It's funny how much they hate putler so norman spear right this norman spear is code name Of a fake white nationalist, uh violent organization so-called the base norman spear is their leader his code name And uh, where does the name the base come from? Is it isaac asimov by the way? I don't know. They just took what they thought was al-qaeda name in arabic means the base And Al-Qaeda, by the way, is another thing that does not exist. I'm not saying Islamic terrorism does not exist, but the conceit of Al-Qaeda as some kind of organization is pure invasion of a counter-terrorism establishment. But okay, so you may believe Al-Qaeda exists, but the so-called base in America certainly does not, as this leader of theirs, Norman Speer, or he went by also named Roman Wolf, right?

from retired so-called Wignat, Uyghur nationalist forums, like VNN forum, they invent name Roman Wolf, okay, so the real name is Rinaldo Nazaro, with long career, apparently as intelligence, military and security contractor, don't take my word for it, I think this is from NBC article. So this is the leader of one of their main fake white nationalist groups, and this he wear Putin t-shirts, so they want to connect everything still to Russia, to Putler, which shows you in some sense the ideological desperation. They have no ideology, and not that I like ideology, but at least the main ones, the main ideologies of 20th century have some plausible coherence, whereas now nobody believes any of this diversity is strength.

I think Bill Kristol came up with that in 1990, so you know, it's the conceived delusion of Bill Kristol, the Mr. Reversion to the Mean, Mr. 120 IQ, who he has a job because of his father. But nobody believes any of the regime ideology when you don't know who you are, but will grasp for anything, and in such case the enemies you invent for yourself will be equally imaginary. Which is why they are desperately trying to turn Putin, and this is what I mean, Putin is a moderate technocrat dictator. He has no strong ideology at all. He's a pragmatist and they're trying to turn him into fount of some fake international or white nationalist movement. When white nationalism or let's say pure Russian nationalism is basically banned in Russia under Putin. It's banned. Good reason, by the way.

I do not support it there because it would lead to the breakup of the Russian Empire or Federation, call it what you want, which this is what the cartel wants to do. They want Russia to break into 100 pieces. So if you see how McCain, who is rotting, are you listening, Meghan? Meghan McCain? I know you listen to my show. You whore, your father was executed by firing squad for treason, treason against the United States. There's nothing you can do about that. Trump had your father executed under a jurisdiction of a military tribunal. But anyway, so McCain is rotting for his many crimes and he support, he meet with Azov Battalion in Ukraine and support many other Ukraine. These are basically neo-Nazi organizations.

So it is quite a strange thing when the United States support nationalism in Russia and Navalny, By the way, I had people writing me, asking me to support Navalny because he's supposedly a nationalist. But the reason he's supported by United States, State Department, and all establishment is because that kind of nationalism is bad for Russia. But Russia, as far as I know, does not support a white nationalism in America. All the propaganda, if you watch Russia Today, Russian propaganda in America support mainly still the left, unfortunately. So anyway, when you have to contrive that a guy like Putin, who's just a moderate, practical man, I'm not saying he's great, but in terms of his personal character and orientation, he's a pragmatist and somewhat of a gray and boring man.

He's hardly a revolutionary or a mad tyrant or a political theorist. But when you're this run-off creature like Psaki or McMuffin or Bill Kristol, you have to pretend Putin is the fount of all evil heresies in your own country and spreading this evil heresies around the world, you know, like always trying to... What are they doing? They're always trying to restart an engine, an engine running on fumes. You put key and you try to restart, to recreate the ideological struggle of America versus Soviets because they wrongly think this will give a broken and confused conglomeration of yapping tribes, something to mobilize around. So you think about how ridiculous these guys want to mobilize Pedro from Oaxaca. A guy in Oaxaca, they barely speak Spanish, they cannot write in Spanish.

A guy who carries mush-refried beans in his pocket, and you try this kind of immigrant to persuade him that putler is the engine of evil that will bind this guy to a Filipino car salesman in Los Angeles. It will bind these two to a Vietnamese nail salon guy in Boston, Lebanese Shiite shawarma stand in Michigan. You take a Gujarati accountant from Houston and you think if you can rile them all up you can bind these in a common hatred of putler who is to stand in as a kind of foreign piñata embodying evil whitey. It's as crazy as it is stupid, but you look at the malice. I mean, it's not just stupidity of these people, it's malice, right? You look at the malice, for example, of the fake meat thing. My friend resting twit face, you look at resting twit face, she's a good Twitter account I

just saw right now, she posts these fake meat Italian sausages that basically, when you look at them in a meat stand, they revert to a kind of ball, they become pure slime. And if you had a genuine ruling class that wasn't driven by malice, by feelings of revenge, they would not suggest measures as stupid and crazy as fake meat made either from vegetable matter, where you know the average impossible meat burger or sausage has more estrogen than a birth control pill. This is not exaggeration. You look study on this or otherwise they're trying to get you to eat grubs, insects to turn you into a kind of cockroach eating creeping gutter snipe. So I used to make a joke, right, you know the joke, here's five dollar guy go buy yourself a pound of bologna and nail.

But that would be improvement to what the so-called rule class tried to do. But what I mean is there's a lot wrong with Americans' food supply, right? modern people should have it in general. Is this true? There is a lot wrong with it. So there would be, in principle, there would be nothing bad about trying to solve this problem. If it was me, I would not start with too much meat as main problem. I would ban paint varnish as cooking oils, for example, the so-called vegetable oils. I would ban GMOs and things. But there's a lot wrong with the way that Americans eat meat as well. First of all, the industrial farming is demonic, and it's not something your grandparents did. Just like they did not eat paint varnish or vegetable oils, they did not build their food

habits on top of this demonic, mechanized hell of mass animal suffering. So a lot needs to change with industrial husbandry and slaughter. And if that makes the price of meat go up, that's good. People should eat less in general anyway, there's nothing wrong with the price of meat going up. This is obvious for a nation of fats. I was just in Mexico by the way, I always reveal things on delay. I left Mexico recently, I have to make this aside here. This show and the last one are late because I have maybe a misguided desire to switch countries because I want to seek peace and tranquility. Before now I was in the big shitty, I was in a certain tropical city recently for many months and I say to myself, I want to be alone again, I want to be in countryside somewhere

and just focus on writing a second book and reading a peaceful look at ocean and this. But since I have left about two weeks ago, all I have is trouble, trouble of travel which is very stressful, having to scramble for daily necessities, exhaustion of being poisoned by the pollution of Mexico City, that after about a week in that area, you almost never recover from it. And in general, it's very hard to find in countryside, because most village locations, for example, have less privacy than a city, and also less services. Right now I'm in a kind of tropical mountain lodge, and unfortunately I have neighbors, I hope they do not knock a door to complain, I have to lower volume somewhat on this episode.

But to find something really pleasant by yourself, for example outside of a town, in full nature is not easy. But the point is, I did get tired of living on top of a human filth and confusion of a city. I wanted to be alone. So this way, these last two shows a bit late. I will be back to weekly starting now. But anyway, look, I was just in Mexico. Everybody there is obese, as larded up as America is. Probably if you look on statistics, it's first or second most obese country in the world. And that's, you know, that's cricket and grub country if there ever was one. They eat rice beans and with insect crustacean matters. I mean, I'm sorry, there are some good things about Mexican food, but everything is taco, everything taco-form. Starch, stuffed people get obese.

This known since 19th century. The famous chef, Briat Savarin, he come up with diet based mainly on cream, cheese, meats. To lose fat, this has been known long time. Everyone knows this. The point is, there is a lot of room for improvement in general in people diets. in food habits, but only a malicious occupational class driven by revenge would suggest vegetable or insect fake meat. Now the first step, a caring steward of domain in a feudal sense, first thing they would suggest is you get rid of factory farming, maybe of pesticides. You try to move to agricultural production on a traditional and organic direction. You don't have to go organic overnight, but you go in that direction, At least you ban all GMOs.

The way countries who care about their citizens, they ban GMOs, Japan, Hungary, and I think also Russia. I think Bhutan tried to be the first all-organic nation in the world. Why not take things in that direction for health and sustainability of people? And if it makes food more expensive, it's good people have a lot of room to eat less. I support FEMA camps for the obese. This horrible image, you want to talk about human filth, a horrible image story that Hakan, he tell me in disgust. And here, more than anyone else I know, is capable of wrath, the wrath of disgust, of something of Schopenhauerian magnitude. But he tell me he sees this nigger in a giant Humvee at the stoplight with a Cretin Down Syndrome or the so-called music, you know, the kind of music you can imagine coming out

of Down's syndrome, where they keep Down's syndrome children, what I consider so-called hip-hop, this kind of blaring from Humvee, eating two burgers, burger wrappers strewn around the car. And he say how much anger, you know, it doesn't matter by the way how this creature got the money to live that way is not the point, whether legitimate or not, but the anger, just think Think of this, the centuries of scientific and technological progress. The resources, the resources that have to go into that, into the upkeep, so that creature could get to that condition. The animals that have to die, the animals and the suffering that have to die to be sacrificed so that creature could exist in that way, right? It fill any observant man with rage, you see?

So the utterly dependent sub-creature raised upon the suffering and deaths of animals, that's not okay, right? And it's not the same thing, but in this direction also. Think of the hordes of people who go into a supermarket and they buy only the boneless, skinless chicken breast, for example. And the rest of the chicken mostly gets thrown away. And I find this to be a similar outrage. not you know and on top of it being a moral perversion so that you kill so many animals right just so you can take the fillet or the breast or disease and the rest is discarded so what about changing americans habits in this direction a benevolent ruling class would do this instead of proposing meat substitutes why not suggest eating you know the whole

animal because first of all it's a moral perversion right when i see and it's usually a woman of some kind. Some kind of worthless debts, like why are these kind of dependent, neutered people always like this? This roasty I once knew after 9-11, I tell her how I was amazed at the technical work and the planning behind 9-11. Anybody who sees that has to be amazed. Forget the moral judgment of it, but how majestic in some sense of the planning it was and the bravery of the men who did it. at least taking the government's story at face value, okay, but I always remember this Roasty, the kind of self-satisfied pretense that, oh really, where she pretended it was just something not impressive to pull off. So this creature who, she just lounges on couches all day,

whose whole life is a decision for her to get Starbucks or go to Target, and she's passing judgment on things she could never begin to conceive, but it's always this kind of self-satisfied moron ditz, this guy who makes these moral farts. And in this case, where I talk about the foods, it's the arguments, I'm sure you've heard it many times, oh, it's gross, tripe is gross, liver gross, organ meats are gross, people only ate them, this is the arguments, people only ate them before because they were poor and because they had to eat them, but we are rich. So we don't have to eat them. You dirty, filthy whore, you dumb whore. Always this kind of woman saying this, who heard it on television, sitcom, and this. So you know, the first thing, again, is the moral perversity of the situation,

and the fact that if you're going to sacrifice an animal, you should use every part of it to respect it. But second, though, is the nutritional argument, right? So these ditzies are completely wrong, because it's the organs where all the nutrition is. And I direct you again to Weston A. Price books. Most of you know them. It's become common knowledge among paleo-eaters, paleolithic diet-eaters and right-wing bodybuilder community, and so on, that the organs are where the action is. So you put a carcass in front of a wolf, and it will instinctively go for the marrow. It knows this in its blood, where the nutrients are. It breaks the bones to get the marrow first. Then next, usually the wolf goes for the liver, then some of the other organs, and only at

the end, the muscle meats, you know, the fillet and so forth, that are supposedly the fanciest part. And similarly, early men, paleolithic hunter, they ate the organs and they gave many of the leftover muscle meats for their dogs. And America had, until relatively recently, traditions involving liverwurst, for example, A common working class sandwich in the mid-best might be liver forced on bread with pickles. There's nothing wrong with that. Why you have to listen to a status hungry, roasty ditz and abandon that delicious sandwich you can have many times in Buenos Aires too? Why you abandon that sandwich for chicken breast with no skin? Now it get to level where, just like in Brazil a few years ago, although coconuts grow on

trees on the street there, you know, one could fall on your head. But you could not find coconut oil in a store in Brazil a few years ago, they imported it from Thailand or the Philippines, and it was expensive. Why? Because there was no local market for it. People had lost local food tradition, they ate, and they still do, mostly crap soy oil. So in the same way, the organ meats, which should be plentiful and relatively cheap, You have trouble finding them. You have to go to specialty stores, sometimes ethnic butchery or this. Or if you want to in supplement form, by the way, I suggest you look at a brand called Ancestral Supplements, which is quite expensive indeed because they source their organ pills, capsules from pesticide-free, grass-fed from New Zealand.

But that standard of pesticide-free and grass-fed should be the only one. It would solve many of the problems in question, right? So meat and food should be more expensive, but right now you're in this situation where something that could be maybe not very expensive, something that could be relatively cheap and plentiful because there's no market for it, it's hard to find, it's an absurd situation. In any case, in Argentina, best plate of barbecue is organ, offal meats grilled. So this is the third thing I am saying, is not just the moral and nutritional, but the culinary argument. Organs can just be so tasty. If you look at Japan, where they have entire restaurants, rest stands also on the street that serve organ meat skewers with various seasonings in this, you know, including the

chicken skin that is discarded by prissy people that I've known. In Japan, they make very good chicken skin skewer, it's delicious. In the Iliad, you see the cut of honor is always given to the most powerful warrior. They do not distribute the meat of the sacrificed animal equally. This is equity, by the way. This is real equity, where you give the best cut to the best and most deserving warrior. But that cut of honor is always at the fatty back of the animal. So in any case, the fattier cuts the organs also if they're cooked right, which can mean simply, by the way, on an open fire or with salt or even boiled the way the mongols do it, but they can be far tastier than lean meats. And a benevolent ruling class wouldn't seek to further shove an obese and unhealthy

population in the direction of more food processing and more estrogenized stress foods. But rather in this direction I'm saying now, which would solve many genuine food and meat problems that America and other nations have, it would also give America tastier foods than as to why they do not. It's not necessarily so well thought out for them, maybe, but maybe they intuitively know these things I am proposing are a threat. Let me give you an example. So you take French dish coq au vin, this is an old rooster, or a hen, and it's cooked in wine and you have to cook it a long time. And many traditional food means slow cooking of this kind. It's knowledge usually, you can find now on internet recipes and there was a short manlet

of power who have many recipes of stews, I forget his name, but this normally is knowledge passed down from mother to daughter in this way and it means localism. It means also that food becomes a bonding ritual, because it takes time to cook together. It's a bonding ritual, especially of the family, but also between friends and others, depending on type of meal. So a dish like cocoa van, or many other slow-cooked, cheaper cuts like this that are very delicious. I mean, again, forget the moral and nutritional argument, but from culinary view, are very tasty. But end up taking place Really, they're only possible in this cultural context that implies family implies local food production local communities

And it's not as if I think Bill Gates and these cretins go into a room and consciously think well How can we not have that but rather that? Unconsciously intuitively, they see this as their enemy because what they seek is not as a human being with a local freedom freedom, with an identity and history, with a healthy body and this, but they rather faster processing, cheaper, more. They seek also the cipher, the rootless cipher hybrid creature, the AI human hybrid trash creature who eats larvae, who owns nothing, who lives in a pod and is nothing but a unit of production and consumption, always surveilled. So healthier, organic, slower-cooked local food, they don't even have to consciously know, they know that somehow is their enemy.

They see what I said before, that kind of bug man, they see that as progress and as the end goal, and they intuitively hate everything that opposes the coming of that bug man. So they rightly, they would never suggest the much more reasonable and healthier options I've talked about just now. They don't want healthy bodies living in rooted communities, gathering around dinner to enjoy delicious meal with close family or friends, you might discuss things that cannot be surveilled in that situation, right? And they know, without having to say it, that this is a wrench in their cretinous plans. And I mean, like, Lucky Giuliano says, this guy Gates, Bill Gates, is an, what is he, he's an AV Dark, AV Club Dark, who came to think of himself as the Lord of Darkness.

And like Nietzsche say, the modern age, the democratic age that was emerging already in Europe in 19th century, but has since become a global phenomenon. The democratic age is necessarily a slave age. It's the age of the slave man, not quite yet as a bug man I described, or the last man, but still of a dependent and a gray sub-creature, of the grandson of the shopkeeper from Hobbes, bred for cowardice and service, who could only find redemption in service to an opposite type who Nietzsche thought would come along also in a democratic age, eventually would arise the type of the Caesar, the type who could make use of the democratic mass slave man, right? So if the mass of men or of males is weaker and erased, it makes it easier for such types to emerge. Just like

Jim Jones, as a cult leader, he had conceived that all men in the world were gay, except for him. So that's very good for somebody like him, you know, except for some reason, I'm talking now about this historical development, and I know the reason, but I cannot get into it now, but by our time in 21st century, the stronger specimens for some reason, they do do not want to take the reigns of this slave society, they do not want to assert themselves even though the mass of men craves submission. So what happens then is that the somewhat merely slightly higher IQ bugmen like Gates and similar, they take the reigns instead. So you know it's either one or the other, that's mankind choice right now. Do you want Gates and Klaus Schwab turning mankind into an erased pod being eating larvae

and then taking the reins? Or do you want Napoleon or similar taking leadership? And of course, we have no Napoleons. We have rather a television impresario like Trump or Berlusconi or a happy demagogues like Salvini. It's all that there is for us now. Maybe it's all we deserve. But still, I say, better a people's clown like Bolsonaro or Salvini, even Trump, then better them than a demented malicious psycho like Gates or Klaus Schwab and the whole puppet show of desiccated, grey, living dead in the new Biden so-called administration. In fact, Brennan is here right now, he wants to massage my feet, it's disgusting. He begged, Brennan, go to break, please, this… Yeah. I realize I really probably must talk a little bit more quiet or maybe this couple

downstairs will come knock at door. I hope not. It's very strange. I thought I would hear them fuck. Sorry, this is not a family show. But it's strange because I always used to hear men and women behind walls in hotels or such things. I would always hear them, you know, do the sex wars. And for the last two years or so, I, you know, I move around all the time and I never hear that anymore. I don't think anybody actually do the sex wars anymore. I think they just talk about it on internets. So, now in previous segments was a long way of saying that we're ruled by stupid demons right now. And you know me, many times I attack this so-called occupational class. And here's a question come that is on minds of so many, how we get where we are, what is modernity problem, how to solve it,

how to get out of this place where it seems no one likes where we are, not even Gates, he wants to go somewhere else, but nobody likes this, and how the West or mankind actually got here, how to understand modernity problem. So there is a broad school of thought I would refer to as systems analysis. Okay, so now half my listeners turn off the radio, went to sleep, just when I say those words system analysis. But look, I want to attack so-called system analysis, or it's a systematic or mechanistic way of understanding modernity, as this way of thinking where modern problem is because either of historical impersonal forces, usually economic, which is the Marxist idea in short, And then as an analogue of that, which gets rid at least explicitly of openly historical

orientation of Marxism, but still the analogue of that that understands modernity in terms perhaps of a static system, either of governance or usually social relations. And here you can think maybe of Moldbag recently, who is a nice guy, I'm not attacking him, but I don't agree with him on this, on his view of the so-called cathedral, and I certainly don't agree with the many lesser minds who try to copy moldbug on this. But what both this way of thinking and Marxism share is ultimately the orientation or I would call actually a conceit that you are powerless, that individual is powerless because you are in the grasp either of an impersonal historical development or of an impersonal system or of a mechanism. And of course only a madman would fight against windmills, right?

So this kind of thing, both are a species of what Nietzsche called a milieu theory, which he calls a neurotics theory, in other words that you're powerless, that impersonal demons essentially are in total control, there's some kind of omniscient, omnipotent enemy, and you are their plaything. Which of course, all of this goes well not just with a neurotics or a paranoiacs sensibilities, but I would add to this, it's not just a neurotics theory, but what we would call a a nerdoid or an over-intellectualized man's theory, okay, because the purpose of these kinds of thinkings, and I will address some of the content in a moment, but the purpose of them is to create a kind of bond between the critic and the reader.

Why would somebody peddle, in other words, a philosophy of powerlessness like this? And why would somebody accept it? Why would they read it and promote it? But it's because this bond is created between critic and reader, where the critic offers the reader, you know, he's saying, I'm pulling the veil from your eyes. I'm showing you just how powerless you are in the hands of these impersonal forces, and how powerless we are. But in exchange for you embracing this cynicism, and you know from Dostoevsky books like Brother Karamazov and Underground Man, really the pleasure that such cynicism can bring someone even when it's self-defeating, is very great. But in exchange for a wallowing in this cynicism and powerlessness, I will give you the feeling of having been enlightened.

Therefore you are one of the elect over those who are still in darkness and still think that their efforts are worth anything at all. So I would say this, I would suggest, is purpose of these kinds of theories. It's a kind of audience or a reader seduction strategy. And as for their content itself, the content, for example, of Marxism, to refute it is something I've tried to do across many shows, not just one, but to go to the heart of the matter maybe of what Marx is trying to do in books like Das Kapital, to go briefly to that now. Marx following Hegel, and I'd say following him badly, is this word, he's what, he's a historicist, which the word historicist among some conservative intellectuals is a term

of attack, but for me it can be good or bad, and I don't just mean politically or morally good or bad, but it can be intellectually interesting or not. I like Giovanni Gentile very much. But in the case of Marx, what historicist means is he believes, for example, that the base or the economic and material conditions of an age, determine what you call superstructure or the ideological and cultural justifications that intellectuals or thinkers of that age, they create these ideals to justify the ownership of the means of production, blah, blah, blah. I'm simplifying a bit, but this is what it means. So in other words, when you look at a thinker of the past from Marxist point of view, or especially when you look at a school of thought like Platonism, you no longer ask, is this true?

Does it say truth about nature and the world? But you try to see it rather how it was a system of justification for the material or economic order of that time or in other varieties of Marxism of certain factions of that time. So in Orthodox Marxist varieties when you look at certain old Marxist historians, I find it interesting, they look even at differences between Platonists, Epicureans, Stoics, ancient schools of philosophy, and others too, and they try to make often funny and convoluted claims that, well, this system of thought was supported by the small but influential industrial class of Athens, you know, the industrial class in Athens included, for example, of resident foreigners and they had such and such interests, while this other way of thought

was supported by the landed old guard, the people who owned large tracts of land or slaves and so forth. So this isn't something I agree with, by the way, but at least the old orthodox Marxists had to become educated enough in the distinctions between these ways of thought to make these kinds of arguments. Not Marx himself. It's very interesting, Marx did not think that Marxist analysis was applicable to ancient world. He says this in some essay, but in any case, the Marxist historians were educated and knowledgeable enough in their readings to make these kinds of arguments, whereas now you know what it is. It's mostly race and gender by people who don't read anything, and the conservative normies are somewhat right in saying that people like Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and

these types, that they kept the general orientation or intention of Marxism in this kind of analysis, they dropped the purely economic material aspect of it, but so in that sense the conservative intellectuals are somewhat right in calling this kind of postmodernism cultural Marxism, although I think they could find a better phrase. In any case, the point is that all of these schools of thought, Marxist and post-Marxist and post-modernist, they understand the philosophies of the past, for example, Platonism or Stoicism, is not about truth ultimately, they understand them simply as expressions of material or power relations of that particular time. And truth, if it should ever appear at all, will appear only at the end of history.

But so far as history is continuing, the truth of one time is limited and conditional, which means a thinker in a particular age cannot see beyond that time. So just to stay with Marxism, it's a necessary consequence of everything I've said that a certain ideology as part of a material epoch's superstructure or its system of intellectual justification or rationalizations, a certain ideology cannot by definition see beyond the material and therefore the social conditions of that epoch or age. It's historically limited in other words, historically conditioned by that age. So then you can understand why Marx, why he tries so hard in Capital and other books also to describe completely and accurately, to understand the nature of capitalism.

Because by definition, if he's able to understand it from his point of view, right, if he's able to faithfully describe it, then it must already be over or be ending, right? Because you cannot understand a historical system of production and ownership and so forth if you're already within it. So if you're able to understand it, that means its end is near, it's on the horizon. And this is why Marx tries so hard, and by the way, so many of his insights on capitalism you can find already in Adam Smith's book even, or others, don't discount Adam Smith. Smith says certain things about the shortcoming of capitalist society that would outrage Nikki Haley or Marco Rubio or today's Cato Institute moron pro-capitalism boosters.

But this kind of systems analysis thinking, this kind of historicism, in other words, the very act of understanding something means that its historical end is necessarily near or that it's coming very soon. So you see why this is very attractive to a kind of cerebral, shut-in, masturbator nerdoid like Marx, right? Because for him the act of understanding, he's contrived this delusion, where the act of understanding is a political event of sorts. Now it goes without question that he did not actually understand it. His economic predictions, they never came true. And although I myself, by the way, have no problem with using occasionally an insight from Marx or Marxist analysis, if it suits me, I have to dismiss the whole thing as ultimately

it's a proceeding from two false premises, both inherited from Rousseau. And these are first of all the false assumptions, first of all that oppression, hierarchy, exploitation are somehow questionable or wrong or unnatural for men. And therefore in need of analysis and explanation. In other words, that equality is the default state of man, the nature of man. Of course, they would not use this word like nature, but it's what they believe. And the second assumption is that man's nature is almost infinitely malleable. You can see actually how these two assumptions are very much related if you think about it. And how this last one, the idea that man's nature is plastic, that it can be shaped so easily.

And it's not just what led to the excesses of Marxism and the deaths of hundreds of millions which come from the fact that you demand this of men, but they have a nature that does not conform with it, so you kill them either by starvation or camps. It's not just the root of that, but it's also of the idea of history or historicism as I've described it just now. Because for Rousseau, man is originally a kind of orangutan apoid, I say on previous show. Look, I don't want to say subhuman, but it's something below the reason of man. It's something sub-rational, unconscious, right? A kind of orangutan creature. But unlike Schopenhauer, who understands the kind of sub-rational side of man as something that is full of content, to put it this way.

In other words, for Schopenhauer, man has a specific and vehement nature that is inborn. It's unchangeable and it wants certain things in certain ways. But for Rousseau, it's not. This is a kind of a dull and plastic creature of diffuse desire whose habits and even desires that can be shaped in almost any direction. And so while Schopenhauer, because of his view of human nature, is nothing but contempt for history as a means of understanding mankind or the world, for Russoans of the type of Hegel who followed their master in the crucial ways I just said, they share these two assumptions and for Marx after him, history and time they become the thing, the thing that shapes and determines man, his habits, his desires, his thoughts and ways of being, the continuity

of time shaping man through impersonal material or other forces, right, because man's original natural nature is infinitely malleable and diffuse and can be steered in any of these directions whether by accident or in the case of Marx by will. And I should say a word, I'm sorry I shouldn't have said that, that's a secret of Marxism I should not have revealed, excuse me, I should say Marxist-Leninism, I shouldn't reveal the hand of the master. But I should say a word here, let me go on other brief tangents you may find interesting. There's often claims made that the ultimate root of this view, that I just say now, of the historical view, of the historical determinist view of man, and ultimately therefore of Marxism, some people say the ultimate root of this is Christianity.

And if you're on the hard right, you are no doubt acquainted with this view. You've seen it many times, very common among many on the right, among especially some national socialist and then some other neo-pagans on the right and so forth, who even go so far as to call Christianity the first Marxism and this kind of thing. And many say that Christian linear time replaces classical pagan circular or cyclic time. It's a very common idea, by the way, not just on the right, there are many other thinkers who say this, it's frequent thought. I've entertained versions of it myself, I think it's part true, but with some asterisk. In other words, it's true that in Christianity, let's say traditional Christianity, not just

at the time of Christ, but even in the year 1000, Christ's birth splits time in two. So unlike pagan cyclic time, which would allow no such a unique event in time, Christ's birth is a unique event, splits time in two. For Buddhists, who have similar, you could say, philosophy or theology of salvation, But they maintain cyclic time, and so there are infinite Buddhas, there isn't just one Buddha who came, there are infinite Buddhas and bodhisattvas who come and come again to teach mankind salvation. But for Christianity and possibly for Judaism, there is a sense of time as a line, maybe, and at least here is a unique event, or the other unique event, a revelation on Sinai. And you can add to this that the Christian looks forward to the end times, to the second coming and so on.

And you can say then this is analogous to Hegel or Marx's end of history. So you say it's the same thing. But I think there's something missing from this argument. Okay, so the traditional Christian, he believes in these things, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean a historical continuity or a progression towards something. So in the year 1000, the Christian could understand himself as the heir of Emperor Constantine of the time of Christ, and that the second coming, however, could happen at any time. It could happen tomorrow. It could happen in a week. It could happen in a few hundred years. And the feeling as a traditional Christian has of himself is not as a consciousness in history looking backward and forward to something we'd recognize as historical motion or progress

toward an event or a continuity of events. But really actually the traditional Christian view of a static time is really, it's maybe where the coming of Christ was recent and where nothing really happens until the second coming. There is no progression of history and you have to expect in awe and piety the second coming. And then so maybe the feeling of traditional Christian is one of hope, expectant hope and And he lives in hope that second coming could arrive at any time. He does not see himself as on a stream of time in history yet, not as a traditional Christian anyway. And Karl Leavith makes this argument. He says that understanding of history, of time, actually as progressing to an end state in this way, it only comes later. It is not something necessarily come out of Christianity.

It comes later in medieval thought of a scholar and theologian named Joachim of Flores. Joachim of Flores was a revolutionary thinker, and he saw time in different dispensations, that of the Father, then of the Son, and then of the Holy Ghost. And by introducing this idea of different epochal dispensations, the idea of history as we understand it today emerged, apparently, in the start of this Joachim of Flores, as There's a linear motion towards an end state with continuity and events toward that. It emerged with this thinker I just named and not before, supposedly. So this is interesting anyway. You remember I make show on Cola di Rienzi, and it's very interesting that the name of this demagogue leader, who I like him very much, he's very similar to Trump actually,

but the name he gave his group was the Brotherhood or the Knighthood of the Holy Ghost. I forget which. Many say that this Kolodyi Rienzi was a disciple of Joachim of Flores. Or others say it's rather Petrarch who was the intellectual force behind Rienzi. That's for another time. But I mean to say, as an aside, it's not so straightforward to claim that a modern idea of history, as appears in Marx or Hegel, has a direct analogue to traditional Christianity because it might not. The traditional Christian lives in expectant hope, not with a view to progress or time. And similar, by the way, for traditional Jew. The whole thing many of you have heard about, tikkun olam, as historical progress or improving the world, this is rejected by orthodox Jew.

That's a kind of leftist secular Jew reinterpretation of Jewish theology. In any case, where were we? So yes, I reject this kind of magical historical thinking from Marx or even Hegel. It's a neurotic theory that is meant to make you feel powerless. But it's made to make you feel powerless in a righteous way, and to make you really ultimately into the bitch of the critic, actually, who is supposedly revealing to you how you're being manipulated by forces outside your control. And in this same way, I would reject non-historical systems analysis. Muhlbach does it well, but others do not do it so well. Because for such thinking, the vague abstraction of neoliberalism – I hate this word, everyone uses neoliberal ideas.

But this merely replaces the vague abstraction of capital as a diffuse and mysterious enemy. By the way, a lot of these people now read Christopher Lash. Let me tell you something about Christopher Lash. He never called himself a socialist. He never said, rigorous class analysis. Christopher Lash was a populist, is what he called himself, not a socialist. In any case, there is no difference between the systems analysis of historical kind and static kind I mentioned, and the whole talk about analysis of such system as supposedly a political event, as if you can just analyze something, it becomes a political event, it heralds its end. It's something I reject, it's something that is supposed to lull you into quietism and into powerlessness.

It's based on the false premise that if you understand something, you've already overcome it or almost. And it's wrong. And I'm not attacking, again, moldbag per se, he nice guy, I need to repeat this. But rather I am attacking his copiers who keep prattling about neoliberalism and socialism and this. And I try to sound smart by doing convoluted so-called systems analysis to understand modern plight rather than focusing on the obvious, which is who rules, what are their names, what do they want? And I'm sorry if such questions are too vulgar for you. If you're a systems analysis guy, believe me, I know all the theories you believe in. They are wrong. This vulgar question is actually right. But too many interlopers have come who want not to genuinely understand something, but

They want rather to do a minstrel show for the real intended audience, which is other journalists and academics. And I'm talking, of course, about the rigorous class analysis, the socialism larper in this. Look, I'm a smart boy, you know, I sound just like you in this. I'm an intellectual. I'm a scholar. I'm such a real scholar. I'm doing analysis. I'm not like those vulgar racists, you know, but political life is not a system to be analyzed. It's not a vague system of oppression opposed by a vague counterculture. Which is, you know, this is the 1960s to 70s academic CIA constructed way of thinking about politics that completely misunderstands political life. Political life as ancient men of power knew is one thing only. Who rules? What type of man?

I will be right back with quick word on this. of who rules is not as lowbrow as mentioning the names of the top 500 fortune financiers or Lloyd Blankfein, Bill Gates, or Leon Black, or this, although I would say this is much closer to reality than the kind of pseudo-scholarship I attack in previous segments, where Marx, if you, again, I recommend you read Charles Murray Cudahy, who reveals Marx as his theory just an entirely man's personal ethnic resentment, transmogrified into world historical theory. But the question is fundamentally about the type of man who rules, the real question. The type of man who is prized and promoted by the government or society, who rules it. And the argument is this man, his character, his desires, is what shapes the way of life of a nation or a society.

This is simple and is true. So you see the highbrow version of this in Plato Republic, where he goes through different types of regimes, where we have life in oligarchy, for example. You could say the social and cultural life is determined largely by the character of the oligarchs and what they want, which is wealth and money. And like the character of a military aristocracy in Sparta is determined by fact that men who rule it, desire, honor, above all else. What does a democracy desire? What does a tyrant desire? What kind of men rule in a democracy? Is it bad if it's Huey Long, but is it not worse if it's a demagogue of the more insidious type like Paul Ryan or McConnell, or on the other side, as racial demagogues like Kamel Nasser Harris? But I get ahead of myself.

In Plato Republic, you see a kind of psychological analysis, you could say, of each kind of man, the oligarchic man, the man of honor, and you see this not only determines the character of the regime of the society and government they live in, but how through various failings in the education of the young, this leads to the downfall of the government and its transformation into the next one, its degeneration. So you know, an oligarchy will turn into a democracy and a democracy into a tyranny will degenerate and then the cycle of life of regimes or governments will continue. And all of these take place because of a failure in education. But it's interesting that for Plato, the best regime, the Republic, only fails because of a failure in breeding or nature.

In other words, it's a eugenic state where eventually mistakes are made in biological pairings, and in other words, the best state can only come about and be sustained by a program of biological eugenics. Very interesting, we do not need to go there, this is a family show after all, but the point is this kind of analysis is not unique to Plato, it's very much similar to many classical thinkers on politics, in Aristotle, for example in Aristotle, where he, very famous argument, He discusses a kind of middle-class republican society and how the phalanx, the hoplite, is very important in its coming about, right? So it's similar to Plato, he's saying what determines character of this kind of republic, he's looking at, let's say middle, you could say, not ruled by horsemen who are aristocrats

and own large tracts of land, but by men who own small farms and who can afford the armor to be a heavy infantryman and the training that goes with that and so forth. And his argument is that these, the virtues of the hoplite, the heavy infantryman phalanx, are what determines the character also of this republican form of government. I disagree with it. I think Aristotle's wrong on historical origins of the hoplite, it's the other way around. The hoplite was originally an individual warrior, and only later was turned into the phalanx by the republic. So it doesn't give rise to the republican form of government in the way he says. But in any case, his orientation, I mean to say, is the same as Plato, where he tried

to look, he's looking in this case at the public, trying to figure out how its character, the character of their society is determined. His answer is, is determined by the kind of man who rule it. You look at their characters, their virtues, their education. It's in other words, the way of life of a society is determined by its ruling apart. Their particular characters, desires, and upbringing, and I think is a simple and true way rather than the convoluted neurotic systems analysis. And if you look at our world, it's easy to explain its character in this same way. And this is why I try to mock them, the rulers so-called of this society, because you know when you mock ruling character type, especially self-important empty people like these, if

you do it well, I may not always do it well, but the frogs in general do it very well. And that gets to them more than anything, more than any tight-assed article pretending rigorous class analysis and this garbage or when some of you spergoloids start to talk about ethno-state, that doesn't help. You're supposed to simply mock these subhumanoids who have somehow inherited the rulership of this society. And if you watch movies spy game with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt, I say this before but is important because antagonist in that movie, Spy Game, the guy who embodies the new leadership of the CIA, is almost perfect capture of this kind of grey nothing that this society really even prizes and promotes.

You watch this movie and you will certainly recognize this kind of rigid, spectacle, pompous, bag-stabbing bug man, and there's one at your job for sure. It's a very fun movie to watch because you see old CIA triumph over this technocrat double-dealing femoid new male CIA, but the same type of man could be transplanted to any organization or bureaucracy or institution, and unfortunately this subhuman antagonist from the movie has the upper hand in real life and determines the character of this modern society. And I've mentioned a show before, Gossip Girl, where the supposed protagonist and the voice of moral clarity, Dan, his name is, the character, the middle-class kid, and he's supposed to be the good guy, okay? But in fact, he's the bad guy, and he's kind of smarmy, self-righteous,

social climbing, self-conscious. Really, if you watch closely how deceptive he is, where he is purely ruled by a petty will to power, to backstab his friends in order to further a career as a journalist, which is really irrelevant, right? Such a dishonorable goal, excuse me. And yeah, Brennan, I think, poisoned my coffee. I will throw you, Brennan, to the quattibundi, but anyway, so this guy from a show, not movie, Gossip Girl, dishonorable goal to become journalist for which he backstabs all of his friends, but he's never even able to admit this to himself. He's always behind a kind of facade of supposed decency, of moral uprightness. And sorry I have to focus on Scritcher from Gossip Girl, but watching this show, you know, I saw the bane of my life.

I can't tell you how much my life was set back because I grew up mostly around guys like that, like that Dan from Gossip Girl who, you know, they've always had just a natural instinctive aversion to me as I to them. And much as if they're insectoids, okay, who see it in their blood to try to stop me. Whereas with very poor and very rich people I get along generally very well. I mean as a type, right? But with this type I mention the upper middle class social climbers, they are my born enemies and they have made most of my life quite difficult. And in general, when you look at the private lives, how drab their tastes and their desires, whether it's a John Schindler or a Viner with dick pics, or worst of all, Jeff Bezos. So let me just end on this guy, right?

Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world. He could have formed an army. He could have taken over a country. Sorry if I repeat myself, but you must understand who rules you. He could have colonized Mars or tried to or the ocean floor. Now he claims he wants to do this space thing, but I think it's just a second-order megalomania. It's not really his desire. He just says it because you see his desire from his actual behavior, what he does with all his money, and that is to throw half of it away by cheating on his ugly wife with another ugly wife, with the face of a wife, and then to spend his days pining. This guy spends his days pining for Hollywood actors and actresses, and not even just in sexual way, just to join their society.

His whole life dream was just to try to join Hollywood society. It's pathetic. It tells you who you are ruled by, and it's not a satanic cabal, thousands years old like Alex Jones tried to make it sound much better than it is. It's just the people, actually. It's hard to accept this, but it really is the people. It's people who are vulgar, who just think that if they drink Chardonnay and read a page of Plato, they don't actually read it, but they say they do. But they think that puts them above people who eat hamburger and Bud Light. In other words, the Bezos, the Blankfein, the Gates, even the people behind the Baidan are just extensions of the vulgar people themselves. Somewhat higher IQ, somewhat more industrious, but usually just luckier, by the way.

And I'm not a fan of the line that success equals luck argument. In many cases it's not true at all. But in the case of the, for example, insane wealth of a zucker face or Bezos, it's just first adopter luck. First adopter luck. Because their achievements, if you look at them objectively, the technologies are not objectively impressive. And there are foreign analogs developed at the same time or even before that work much better. So I know people who order from a company who do Amazon in Japan, it gets to the United States before Amazon delivers it. And I also suspect that in many cases of absurd wealth of this kind in America is because of government connection. In other words, it's government origin that gives rise to or rather license to such wealth.

And then it only looks deceptively as influence over the government when you see it from outside, And in fact, these are actually government ciphers, if not agents. But the point is, since there are no Caesars that dare to rise for now, this society is led simply by a democratic so-called elite that is in its tastes, in its desires, it is as vulgar as the people. And in its ultimate aims, it's confused. It's easily taken in by fads, by moral deception. And it's always masking simply a desire for more, more power, more money, more security. It is the absence of strength, of the assertiveness of the men of strength that allows this subhuman type to rule. Although I have a hard time considering them a worldwide adversary, it must be said it

is still the case that because, you know, children inherit the house and burn it down, right? inherited the scientific and technological edifice built by men far better than them. But worthless as they are, they are using it to destroy and blot out human nature itself. So as pathetic as this bugman impersonating a ruler is, it is still the case that if we do not stop them in this decade, the soul of mankind is lost. men will be turned into a hybrid, AI garbage creature, misbred, genetically neutered, feeding on larvae, living in cockroach hive. It's this decade or nothing. If we do not stop them, it's this decade or nothing. Think just about how much harm they have already done to countless children.

The scores and scores of children who are being destroyed by hormonal and other interventions, The magnitude of this evil and the parents of this society, worthless and weak as they are, they sit by watching it. You know, the danger is that it cannot be reversed, right? But they are looking to do that to mankind, indeed to all nature with GMOs and this. And I do not believe the solution is to wait it out or to run away, as some say, they call it exit, which means what, do you go grow mushrooms in Oregon or whatever? It's nothing. They say, make money. Make money does not solve anything. Of course you should make money and have a family. But in fact it is attachment to money and comfort that they use against many good people. These are not solutions. There is no waiting it out.

We have to confront it. And you can do so through peaceful infiltration, for example, of various kinds that Frog Twitter recommends. Ultimately, and maybe soon necessarily, it has to be done by acts of civil and peaceful disobedience. We use, for example, Polish solidarity as model for how it brought down Polish communist regime, which was also led by this kind of subhuman, petty, cowardly technocrat. It didn't make the system any less dangerous or oppressive, but the kind of grey being that led it. And I mentioned a movie, Lives of Others, you see there. But Polish Solidarity opposed it. And you may use this as a model or some of other East Bloc heroes who overthrew those abortion regimes and some of them went to jail. They did not want to go to jail, but they were willing to go to jail.

They are willing to do what it took to stand up to the enemy. And that means possibly sacrifice. It means you have to be willing. And I am willing to, by the way, I will never ever back down or stop from the things I've said or give in to the enemy no matter what. And I hope I can appeal to some of the men, and maybe there are brave women too, it's often the case, but some of the men among you to do the same and never back down. But that I can awaken in you the fanaticism of freedom and of love of God. So that when you look as a subhuman demon in the eye, you're ready never to back down in front of it. And again, you can do it peacefully and in strength, the way Solidarity did in Poland, maybe I talk about them next time or some other time, but that you can take on this

sub-cockroach enemy, because I guarantee you with enough stalwart men standing up to them in union, they will crumble. Like all the malicious double-dealing cowards working in shadows, they will melt before courage of real men. And all that is lacking in this world is for real men to arise and band together. Until next time, Bap out.