucker 2024, you're talking about trying to put a minstrel show at the head of a political movement. It's impossible. It will go nowhere. It's impossible to maintain a minstrel show figurehead even for a so-called intellectual movement, not to speak of political one.

But the role of the face-fact performers like this is supposed to be strictly secondary. Then it is acceptable. But they, I'm sorry to say, have a perverse common interest with the regime in replacing us with a sanitized and powerless image of what we are. So no Tucker, Ricky isn't some poster. Nearly every idea, pose and argument that Tucker has. Ricky Vaughan already did better in 2016. And I'm not saying what the journalist class believes about Ricky Vaughan is true. He did not get Trump elected single-handed in this, although it is a matter of honor, I think, for Trump family to fund Ricky's defense now. In my opinion, are you listening, Don Jr., you must fund him. But what Ricky Vaughan indubitably did is he inflict major psychological trauma on the

leftist and neo-con journalist class from which they never recovered. He gave them PTSD, okay, so Ricky Vaughan induced PTSD of the journalist FBI Les Boyd class is the reason for this illegal persecution. He had to drown in oceans of wine to forget what he did to them, which is why we must all defend Ricky in whatever way we can. We must never forget him and must defend him now, not only because of what he did or because we can all be next, which is true, but because these are all assault not just on him or us, but on possibility of free speech and free thought. It's been my conviction that this small corner of internet, of anons, anonymous posters misnamed the far right or whatever, is the only place where some freedom of thought, some possibility for new ideas exists.

And it exists really only in the anons and the anon world for a number of reasons. It cannot thrive among face fags. And not even just because of security concerns, there are profound reasons why freedom of thought cannot flourish in face fags world. It's ass and ons. That is about it. And you would be surprised the reach we have worldwide among all kinds of people. Because like I tell you, it's not that we are necessarily world historical geniuses in this, but there's nothing else. Everything else is so utterly debased, boring, repetitive, meek. So I believe that in rallying to defend Ricky Vaughan, and I know him by his real life name as well, but I prefer to call friends even after knowing them by their ascended names,

I continue to call them, I think in defending him we might fight to preserve the cause of freedom of thought in general, as well as simply the preservation of basic things like humor, which can only thrive in actual confrontation with pieties, with self-importance, which which conservatives are unable to do. So I hope I never forgot this mission I just mentioned, but maybe in defending Ricky vigorously, we can make other anons remember who they are and what we are about, and we can fight to prevent our replacement by a fake, controlled, simulated, and sanitized image of ourselves. When I say we defend freedom of thought, not in abstract sense of, oh, it is some guy who post memes and free speech is curtailed, but in very concrete sense of this corner of Internet

and what Ricky was a part of and what he represents to these people is actually the only place where freedom of thought still exists. So I ask you to do what you can to defend Ricky, to promote his cause, and to remember him now. I will be right back. Navalny, Russia, fake opposition figure is jailed, sentenced to jail, let's see how much astroturf picks up in Putler, Russia now. Maybe I will have my Russia friends for a segment on this weekend to tell of situations there. To me, one of great part of Trump election 2016 was prevention of war with Russia. I believe Hillary or Jeb would have done it. And it's not only that they're crazy, they are stupid. They grow up on two myths. They know nothing about geography even, let alone history.

To them, geopolitics is a slogan, a kind of status name-drop thing, but they grow up on two myths. One is that it's perpetually 1938. It's always Munich. It's always Munich Agreement for American political class. This is what they were raised on. The younger ones even more so. The nut jobs like Samantha Power, she has a kind of SSRI wiped clean religious fanatic look in the eye. And they took all the wrong lessons from 20th century, all the fake Churchill mythology about how Munich 1938 and the only fault that you can show to them is to appease a dictator, to reach any agreement with a dictator. And they never distinguish between a tyrant and a dictator. This makes them, by the way, complete opposed to American Cold War policy, both the neo-cons

and what you call wrongly the neo-liberals, they are opposed to Cold War policy because America at times had to rule through local dictator. But this, listen, how you must never back down and how supposedly if you never back down in front of what they call a tyrant, supposedly this is what stops wars. This is what they learn. If you're only tough or intransigent enough, you win. It's false. This is why in the 2015 primaries the BDSM transexual Martinet, the one with the kind of Cruella de Vil witch face that made Rich Lowry's little clit so erect on TV that he went on and he said she cut Donald Trump balls off and she will win and this and she boasted that she wouldn't even talk to Putin. So they think this is a foreign relation in geopolitics to be as intransigent as you can

be with foreign leader who you deem tyrants, and maybe not realizing that you don't have unlimited power, that you're not ancient Rome and that you couldn't rule like Rome, but you have to use soft power because you're a different type of country, you're a commercial republic with a navy, and you have to rule through others the way Britain did. But America doesn't know how to do that. And even if you could rule the way the Romans did, you'd have to be ready to lose divisions in warfare. The way Rome constantly lost legions at times, great military disasters, which if something like Teletuburg Forest or the disaster of Crassus in Persia, if something like that happened to America now, I don't know if a regime could survive.

But America does not have the demographics to sustain huge losses like that now anyway. Now they're talking even invade Burma, invade Iran. Any invasion of Iran would mean 10,000 American casualties within first few weeks. America cannot sustain this. And the second myth they grow up on is a Cold War specific myth of intransigence, especially towards Russia and the fact that Soviet Union often backed down, this is true, it often gave in when it was confronted vigorously in the third world, that is true and it's for example Afghanistan is part of this mythology but it's a mythology because they forget that Donbas and Ukraine are not Angola and to some Russian nationalists like Navalny actually Ukraine, maybe Africa, don't tell that to Samantha Power, but they forget that

while Russia would not go to war over Angola for example, they would and they should over something like Ukraine. And that's what I was afraid of, that these dumb head-strung people like Hillary who constant chip on the shoulder and have to prove they're a real man, and they wouldn't know that Russia would have to make a stand if you go for all of Ukraine, and that they would push things to where a hot war of some kind started, even a hot proxy war, which America will lose the weight lost every war since World War II. And maybe this is a good thing because, like I see before, we will see fifth a bull-dyke paratrooper gamela battalion get wiped out on the outskirts of Kiev in 2022 and this will lead to downfall of USC regime like Falkland's war in Argentina or 1871 in France.

But so you see the insanity precedes Trump. It was not a reaction to Trump. He temporarily held off insanity and now you're going to get it very hard and I mentioned on previous segment the historical and really in some ways the religious change, not just historical but it's a kind of religious mania that Obama administration affected especially for the technocrat academic class, for them only, and the insanity you're seeing. The BLM riots had already started in 2014, I think, and there were multiple murders of white policemen. I think in Dallas, if you remember, there was also Ferguson, many other things, so-called critical race theory spreading, crime-thought witch hunts, none of this is in the reaction

to Trump, and there is no way that the Biden administration was going to calm things down. You should take a step back and question the judgment of the people who told you this would happen, that things would calm down. I went to high school some time ago, it was a filthy, shit-lib high school with some of the worst people in the world and they had at that time even policy of active anti-racism and I fought them and mocked them even at that age very hard, but this relatively long time ago, it was not 2010, okay, so long before Trump, and this is nothing new, I mean, it was always going to spread from places like that to the rest of America and Trump managed to stop it for a while, he was the human wall. And then until really he couldn't stop it any longer, the coup against him started in

spring of 2020 and he lost control after that, for which, yes, this is his great failure, but I'm not sure, by the way, that it's because he was a coward. If he had been a coward, he would have had many opportunities to back down and apologize, for example, during 2015, which again, you forget, that's before Trump won. But Macy's boycotted him of when he announced his candidacy and came out against illegal immigration. Many others boycotted him even then. And throughout that campaign he held firm when anyone else that I can think of would have backed down, including your favorite Tucker, okay, I think is rather the reason Trump failed in 2020 is he's a lazy Chad. He's good, even amazing at certain things like public speaking, public image, making

a firm salient charge, but he's terrible at administration, at appointing the right people around him. He only appointed, yeah, you know, I don't need to get into that, other people comment on it, but he was a political man, excuse me, he was never a political man I mean, never a political revolutionary, although I was hoping that his sense of honor and anger at being slighted and his sense of self-preservation would make him become a political revolutionary at a crucial moment, but it was not to be, and now I believe he will go to jail, his family will go to jail, but in any case, in many ways, he was the Caesar America deserves. A showman, a real estate builder, an entertainment impresario, in other words, he is to Caesar what America is to Rome.

So in the end, tragic but not surprise, he didn't make the stand he should have, but I could carry away on tangent. I mean to tell you the insanity was very strong, 2014 to 2015, and it was part of the religious psychological package of the Obama administration technocrat class, and two of the worst outbursts took place at universities in 2015 at Ole Miss, I think University of Mississippi, and another at Yale, which is the latter you might know about this outburst because of Nicholas Christakis, who has since made himself a celebrity victim of the woke mob and a champion of the so-called intellectual dark web. It's all fake, okay? If you look at what happened, you see two things, that the woke mob hysteria was, again,

already in full swing before Trump came into office and this whole language of appropriation and so forth. And second, you see how worthless the libertarians, the conservatives, and so-called classical liberals, in short all the older people who are pussies, vaginas, and how worthless they are in opposing it. As of what happened at Ole Miss University of Mississippi was campus blackoids taking over the place, making lists of absurd demands, physically taking over, you know, making demands on administration, and the rulers of that university, the administration, whatever, They were old, pathetic cunts, and they could have fought and filed legal action against the university because it's a state school, right? So they had the right to do this when it's a state institution of any kind.

You have more rights than, you know, they use this excuse now, if it's a private company, they can do anything. Hitler was a private company, so, you know. But they caved. The University of Mississippi did not fight it. They could have fought it and won. They caved in the most shameful way. And I remember talking at the time of when I still had a kind of worthless job and the guy managing my job and we were talking about the Ole Miss events and he was saying oh I don't see what they can do and so I say they can fight it in court. He became awfully quiet and conservatives, this guy supposedly conservatives, are like the alt-light since then. They are big pussies, okay, they'll sell you over to other side to keep a pathetic jobs a day longer, to keep a pathetic job.

I was telling this guy, how do you deal with insane speech restrictions on campuses? And it was an article of faith among his clique that modern America is a nihilistic relativist place where the problem is too much enemy, right, too much apathy, inability to render moral judgment. And so to be reminded that speech restrictions actually exceed what existed in East Bloc, you know, it doesn't compute for someone like that, right? I mean it's completely pathetic to try and argue against the religious mania of the left by blaming somehow relativism or historicism for it. These people who are doing the woke mob thing are firm in their moral anger and the conservative concern with relativism, which was promoted by Ellen Bloom, is wrong-headed, has taken

the establishment right into a dead end, and the case at Yale where Nicholas Christakis was since then catapulted to chief victim status on the right for a while, and he still makes use of that. It was very similar to this other case at the University of Mississippi. If you look into it, I think actually he and his wife acted shamefully. They pretend they stood up to this mob, but really they did not. They acted, I believe, in a deceptive manner. If you look at what happened, right, it was Halloween. There was the same outrage as there is now over appropriation. This is before Trump. Same outrage over appropriation and how it was outrageous for let's say a white frat guy, I'll get to this in a second, but the white frat guy, fraternity guy to dress like

an Indian or put a feather on his head or whatever and Nicholas Christakis, who was a professor of I don't know and he and his wife were masters of a house which means they They were resident faculty advisors of a dorm, okay, and supposedly they have this story now with the intellectual Dork Web and Sam Harris or whoever that they were brave for publishing this very mealy-mouthed and really deceptive, deceptive because cowardly letter supporting free speech and asking for calm and for students to respect others' free speech choices or something like this. And then of course they got intimidated and backed down, which I don't know how many Many people mentioned that part, but even this letter was weak. This one weak letter led to many months, I think, or weeks, I don't know what it was,

but of hissy fit, just huge hissy fit hysteria, protests, denunciations on campus, screaming, Maoist red guard behavior from the so-called students. There is famous video by now of Christakis standing there, again, this before Trump in 2020. standing there while I kill Mulatta with a psyche destroyed by some kind of childhood spoilage, something that nurtured this ethnic narcissism of hers and she's yelling in his face and he sits there like Don Bernie when he was, those two shiboons were screaming, you know, pointing finger in his face and now the girl is wrong, of course, but Christakis and his wife, the intellectual dork web, and conservatives in general, are weak to try to make this about free speech. It's not a free speech issue.

First of all, it's selectively applied to white students only, mostly. It's a standard of appropriation, or you're appropriating somebody else's culture, and the purpose is very plainly to make campus life impossible for white students. In other words, if a black kid dresses as a knight or a samurai, it's okay, but if If you dress like a Zulu, then you know it's demeaning because it's appropriation. So that's obviously not a free speech issue. And even in a case where people are being racially targeted and a normally conservative, even a liberal could then say, no, that's wrong. You don't target people based on race. You don't make their lives in a university impossible because of this phrase, color of their skin.

And that should be something that a classical and even a leftist liberal should feel comfortable saying that, right? But they couldn't get themselves to say this so then they pretend it's about free speech which of course gets them nowhere with any audience other than other members of the dark web who can fool themselves about the same thing. But this really is to be expected because in fact this hounding and harassment of white American students on campus had long been taking place before 2014 or 2015 and not one One professor who styles himself conservative or defender of due process or this, not one ever talked about this. Okay, the white threat guys I mentioned, you might wonder why there is this fixation on

them in the media about supposedly the evil of the college athletes and so on. When you look at a majority of them, most universities that are of all races, but it's So-called elite latrines of lower learning in Ivy League and such, the frat guys and the guys in sports teams, are actually the only reliable white non-shit lib, and I don't even say conservative or right wing, but merely they are the only reliable non-shit lib demographic that's also white and male. So this is why they are targeted. In my experience as a group they are actually higher IQ and they do better work than the average student population. at any school, not to mention whether they do better than minorities or this. But they are of course targeted openly even during, let's say, a class by grad student

scum targets them with all kinds of stereotypes and condescension and often outright harassment or discrimination for which they have no recourse and none of the pussy conservative professors ever dare to speak up about this for many, many years before 2015. And there were events I think a few years before 2014 at this particular university where these groups of students were targeted by administration and others for absurd condemnations and over things like karousing or whatever, over nothing. And no one of these conservative professors spoke out about it at that time. That was not a free speech issue, it was harassment of a demographic they believe is game, right? So or at Harvard, for example, where the finals clubs, which is equivalent of the fraternity,

and they were put to the squeeze some time ago, you know, if you are part of an all-male club like that, you are not allowed to be captain of a sports team, which is itself also all-male. So I don't understand that, but you're not meant to understand it, right? It's a humiliation ritual targeted at a demographic they want to harass off the campus. They don't want them there. again to make life impossible for non-gay white American student on campus and not one of these conservatives spoke out about it ever, I keep saying this. So in general this is a very serious problem because if you look at a place like Yugoslavia in late 1980s or similar other ethnic power sharing regimes, you come at the end to a situation where certain ethnic groups become cleansed from public administration.

They become ousted gradually from important government and academic positions, or from training academies in this case, and the same thing has been happening in America since before 2010, accelerated after, but not one pussy conservative ever spoke out about any of this. How hard would it have been? They have tenured some of them, and early on they could have done it if they had decided among themselves, we will band together, we will not let them demographically, ethnically cleanse, let's say, American straight white males from elite universities, which is what this is about. It's not free speech. First, they could say this because it's just wrong, and second, because once they accomplish this, they will come for us, meaning for these pussy conservative professors who should have

realized this. I mean, they will come for them, you know, if you teach Plato and you're a white supremacist then. Because why aren't you teaching the political theory of Patrice Lumumba, right? I have reports from people now that students in certain programs love my book, they read my book, and these pussy conservative professors send completely over the top letters denouncing me as an evil demon and so forth. I don't know what they hope to achieve with that because this question is coming for them. In other words, how many black Africans are on your syllabus, Professor, a real white supremacist? Why Aristotle? Why you not teach Patrice Lumumba or Julius Nyerere? I mean, it's easy to see, but like I tell you, if you don't find whores more cowardly

than vagina conservators, I don't know why I make this comparison. Actually whores as a group are quite brave, but these conservatives are festering vaginas. So it got to the point, let's say, by late 2000s, early 2010s, already by then, but certainly after that, where if you look at any of these places, I'd say in the Ivy League maybe 3% at most is straight white American men who are not legacies. If it's even that, I don't know if it's even that, if you can do the numbers, just figure out how many white students are on campus, of those white students, how many are Jewish, of the remaining, how many are gay, and then take the number that's left over of straight white male with American names, and how many are not legacies, or of course if it's someone

who's a genius or a prodigy, wins a mathematical competition when they're 16, they will get let in, but that's a tiny number, that's one or two people. By the way, those guys, I knew one or two of them before, nothing ever comes of them. They don't, generally speaking, later in life, they're not the ones who come with discoveries and great ideas in this. But those one or two are, again, very small number. Aside from them, if you do this calculation I said, if it's over 3% of, again, straight of white American men, I'd be surprised. So then you ask how this is possible, that in a country where this group is not exactly a minority, in other words, they provide still the bulk of the tax base, the military, they

own still much of the property that's productive, and despite this overt discrimination in many universities and to the despair of the occupational class, despite this discrimination that's been taking place for some time, straight white non-Jewish men, they still managed to become the most competent professionals and managers and such. This is true. They may get discriminated in 18, 19, and maybe even job hiring in early 20s, but very soon companies find out who can do the work and who can't, like Abongo who went to work for Wall Street law firm, and he had to flunk out after six months because, you know, what he grew up on in school is not what takes place in the real world. And Obama has very pedestrian IQ, I think, if you look at it.

But many of these that I mentioned, the competent professional and manager and such, many of them are the frogs, by the way, people who do very well, but who realize how much their potential has been stunted by this evil regime who wants to promote Chaniqua as the hero of the moon landing and this, but where you have this situation where a group is ethnically cleansed from elite institutions and government and soon from the military, and of course you can say you wonder where this leads and it's nowhere good, right? Because you can do this to a powerless minority, but not to what is not really a minority. It's a kind of plurality to the backbone of your country, and then the consequences are going to be far worse. This is a very old case of overreach by this regime.

What you've seen development since 2015, only beginning of reaction against that. But the point is, just as in the debate over Ricky Vaughan and why he's getting attacked, here also the Conservatives, the intellectual dork web, the academic grifters who want to styles themselves champions of freedom. They have it wrong on these matters in many ways. In other words, there's a kind of frenzied amnesia, right, where you're not supposed to remember first that this stuff precedes Trump, and then there's this other enforced delusion where the debate over appropriation is reframed under free speech, where it has nothing to do with that. And I don't think it works to frame it that way, even, let's say, for public relations

reason, you have to be willing to take on the ethnic self-fixations of fractious identities, which is where this comes from. And the reason these things are being promoted in, as you might imagine, the intellectual Dork Web in particular is unable to do this because they as a whole have no other driving a motivation than progressivism right there. What is Barry Weiss? What is Eric Weinstein? and their progressives whose feelings were hurt, that an exception in privileged language was not made for their own ethnic group. In other words, their objection to woke revolution is itself centered on their hurt feelings, their sense of ethnic specialness, and their exclusion, you know, it makes them hurt. So Eric Weinstein is all about, but me too, but what about my race?

My mommy say I was special. I watch Fiddler on the Roof for this, okay? This is not a way to fight wokeness. They have nothing to say about this, so I will be right back. The Baidan Obongo regime returns now promptly to lashing out around the world on schedule. It demand Russia release Navalny and it condemn the Burmaku. Russia could very well respond that America has its own political prisoners now and to point to Ricky Vaughan, to Roger Stone, and others too from Trump administration who were already prosecuted as part of fake Russia hoax, while FBI agents who fabricate evidence get a $100 fine. And as for Burma, they, I would say, just styled on you. It's styled on America. They styled on you. The Burma military said, no, you do not get to run fake elections in our country.

And so they removed the whore, Aung San Suu Kyi, who had run fake elections for years, apparently with the blessing of Epstein and Soros and Hillary Clinton. And now she imprisoned the noble monk, Viratou, and that was her end. And Burma military cares about continuation of its country, not so much American fag top brass. They do not. American generals, usually they become muters after tail hook scandal. And so anyway, this demented government will strike out around the world, psychotically, and it will go back to one failure after another to draw attention away from its mistakes at home. It will engage foreign adventurism to draw away from economic disaster and other such things, but it also plans to expand domestic conflict, and the language over appropriation

is, I think, a very important part of this. Now you ask, what wrong with appropriation, morally condemning appropriation in a universal way would be condemnation of the business of cultural production in general, both on big and small scale, high and low. And on one hand, you're told that the Greeks, for example, inherited or borrowed or stole many things from the Orient or Egypt or the Near East, which is true, not as much as people think by the way, not for example the Greek gods, although they themselves thought this and a few other things, but in fact the gods were not imported from Egypt and so on. But I thought when you were mostly correctly told that Greeks inherited some forms and ideas from the East, that this was meant for you to appreciate the East, but if language

of appropriation now is taken seriously, it would mean simply that you'd have to condemn the Greeks. You'd have to condemn their culture and even their existence wholesale. Which I think that's in part the point. But every culture actually, European or not, appropriates. Some do it better than others. And the distinctive part about the Greeks isn't what they took from the Orient but how much farther they extended it, how much farther they threw what they picked up. So for example, I talk about the kuroi statues in my book, and the first of these are rigid forms similar to what might see an Egyptian or Assyrian palace, that these nude, muscular males, but they have a kind of ritual significance and they are very rigid, they look much like Egyptian sculpture.

But then you can see how Greeks developed sculpture in forms unknown in the Orient, developing on these kuroi and indeed for a long time in the West after as well the forms of sculpture the Greeks developed with Praxiteles and all these other people. They were unknown even in the West for a long time after, but it is the same with other things they borrowed or stole. They nurtured and improved them, in other words. They cultivated them, which is the meaning of culture. Nietzsche has high praise for what he calls feminine peoples like this, who they like to take from others and to be fertilized, but they like to then nurture and cultivate something amazing. And among these feminine people she classes the Greeks and the French. I'd say you would also have to include the Japanese in this.

The Japanese are master appropriators. On one hand you'd say they're xenophobic just as the Greeks and the French were and still are. And often they have contempt for foreign customs and fads and this is very refreshing because you know how Taiwanese Boba, the craze of Boba craze spread everywhere. The boba tea with the tapioca pearl. I hate that because you suck on the straw and it flies into your throat. I don't understand why you like this. Also I do think they're indigestible by the way. But if you went to Japan, maybe it changed now, but some years ago they have no regard for this boba craze or similar transient customs picked up by foreign nations all around the world. They have their own things in other words. They have their own trends, they don't borrow this kind of thing.

On the other hand, they do appropriate like crazy some things, everything from religion to science to art to literature to words, but they always make it their own in very Japanese way, which is similar to what French or Greeks do with foreign things. So you note then that the feminine label here refers to deepest reaches of the spirit and to matters of cultural creation, it's not to whether the men are manly in these cultures or whether they have a vigorous and militaristic foreign policy, which often such peoples do. But then Nietzsche contrasts these with the spiritually masculine peoples, they do not nurture these ideas and forms so much as they seek other peoples with a hunger and they seek to fertilize them and he classes among these people the Romans, the Jews and he hopes

the Germans, and you can make of that what you will. I find such classification very useful, but you have to have a cultural and literary knowledge of Nietzsche's caliber almost to do this kind of thing, otherwise it's random. And unfortunately, if you go to Steve Saylor comment sections, you have a lot of people trying to do this kind of ethnographic classification, but not so well. You really need the kind of literary historical knowledge, maybe not as much Nietzsche but approaching this. But you will notice that society concerned about appropriation would be neither masculine nor feminine in this sense. It would be a kind of yeast-like and neuter unisex character. Because the entire drama of culture and of people is one that centers on appropriation, on cross-fertilization.

And I posted the other day the way the Greek hero Hercules, for example, was inherited through the Greek Buddhists in Bactria by the Buddhists in India, where Hercules was reimagined as a Buddha's protector, and the same sculptural and image form was transplanted eventually to Japan, where you have a muscular figure holding sword in much the same way that Hercules, a defender of Buddha, holds his club on Greco-Bactrian Buddhist coins. And much of the dress of India today also, for example, is inherited from the Greeks, so anyway the examples are endless between both whites and nonwhites and within all continents. Cultural life of any level cannot take place without cross-pollination of this kind. On an individual level, and this helps you understand why it takes place, when you look

at individual artists, how and why they do it, the examples are endless of course, but Let's just say you know I play Scriabin often on this show and there is this composer Scriabin, his sound I think is otherworldly. Sometimes when you listen to a romantic composer, especially to romantic composers, you hear a kind of national sound and you can say this, for example, very much the case with Grieg. I said this is Scandinavia before I even knew who he was, first time I listened to his piano concerto. And that's a great thing. I'm not attacking national sound. You hear sound of Germany maybe and Schumann and Brahms. You hear Russia very strong and Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky, but not in Scriabin. He has no national sound. He has no time sound either. He's timeless.

It's just completely otherworldly, especially the later works. But the thing is when you listen to early Scriabin, who is said to have been very much under influence of Chopin, I think he went to sleep with Chopin etudes or preludes under under his pillow, so it is said. But also you can say he stole very much from Schumann, the German composer Schumann. So okay, so he appropriated from Schumann and Schumann heavily in his youth, but you hear even in the very earliest works, which are Schumann or Schumann in style, you hear under that his kind of distinctive otherworldly sound, it's struggling to get out. And you see he does this gradually in his music, but to do so in a proper way, to find himself, if you will, to really be himself, he no doubt needed the training of that appropriation

and dependence on the masters who preceded him. And it's the same especially of course in painting where all the best painters, if you look in their use, they're making copies essentially of other masters before them. They go through a period of apprenticeship one way or another, literal or spiritual. They appropriate and then later slowly their distinctive character comes through. And I don't need to go through all these examples are endless, you know, but why I say this because a world without appropriation is a spiritual desert. And I think this is in part the point of the hysteria over appropriation. It may not seem but it is their ultimate motivation, even if they don't know it, the ultimate motivation

of their hysteria to turn the world into a kind of yeast covered Nairobi garbage dump. And I will be right back to explain a little bit more. What is this hysteria about appropriation? What means? Because I think it's an attempt, witting or not, to really attack the core of what it means to be Western, what it means to be white. So let's take it from point of view of the hysterics who actually do feel slighted genuinely about this, about when they see appropriation, who buy into it. In other words, the primary consumer of this ideology is an unstable woman, let's say, in her late teens, the typical one, usually of mixed race or mixed background, which we joke is also the recruitment pool for the outright, but it's in part true.

For similar reasons, people of that background don't know who they are. They grow up torn, biologically, psychologically, culturally between two worlds and this. So it's either this or it's a second generation immigrant who feels alienated in America because Because there's really nothing to assimilate to, so they glorify the shithole their parents left or it's a middle-aged single white woman on SSRI and as to this last example, you know, it's just because they buy into any regime propaganda, okay, and they go on behalf of other people. But for the ones who take it personally, I mentioned before, they do so, why? Because they've built their whole personality and ego, their whole identity around this ethnic group and its accessories.

And I say it this way, accessories, because it really is a kind of consumer brand product to them. It's not a living culture of their great grandparents or this where, you know, a lot of what gets called culture. What is it? It's built around pleasure and joy, music, food, even clothing and architecture. These things give a kind of pleasure, maybe it's not the low appetite pleasure always, But when there is a unity in style among these different arts for a people, that is called a culture, which is a particular kind of cultivation of the human animal in a certain direction. Often it's guided by certain, you could say, ultimate ideals that these people hold. You don't want to say ideal, maybe their goals, the thousand and one goals.

And even religion, the highest form of culture, is built around joy also. At bottom there must for example be some kind of ecstatic experience for religion to hold sway among the people. I believe this. And when the people sees another, either an individual traveler or another people adapts or appropriates some of these things, usually it's very happy when it sees this. That's the normal reaction. When I visited Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, and I have to say I was myself a little bit wary not to offend the Japanese during their festival there, I thought I might be unwelcome as a foreigner to such a shrine to their heroes, but they were exceedingly happy to see me there and they showed me how to do the cleansing ritual at the pool where I didn't do the mouth

thing but I cling my hands and I don't know what is called the pool and then what to do. But they were very happy to see this and that any confident people in its own culture, people People confident in their soul culture will have that reaction. But for the woke consumer of the anti-appropriation ideology, culture is not about joy. It's a kind of brand product around which to base their brittle and actually otherwise non-existent ego. So they feel extremely offended when they see you mess with what they consider their own cherished prop because that's what it is. It's a political and psychological prop. Secular Jews have long had this problem. Eric Weinstein about it. They are alienated from their own religion and culture and so they replace it.

It becomes for them merely a political and psychological prop, worship of the Holocaust and this and something to beat the goy on the head about. And that's Eric Weinstein's latest hissy fit on Twitter. But this is similar to how I knew for example a faggoty art history student who mentioned just casually that when he studies art in an art history program, you start to lose the pleasure in it. I didn't ask him, I don't talk to such people, but someone asked him, well, when you make it your living and you study it all the time, don't you lose the pleasure in contemplating art? And he says, yes, you do lose the pleasure in it, but it becomes something else, right? So of course it becomes a prop for your identity, it becomes your profession, it becomes a means to your bread and butter.

It is degraded for such creatures, in other words, and then they feel offended when, you know, if you're stepping on their turf, right? That reaction explains also very much about American so-called cultural and intellectual life because this educated academia, journalism complex, there are a bunch of ignorant, brittle people who feel constantly the need to defend turf, right, to angle for position. They feel slighted if you comment on what they consider their specialty. You've all known people like this who've never had an idea in their life. So when they think they have an idea, they become very defensive. There's this girl once, I didn't want to read her paper, I don't know why she was hunting me non-stopping. She wanted to send me some paper she wrote, I said, okay, send me the paper.

Then she wanted to make a promise, I wouldn't show this paper to anyone, it was the most important discovery in the history of the world. And I became very offended when I refused to answer that in the affirmative, that I wouldn't show it to anybody else. And these are people, this is how miserly they are, you know. And there was just some other moron the other day I see now published in New York Beta Times, I'll find the article, I'll post it on my Twitter, yet another article about how How Greek and Roman antiquity are the foundation of white supremacy today and they have to be edited out or something. In other words, the envy of the nerd, right, who is like the confused mulatta slur I mentioned

above with somebody who grows up with no personality, has built, the nerd is what, has built his identity on what he thinks the image of the life of the intellect is and then feels terribly offended if you infringe on that and, you know, tries to start lecturing you, excuse Excuse me sir, that's not a cancel, that's a schloss, that's not a cancel. Actually you see, so it's Donna Zuckerface syndrome, a shadow of her big brother, Donna Zuckerface is hurturf, don't you dare infringe, you dirty alt writer, how dare you talk about the Greeks. And now this is the motivation of the end stage consumer of the anti-appropriation ideology, right? But the motivation of the people who created it is a little different.

And in that case, you know, I mean the intention does come closer to what the actual effect would be if this ideology were seriously implemented by the nations, which would be if it was implemented, if it was put into practice, it would be to destroy all high and almost all low culture and low art as well. And where this comes from is the filthy, low IQ work of Edward Said, who himself built on Foucault. Now, some of you like the postmodern so-called philosophers, they're not that at all. There's no philosopher after Nietzsche, not one, okay? But some of you like Deleuze or Baudrillard and you believe that these are somehow compatible with right-wing critiques of the regime. I very much disagree. These are left-wing thinkers, all the pomos.

The attempt to skew the assault that Nietzsche mounted on the modern disease, they want to take his criticism of modernity and instead they try to use the apparatus of the critique of the genealogy of deconstruction in other words to support the cause of egalitarianism. And it's a flawed venture fundamentally, it can't work for them and for reasons I may discuss on the next show, this already becoming long show, but in the case of Foucault specifically, what you have to understand is for him culture and cultural production for Foucault has nothing to do with casual joy and high pleasure has only to do with power, which she understood in an undisguised sexual form because of his personal habits and, you know, as my friend Sallow fisted by Foucault.

So Foucault had a very twisted view of art, of religion, where these things only exist really to affirm the power of some class or faction. I'm simplifying it a bit, but that's what it comes down to. In this sense I think actually the Normicons, the establishment conservative intellectuals are correct in calling it cultural Marxism because it's an attempt to preserve Marxist analysis of what in Marxism, classical Marxism is called superstructure and this is the ideological edifice that gets built upon the base which is the economic foundation and the superstructure is the ideological edifice to support the dominant economic class, only this time in the post-modernist they drop the economic analysis, there's no recourse to the economic

theory but it's still a Marxist type analysis of the so-called superstructure, the ideology in other words that gets built up to support some class, so it's still done in other words in the name of egalitarianism, because the unspoken assumption, I think, behind Foucault, as behind all of the neo-Rouceau lift, is that egalitarianism, equality, are default states of innocent nature. Of course they would never use that word, but this is what they believe, and that all manifestations of hierarchy, all distinction, is necessarily a psyop, a conspiracy. It's problematic, it's exploitative, it's wrong, and so forth. And he, Foucault I mean, interprets, or rather distorts, in his kind of bathhouse, fisting fag way, he distorts nearly every cultural or religious phenomenon as an affirmation

of social and political power. And in this way, by the way, he completely misunderstands Nietzsche, whose view of the will to power was much more profound because it was based on apprehension of a cosmic force in nature that he sees expressed even in storms, I'm talking about Nietzsche now, in waves of the sea and so forth. But that again is a longer talk and this is not a philosophy show. But the point is Foucault sees beauty in art or in religion or anything else of this kind and he feels somehow personally slighted by it because inside he was a cockroach, okay? And his disciple Edward Said was a low IQ Egyptian or Palestinian or something. You know, the Palestinian is one of the first invented identities of the modern world before

the gay thing, very much like the trans identity actually. You don't have to like Israel or to accept its occupation of those territories, which is, you know, it's illegal under international law, but you don't have to accept that, to realize this about Palestinian identity. It's completely made up, it's invented a voluntary identity, it has nothing to do with the ancient Philistines, but again maybe I discuss this in more detail next show, it's a big topic. But so it's this Palestinian immigrant to America and he was disciple of Foucault and keep in mind what I just say now about Foucault, right, and so he has this book, Edward Said, has this book Orientalism, okay, and this is where the cult of anti-appropriation comes from.

And this book is a bunch of narcissistic, ethnic kvetching that evil whitey exoticizes and authorizes third-world people and that this is a means to domination and that even in admiring or appropriation of oriental or foreign forms, the evil white man is subtly dominating and humiliating you, you know, so it's like a girl you may have been with who always says chip on the shoulder who feels whatever you say, you give her the wrong gift, she thinks you're trying to slight her. I'm sorry if you've been with that, you know, so why might someone like Said feel slighted? Okay so you look at how he built this theory of Orientalism, which is really the theory of appropriation, right? What did he base this on? He based this on his study of Joseph Conrad, and specifically of Joseph Conrad's book

Nostromo, and I'll get to that in a second. So but what do you have here in the big picture? You have one immigrant to the west, Said, Edward Said, who builds a convoluted theory essentially to attack another immigrant to the west, Joseph Conrad, Conrad who spoke English as a third language, right, but wrote all these amazing books, books that Maroons and second-rate academic time servers like Said and Foucault, they could never write or do what Conrad did. So instead of doing that, someone like Said makes up really a theory to explain why he's a second-rate turd who can't do anything creative and why what Joseph Conrad wrote was morally problematic and a convoluted psyop to buttress the neoliberal power structure. So this is what Edward Said Teske is doing in Orientalism.

So now you may look into why he picked specifically this book Nostromo, because it is also interesting, very revealing. So what is Nostromo is not a book about the Orient, it's about a fictional South American country, Costa Guana, which Conrad, who was a merchant marine, and he based it on his experiences and travels in Venezuela. And it's a tale of the sea, but really it's a tale of this country and of an Englishman resident in Costa Guana who restarts a silver mine that his father had owned. And all the problems that come from that attempt of the English citizen of Costa Guana to improve the life of the country. And it's really, it's actually my favorite book. And it was before I knew of this controversy with Said. It's the favorite book of many good people, of my friend Yama as well.

It's just a book that's a world of its own, its character, its adventures, its hero Nostromo who is an Italian who lives by honor and the code of perfection much like the protagonist of Lord Jim, which is another book that women cannot understand. So the woman Said, the woman vagina Edward Said, he got very mad at this book. Do you know why? You can maybe figure out why. Because in being a story about fictional Latin American country, Nostromo is actually the story of Latin America since it existed and even now. You read that book, you see events now in Nicaragua, in Honduras, Venezuela, Argentina, it's all the same story. An artist captures this far better than any political theorist or historian. It is philosophy as art really.

So Conrad shows this book I think written 1906 or earlier, but you see even now exactly the same events and all the troubles of that area, all the coups, the counter-coups, the social and intellectual stagnation, it's endogenous to this region. It is of its own doing in other words because simply of how the already existing personality types there, the factions and peoples that exist there, and so you know why this upsets a leftist like Said, right, it's devastating to them in multiple ways. So you mean, wait, it's not CIA coups, it's not the banana Chiquita company or whatever mythology they have that caused the troubles in those countries. I mean, remember, I spit on Evo Morales, excuse me, the dictator, not the tyrant of Bolivia, for a long time. I spit on him.

And I celebrated his removal on Twitter, and all these leftoids, they jump at my throat like over nothing else. That offended them more than anything, and they still try to use that. And weird enough, they try to use that to discredit me in front of you, right? I mean, it's nothing to me or you, right? I'm not ashamed of this because I know Evo Morales is an anti-white, anti-European, red socialist demagogue. But to them, if you waste brown commies, right, if you kill brown commies, I don't do that, but let's say the Bolivian military, right, if you support that, you're the devil, right? So brown commies are by definition to these people anti-establishment. Teachers said so. That's what leftism is.

Teachers said the nice brown commie with dreadlock and Che Guevara is fighting the man, man. So if you're against them and so on, you must be secretly working for the neo-con white supremacy CIA. And this is part of the reason Said did not like this book, because these Chomsky-eyed retard theories, I'm telling you now about how the trouble of Latin America are caused by the white supremacy CIA, these theories had a lot of popularity in the 1970s also. So this book shows it's always been that way before CIA existed, before Americans became seriously involved there. But for Said, it goes beyond that, because the book, while never looking down on its subjects or condescending to them, it's not like Conrad is laughing at these people,

but it's showing the whole tragedy of the place in a romantic light even, tragic romantic. But this is what really must have cut Edward Said very deep, because Conrad, like a doctor, he shows you the world in objective glory and shows this tragedy of this small country Costa Guana as something enjoyable to see, like a dream you're spectating. And he's not indifferent to the suffering maybe, but he transfigures it. And this cuts someone like Said very deep, because to them, like Nietzsche said, these people are ruled by suffering and pity, and all the backwardness of the Orient, the backwardness of the third world in general of his own people, their humiliation compared to the advanced and progressive West, it's shown to be actually without spite and without condemnation, but

it's shown by Conrad to be entirely of their own making, endogenous to their life and to their nature. It's not done to them by the West, which is what children are taught now and so forth and the whole Marxist story of the exploitation of the third world by the first world, but nothing can cut a guy like Said deeper, right? A guy who himself is immigrant to the West, tried to join the West like Conrad did, but But he could only do so, Said, could only do so as essentially an agitator, a political officer. In the same way, let's say, you might have a black scholar and goes into black studies. So it's very strange to me that people want to do that. To me, if you are a black guy, you go into black studies, you're a Jewish guy, you do Jewish studies. To me, somebody like that has no pride.

I don't know how you do that and respect yourself. I don't know. So you know Said makes this convoluted theory about how Orientalism, so-called appropriation, so-called the exoticizing and the interest in and ultimately even appropriation of foreign forms by the West, how it is a domination and humiliation of the non-white other. And what this means ultimately, look I said I would talk on this show about Herodotus and the tradition of history, of investigation, of ethnographic writing and travel writing that stretches back to ancient Greece but was revived in full force by adventurers in 19th and 20th centuries. For example, like Richard Burton, the first white man to enter Mecca. He also discovered the Kama Sutra for the West, or some people say he wrote it.

Or Sven Hedin, who I recently quoted on my account, also very famous traveler and a Nazi. But this show is already too long. I was told most of you enjoy shows about one hour long, so this is already too long. I will cover these travel logs and travel ethnographic adventure stories on next show. But what I mean to say, it's really essence of Western man and Western longing to hunger in various ways for the foreign, for the strange, for other peoples in strange places, to study them, to try to understand mankind and nature in this light. You can only understand it in this light and not to be, in other words, a stay at home. Not to live only in the shire or around the hearth of the home with a thread wife, with a mummy of wife.

And that whole white nationalist fantasy of what the West or the white man is, to me is very demeaning and would reduce us to level of tribal, central Africa, republic savages who eat baboon shit and this. So in fact, those kind of peoples have no curiosity about the outside world at all. There is this book counter to Orientalism that's called Occidentalism, which I would recommend you look at, maybe not read, but you look at. And this book Occidentalism, it documents the profound ignorance and indifference to the outside world in most societies of the Orient and the Near East. So this whole anti-appropriation push would indeed, yes, it would make all culture impossible, but it's specifically directed against the Western man, the white man, whose cosmopolitanism

And curiosity actually deeply upsets these parochial and narrow people. It humiliates them. And putting this ideology into force, really it's an impossibility to put it into reality because it's a suppression of human nature. It's something on account of banning sex or something like this, but it's another attempt to suppress what is high and majestic in human nature, this drive against appropriation. Much like everything else they do, it's no surprise. Because what is the West again but the partnership of various kinds of peoples and of various intensities at times but the partnership to progress mankind beyond the parochial narrowness of the grass hut or the default steam pile rat city of the Orient, right? But both those places I just mentioned are ruled by domineering women, right?

What I call in the book the long house. The West is attempting to reach beyond this and more seriously to cultivate higher orders of the spirit. And it has a biological component too, yes. But this doesn't mean, by the way, you would need to invoke all of this to fight this evil and stupid ideology of anti-appropriation. But on the other hand, you do not think that it's merely about free speech or that stomping about process rights or this will quell the titanic hatred that the awakened lower orders of the soul have for you. They hate you. It's not about free speech. They hate not just you, they hate any kind of higher life, any kind of distinction. And I wish I took part in the last crusade. I wish I took part in Barbarossa. And I think that I did, in fact. I think I did.

I remember dying on the steppe near Stalingrad. I was only 23 years old. But I was reborn soon after and I died as a teenager again in the 1960s. I remember everything going back tens of thousands of years. I may say a little bit more about this, or not, I will see. Until next time, BAP out! Rama una toffo querida quero amaraga Oquerí no quero vida Amaraga te uamo Afro soz para todeta Oquero querí oquerí Oquero la vida amaraga te