Welcome, Caribbean reason. Today I have on show to discuss a critical situation in Russia. Entire world is watching the protests, the Navalny, Astroturf affair. So I have to discuss this crisis on show today. Again, welcome back to Pigdog and Kirill, my old friends, and they run a Russians With Attitude podcast. You should sign up. But welcome back to show. And yes, please, what's going on in Russia? What's going on with Navalny? What happened? Yes, yes. Hi, Bob. It's always a pleasure to be on your show. Navalny is such a tiring theme because it's every single day that we are asked to give our takes about Navalny, even in real life. Like yesterday, I met my brother and he demanded that I should tell my opinion on Navalny. It's unbearable actually,

but we will make any sacrifice for your show that is needed. So I have a big list of coincidences on Navalny and we made a show on him, a recent show dedicated only on Navalny if you wanna hear his entire backstory, his biography, listen to our show. But a quick take on Navalny, I don't like him, but there are signs, a clear signs that incredibly powerful forces support him. And I'm not just saying that about foreign intelligence services or oligarchs. I see that there are some signs that he's pushed within Russia as well and I will explain it. I believe that it's all set up this way to make Navalny our own Nelson Mandela type figure. Basically Alex, let's call him Alex, is an actor, Ukrainian actor with a lot of chutzpah and desire to be popular and rich and to rule.

So he wears many masks, and it's time to finally rip them off. Yes, he is a nationalist, a Harry Potter, a pickle rig, a liberal. is trying to mix up so no one could clearly define what he actually is. What and not who. So check it out. First interesting fact Navalny's wife Yulia, Yulia Navalny comes from KGB family. Her dad worked in London for Soviet embassy and made some trade deals. So it's not your regular Russian Ivan. Coincidence or fun fact number two, Navalny's name was practically forbidden to say on television. He made his video blogs, collected donations, you know, exposed some politicians and businessmen, but he always did it very selectively. So I always assumed that Navalny was just a tool for Russian elites to destroy their foes and opponents within the system.

So Alex was the media killer and he actually avoided speaking of Putin too much. And in summer 2020, suddenly it all changed. His shtick was really tiring and boring for people. his usual videos about some petty corruption, you know, United Russia corruption, didn't get much views at all, so no one talked about him. So his handlers decided that it was time to reboot Navalny and then the alleged poisoning happened and it absolutely blew up his popularity and his career. So, but interesting fact is that on Russian state TV his name suddenly appeared everywhere. Prior 10 years he was practically banned from TV. Now it's all about Navalny. So everyone knows and talks about Navalny. It's really weird. Why are they giving him so much publicity? It's not just a foreign affair,

what I am trying to tell you. And Yulia's KGB background, I guess, is a big thing in this whole So, yes, actually, Bob, do you know what happened in Belarus last year? Yes, of course, as everyone say, color revolution attempt, and I heard the rumor that the attempt against what he named Lukashenko was because of his defiance of IMF and of World Health Organization. He refused to lock down Belarus in the end of the color revolution. I don't know if this is true, but, yes, what of it? What does Lukashenko fear? It's just that it's really similar in Russia right now, because what went on in Belarus is there was a guy, Tikhonovsky, who wanted to become president, so Lukashenko put him in jail. And his wife, Tikhonovskaya, the wife of this failed president, took the charge of this

opposition, the Russian opposition, and she is the media darling right now and not the jailed husband. So the Navalny couple is a lot similar to Belarus because his wife, Julia Navalny, KGB daughter, was also a nobody even a year prior to that. But now she exploded. Everyone knows about Julia Navalny. And yes, there is a lot of memes with her. She is really popular. And her husband is also in jail. It's the same scenario that it is in Belarus. Opposition leader in jail and his wife is reaping all the profits and leading the charge. So fun fact number three. When poisoning happened, there was an interesting person who accompanied Navalny in all of this. It's Maria Peevchikh. She lives in London. Apparently, she wrote all the stuff that he's saying in his videos.

And she also closely works with Bellingcat. And the funny part is that no one has heard about her before poisoning. So Navalny's brain and right hand woman was never to be seen. She was hidden in the shadow and suddenly here she is and they pretended that she was always the closest ally of Navalny, but she wasn't. She was hidden away. So yeah, it's like Oceania has always been at war with Ostasia. And the last fun fact about Navalny and why I believe that he is a triple, quadruple KGB agent despite his London connections and other appearances, because he was sentenced yesterday, I think to two years and eight months in prison for avoiding the court hearings when he was in Germany. So it's really funny because presidential, Russian presidential election is gonna be in March, 2024.

So they will release him exactly half a year before election. Why would they do that? Why would supposedly unhinged bloody tyrant Putler do that if he didn't want Alex to become next president or maybe some other influential figure? It just doesn't make sense. So yeah, I believe that he is our next president. Let's say that. Like Ocasio-Cortez in America also in 2024. So the future is going to be really mysterious It's very interesting. Everything you say is very interesting, because Belarus also, I see, very firmly a country in Russia orbit. And so what you're saying to me, if I understand right, is one of two things. Either Putin himself is arranging these things to make it look like these people are his

opposition so that they would have less foreign resistance maybe when they come into power as his successors, which, if true, it would be very cunning and violent thing. I think that the Zionists try to cut my connection again, but maybe you can hear me now. Or second option, that perhaps there are—are you saying there are powerful interests, deep state within Russia who oppose Putin or who are behind this? Yes, there is a deep level of connection between the Russian deep state and the British. As you have maybe noticed, even in Navalny's biography, there is a lot of, you know, British traces like Yulia Navalny, that was a KGB officer in London, and Navalny's right-hand man, the leader of the CEO of Navalny's famous foundation against corruption, Vladimir Ashurkov.

He also lives in London. He got political asylum in London in 2015, and he lives there, and he comes back to Russia quite often. And Russia Today has recently released a video where it shows that Ashurkov meets up with the British diplomat from the British embassy in Moscow, who is known by the FSB to be an unofficial MI6 agent. And on this video, Vlady Mirashokov, who is literally the right-hand man of Navalny, who leads all the business side of his dealings, he tells this MI6 agent that—he asks him for money. He quite literally tells him that the Navalny movement and the anti-corruption foundation should be given several tens of millions of dollars, because in the end it would make billions for the people who give him this money.

So he is basically alluding that if they become the government, it will be very profitable for Britain. And also you have to remember that in 2018, Anonymous, like, you know, the original Fortune anonymous not globalist show movement, they leaked documents from the British so-called integrity initiative. It was a government program by the Institute of Statecraft, you know, one of those globalist NGOs. They were also financing Ashokov. And yes, it's all quite interesting. Ashukov is also quite friendly with the Russian oligarch. One of the few surviving liberal oligarchs, Mikhail Friedmann, who has dual Russian and Israeli citizenship and who is CEO of Alpha Group. And there are—people say that through Ashukov, Mikhail Friedmann is also financing Navalny. So it's all quite interesting.

And Friedman has also dealings with the British. So it's quite interesting. And recently, like a few days ago, there was a huge leak from the also British intelligence services that they were financing and bankrolling a huge anti-Russia media campaign. It's also an investigation by Russia Today. For example, Medusa, Medusa is a Russian newspaper based in Latvia, and everybody knows that they are being financed by EU anyway. And they are quite popular. I think they might be the most popular liberal media in Russia. And the recent leaks show that they were specifically financed by the U.K. to promote an anti-Russian agenda. So it's all quite interesting. And there are, you know, there are many connections between the Russian deep state and the British,

the oligarchs, they're all based in London, Brzezowski lived in London, they all have their financial dealings in London. And I think there is something there. We don't know the whole picture, but yes, it's extremely shady, everything. And what Pictox is saying is, right, the psy-op is a lot larger than we actually think it is, I think. And we don't know the whole extent. Yes, it's very interesting what you say, Kirill. Sorry, pigdog, go ahead. No, just a quick remark that Navalny can be KGB and MI6 plant at the same time. There's no real contradiction. You have to understand and take the Golkovsky pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Yes, so I wanted to ask you about these media psy-ops, so-called, because I think, big dogs,

the other day you posed how Navalny was quoting Harry Potter. So just this shameless pandering to the middle-aged, hysterical women in the West who are the primary consumer of regime agitprop in the United States. And I've seen also before, when protests started, they had this girl—I guess it was a cute girl—but she was telling so-called Russian protesters to say things in English to save themselves from Russian security services. And I just found how they copied down to all of the facial gestures, the hand gestures to copy Western blogger, YouTuber style, this kind of shameless pandering to the West. So I wanted to ask you about that. Is this whole charade, this whole show for a Western audience, not for a Russian one? No, no, no.

Actually, I have to disagree, because Harry Potter, it wasn't aimed at Americans at all. in Russia, it's not middle-aged women. It's 30... Millennial women. Yes. Millennial young women are crazy, in love with Harry Potter, just like in the West. There is no contradiction at all, maybe more, actually. Maybe more. So it was in Russian, so it wasn't aimed at Americans. The question is, is it just cynical pandering to those millennials, or maybe Navalny is just this retarded? And I think it's the latter. Because I think Navalny is a fucking Redditor. And you had, you know, when he was flying back to Russia from Germany, there was also a famous photo, everyone was talking about it, how while on the flight he was watching Rick and Morty with his wife on the laptop.

And he also quoted Rick and Morty in court, not just Harry Potter. So I think it's both. It's both pandering to the, you know, the midwest millennial demographics, but he's also really a fucking Redditor himself. Yeah, because I saw an interview after poisoning a serious theme, an attempt on his life, and he talks like, by movie reference, he talks, I'm like Batman, I'm like Batman from Pickle Rick, something like that, it's unbearable. He literally cannot think outside of Western media garbage. So you know, it's especially disgraceful in Russia, because you know, in the West, you know, high culture, literary culture is very degraded and you can be happy if people read at least Harry Potter, because otherwise they just don't read any books at all.

But Russia has an incredibly rich literary culture, and it's a very literary nation, and it's just humiliating that you have these… Yeah. No, it's disgusting, and I hope next time you come on we talk Russia literature, I want to talk my favorite novels, Russian 19th century novels, but, yes, what you say about Navalny is disgusting, but I wanted to continue asking you about—I saw also the other day a Finland agitprop video against Russia, and they had a Finnish woman with perfect English accent saying that the Russian media was corrupting the mines in the West and turning them against their guys. It sounded like something out of 1984. I don't know why they thought it was a good idea. But I remember when you were on a show on Caribbean tourism before the election and

asked if you were worried if Baidan would win, if tensions with Russia would rise. And I think that something like this is happening, where the media attack on Russia is intensifying, at least from what I see in United States media is intensifying on Russia. Are you worried that it will get worse, that they will increase sanctions, that perhaps even I'm worried they will trigger a war because they are so stupid that they will keep pushing They begin pushing and they don't know when to stop. I'm not sure if they're really ready to go to war or escalate tensions. I think they have long term plans and they might do something stupid. But I think in the short term everything what's happening right now is mostly about Nord Stream 2. You know, the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

And the Americans really don't want this to get finished. The State Department really doesn't want Nord Stream 2 to be finished, because it would mean that Central Europe and Western Europe would become even more reliant on Russian gas, and they would not import American gas. And the pipelines wouldn't go through Ukraine anymore, a large reason why the Germans really want this pipeline to be finished is because the Ukrainians, they steal a lot of gas. You know, the pipeline, it goes through the whole of Ukraine, and the Ukrainians, they just steal, like, a sort of the gas that goes through the country before it arrives to Germany. So the Americans are trying very hard to stop. They are putting sanctions even on Norwegian and Swiss companies that are involved in the

construction of Nord Stream, which is kind of unheard of, which is unheard of, you know. They are not even EU countries. They don't even have tight relations with Russia. So the Americans are going all out, but I don't know how much they will escalate. It's hard to predict. Yes. Yes, I understand this. But I wanted to ask you, a big dog, would you mind—yes, when you mute your microphone, I think that Zog tries to suppress the signal, our connection. But in any case, I wanted to ask you—I got a lot of messages recently telling me from people who I did not know, just small accounts, nonaccounts, telling me, Beth, you must not attack Navalny, because he's a nationalist, he's a good guy. And I know that the two of you said, well, there's some truth to that, but not completely.

Would you care to comment on whether he's a nationalist, A, and B, what means the promotion of nationalism of this kind within Russia or of unusual views? Because I know, for example, Zhirinovsky was entirely a tool of putler, you could say. It was a completely fake opposition, from what I know. At least Klemnikov says it is fake. And I wanted to ask you in this connection also about this very colorful character, Limonov, who is a postmodernist author of rather pornographic tales. Solzhenitsyn called him some kind of faggot or something. And he returned to Russia from abroad in 1991 to found the national Bolshevik NASBOL party. And he's such a colorful figure that I think some French filmmaker wrote a biography about him.

Would you care to comment on these phenomena, Navalny as supposedly a nationalist and then this limon of Disney. So what do you mean in Russia? Yeah, OK. So about Navalny's nationalism, you have to understand that he is not a nationalist and neither is he a liberal. Like he doesn't have political opinions. He's a complete Machiavellian opportunist. Navalny joined the nationalist movement at the moment in time in around 2006 when there was a party. It was called Rodina. so homeland in Russian. It grew out of parts of the Communist Party, which, as you probably know, is more right-wing than any political movement in America. And Rodina was a very powerful nationalist movement, nationalist conservative movement. At one point they had 36 delegates in the Russian Duma.

And at this point Navalny decided to join political nationalism, because it was, you know, the zenith of the political power of nationalism in post-'91 Russia. And he was even excluded from the liberal Yabloko party because of his pandering to the nationalist audience. But what you have to understand is that he joined up only because it was on the rise politically. And he even said that, you know, there is a slogan of Russian nationalists. It's pretty easy, расиет леруских, Russia for Russians. And Navalny said in an interview that it's his goal to remove the slogan from Russian nationalism, so they stopped talking about this. So it was basically subversion. in a way, to make it more normie and more West-friendly.

And Navalny left political nationalism in around 2011, which was when the movement against illegal immigration, which was at that point the largest nationalist movement in Russia. It was completely legitimate, not radical, very polite, everything very good organized, but it was banned by the Russian government. And that was nadir of political nationalism in Russia, when nationalism had no political power at all. And right at that moment, when it became useless to his personal ambitions to be a nationalist, Navalny stopped being a nationalist and became a liberal again. So you can see from this that it is pure opportunism. He doesn't have he doesn't hold any political opinions. I don't think he has any political values at all.

Yeah, it's also really funny how American leftists are trying to cancel Navalny for his supposed nationalism. And it's really weak. And liberal activists that, like Masha Gessen and others, are using a very amusing technique to whitewash him. is just basically to say that russians are such savages that we should forgive navalny's wrongdoings and bad thoughts because you just can't talk to these people in a different manner so yeah it's really funny it's really funny but it's not a topic that we should We should actually discuss, we should just probably forget that he said something along the lines of nationalism, because it's irrelevant in his case. And you talked about Limonov, I guess they are similar with Navalny, that Navalny is also some kind of faggot.

But in reverse of Limonov, they're completely different. Navalny is absolutely bland and boring, no sincere thought or nothing. There's nothing to be had. And Limonov, for all his faults, was really an interesting figure, like Zhinovsky is also. They are great. They're all actors. They are all narcissistic and they all crave fame and popularity, but they represented something real and something genuinely funny and entertaining and radical and truthful. Dzienowski, maybe he doesn't have any political power, but he mostly tells it like it is. role is to be the only guy who tells the truth, because he is powerless. But he's like a court jester, but he can't tell anything to the king's face. So he has his youth, I think.

And Navalny doesn't. Navalny is a corporatization of this whole protest of nationalism or whatever. It's the face of soulless, dead corporatism, and it doesn't even, it's not relevant. What it is, it's our enemy, because it doesn't have a soul. Yes, I see. Kirill, would you mind unmuting your microphone? Because I believe that whenever one of you mutes microphone, the New World Order cuts off all the signal there. It's a trick. But, you know what, Pink Dog, what you say is very interesting, and I'm concerned now for the future of Russia. If you say Navalny is indeed next president, before we go, I just wanted to ask both of you, are you concerned that my biggest worry is the idiot Masha Gessen, not her, she has She has no power.

But she's a figurehead, perhaps, for the deep state factions, Kirill, that you mentioned before. And are both of you worried, perhaps, that if that English-allied part of the Russia deep state succeeds Putin, will Russia break up in 100 pieces? I am very worried about this, because I think this is long-term goal of part of American establishment. And I just—before we go, do you think this is a danger? I don't know. I don't think so, because I don't think it's useful for anyone to have. It's much easier to rule one country than manage various smaller countries that once Russia. Basically, I don't think that anyone actually wants it. I think they want to control Russia fully and have it just one country. So it's easier. It's easier management. It's outsourcing. Yes. Go on. Yes. Well, no.

Kirill, were you going to say something? No, I mostly agree with TikTok. I think they have their channels to influence the Russian deep state, and they have some centralized control, and I don't think it would be in their interest to split up Russia, as TikTok said. That's why it didn't happen in the 90s. With the 90s, it didn't happen at large scale for a reason. And Yeltsin even was allowed to get back Chechnya. Because no one wants independent Chechnya, really. And other smaller Kafka's nations, that would be a destabilized mess to deal with. No, very good, then. I understand still I am worried for future of Russia, even if not break up, because, like you said, something led by soulless corporatism cannot be good for world when Russia is maybe

a lone country now that stands against globohomo. But in any case, I do not want to keep you any longer, and I know that politics intrudes always to take us from higher callings, but perhaps next time we can look away from political agitation against us and focus on the higher things, on Dostoevsky, on literature, what you say. We do this next time. Yes. We also wait for you in Russia. You should come. You must come in summer. I will come? Yes. I will come in summer or even before I will not announce when I come, so that new world order cannot stop me. I will have a very complicated itinerary, I will announce to nobody to get there. Yes, I will come and will you give me asylum? Is this the question? Yes, of course. Very good.

So, again, this on show, Pigdog and Kirill, my Russian handlers, I mean my friends, please Listen to the Russians with Attitude podcast and until next time, gentlemen, goodbye! So when you look at a span of history, what will be remembered? For example, if you just take age of decolonization, it is not the various self-serving moralisms that are used to justify the process of retreat. All that will be remembered by future peoples. You look maybe in 500 years, they will look and see only the drawing back of civilization from much of the world remains to be seen if temporary or permanent. And that process is both America and Russia had a big hand in it, the decolonization of the third world. And they introduced nothing to replace it.

An idea, an idea of life, of justice, of politic does not replace roads, hospital, literacy, clean cities. It doesn't replace a lasting relationship, an organic relationship with the home country. France, for example, enjoyed very strong relationship with local elites, whether in Middle East or Lebanon or in West Africa or this. And this argument is not about the rightness of colonization or not, but from a merely material point of view, what you see is a recession of progress in much a way as would fall of Roman Empire. You see forests retake much of Europe and there were times when there were civilized old Roman settlements that became nearly timber production areas that they were run by illiterate barbarians running timber on rivers and in the same way I wonder when you look to future

what you will see from now or coming years in the far future when illusions about ideas and rationalizations are washed away, and if I can play a prophet for a few minutes on these two segments of show, there is a view where America and Russia are both heirs of Rome in different ways and where they have a grand destiny to play in the drama of mankind. So you know this view of America how self-consciously, as a matter of choice in other words, as a a matter of, let's say, self-actualization, okay, you could say, where the founding fathers decided to role-play Rome in some sense, to build eventually, for example, this city in Washington, D.C., that despite its debased condition now, where it is both clownish and

under repressive occupation, but it was built on Roman architectural lines, many other classical American old buildings, same, same larping, live-action role-play of Rome. And more important, they saw themselves as a Roman Republican farmer-patricians. It may have been false, but if you look at the education of those generations in late 1700s, they were based on heroes of Plutarch, that all of this, the generation of the founders, They read Plutarch's parallel lives, which I've recommended to you many times. Not to speak of also the explicit lessons they claim to have taken from Roman political life and history and the founding documents in this, or consider also the pseudonyms they used. They used pseudonyms. That's right. The founders were frog anons.

I'm sorry to tell you, face fags, the founders were anons like us. And so on of these are many other parallels too, you can make many comparisons in America to late Republican Rome. Many are doing this now. I don't believe it. I don't think it's correct. But there are some exceptions. For example, Trump may very well be like the Gracchi brothers. I say this before, the Gracchi brothers. So see who they were and what happened after that. The neutralization of the Grachy brothers did not end the troubles of the late Roman Republic. There were deeper troubles and other men came along who took those troubles on. We will see what happened to America. I think America perhaps more like late Soviet Union now than late Republican Rome.

But in any case, then on the other hand you have Russia also as a kind of Rome role player. Right? Russia's third Rome has this title by right of inheritance from Byzantium and the Russian emperor was Tsar as Caesar and although you know actually maybe it was an oriental despotism by form of government, in fact it probably is direct historical successor state to Rome in one hand by dynastic succession if you consider path of Byzantium to be legitimate But in terms of geographic and actual political real succession, I'd say it's a successor state to the empire of the Khazars. If you look, for example, at the tale of Ibn Fadlan, the Arab traveler, and how he saw the early Rus, who were Vikings, who were really role-playing Khazars, not Byzantines.

Later they become fully Christianized and they start to put on, let's say, the Roman robes of the Byzantines. But Ibn Fadlan was also, by the way, much entranced by the physical perfection and beauty of the Vikings who were the founders of the Russian people. But sometime after this, like I say, they inherited the civilizational orientation of the Byzantines and they therefore arguably embody a different model of Rome sometime after that. And you can think of it, it's very similar maybe to some periods of Roman history which I consider Byzantines to be Romans, but the Russians in other words for much of their history are very much a Christian Roman empire spreading civilization and spreading Christianity to other parts of the world in a kind of ecumenical, multicultural domain.

But look, before I say more about this, I should put it, I don't really agree with it, you know. It's not my view because whatever may have been at the beginning of these two societies, societies, America and Russia, something happened in 19th century, especially in 20th century where these two great domains, these two extensions of greater Europe, they went crazy. And my view is the view of Nietzsche, which Heidegger actually restated in a good way when he said that Moscow and Washington are metaphysically the same. And what he meant was that the United States and Soviets were actually not civilizations, They were not cultures, they were not peoples, they were forms of technology. And to understand what does this mean would require perhaps a full show of its own.

What mean Heidegger view of technology? But to simplify it for now, to put it in own different word, you could think of it, they, Russia and America are kind of, in this view, abstracted, over-intellectualized, over-universalized systems where men become denatured, completely unmoored, he becomes completely unmoored from the substance or source of his being, where he becomes simply a material to be used for something else, which shouldn't be understood in terms of Nietzschean overcoming or this, but simply that he becomes, what I like this word, a cipher, a statistic, a number on paper, a unit of production or consumption. He becomes dehumanized, another word. He turned himself into an input and output in the monstrous working of a material system

technology that, and this is my own invention in own words now, but technology something that covers up the primal, primordial, and originary nature with instead a kind of trash secondary techno film, like a biofilm but a techno film, a film or mold on top of vital life but which then obscures this original reality from man, alienates him from his source, makes him forget what and who he is. Or as Carl Schmitt puts it in this vivid image, replace national culture and national life of civilized European man with a historical identity, it replaces this with the existence of a transient passenger on a crowded city bus or a renter in a tenement, a global tenement, a party, right? And you can see how both Soviet Union and American ideology have within them this reduction

potentially of men to homo-economicals, merely economic or technological being, whether you look in sort of Marx or ultimately even of Locke, men get reduced to this. Now this is my somewhat poetic take on Heidegger, but really he got all of this from Nietzsche, who showed many times how the liberal activist in, let's say, early 19th century, 18th century, who was so vital and strong were in the middle of a fight against oppression. But then he turns into a leveller and a homogenizer after his victory, the liberal that is. And you see this now in spades in America. And all need to point, again, of how the socialist and also the liberal and also the democrat, all they really share the same end goal. The end of the, they seek the end of the reaching outward of life, they seek to end that.

That is their end goal. Their end goal is to eliminate that. They seek the equalization and leveling of life. This desire of the cattle, of the men reduced to field beasts who dreams of nothing but comfort, right? So remember Heraclitus' phrase of the mass of men being like cattle who pass on their doom to their children and think of nothing but to glut their stomach. And the comfort of the Englishman, the shopkeeper, hence also this is the final dream of the capitalist or the English liberal and so on and so forth. So you know, this I am just restating common idea on the right, the real right, which is that capitalism and communism are the same thing, I believe this, and that the modern left and the modern fake right, they both share the same vision of human progress of

the future of mankind, which from Nietzsche's point of view is progress as a degeneration and a subhuman future. And so the only hope for mankind then lies not with Moscow or Washington but in the middle with Europe, which, well this is at the time, let's say before 1950, Europe can preserve a human alternative, a human culture or way of life, which doesn't necessarily mean, by the way, nearly local or national even, or ludite, I don't mean by this anti-technology, nothing of this sort, it doesn't mean this, I am not disciple of Heidegger, but I am saying And even if you take Nietzsche's prediction from Beyond Good and Evil and he also talks this, well, he talk in many other book, Will to Power and Twilight of the Idol, but that

the time of struggle for the mastery of the earth was coming, what he called the time of grand politics, that even as Europe, which was being forced by the Russian danger to become even more disciplined and dangerous, even as Europe struggles for and achieves this dominion of the earth, let's say, in the future and breeds a eugenically superior caste to rule for thousands of years, this Nietzsche vision I believe in. Nevertheless, this deliberately something very different right from the universal equalizing, homogenizing, subhuman vision of life offered by liberal capitalism on one hand or by communism on the other. It is rather an attempt, Nietzsche's conception now, the alternative, it is an attempt for

cultivation of human nature towards something more terrible, more uncanny than it is now or has ever been, more beautiful and majestic, utterly disciplined to a higher task. And therefore, it would be a hierarchical, organic society directed toward a magnificence of biological specimens and not one that sought to level human life, to erase all distinction and to erase excellence. So what has all this to do with America and Russia? Am I not then being too harsh? Is this not too harsh view of America and Russia? Could it not be to answer now that Russia and America as, you know, really when you look at them, try maybe to look at them from far future without so much familiarity or moral judgment, and you see Russia in 15th, 16th, 17th centuries, when it expands.

When Yermak Timofievich look up this awesome Cossack, a man of power, Yermak Timofievich, in the 1500s, with a few hundred men, he took all of Siberia, and then you look at Russia, the grand conquest of the Kannades of Central Asia, before that the ones in the Caucasus, the conquest of Khanate of Astrakhan, and you see in other words here you have the first frontier expansion of Europe even before the Americas, the expansion into previously unsettled or lightly settled areas, conquests also in other direction of cities of the Silk Road. But you see the same things that happened in Americas, in other words it was a grand expansion of Europe's frontier, and this will be remembered purely this way I believe by

future people. So in East and West you have these grand expansions of Europe's boundaries through the vehicles ultimately of Russia and America. And they meet in the end of course in California and Oregon and Alaska and this. And they have a character generally very different from the colonial empires of the European home countries. Because here it is the frontier spirit itself expanded. For example, Russia's empire is not amenable to Marxist analysis. Some of you may be familiar with Marxist analysis based on exploitation of colonial raw resources in this. This is not how either Russia's empire worked or how American so-called empire expansion to the Pacific worked. Because both Russia and America had this kind of spin-off, Europe spin-off character where

they are actually unmoored from the home continent, they are a living frontier, they of course have a white Christian core, but they want to expand and expand as settlements, not just as colonial empire, and they do so even before the 20th century, they do expand using imperial and universalist ideologies or orientations of sorts. So my point is that you can see why these Euro frontier societies would be open, they would be easily open to the most universalizing and homogenizing ideologies that could even in theory arise, simply because of their inner desire for expansion and for inclusion of more and more groups and territory to absorb, you see, so this rather is all obscured by dumb leftist rhetoric of oppression, of settler colonialism and this, right, they make you

think that European colonial states or Russia or America must have been terribly authorizing and terribly exclusive states, whereas if you compare them to let's say a Congolese tribe or even something like China or like the kingdom of Siam, Thailand, they are enormously liberal and inclusive, yes, so this rhetoric of exploitation is forget that compared to other nations both Russia and America like ancient Rome are very welcoming, they always want to absorb. I think Russia does it better actually, but America too always welcome for example Indian tribes who are willing to settle to civilized life and so forth. This much like Josephus, ancient writer Josephus, he has an ancient book against Appion. But he says, in ancient world, only the Jews and the Romans, they were the only peoples

who welcomed outsiders to join them. He calls this generous, whereas now if you look again at this kind of academic discourse, the Romans are seen, especially by the left, as exceptionally cruel conquerors and exploiters. And of course this rhetoric misses how Clement, ultimately how uniquely absorptive imperial nations of this kind are. But then you can see again why societies like Russia and America would not only be open to, but they would even need ideologies that were ever universalizing. And of course here is a danger with rapid universalization because you want to expand And fast, everything in modern life is accelerated. And the danger of rapid universalization is a reduction to lowest common element. Because that's the only thing that can unite disparate men and different groups.

And the lowest common element is always something base and common, right? So you can understand why universalization, especially of a disparate or rapid kind, would go along with leveling, with homogenization, or with aggressive egalitarianism in other words. And then also is the pressure of population growth because how was this expansion possible? In part it was through the great feats of men like Yermak Timofievich who I just mentioned who with very small forces managed to capture vast swathes of land. But in other ways, the only way you could have a kind of settler society actually like England founded in the Americas is through defeat of infant mortality. And so for the first time you have people with families of 10 or 11 children who did not die.

And with such a rapid expansion there is always decrease in quality, I believe this. So I would say that merely the expansion of society into millions, or of course now the world into billions, but it puts pressure for violent subhuman egalitarianism, right? The zeros multiply and ultimately demand their rights, right? We demand their rights. So that's not enough of course, but part of the story, what I'm doing now, I'm making excuses for why America and Russia, why they're becoming 20th and now 21st century, they become captive to these universalizing, aggressive, homogenizing ideologies. In other words, I'm trying to say in response maybe to Nietzsche, which I agree after all, Because I too would like to see a revived Europe.

And by the way, this is not self-serving, you're saying, oh BAP is European, as my friend Loki would say, he's Euro-poor and this. But you know, where I'm from is not considered Europe, it's a fake, it's barely Europe. It's a barbarian yokel place, you know. But I was talking to a friend here in Latinx America, where I am now, and his family has been here for hundreds of years. He's a pure Spaniard, they've kept their blood European, he's a very cultivated man, and their outlook in general, they worship Europe, they worship its culture and so on, studied its history and literature in a way that is no longer done in Europe itself. And like me, when he finally meet West Euro, the typical West Euro, the last, the typical

West European small-souled last man who has no ambition for anything great, who disparages himself and his own history, he feels sorry for them and he tells me he was just taken aback by what they've been reduced to. So what I need to say is maybe the spirit of Europe, or at least the respect for Europe, can preserve better on the edges or in colonial outposts than on the continent itself. Why is the alt-right not vast, but most of it is Colombians and Michelings and Albanians? But maybe salvation and revitalization will come when I can organize another Varangian Khazar Kipchak whore to rampage Europe from the Volga, who knows? But I mean to say maybe in response to Nietzsche's objection about America and Russia, can you

You say maybe that Russia and America need not be those terrible things, those inhabited by that vile dwarf egalitarian ideology. Maybe it's by historical almost inevitability that they become prey to these kinds of ideologies after 1950 and they go through these phases, but maybe they have it in them to return to a more moderate frontier spirit without this faggoty egalitarian universalism, or maybe they can even embrace ultimately more completely and fully, they can maybe in the end embrace their early Roman identities and orientation. Maybe they can fulfill some historical destiny where they reassert Roman civilization in some form. And I will be right back with a very brief speculation of what this might mean.

You should read Joseph de Maistre St. Petersburg Dialogues, it's a not good historical source on Russia because it's more like dialogue, platonic action that happens to take place in Russia, but it's a good book written by clear-minded Catholic traditionalists, real kind. In the 19th century it's about the future and contains much through about political life in the world. The Maestro was Ambassador of France to Russia, and if you're interested then in Russia history, especially Napoleonic period, he was there, I think you can read his correspondence, he's very interesting. But for other source, I think I recommend to you before another Frenchman, Marquis de Cousteine, C-U-S-T-I-N-E, he writes very, I think, Russophobic tract in, you can say,

of Russia Empire in the 1830s, same time Tocqueville wrote on America, and you can compare their two books, interesting comparison would make, but Christine, Marking de Cousteine did not really like his book, you know, how should I say this, I think it misunderstand Russian's spirit, okay, so you can even see in it, however, how much he rails against certain tendencies in Russia life already at that time, in 19th century, something she rails against are very much like what I said in previous segment, where yes, there was a Tsar, but under the Tsar there was homogenization and smothering of life, something that he insists could only be achieved with great force and that runs against the nature of man. It is replace the wild and free nature of man with something planned and fake and forced.

So the other source I recommend to you in this same vein is George Kennan. You all have heard of him. He wrote famous on Russia from 1940s and 50s and is said to be the source of containment strategy in Cold War against the Soviets and this. I recommend actually you go to poster 17th Century Shitepost, he my friend, and just search his name and Kennan because this, he did a long commentary on Kennan's book on Russia and it's very revealing actually for how much it shows on modern America as well. Because this is what I mean to say concern me, that America is not really like State Department Ajit Prabh says, it's not the beacon of freedom. Who really thinks this now? And so many of the warnings of Maestra, the warnings of Kennan about the repression of

Soviet life, reads like it could apply to American life right now and to the construction of dominant state American ideology. And I ask you again then to look at my friend's commentary on Kennan's book, look up again 17th century Shite Post, but now Christians they see much significance in this fact that Christ is born in a reign of Augustus at the peak of the Roman Empire, right? Because it was the empire, its existence, that allowed the teaching of Christ to spread in the world. And so for a believing Christian, the entire Hellenistic project, which means the successors of Alexander the Great, the generals who inherited his empire, the Diadochi in other words, the Seleucids and so forth, the Ptolemies, the great world empires that they established

when they divided the known world between themselves. And this tradition, you could say, or political project, it's something that Rome inherited from the Hellenistic world. And this is all a necessity for the arising of the story of Christ and for its propagation. And so I've known Christian traditionalists, and I've been the real ones, who see this broad span of history and see themselves as heirs of the Hellenistic world understanding. It was called the oecumenae. It meant not just the known world, it is a kind of a Greek concept for the inhabited civilized settled world, the realm, middle earth, okay, so Christianity is understood as something that found a home in this settled world, in civilization that is, in world civilization

that was made possible by Hellenism and then by Rome, which inherited and ensured Hellenism. In other words, you wouldn't even know about the very wonderful Greek culture if it was not for the Roman civilization that preserved it. And so, for example, who were the eternal opponents of the Greeks in the Mediterranean? It was always the Phoenicians and then the Carthaginians who were the Phoenicians, don't tell Nassim Taleb. And Rome defended, for example, the Greeks in Sicily against Phoenician Carthage. And this Christian view of a persistent Roman civilization is very interesting because it It somewhat transcends the abstract political division you hear about between a kind of ahistorical universalist ideology on one hand and a historicist particularist closed society

on the other, because this Christian understanding is a kind of enduring civilization. It's both, you could say, particular and enduring and universal. It persists across time and space on Earth and is inhabited actually by different peoples, by different states that come and go. But the oikumene remains, the realm remains and with it the idea of the empire, the Roman empire, which is itself a continuation of the world Alexandrian empire of Hellenism. This endures through the coming and going of different ethnic kings, even states maybe. That's the point. It endures states, it endures peoples. Something there that endures. And of course, at the center of this vision is always the hope for the rebirth of Rome, its persistence.

And so, these men who I talk about now, who are all Anglo by the way, they are 100% Englishmen, but they are Byzantine admirers. They consider themselves part of Byzantium, which is to say Rome. And I myself do not believe in either this theology or this history, but I consider it a great thing in holding your mind to this broad span of time and seeing the work of providence and the intention of God in the course of events and how they all fit together like this, at least in the long run. And these same people, they said to me, America and Russia are themselves continuation of Rome in different ways and they have destinies that are fitted in some special way to each other and to the future of rebirth of Rome and so forth. So I wonder, is this true?

What is the destiny of Russia, I ask at the beginning, and I wonder if this from Christian view of history, it could be that the purpose of there being two rooms in embryo like this, of one in east and one in west, could it be so that they restrain each other? Is that the purpose? That they restrain each other in different times from tendencies to tyrannical excess? And so after World War II, America restrained Soviet Union and its plan to world conquest and global communist tyranny and slavery. And America continued Nazi Germany's so-called, I quote, global struggle against international Bolshevism. And I'm sorry if this offends you, but this is what America did after World War II. This is why you can find, again, excess men in places as diverse as Peru and Argentina

who worked with America after World War II and many others also, many other intellectuals can be, let's say, explained by this opportunistic alliance with America after World War II. And I think it was a great thing, it was a good thing that America stopped the madness of the Soviets. And then after the fall of Soviet Union, now come time when maybe it is reversed. Now Russia, which has learned the lessons from its mistakes and excesses, from its ideological madness, and Putin or Putler, who seems to be a man, maybe genuinely religious, but who, at least in his rhetoric, has some understanding of the mistakes Russia made on its periphery and in the world during communist times, I don't think he would go so far as to say he

He want to atone for that but he understand Russian mistake during those times and he also through his perhaps religious background accept Russia's inheritance of Roman identity and mission and maybe understand this problem not to give way to hubristic access of ideology and egalitarianism but to restrain this madness in the world. Maybe he sees this as his mission now after end of Soviet Union. Maybe there is a class in Russia that sees this as their mission. Consider perhaps I on future show consider work of Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky and what they see as Russia's destiny in terms of future of Christianity. But in any case, after that terrible experience of 70 years of madness, is it now Russia's

turn to restrain America when it becomes unloosened, when its head, so to speak, becomes occupied by demons, when it becomes itself, as we see now, taken with a revolutionary stupidity, imbecility, a kind of fervent maniacal demonic drive to flatten, to extirpate human greatness in the name of the apotheosis of the law and the robotic, when it's willing to sacrifice human nature itself to what is lowest in man. And I ask then, was this the plan of Providence, that the two brother-roams would restrain each other from their alternating periods of madness. You laugh, but I know many people who, they grew up in Soviet, maybe you don't laugh, maybe you see fully that America's full on way to become this, but I'm telling you I

know people who grew up as Soviets who are thinking of returning maybe to Russia or at least leave America for a third country that's neutral, when they see this insanity in America and it may come to that, it may come to it that some will have to seek salvation from putler. Do not look to China. It never had a global presence in its history, it very rarely had a geopolitical orientation only when it was ruled by Manchus or by outsiders. It never had global ambition and it is a perpetual bungler with collapsing apartment buildings. In any case, China is fully on board with the insanity of America's occupational class no matter what the cenophiles on the right tell you, and if there will be a counterweight, it will come from Russia.

And so maybe after Russia is able to restrain this burgeoning evil, maybe, and I hope it will not take 70 years, but then maybe the two neo-Romes of Russia and America will as As brothers establish a world concordance, a world proto-Rome of sorts, a basis for humane ecumenical Christian world civilization, the rebirth of a global Byzantium in the East and a global Roman Republic in the West may be allied. It is strange dream, and I will say is not my dream, but the pleasant dream of others who are my friends. But I hope rather that this alternating thrust and counter from the two great frontier states and that Europe remains in middle and it manages maybe to lay low in a kind of hobbit crouch and to preserve what to be is the most important, which is its biological heritage.

And that after these somewhat crazy and unstable frontier states have exhausted themselves, That a true Greek Europe can emerge, led maybe by nudist Nordic neo-Greeks, nudist Nordic body builder neo-Greeks. They can reignite the great vision that interests me, the great compulsion to world conquest of European peninsula people who can begin the great work, the great work of cultivating for the first time a human nature as such, who can accomplish the hidden hand of nature, primordial intelligence, begin work of breed supreme specimens, who can erect a society and structure that will be a home for supreme and pleasant specimens. BAP OUT!