Back to Caribbean reasons, today I have for you Thomas 777, he's come back to the show, the international criminal and renegade historian, Thomas 7, after many months in exile, I welcome you back. How are you, Thomas? I'm doing outstanding, very, very pleased to be here with you, dropping audio, my guy. Yes, Thomas, it's very good. I think last we met was September, and right before elections since then, of course, there's this blatant, stolen election. I wanted to talk to you about state of America today, the state of the dissident right, perhaps of the political right in general, and how you see the future in this degraded, degenerate regime of the Baidan, the senile gerontocracy, which I know you have, I think, rightly associated

with the early 1980s Soviet Union, the last decade of the Soviet Union. I think that's an accurate analogy for what America is today. Perhaps we talk this on show, but before we do this, I asked many friends, what would you like to know from Thomas Severn? And almost all of them wanted to know about this word, Sadie. You talk about the Sadies. What is a Sadie? The top Sadie. Would you mind discussing the sadie and the desires of the Zoomer males to have sex-ores to do the sex-ores with the Snorlax Pokemon? I mean, yeah, I'd be happy to address that. I can't entirely take credit for the term sadie. It originated Manson's top girl, he called her Sadie. It was like probably Manson's like rocket Billy fucking like 1950s convict speak. And then James Mason, who was like a Manson fan boy.

Like I heard him, this was like 30 years ago now, I think I'm like one of those race and reason shows. Like he talked to some, like you refer to some like nice looking like goth or punk chick as like a Sadie. And I just thought it was fucking dope. And like it got stuck in my psychological craw as it were. So I don't know, man. I'm an old school guy, I like pretty women a lot and I kind of make people into caricatures in my mind. So that's just kind of what I call females. That's all it means. Yeah. That's just a word for a genetic word for a female or is there a difference between a sadie and a female? Yeah, I mean generally it implies that like she's sexy, but just, you know, yeah. I mean, think of the opposite of a Karen as a sadie if that makes any sense. Yes.

This is what I wanted to know. If there is an essential difference in character also, if it's referred to a certain kind of woman that is maybe not as touched by the personality rot where American women now act like television homosexuals, but I bring this up because as you say you use 1950s convict speak and this very interesting, the stylistic innovations that you use, I think, overwhelm people. Even I've had people who don't agree with almost anything you say, Thomas. They say Thomas is a genuine Nazi, he's a real Hitlerite and this, but they still listen to you because of your stylistic innovation, your form of expression. It's very seductive. You have this discourse about the top Sadies and then also attack on the Zoomer males.

I never knew what the Snorlax was. Can you explain that part? Yeah, I mean I didn't really know what a Snorlax was either. And then there was this kid who I knew when I was... I mean he really was a kid. He was like 19 years old. I mean this was like seven, eight years ago now. Like when I was kind of strung out. He was a fat kid and he was like a street kid, but he was like a fucking nerd. And like weird as that sounds, like somehow he pulled it off and that's like what he was. And one day I see him outside the Dunkin donuts which was by this dope spot and he's sitting there and he's like munching on a donut and he's drinking like a fucking frappe or whatever they got there and he's got this shirt on

with some fucking jab lettering and it's got this like fat creature and I'm like what the fuck is that shirt man you know like basically I'm getting it like learn how to dress yourself you're like you know never gonna get your fucking dick wet he's like it's the Snorlax and I'm like what He's like, you know, Pokemon, guy, it's the Snorlax. And so Dad inspired me to punch up the Snorlax on my phone. And I realized, well, the reason why these kids can't move out of their mom's house, and why they think they're autistic, and why they like, I don't know, man, yeah, why they have all these social woes is because they spend their days jerking off to stuff like the Snorlax. So that's nothing that got stuck in my psychic craw. Like I get fixated on certain things of a symbolic nature.

I'd like to think it's my artist's soul, like fagging as that sounds. No, I think it's good. And in this connection, because of the self degradation of the Zoomer male, you have said that you have Zoomer CDs, who they're real groupies, they write you. Because I have to tell you, I don't have female groupies for some reason. I don't, they don't write me. They may be intimidated by the imagery I post. They think it's a Spartan program or something that I will put them in a barracks or this. But I don't, and many other online friends, they get groupies. All my frog Twitter friends get groupies, but I don't. You're saying the Zoom Mercedes, they come for you because they sense this. Yeah, they do. And they send me like racy photographs and stuff. Like I'm not just like talking shit.

Like they really do, okay? And it's, I don't quite understand that, but I chalk it up to the fact that like, you know, chicks fucking dig rock and roll and I don't know. And the zoomers aren't like carrying their weight. So it's like, they got to like fucking, they got to, they got to get left somewhere. So they think they can get it from like old fucking woods like me. So it's a combination of things. It's a combination of like the weak fucking, the weak fucking effort of the zoomer male and the fact that, you know, I am a prophet of rock and roll. Yes. This good, your rock and roll image is at all related to political, let's say, national socialism? I mean, in some basic way. I mean, honestly, like, if you want to know, like, rock and roll really is an American cultural,

like, innovation, and it's like a sovereign, like, cultural innovation. And that comes from, like, peckerwood culture, like, directly, you know, like, you know, poor fucking woods, like, in the South, and, like, marooned in the North, like I am. So, I mean, it related to it even when I was a kid. So, it was very, like, organic. I mean, that's the way I've always been. That's why I drop photos of me at eight years old in my fucking t-shirt. It's not, like nothing I do is an affectation. I mean, maybe that's good, maybe that's bad. That might mean I'm mentally fucking ill when I actually live this shit, but whatever you say about it, you cannot say it's like contrived or fake. Yes, no, no, it's very interesting. And old America versus new America,

which I guess we're touching on this problem now of the Zoomer males who are polarized into far right. and I would guess most of them are far left and deeply into the snorlax, possibly transsexual culture and such things. Do you see any promise for that generation to save the country from its current condition in which, I would like to quote something, somebody just sent me this, one of your quotes, which, America is an autistic faggot perched on a custom chopper made out of Legos with a gay nigger riding on the back, destroying everything in its path while spraying body glitter, anal lube, AIDS, blood, and vomit in all directions. And I think you said this many years ago, but is accurate portrayal of what America is and is going increasingly to be under the Kamala Directorate.

Do you see any hope for the Zoomer males and so to the future to save country, or is it up to our generation even the insane boomers to save America. No man, I mean there's always potential in young people, I mean that's why I think it's dope that like young people like read my shit because it's not, I mean look man, it's not like my generation was like any great shakes but I mean younger dudes who are up on shit all the time and you know they're not the majority but base people and and people who have the balls and the intellect to really lead. I mean, they're never the majority in any generational coterie, so no. I mean, the fact is, I dropped that kind of shit just kind of generally because it's a way of damaging the state of the culture, but the brass tacks of it,

like the Zoomer coterie, I don't think they're any worse than my generation was, man. My generation, honestly, is like a bunch of losers. They might not be like Snorlax fucking gay dudes, but they're like heroin addict, like slacker, fucking, you know, jag off to like blame other people for their problems. And I constantly made an effort to not be like that and I failed in a lot of ways, but I'm kind of trying to make up for it in my old age. But no, I mean, I, I think there's definitely a dope fucking minority of Zoomer guys, man. Like, uh, there, there was, there was every generation. I mean, it's important not to get too black, cold and such thing. Yes. No, this, uh, this very true, but, uh, how you see, uh,

present state America now, because many people are, I think, inordinately pessimistic and blackmailed because of, especially, events last two weeks with the fake shoving show trial and the underlying message of that, which is you're not allowed to defend yourself or your community, or whenever you do, it will be opportunistically used by the media to create a mob environment attack. Even more significant than the Chauvin has been, I don't know if you saw this event in South Carolina where a sheriff, I forget his name Pendleton, I think, but in South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, where he did not allow a black vagrant who was mentally ill to abuse people in his neighborhood and so forth. And immediately

a mob formed outside and it became a viral video on the internet and so forth. So I think these events plus the continuing insanity of the breakdown of the Biden regime, the crisis at the border where again the policies of the Obama administration with the flooding nation have been reignited what you have to tell people in this. They're becoming a bit pessimistic, you know. Yeah, well, hear me out on this, okay? It's interesting you stated it, because I was talking to my dad today earlier. I'm going to talk to him a lot, but you know, we're talking specifically, one of the books I dropped on him, I mean, he's a big War Between the States guy, like a lot of dudes of this generation, but he's also like somewhat of a historian. But in any event,

one of the books I recommended to him was A Disease in the Public Mind by Thomas Fleming. This Fleming isn't like the fucking jag off at the Rockford Institute It's it's a it's a guy he was you know, he just died a couple years back But he was even an independent scholar and very much like like one of us He was an Irish Catholic, but you know, he's very much like on on the right and he chronicles in the book He wrote about look he's like, you know The the sensibility that led to the war between the states like I mean it was it wasn't just tariff pressures like it You know, it wasn't it wasn't just modernization and it wasn't just a punctuated trauma, you know kind of the federal regime wanting to consolidate itself and leaving the southern agrarians out in the cold,

it really was a radical tradition of kind of crazy race traitor types, mostly concentrated in the Northeast, not exclusively. I mean, this was manifesting guys like John Brown, and he led the ill-fated revolt, and he was hanged just before the war jumped off. But John Brown, he literally talked about the race war in Haiti, which led to the slaves massacring their overlords and every white man, woman and child. He talked about that like this was great. This was God's will. He prints flyers like this and there was like otherwise literate middle-class people who thought this was great stuff and that the black man is like the new Christ and like this kind of insanity like yeah okay I mean I'm the first to always make the point that in America today if

you don't understand a lot of this kind of culture distortion that is underway as policy you've got to understand kind of the influence of Jews and Jewish kind of conceptual horizon on American culture, but it does precede that, okay? So it's like, you can't, so when I hear young guys or even not so young guys, they're like, this is so fucked, you know, it's never been like this. It's like, man, like, you know, federal troops were literally fucking killing us, like my people. I mean, like really for no particular cognizable reason, other than the fact that, you know, they were animated by this kind of deranged, like moral theology, you know what I mean? I realized like 150 years ago, that seems like an eternity, but it's really not, man.

You know, I mean, it's not that long ago in historical time, so that's free of the tangent, but that's, I mean, that's my answer to the black pill. It's like, look, guy, like, we are not in some desperate fucking strait where we're about to be genocided. Like, we are not the white man in Haiti. You know, like, we're actually, like, very fucking advantaged in a lot of ways. Like, not the way the left says, I'm talking historical. Yes, I remember this situation is nothing new. I have all the people writing me also, they are being despondent, and I remind them we are, I think, in a much better position now than a few years ago because Trump came, and whatever one thinks of his hesitations or failures, he showed that the other side is not so powerful, they can be defeated even

by some real estate impresario. And these ideas of resistance to globalism, or whatever you want to call it, they were nowhere on the map politically before 2015. I would have never thought someone like Trump could come along. So at least we've been put on the map politically. And the other thing people need to remember, you told, I remember on four hours, whatever forum we were on, people were complaining the same way many, many years ago during Obama regime. And you told them, look, you guys are Ellis Island descendants. Your roots in America stretch back to maybe 1900 or 1910. And you have always lived in blue districts or blue cities or blue states, because, as you know, most of the frogs online, I think they are reactionaries from blue cities. Yeah, I think you're right.

I think this is true, it's not quite the stereotype media wants to paint. It's most frauds from places in the Northeast or upper Midwest and often from blue cities. And because of this background and the current circumstances, they feel powerless and they don't realize, as you say, that under Reconstruction and in the South in general, whites were a minority and under federal occupation, and they easily, they managed easily to turn that situation around and to rule for many decades quite without obstacles. Isn't that so? So they should not feel despondent. It's a matter of organization and will on our side, you know. Well that and it's also what I'm always trying to insinuate and I mean I've started dropping it

blatantly. I mean I don't like doing that. Not because I try to be fucking mysterious or something but because like I don't feel like I'm preaching to people because honestly like I think I think I got some insight into my topics, but I don't fucking know any better than anybody else. I'm not running a church. I'm not a fucking political leader. What I did drop on my timeline the other day very plainly was, what do you guys think we're doing here? We're not trying to establish some kind of majoritarian consensus. We're not a bunch of Democrats. Plus, the white man fucking walks alone anyway. That's what we are, man. We're not a tribe of coolies. We're not a bunch of Chinese. You know, we're not a fucking you know, we're not a we're not a pilsen fucking gang of mexicans, you know

We're like all for one. I mean, it's like it's like your fucking man like be a fucking real wood Like walk alone and it's like yeah stand up for our people You know don't fucking take any shit, you know walk like the white man as like the fucking lord of the earth But this idea that like we got to be the majority on the ground. We're so fucked It's like that's not white man thinking that's fucking cool thinking So it's like people got lost out of that like first and foremost, you know, I mean, yes Yes, they need to love the fight more, you know, you'll love the fight I love the I love nothing more than being in minority and shooting at everyone around me This is why we used to get banned from all the right-wing forums even from Florida from MPC what we got banned from all of them Thomas

But it's also if I could drop one more thing on this topic You know, it's weird point about these cats like being dudes from like the Northeast and from the upper Midwest and being like immigrant stock It's like these dudes are they basically grew up on like refugee suburbs were like, you know, Irish Americans like Lithuanians You know polls checks and I mean, I don't know like seeing bad things about those people But it's not like this was somewhat united fucking front of like white or something Like this was a coalition that came about on account of the 1968 collapse the New Deal coalition and the left going nuts and attacking all of us in a broad front strategy. So these people who think that in 1960 the white man had this common fucking culture

and political sensibility, that's nonsense, man. We were very much a house divided. I just wanted to get that in there. Yes, no, I think this is very important. But look, you're right. Neither you nor I, we're not actually a political coordination show, and I do not want to do a pep talk and that's not what this show is about. We will discuss on this show present state of America, some of the history and current condition of the right in America. And on later in show, we will discuss Yukio Mishima. I hope on future shows with Thomas, if you would like to come on, I would like to discuss mostly such literature and history. It's much more interesting, I think. But, so this, before we go to break, I wanted to ask you in this regard what you just said.

There is a view that makes some, let's say, young white nationalists despondent. Now, neither you or I are white nationalists, and I'm not saying that to, because I think it's not respectable, we just believe it different, something different from that. But I think that white nationalists are good people who, in some cases, are misled. Maybe they do not see the full extent of problems that simply having—we'll talk this later on show—but simply having a white democracy or something like this is not a solution. However, they've been, in some cases, made to think that Trump, for example, is a traitor and psychological operation of nefarious interests. And to be fair, Trump did fail at the end. I think he acted in a dishonorable way and he continues to act in a dishonorable way.

However, to go one step beyond that and to say he's a psychological operation or it was always a con game is very bad. It's a demoralizing thing to say because it implies that actually resistance to this regime is impossible. And these people should be made aware that these ideas come from never Trump quarters in D.C. Maybe if you want the next segment, I can go into details on that and name names. But this whole line that, oh, Trump has always been a con artist from the beginning, it was always a plot to trick you. And then there are others, I'm sure you've heard this, they take it two or three steps beyond that. They say the entire right wing in America, since Nixon has been a psychological operation of the Jews or of the Zionists, they say this guy Finkelstein.

And these ideas have spread among, in some cases, well-meaning but emotional people. But I'm very much against these kinds of thoughts. On the left, there is an equivalent narrative, highly conspiratorial and paranoid, that the CIA invented all reality and has controlled all world events since 1950. And what both of these kinds of paranoid delusions do, they help the opponent. I don't know how people don't see this, because if these things are true, if they are able to do psychological operations like this for decades, where even Nixon, not just Trump, fakes, and so forth. You really stand no chance. And I think that's the intention of the message. I don't know if you'd go as far as me, but do you have anything to say about this kind of

mindset that makes the opponent look omnipotent? And that's what I try to say. The opponent is not omnipotent. No, no, that's definitely a subtext. I mean, yeah, there's the notion, I mean, subliminally or overtly, I think definitely those thoughts thoughts are present in the minds who advocate those perspectives, even whether they fully realize it or not. It's part of a conceptual bias that's intrinsic to those ideas. It's also, even with people who I think otherwise would be more reasoned, I got into this when I was talking to my guy, Scott Greer, about the Kennedy thing. I dropped that the whole conspiracy notion about Oswald's CIA is fucking stupid, because it is. I got bombarded with ... I literally got like 50 emails, because you don't know shit, you're

you're a fucking idiot, you're a fucking sheep, you know, like the CIA runs the country. It's like this has become, like this kind of uncertainty people deal with day to day, okay, especially if you got a family, look, I get it, it's a real thing. People who do not really have a good instinct for discerning political or historical occurrences, they want to like reduce everything to a conspiratorial design. And like CIA is kind of like they're standing for Zog or for like a hostile system. And it's just, that's like the way they understand shadow governments because it kind of converges with like what they see in movies. Like I'm not trying to be some like highfalutin cunt, like, oh, this is what the little people think. But I mean, this is like pieced together

by why people get married to this fucking perspective, okay? So there's that. Part of it too, like, I'm not gonna drop his name, but not because I give a fuck what he thinks of me, but I don't want you to catch any heat, but you know, there's like a former like white nationalist, like prissy motherfucker, like former theater student who like came out with Trump guy, yeah. Like one of his things was, you know, oh, Trump's a traitor, you know, He's dropping that definitely for cynical reasons to your point. It's that's by design somebody's other kids though I don't think it's that calculated. I think it's more what I what I just suggested but yeah I mean, it's equally insidious neither case and I'm certainly not somebody who's got a rosy fucking view of mr

Trump, but yeah that I agree very much guy Yes, the bureaucrat calls it when it is met genuinely He calls it the kind of narcissism a kind of emotional Marxism, where you get a kind of thrill or rise out of saying you've been betrayed and revealing this to others, and they join you in a kind of powerlessness. The problem with this, of course, yeah, it makes the enemy omnipotent and it makes resistance futile. But yes, I don't mind mentioning his name, Thomas, if you don't mind. Richard Spencer and that little gay and the other little gays who have been spreading this kind of formal Wignertery online, some of them are directly affiliated with GOP and never Trump circles in Washington DC. Maybe I will go into this sometime, but I think

for part of my audience that would be boring, but people should be aware of this. This is who spreads these tropes online and so forth but look I must come up on the hard commercial break when we come back let's talk about the real concrete state of America today is a post-election the election how you see by down the regime panning out in the near future of what do you say yeah that sounds dope very good I'll put Laura we come right back In commercial break I am now having a glass of wine and by the way a word of advice to anyone who has to record either podcast or any kind of presentation you make monologue never have to drink ever not even one if you have so much as one drink it will destroy the quality of your recording and performance but I am having this because to honor for

This conversation is different, and I want to honor the presence of Thomas on show, because I remember Thomas telling me that if a man ever invited him as a friend to a wine bar, he would never talk to him again. And this is why I do it on a virtual wine bar on the phone, Thomas, you know? Yes. I want to read something for the audience. This, I'm quoting Thomas, one of his funny passages, having a clown government is one of the ways America antagonizes the world, I believe. It's a gaslighting maneuver. America will menace you with some kind of horrific aerial assault and send Hillary Clinton or some other bizarre clown to negotiate. Normal groups of people don't have any idea how to respond to such things, so anything they do will be wrong within the parameters of the rigged

psychological game. It's like Caligula making you salute his horse who has been made a general and if you don't he'll torture you to death or invade your territory. Thomas, this is very funny and I think reason, even as I said on first show, many people who might not agree with you would love to read your things, love to listen to you, you know. Same I think I would hope for my show and I myself, my favorite performance on radio are Alex Jones. I don't agree with many things he says. He, I think, is stupid when he attacked European royal houses. I also like Michael Savage and I also like Phil Hendry, whose politics are moronic. But the reason I like these three is because they're amazing performers. So,

you know, opinions anybody can have, but these people are funny performers. So it's a kind of convoluted compliment I make about Thomas, because I think you're one of the funniest stylists and writers I've seen now and also I want to encourage you to, many frogs have told me we are waiting for the Nazi space science fiction that Thomas is writing. It makes me very happy, yeah and I think that I mean honestly man like it I think polemic is important man like not just because it's funny and I mean I like to joke around with people and stuff but that's really how you insinuate ideas man like you got to look at you got to look at polemic and you got to look at like literature of the kind that's actually topical and actually has balls behind it, you know that's a way of

before like before one can actually meme like that's the way you memed ideas like into kind of the in like subliminally or overtly like into discourse so I mean there's that but it's also I mean it you there's a quality to stuff that is fucking funny you know I mean and it's like I mean you're a classics guy you realize that you know like comedy and tragedy or are mirror images of of one another. I mean, this is like, you know, like most other M's in life is kind of fucked up, but it's also funny. And I mean, like the failure to describe it in such terms, you know, doesn't really capture the essence of it. So, you know, I know that sounds kind of like needlessly metaphysical, but, you know, it's both of those things. So, yeah,

I appreciate you dropping that passage. That was long ago, but yeah, I stand by it. Well, it's important passage because we find ourselves on the continuation of the same pantsuit clown bulldog regime, now with so-called Kamala that I think will replace the zombie Biden within a few months, maybe. But I wanted to ask you, last time we met was September, the election was coming. We thought Trump would win. I think he did win. I think, without exaggeration, that he probably won over 60 percent of the popular vote. And I will stand by this, Thomas. But OK, so to get around that they had to blatantly, I think, steal. Everybody knows now the U.S. is an illegitimate regime. But OK, I wanted to ask you what you think about this, the election and so forth.

Well, I mean, what I think about it is what I've dropped somewhat, I mean, at the time and later. I made the point to a good friend of mine, like my guy who showed me great hospitality in Maryland and Virginia. I mean, he knows who, I mean, he'll know what I'm talking about, and so I want to give him props. I got love for him. But he campaigned for Trump in 2016, and he introduced me to some of the calves who campaigned with him. And around New Year's, one of them hosted me at his house, and he was saying like, oh, those motherfuckers, we should have seen it coming, that they would steal us on election night. And I'm like, what guy? I'm like, that's not really what happened. I'm like, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there was huge fraud on election night. But what they did

was they did away with election day as the mechanism that decides the president. They said, okay, beginning months before, back in March of 2020, they're like, we're going to be in collecting ballots because of COVID. And when we're saying we're going to collect ballots indefinitely, and it's some arbitrary period, we're going to stop collecting these ballots. And then, oh, look, at the end of this process, we have more ballots than Mr. Trump got votes. So Biden is the president. That's a lot of things. That's not an election. Whether Biden has a mandate from that, I don't think he does. You could argue he does, but that's really neither here nor there because an election wasn't really held. Trump campaigned, Biden simply stopped

campaigning entirely, like he really did. The Biden camp was basically like, we don't look at this election process as legitimate, so we're just not going to participate in it. His people came up with bags and bags of ballots they've been collecting for months, declared this means our guy is the president. Trump didn't deploy the army to quash that on grounds of insurrection or something, which is ironic, isn't it, that Trump's enemy is, quote, insurrection. But that aside, I mean, that's the way I view it. The deep state basically said we're no longer holding elections to select the president. We're engaging in this quasi-voting process by by which we collect paper ballots, and we're not gonna authenticate them. We can't account for the chain of custody.

There's not an actual election day, but this just means Biden's the president. And I mean, if people aren't in the streets trying to undo that, I guess he is the president. But I mean, my view of that is, aside from the fact that the man himself is obviously very, very compromised in terms of his mental faculties, basically the presidency's been temporarily done away with. That's kinda what happened under the Ford administration, but Ford himself, I mean, I know Chevy Chase used to imitate him, and I mean, I'm an old guy, so I remember this vaguely. Like, you know, people used to make fun of Ford as like he was some kind of big fuck-up. Like, Ford actually was a pretty competent guy and like a pretty impressive dude, like policy aside. So, I mean, just kind of the force of his personality

and some of the men in his cabinet, you know, he was more of a real executive than Biden, but he really had no mandate. And it's like, there was, yeah. And I mean, it wasn't really, I mean, even Carter was kind of weathering the aftermath of that, so it wasn't really and still Reagan admitted that you had like a real executive again. You know, and it's, so that's kind of where we're at. Oh, I mean, that's my view of it. Yes, and I think you've made comparison then between it's very appropriate they put these senile men, obviously, as dementia, and you've compared them, I think, to Andropov and Chertenenko, who are, Chertenenko was basically the last Soviet CEO, well, before Borbachev, but he was, you know, And he was just this complete zombie who could not understand anything

that was going on around him. And this appropriate figurehead now for America, no? Well, yeah, and that's what's also, well, it goes to show you too why the black pillowing is so fucked up. Because it's like, okay, if you're gonna fix an election, particularly against a guy like Donald Trump, like I'm not sitting here bashing Trump, okay? But the fact of the matter is Trump himself, he's not some like master campaigner or some kind of, or some kind of, or some kind of Machiavellian insider. like the guy would be very beatable. So it's like, you know, if the deficit basically, like let's say they found some like Obama type guy, just like some like black guy who's got like good PR, he's got money behind him, some like young dude, and basically made a reality show in his campaign,

saying like, oh, you know, so-and-so, he's fighting this, you know, hard fight against, you know, Trump the fascist. They probably could have pulled that off with not, you know, moving mountains to fix the election, you know, but they couldn't do that. Like who did they install? They installed their version of Chernenko. And if your system literally can't perpetuate itself without dragging out these guys who are literally decrepit, I mean, it means the system's failing. Like, Sharanenko became the boss of the Soviet system. And Dropov, actually, before his health failed, he was actually a heavy fucking person, and I think he was the real power by the throne under Brezhnev, but the point is Gorbachev was the heir apparent because he was actually in Dropov, almost like his manservant.

I used to know off before he died said there's no way they were gonna tolerate Gorbachev at the helm They're guy was Gregori Romanoff who was very much in the pocket of the Soviet military design bureaus Basically what they settled on is like, okay, you know Chernenko Kostya is what his buddies called when a poet girl No coach is a good man. Like well, you know, we'll have him we'll have him be the placeholder I mean, it's almost like fucking the way the mafia like But that's my over here the tangent my point is that my response like the black pill motherfuckers is it's like look man It's like the best man you can draft literally like the only man you can draft is Biden Like your your system is fucking failing. I mean, that's it is there. There's no way you can get around it and the

The creatures they plan to replace it with Camilla people forget that this is no Obama She got what was it 1% maybe 2% of voting primaries the Democrats hate her Nobody likes this woman, you know, so no, she's basically I mean she's fake as fuck I mean she's not even black she's like some kind of fucking Hindu from Trinidad you know she married some rich Wall Street guy she's basically a cop you know she made her you know she made her fucking bones like locking guys up you know for eternities for fucking dope cases and shit like nobody does that what they say nobody likes the fucking police okay nobody likes some bitchy lady police I mean it's just a failure I mean that's yeah so no exactly I mean it was fucking retarded that they put her

on the ticket I mean everything about this indicate but these are the same motherfuckers too. I didn't realize this until about a year after Trump was elected. I thought Trump would get elected in 2016 just because I think he had a kind of momentum that was peculiar. But these fucking people, one of the reasons why they lost their mind when Trump was elected, they didn't just like Hillary for ideological or personal reasons. They literally thought Hillary Clinton was this great candidate who was going to carry 70% of the popular vote. It's totally insane. I mean the Hillary Clinton's great. It's like what planet do you live on where you think like nationally that you know in swing states people like Hillary or the Clintons like that's

you're delusional if you think that but that's like the way these fucking people think like they're totally out of touch with with they lead like parallel lives to people like us that are like that are completely fucking confused and like have no bearing on like what actually goes on around them like I shit you not that's not just me like dropping like silly polemic no everything Everything I've seen says you're right, and it's a complete disconnect, and yeah. But what do you think is next for America? How do you think move forward, this by-down, asclerotic regime? I mean, what's going to happen is, America's going to have real fucking problems by mid-century, okay? I was thinking about that the other day. I mean, if I'm alive still in 2050, I mean, I plan to be, but I mean, who knows?

But America's going to have real fucking problems. It's going to have real problems in the world in geostrategic terms. I don't want to go on that tangent because that's a topic for another day. But it's going to have real problems with corralling any kind of coalition, majoritarian coalition, to provide the federal regime with any meaningful mandate. And as not just whites, but upwardly mobile immigrant types, East Asians, people like that, like a lot of Muslims, who are not deep nationally, but in certain pockets they are. People like this kind of nudge traditional immigrants, as well as Hispanics who turned out in trouble for Trump. Increasingly, these people, as well as obviously the white majority,

particularly as the boomer race traitor types die off, they're just not going to vote, and they're not going to submit their ballot or their text, or they're not going to look at the regime as having any kind of meaningful mandate to rule. That's just the way it is. If you cannot corral a proper majority of adult non-fallonious voters, what do you have? It's like, okay, you can say Mr. X, Y, Z is the president. It's like, okay, but 9% of registered voters voted for him by by whatever process. Like how is that, you know, then you really got a government with a consent mandate in name only. So when you're gonna see stuff like that, I think. Does that mean there's gonna be some kind of hard revolution or insurrection? Like no, there's not,

but people are gonna increasingly start to view this system the way like people did view like the system under Price and Abt, under a job of under Cherenenko. They're gonna be cynical about it. Like guys who, you know, have decent employment, you know, and there'll be less of those, but there's still enough commerce centered in this country and that at least become abstracted from it in concrete. But you're still gonna have like a core kind of minorities that may be a people who do have a stake in the system. You know, they'll tell the line, they'll do what they have to do, but they'll look at the federal regime and the way people looked at the fucking nomenclature in Moscow. I mean, it'll be like that. Yes, I think much of the country already sees that

And some people have even chosen DeSantis as provisional president of the free state of Florida. Or this. Do you think there is any prospect for America to break up? I know there are well-being people who talk about secession. I don't think there'll be de jure secession. What you'll see is, you'll see iterations of, like, post-Katrina, how there was literally guys. You had Blackwater taking potshots at people, apparently, and then you had these rednecks in certain hoods who basically just said like, you know, we're going to kill looters on site and the police were like, okay, we're not going to fuck with these people. Just like leave them alone. And then the deep ghetto, you know, you had a bunch of hood rats kind of doing the same,

they're saying they're version of the same thing. And then, you know, like when BLM got really agitated, you know, like a year and a half ago and you had in Portland, like the cops just kind of deciding hands off and they just, they just weren't going to like enforce, they weren't going going to enforce any executive orders that arrive federally. I mean, they sort of said that through the mayor and like the cops just stopped going into the hood. You're going to see stuff like that. And even communities that aren't failing like that, you're going to increasingly see like, you're going to increasingly see just like a hands-off perspective, because it's like, well, we no longer have a mandate to rule these people. If we send armed men in there, telling them their business,

they're not going to respond kindly. And plus you're just, you're no harder time finding people who want to be cops. I mean, one of the silver linings of this nonsense with Chauvin, I don't particularly like the police, and I'm told that I've got kind of a nasty perspective on him, I don't accept that. But that said, being a cop actually right now is a really plumb job, you don't really fucking do anything. And after 20 years, you get half of your pay for life. I mean, that's the reason people become cops. I mean, part of it's because they want to swag around and act like bad asses and stuff, or they're action junkies, or they like guns. But a big part of it is, despite what people say in this country, if you're like a public school teacher

or a cop, you're better paid than like 80% of people. But as increasingly as becoming a cop becomes kind of like this losing proposition where you're gonna get jammed up if like some fucking jag off, like Floyd like dies in your custody, like less and less semi-normal people wanna be cops. So it's like you're gonna have these Pinkerton type black water guys like enforcing stuff or just like hood rats who like you deputize for like 30 grand a year. I mean, that's another thing that's gonna compromise the system too. Like if you've got to rely on what amounts like mercenary labor to like enforce the law, you don't really have, not only do you not really have a mandate, you don't really have like a brass tax of power to impose your will. Like I know it sounded like a tangent,

but I believe it kind of ties together to what we're talking about. Yes, no, of course it does. I was going in fact to ask you about this because I know many policemen, they write me, I don't talk about it anymore openly because if I talk about it on my Twitter accounts, then it awakens the ears of certain organizations I don't want, or government organizations and so forth. But there are policemen who write me from all over America, including Minnesota, and they all say the same thing, that there are jagged off cops and time servers, but there are also many police who are 100% on our side, and these police say, you should join the police, you should join the military because if you don't like what's happening, that's the only

way to change it. I don't know what you think about that. I am wary of suggesting this to people who listen. I don't know. But I think America will move toward a kind of civil war. I was going to ask you about this, your predictions, let's say for the next two years or the next five to ten years, the near term and let's say the medium term. But I think America will move to civil war and it's indispensable to have people in police and in military at that point, no? I mean, I don't like this advice. Some people say, oh no, the military is paused, police is paused, you should drop out, you should move to Alaska and throw mushrooms. I don't understand. How is that going to help us in what is coming? Well, I mean, it's thankfully at this point still in a mirror.

I mean, look, okay, if some young kid, especially if he's like, especially if he's fucking poor I've had a lot of these kinds of young kids contact me, you know, they're like, hey, you joined the Marine Corps three years or something. I mean, I'm not a military vet, so I can't really proffer advice. But what I do say is it's like, look, man, I'm gonna do that for two years, learn how to use weapons properly, get the GI Bill, and so I go, yeah, that's dope. But this idea of making a career in the police, the police are not our fucking friends, man. And any cop, whether it's Chauvin or anybody else, I don't know how base that guy is. If that guy was told to fucking put the bracelets on you because you're committing hate crimes or hate speech, he would do that immediately.

Okay, he would not give a fuck. And he would not care about you because you're not part of his team. He doesn't look at you as some fellow white man or some fellow fucking base guy on the right. He just looks at you as some piece of shit civilian who's between him and his paycheck or who's potentially a threat to him and his fucking team. Yes, I mean, that's really that's really the way to look at it. And it's like, you know, there's some there is a moral dimension here, man. It's like, look, if you're a guy who does 20 years with the cops or the army and it's like, you know, really your job, man, is like kill people to enforce Jewish apartheid overseas or to like kill people to like enforce fucking values like you're a piece of shit like that's not

you're not just doing your job like you're a guy who went out of his way to be in that role and you're doing active harm to people who not only didn't do anything to you, But honestly, you're closer to us than probably the fucking guys putting the ammo into a mark. I mean, I realize that's not a popular thing to say, but I'm standing by it, because I feel it's wrong. No, I understand. I will ask you about that in a moment of question. But this Biden, what do you think some people around Steve Saylor, maybe even Steve Saylor himself, said that because many Latinx, many Hispanics, swung to Trump, in some cases very Very dramatically, there was this city or small town in West Texas that went from 70-30 in 2016. It swung the other way to 70 percent for Trump this time.

So many Latinos are moving in the direction of, let's say, national populism or whatever you want to call it, because, as is well known, they are not fond of the juggler race. But do you think that because of this, Baidat or Kamala will import Africans into the U.S. instead, will mass flood the United States with African refugees? I mean, I think that the interplay of immigration, it's difficult to discern like who is going to get treated favorably in terms of discrete ethnicities in the immigration lottery. Like, really the only guiding metric is that they've got to be non-white. OK? That's not a conspiracy theory. That's not polemic. That's the way it is. various NGOs as well as various formal government bureaucracies that determine what levels of

immigration are going to arrive from what countries of origin. There's nuances to how it's decided. It wouldn't be as simple as just an executive order like tweaking things to favor the dark continent or any other specific area. But what I will say is even if that were the case, As America, the facts in that era is woke values. It's basically weird Jewish dialectic meets race traitor white liberalism. Nobody thinks that way. Even left-wing guys in the third world don't think that way, and not only do they not think that way, it's not intelligible to them. America becomes less white as it becomes less able. This kind of discourse will have not only less resonance, people won't even understand anymore you know like when you've got you've got in america that's like 55

percent you know people from the far east from africa from like latin america and some like and some like weird ugly bitch like you know looks like fucking ginsburgs they're talking about the holocaust or like the legacy of institutional racism like not only are people not gonna like fucking accept that thing to be like what is this cunt talking about you know they're gonna be like that you might as well be speaking you might as well be reading like a tech manual in swahili to me you know they'd be like yes that they would not let the resonance to get the vocabulary like won't even be presence. So it's a self-defeating kind of thing. And that's one of the things about America, man. It's like, as you know, this sounds like a tangent, but I will bring it back.

I write a lot about the desegregation battles of Brown v. Board and subsequent until the present. But they raised their zenith obviously around 66 to 68. But the impetus behind a lot of that was the, quote, nationalities problem. And a lot of these guys at places like the Ford Foundation, And a lot of these guys, like Rockefeller types, they really did look at the Soviet system and how it managed its own, quote, nationalities problem. Kinda like, not only break up ethnic enclaves and kinda forcibly assimilate people, but there was also an understanding that we cannot indefinitely digest, as it were, metaphorically speaking, infinite numbers of immigrants from infinite numbers of territories, because it just cannibalizes itself at that point.

But globalism, that's like the eternal logic of it. So, yeah, the system's going to commit suicide just to structurally, like it's self-defeating, to follow its own policy trajectory to its rational end, if that makes sense. Yes, but in this connection, I'm afraid it's a rational end. I'm not so afraid of it, I just think this will happen, because whether they do or not flood the country with African refugees, I believe this regime is so reckless and not not just reckless, but worse, stupid and incompetent, such that the woke revolution you speak of will go out of their hands. In other words, they don't have control over their crazies. And their crazies, if you look at them, has the rhetoric of the Interahamwe, the Hutu militias before Rwanda genocide.

It is at that level, if you look at their anti-white and anti-red state rhetoric, it is openly murderous. And so I don't believe that the left can control itself. It can help itself. And so it will move to massacre stage. I'm not talking one or two shootings. I'm talking organized massacres of hundreds of people. I believe the left will do this. And this is the only point at which, let's say, the right will wake up, because the right really is conservative. People forget this. Even in Spain in 1936, the right did not organize until there were bodies in ditches, until the left started to execute priests, burn churches, and this, and there were ditches with bodies in it. At that point, the right organized the reaction under Franco and so forth, and thankfully it won that.

And then similarly in Pinochet, I cover this, I think, on a recent show. But in 1970 Allende came to power in Chile, and the coup in Chile was not until 1973. So it took three years, contrary to what the left says, with the CIA scheming and so on. It took three years for Pinochet to do the coup, and in that time Allende was expropriating people, committing all kinds of crimes. The country was crawling with Stasi agents from East Germany. Oh, yeah. Yeah, it was at East German client state. Yes, East German client state, exactly. And finally, Pinochet did it, by the way, as minority position. I think he did it without CIA help, but that's another topic. My point is that the right doesn't do anything until there are bodies in ditches.

And I believe the left in America, stupidly, because they don't realize, even under any demographic analysis you do, at least 40, 45 percent of the country are what they deem the enemy. cannot deem as kulaks that huge percentage. So they're making a huge mistake, but they don't know it and they are going to go to the massacre stage. This is my view of the near future of America. I believe in the next two to five years America will have some type of civil war. Now, I'm not asking you to agree with this, but it's a convoluted way I have to ask you. What is your prediction, Thomas, for this insane condition we are in now? What What is your, let's say, two to five year and five to ten year prediction for how things will pan out? Two to five years.

I think you're basically looking at a status quo. And I think that Biden may very well be a one term president, but the man who replaces him is going to be another cipher. He might be a Republican cipher, but he's going to be like a non-entity. What replaces this kind of vacant state of the executive? I don't know. In terms of what man will be at the helm. I think you'll see another figurehead, but it'll be a man or possibly a lady congruous with the kind of optics the system likes. But again, it was like a PR rep, much like Obama was. And the deep state will have corralled around a more meaningful policy trajectory. It might be just as crazy, but it'll be like scatter shots. And it'll have this new vision moving forward for how it's going to manage the country.

You're going to see a guaranteed basic income, and you're going to have half the working age population just perennially unemployed. That's like the new reality. That's another kind of thing. But the real test, like I said, it's going to be by mid-century, I believe the global financial system, not only will it be truly consolidated by then, you'll start to see real pressure on it of varying types, some structural, some political. And you're going to see a return to great game, great power competition in Central Asia. The major players are going to beat the United States, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China, and there's going to be a hot proxy war that's basically permanent that jumps off, and that's going to really compromise things, and it's going to have

an effect on the ability to maintain the domestic situation. That's my prediction. I know that sounds a bit opaque, but that's the best I can do. No, I understand this, Thomas, but before we go, there are so many things I wanted to ask you, including, for example, what you make of recent tensions in Ukraine, if you think that there will be a war there, because, again, I believe the people running America are so stupid and reckless that they could really kick off a hot war with Russia. They don't realize the importance Ukraine has to Russia, and they might even do something very stupid, but I don't know if you want to comment on that. I was going to end this segment by asking you your opinions on the current state of

the right wing in America, and that could be the dissident right or the right wing in general, and what you think might be the best way forward to that. Not that anybody listens to us, Thomas, but what do you think, you know? Well, here's the thing, okay, and I don't want to get on too much of a tangent, but I do need to drop some context what I'm about to say. I brought this up before, like I brought this up with the cast from Review the News, who are my bros. I wanna give a shout out to them too. But all right, look, if you wanna understand the mainstream rights in America, it doesn't know what it is. And that's the legacy of Nuremberg directly, okay? That is why Eisenhower was a placeholder. Everybody even didn't like Eisenhower, they respected him.

What had been the right was America first, okay? And guys like Robert Taft. Now because I was no longer acceptable in moral terms because of Nuremberg, the American right is like, what are we? So they draft Barry Goldwater. Goldwater is this half Episcopalian, half Jewish guy, you know, a brilliant guy, but like this kind of gadfly libertarian. And he goes in the campaign trail wanting to like abolish the IRS and social security. And that's why he got his ass kicked. Because like nobody gives a fuck about those kinds of policy responses. And even if they do, it's like very abstract. It's not workable. I mean, in terms of consensus and things. So, subsequently, like, you know, the right was just like a drift. And then you had Nixon, and what did Nixon do?

Nixon said, I'm going to recreate the right, basically, in my coalition's image. And with guys like Buchanan and Baruch Korath, you know, the Orthodox rabbi, he basically said, okay, here's what the American right is. It's white ethnics, it's Southerners who've been, you know, shit on by desegregation, and it's, you know, this minority of like right-wing Zionist Jewish guys. That's what the American right was, okay? Now that's breaking apart, okay? Because the American right has decided that they've so much ceded territory in terms of cultural dialogue to the left and to the woke, like they can no longer stick up for their own coalition. So they're attacking it to try and prove that they're not really what the left says it is. And the left says they're a bunch of fascists

and white nationalists. So there is no mainstream right anymore. Like Trump was the, Trump filled that void, but now Trump has been canceled. And like all of his talking points have been canceled. So you're gonna find some fucking loser like Marco Rubio type who like Republicans run and he might win just, you know, because like it's his turn or whatever. No, I put win in quotes, but I don't know. I've got an idea of what the new right is gonna be. It's basically gonna be a, it's gonna be a coalition of like whites and browns, mainly like Latino type guys. and their discourse, it's gonna be more interventionist, more like socialistic, overtly, more like integralist, you know, as we talked about earlier before we went through the program. It's not gonna have nearly the kind of support

that the Nixon slash Reagan coalition did, but it's gonna have enough support to put a man in the White House now and again. That's what I think. Okay, in terms of our thing, I think increasingly guys are gonna opt out um and realize that it's pointless to try and work within this structure because the chips are just stacked against them that's like the point of it and um i i encourage people to succeed as much as possible i'm a big city guy i'm the last guy who advises people as you put it to move to alaska and grow fucking mushrooms at the same time um i know this is not easy for people with families and stuff to do i mean i'm realizing i'm a bachelor and i'm self-employed so i i can say say this kind of stuff and it seems cavalier,

but disengage yourself from the system as much as possible. Invest wisely. Learn a trade if you are not like an intellectual type. Don't think that you can just find some office job and that it's just going to work out and insinuate yourself into the system with debt or with your personal associations. I mean, that's it in a nutshell. Yes, Thomas, I understand. However, I must repeat, I think that civil war will come sooner to the United States than you say. And in that case, this way I think it's better to have people who are, even if their position is tenuous, but who are in the system. But I understand what you're saying, and I am, of course, in Brussels. I spend my time in Brussels in Indonesia. But I don't recommend that for others, because I care about the well-being of their souls.

I don't want people to become enmeshed in digital. But, yes. Thomas, very good then. What do you say we go to break? It's already a very long segment. And we talk next on lighter but more important subject. We talk about Mishima. What do you say? Yeah, that sounds fantastic. Come back, Caribbean Rhythms. Special guest Thomas Sivan on show. And Brennan also here, Brennan washing my feet. And he pointed out, in connection to my talk with Thomas just now on the conservative GOP, is that, you know, Paul Ryan, who he is, Paul Ryan, who's Paul Ryan? He's the champion of the Jack Kemp ideologies, that America can welcome anyone, and that the glue that binds America together is entrepreneurship, is this completely ahistorical, idiotic idea that you can turn, let's say, the black community,

or you can take a jihadi and teach them the entrepreneurship, maybe to flip burger or whatever, and they will become full American. But Brennan pointed out, excuse me, Paul Ryan, if you noticed toward the end of his public career, he had this kind of beard, Thomas. Do you remember when he got the kind of stubble? But it wasn't normal stubble that you get when you don't shave. It was this kind of close-shaved, cosmeticized stubble. And yeah, I don't know if you remember this. It really revolted my stomach to see. And that's a style inherited from the gay community, right? And I wanted to ask your opinion on this. Why do the gays love this kind of stubble and the kind of beards now? Why do they love? Everywhere you look, all the gays have beards. They grow beards. Why?

Well, it's like, I think everything, see, I worked in Edgewater for about two years, and I'd walk from the Morris Avenue red line all the way west to Clark and Ridge Street in the heart of Edgewater, okay? And that does a pretty rough area in those days, but a lot of gays live there. That's kind of like we're gays and weren't on the up-and-up lived and in lieu of Living, uh, you know in Boys Town, Chi Town So, I mean I was exposed to a lot of these fucking guys and you know They talked to me and stuff and I kind of came to observe a man and like, you know It's I kind of observe people anyway, but like a lot of these cats I it's almost like life is like this kind of weird affectation to them and like all affectations It's like everything every every feature of it is exaggerated

So that's why I like when you see a lot of these kinds of flamboyant gay dudes who try and take on some style It both looks imitative and fake, but it's also like Exaggerated and overly cultivated. Yes. Um, I think it's simple and they just kind of cycle through these kinds of things They think are iconic but you know, it's also very yeah The first thing I thought of is it looks like some half-ass fucking version of like, you know, George No one remembers George Michael anymore because I'm an old man Like I remember like 30 fucking years ago ago, he had a couple of hits and girls liked him, even though he was gay as fuck. And he always had that stupid fake stubble thing, and it looked like porn or something.

That's what I thought of when I saw Ryan, honestly, I'm not dating myself or whatever. No, I think that's correct. Bathhouse Paul Ryan, yeah, the whole 10.30pm park arrest of Marco Rubio. But look, let's stop talking about Politik and the Andrew Cunanan GOP party. And we talk, I hope you come back next time on show, we talk only literature and history. And I know you like Mishima, last show we talked about Ernst Jünger. I know you are a fan of Mishima also. Somebody who at times academics try to say that he was a gay man and they said to incorporate him into the discourse of gay identity and openness and this. And yet, on the other hand, they are strangely reluctant to claim him as one of their own.

But leaving the desires of the gays and the gay art world and the gay literary world aside, and the gay United Gay States of America, as Robert Mugabe would put it, let's move to Mishima. I want to read something you wrote, so I'm quoting Thomas now, on the great Japanese author Yukio Mishima. My personal opinion is that Mishima intuitively grasped the irreconcilable tension present within the minds of people who are forced to subdue their nobler instincts under pain of ostracism, ridicule, or spiritual disintegration in order to negotiate life in a culturally corrupted, largely deracinated modern state. His greatest insight was one that was in fact extraordinarily self-critical of his own profession.

We believe the writers corrode human realities by reducing experience to words, and in doing so, inviting an attendant scrutiny that cannot withstand irrational criticism. Ideas of this kind stand on their own. It's not required that we judge their merits upon whether or not successful political movements were animated by them. I go so far as to suggest that considering literature in utilitarian terms is a very, very corrupt and quasi-Marxian view," end quote. Something I very much agree with Thomas, what you say at the end, just to judge something in terms of its historical effect. Extremely vulgar, equivalent to when art world faggots say that the value of an art or of a book is its market and this exactly, which is why Marxism and capitalism are really two sides

of the same coin. But it's the center of what you just said that is most amazing about Mishima's Because criticism of his own profession, the fact that when you reduce experience towards what that does to the psyche, what that does to, well, to many things, it's central message of his book Sun and Steel, which for the re-physicalization, you could say, of the men of the intellect. But it's central to all of his books and extremely important because, you know, you've been offline for some time, but me, Hakan, and the bureaucrat, and some other friends, we have tried to continue this assault on logocentrism, on logoria, on this principle sin of modern world, to put too much stock in reason, in words, and so forth.

I want to talk about Mishima, but anything you want to say about him, but first of all, to begin with this, what you just wrote, this amazing thing about Mishima, what do you have to say? I mean, yeah, I stand by what I dropped there. And the, I mean, look, it's like this. There's a tendency, this is a particular, the reason I dropped that, it's not just because I was responding to what, a lot of people, I think kind of put an overemphasis on ideas and literature and what it's trying to convey. Ideally, literature should convey something visceral in a way that adds to the understanding of the experience, not corrodes it. But yeah, I mean, there's an intrinsic danger of that just by nature of reducing things to dialogue. But even people who decide they're gonna reject

that paradigm and do so purposefully, I mean, don't get me wrong, that's dope that if people are even able to recognize that. But there's so many things today become just kind of like an artifact of the self, almost like a hobby. Like that in and of itself becomes almost like a prison. That's what I advise guys against spend too much time in the gym and not enough time interacting with the world, it's like look, be fit, definitely hit the weight pile, but also you need to interact with the wider world and not just look at your effort to reground yourself in the physical and not simply the domain of intellect and discourse, don't let that become, again, its own kind of imprisoning artifact of self. Now, of course, the downside of that is, As I'm sure you've noticed in other people,

one of the things I do with my brand is I live kind of a strange life and I'm okay with that and I take you people along with me, but in my effort to interact with the wider world that leads me to some sort of fucked up shit, okay? But at the same time, I mean, I don't advise anybody emulate that, but the whole reason, the pathos of action derives from the fact that you are tested and you basically come face to face with death or you come face to face with things approach death or I mean things that are spiritually compromising you know whether it's a woman who stirs you to violent passion you know or whether it's narcotics I mean which I mean frankly that that can kill you too but but you understand what I mean like it's important not

to just let one's remedy to the the problem of love of centrism as you characterize it correctly does not become another confining structure of Mayan. That's what I would drop on that. Otherwise, I'd buy it entirely. It's very good, Thomas, but on Mishima specifically, you had many thoughts about his role in nationalism, discourse of Japanese nationalism, Nietzsche nationalism, and the way that Japan first responded to influence of Nietzsche and so forth. You had many profound thoughts on these things and on the biography of Mishima written by Roy Starrs, and I believe you just mentioned to me before show another wonderful book about the Shoah period of Japan, written by Toland, if I have that right. Would you care to comment on any of these matters?

Yeah, definitely. A lot of people misunderstand, not just Yuga and Mishima, but they also misunderstand the Japanese Empire and the Shoah period. It was not just some mirror image of the Kingdom of Italy or the Third Reich, like really at all, and how it became to be allied with the access is kind of an accident of fate. I mean, some of it owes to some of the biases of Gering and his kind of personal contentious relation with Ribbentrop. But part of it is this. Japan entered modernity in a very strange way. It was this weird insular society that rapidly modernized in a way that's unprecedented. But the economic and political principles that followed, we would look at them as very retrograde. And Japan avoided the Great Depression,

but the 1927 Japanese bank collapse, that was in some ways worse than the Depression. I mean, that owed to the fact that, like in the Japanese system, Japan was not then and is not now capitalist. It's this weird mercantile system where these Zaibatsu conglomerates and their proximity to imperial power decided what firms were going to become wealthy and what ones were not. So this leaves a huge misappropriation of capital. In a way very different from what happens in planned economies, but just as catastrophic. So long story short, the Japanese who came of age in the 1920s and 30s, even if they were the scions of wealthy families, they found their futures completely fucked. So a huge amount of these guys went into the military. And it's like, okay,

what do we do with all these guys? And how do we basically sustain this momentum we had towards becoming a real power on a par with America, the UK, Russia. Well, the expansion was the way to pursue that, not just because that would capture markets and material resources that were needed, but that would also give all these guys who ordinarily would not have been in the ranks of the Japanese army ways to have these kind of storied careers like in combat, like leading men. That's basically what underlay the Japanese empire. There was a minority of guys in organizations and fraternities like the Imperial Way faction who were very, very much fascistoid, like overtly fascist. They were inspired very much by the Third Reich. They thought the Japanese system was way too reactionary.

They were not really keen to empire, emperor worship. They liked the idea of a sovereign executive, but they did not have any great affinity for the emperor rather than as kind of a prime symbol. And these guys were very, very enamored with German culture and philosophy, and the Chian and Heideggerian notions were shot, like their politics were shot through with those principles. Like Yukio Mishima is the descendant of those guys. Like he's not just this weird Japanese who loves the emperor and is enamored with the nothingness of death, then Shinto, but it's not the way to understand him. So he had a very, very complete understanding, particularly for an Easterner of kind of the core principles of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Fichte, to lesser degrees. Not because he had a lesser understanding,

but it was less of an influence. But basically what Michelin did was he took these principles that so many guys on the right purport to like esteem so tremendously. He actually took these things like to their logical end. And he was entirely, just like, he was not kidding. You know, he was not just some theatrical showman. He was not just some suicidal wacko who was staging some kind of protest by blood and with the sacrifice of his own body, like he believed everything he said. So that's the way to understand him. So on the one hand, it's like, yeah, I mean like orientalist type guys who've lived in the Far East and are like, oh, you know, you give me, she was great. You know, he's a giant of Japanese literature. It's like, yeah, that's dope, but really man,

like one of the reasons I started reading him is because he's very, he's like a Japanese, he's a Japanese with an completely like Western outlook in his metaphysics. And that's fascinating, but it's also like the core of... The way to read them is to read it through that lens, not to read it as like, oh, this is very Japanese. Honestly, he is not every Japanese author in terms of his orientation. You talk about at some point the 1936 incident where the Imperial Way faction tried to make some kind of coup in Japan. Yeah, they did. I mean, their notion was interestingly the imperial affection among their their honcho was the god Sado Araki Araki, I'm sure I'm butchering that pronunciation, excuse me for that, yeah Araki, and he

he and a lot of his his followers and comrades they among others they had a strategic objection not just a political one to the Emperor's orientation towards the war. They wanted to wage war on the Soviet Union. Obviously, the Imperial Japanese Navy got its way. They got the Emperor's ear. It was known as the Strike South strategy, which was to attack the United States Pacific Fleet. Then, after six months, sue for peace, which is something of a crazy idea. There was a very telluric terrestrial perspective that these guys had, the Imperial Way guys, I mean, and that was not just ideological affinity. All these guys come out of the Army. They did not come out of the Navy. And a lot of these guys, they had contact with German and British officers. Some of them had actually

studied in Europe. They developed a kind of quasi-Witsian orientation. Just to clarify for the audience, you're saying that they wanted to attack the Soviet Union instead of Pearl Harbor and the South. Yep, and I mean that honestly you like that. I don't want to go too far I don't want to go too far afield and get into some kind of military science discussion But I mean, it's arguable as to whether the Japanese Army could have stood up to Soviet armor works they did meet at Kalkin goal and The Japanese got their faces broken proverbially by Soviet armor If the Japanese could have mounted such an offensive that probably would have been the key to victory victory, honestly, because that would have given them everything they needed, and each

of the Urals, like the Reich, probably would have had no interest in the territory they captured. But yeah, so what I'm getting at, and again, forgive the tangent, but to bring it back, there was a whole orientation kind of towards the West and very much Western perspective, which seems ironic considering what sort of hardline nationalists and racialists these guys were, but that's the way to understand the milieu that Mishima emerged from. And his father, Mishima's father, Mishima made the point in one of the later interviews, not long before he died, that my dinner table was a youth, all I ever heard about was Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, because his father was a huge admirer of the Reich, of Hitler. Mishima had every troubled

relationship with his father, but as with anybody, their father looms incredibly large in his psychology I mean obviously a lot to do with it too but yeah that is the way you understand yes and in Mishima books that are at least two of them Runaway Horses the second installment of the Sea of Fertility a trilogy that he submitted for publication on the date of his seppuku in 1970 right he it was 1970 not 1975 when he commits suicide, yes. And then the short book Patriotism, and both of them have something to do with this 1936 incident when this particular radical imperial way faction tried to make it stand. And I know that Runaway Horses is one of your favorite books. Would you care to comment on that? What is your favorite books by Mishima, and why?

you, I know we covered Ernst Jünger on first show, now perhaps you talk some Mishima, what you like about him? I mean my favorites would be Runaway Horses and honestly The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea and The Ladder, I mean it's a very macabre book, like I found it upsetting when I read it and I still do because it's something, I mean there's something, I mean it's macabre on its face but it also the, there's a certain callousness to youth, I mean, which is one of the reasons I think it's weird in America. I mean, and it makes sense in context, but it's misplaced is the proper word in America, like this kind of how people like valorize youth the way they do. I mean, in terms of like wishing

they could go back. I mean, like there's a real savagery to things, man. And it's not just the fact that people have a less developed moral sense or less capacity for like moral action and agency when they're young. There's a real savagery born of macabre fascinations to young people. and kids. On the one hand, death is proximate, but it's so personally remote. People are compelled to seek it out for reasons of stimulation and personal fascination. It's one of the most depressing books I've ever read, but it's also so poignant. The quote in there where a sailor winds up being massacred by the kids who once looked up to him. There's that quote where he says, I've never done much, but I've always thought of myself as the world's It's only real man.

And then within months of him kind of reflecting on that, he looks out to the sea, like this is on leave. He's married and kind of like any dynamism's like slipping from his life. And that's when the kids decide to murder him. I mean, like that's, yeah, that's kind of, I mean, there's all kinds of disturbing propositions in there, but it's also like, there's like no escape from that paradigm. I mean, even if you don't, I mean, even if you don't quote, you know, like sell out your values to, you know, invoke, like, I mean, that might sound corny, but just to make it intelligible and modern parlance. Like even if you don't go that way, even if you don't become like a settled family man, it's like basically you're just gonna grow old as a savage, basically.

You know, and it's like that's not really a future in that either. I mean, and it's, yeah, so that's, that was and is very resonant with me. And runaway horses, the reason I recommend that to people, even people who aren't real keen to kinda esoteric stuff, like that we talk about. It gets into the mindset of the officers who were the kind of steer point of the imperial weight faction in a way that if you want to really understand some of the psychology of fascism and national socialism, that's probably the best treatment office. I mean, you can listen to oral histories by guys like Yock and Piper. You can read stuff like Hitler himself rolling in the second book. You can read stuff by guys who served in the flange or during the Spanish war or whatever,

but it doesn't really capture the more global essence of what these guys were up on in terms of the movement that they chose to serve and kill and die. And that's why I think Runway Horses is so dull. I mean, it's just a great read, too, and I'm kind of a romantic person, despite how silly that might sound. But yeah, I mean, that's why. No, all of the books, I mean, Spring Snow, the first installment of Sea of Fertility, which tells the story of this doomed love affair, but with a very uncompromising message, and it's one of my favorite books by Mishima, but all of the books in this tetralogy are great. But yes, Runaway Horses, you're saying, is a kind of phenomenology of what national socialism really is, a kind of internal working out of its ultimate logic, right?

And I think you mentioned this to me before, that Mishima was basically a National Socialist. His books are National Socialist values, quote unquote, shown in action. Yeah, definitely. I think that's an outstanding way to characterize it. Yes. And would you care, before I ask you the next question, you recommend some very good books in your writing on Mishima, and also to me, I think Roy Stars, or you recommend another history of Shoah. Would you care to tell the audience what to read on this? Yeah, definitely check it out. I mean, these are two of my favorite books on the topic. And just generally, John Toland, he wrote the seminal biography of Adolf Hitler. He wrote a history of Showa Japan, last name Toland, T-O-L-A-N-D, definitely seek that out. It's two volumes, but so I mean,

it's definitely an undertaking to power through both of them, but it's not it's not dry at all. It's really compelling. So there's that. And there's a book called Deadly Dialectics, Sex, Violence, and Nihilism in the World of Yukio Mishima by Roy Starrs. I found this book completely by accident. Like in the South Loop back in the day, there's this bookstore called Powell's. It's not connected to the one in Portland, Oregon, but it was a fucking awesome place. And I just found this book by complete accident in the Japanese literature section. But if you want to treat what Anisha Heidegger Mishima, the Imperial Way faction, the entire historical, cultural, metaphysical milieu of Yu-Gi-Oh! Mishima, as well as biographical anecdotes about his life by people who knew him.

It's an outstanding book, and it's pretty easy to find. It's not long out of print or anything. So yeah, definitely get up on both of those if this is a topic that you dig. There's an actual biography of Mishima by this guy Henry Scott Stokes. He was this Englishman who kind of followed Mishima around and decided he was crazy and scary. And so it's kind of like a faggy biography, like, oh, I talked to Mr. Mishima about his politics and he must have been joking, you know, like he praised it all for. I mean, that's kind of fucking stupid. But if you can look beyond that, there is interesting stuff. Like, you know, you went to Mount Fuji with Mishima and they hung her out. He met his wife and his family. So, I mean, not a great book, but just if you're a completist, like, yeah, read it. But,

yeah, that's what I would drop. No, he's very good. And you like Paul Schrader's biography movie about Mishima? Hell yeah, yeah. Schrader's probably my favorite filmmaker, and that film is weird, man, because somehow part of the genius of Schrader is that that movie is filmed like a play, quite literally. And the Philip Glass soundtrack I think is fucking devastating emotionally, even though I'm not generally a huge fan of modern composers. But the aesthetics of it, Schrader, like somehow made it work and made it perfect. Like it really captures the essence of what's being portrayed and most filmmakers just would not be able to do that. It would look either like weirdly stagey or garish like it. Like somehow Schrader was able to pull it off and yeah, that's one of my very favorite films.

I can think of very few movies by Paul Schrader that ain't worth watching and spending time with but yeah, that is a dope movie. And if you can, find the edition that's narrated by Roy Scheider. There's another edition that was with the voiceover narration is by somebody else and it's not nearly as evocative like Roy Scheider had a great voice and he really really fit the Thomas you mentioned he liked Hitler He actually wrote a play. I think my friend Hitler or something like this Do you want to say for a second something about the Mishima likes of Hitler? Yeah, it's interesting is the play my friend Hitler it's more about Ernst Romm and Some people criticize him because in the play, like Rob had a bunch of the SA guys around him.

The big issue Garing takes to the fear about him is that a lot of these guys are lascivious and kind of taking liberties with young girls and things. And people are like, oh, Mishima was in denial about the nature of Rob. It's just that it made better copy for the stage to convey that kind of deviancy deviancy without all of its gory kind of illness of homosexuality. It's not seems like closeted or so. But beyond that, it's an interesting treatment because obviously what he's getting at is that he viewed the essay in basically identical terms, the Imperial Way faction, and he looked at them as like the real national socialists and, you know, he looked at Hitler's betrayal of them, like, you know, Emperor's betrayal of the Imperial Way.

So, in context, that play actually got savaged by Western reviewers, obviously, but the Japanese, I thought it was dope, which was interesting. But, yeah, that's actually really... It seems dry to just read it, like it does reading in the script of any stage play, but if you envision it in its context, I think it is very dope. Yes, he wrote many plays like this that some have not been translated. Most of his essays have not been translated. and just now some of his pulp novels, his popular novels, are being translated. I find whatever I read by him, it doesn't matter. I love him because whatever you read by Mishima, there is this great sense of the longing of life. I don't know how else to put it that he evokes.

Even in a book like After the Banquet, which is about a retired woman who runs a banquet hall, and she, excuse me, a retired politician, and a woman that runs a banquet hall, and she revives his political career. And it's, I think, a huge condemnation of modern society, modern democracy, specifically the role of women in modern democracy, of how they completely corrupt all of its—it's It's very similar in that way to Bellamy by Maupassant, which is also called a fascist novel by people. And I didn't realize this until sometime after I read it. I love this book, Bellamy. It's one of the most devastating portrayals of modern democracy you can find. And after the banquet, I would say, even though it's about an old woman and not a young man, but it's the same novel, essentially.

about the complete corruption of democracy after the war in Japan. But this convoluted way of saying whatever you pick up by Mishima, no matter what subject, the longing of life comes out from pages. And you mentioned just now this subject of homosexuality or homoeroticism, which very much concerns, of course, the Western commentariat. their prime obsessions, whether this writer was gay or that writer or what they did. So of course, in talking about Mishima, we must touch on this for a second, and you point out in many of the things you wrote about Mishima how just stupid all these commentaries are because Mishima was always very open about his, let's say, degenerate behavior. There's nothing, quote-unquote, closeted about it, everyone knew about it, it's not a secret,

and these people are pretending it was and it was not. But the meaning of it in his books is completely different from the meaning that the modern gay movement would like that kind of behavior to have. And I wondered if you would comment on this for a moment, because I know you talk about how Roy Stars explains the real nature of it in his early book, Confessions of a Mask, his first book, in fact. He wrote when he was 21. Do you hear this? If you are young and among my audience, Mishima wrote this book when he was 21. It's a very good book, very brave book. But Roy Stars talks about Mishima's introversion and inner life, how really he was a kind of criminal psychotic character. And so this whole discourse about

homoeroticism or homosexuality in terms of modern gay identity politics, completely stupid. Well yeah, definitely. And it's also too, it's fascinating to me also because, I mean in this context specifically, because it's an interest of mine and yours as well, but so many of these like woke fuckers, they're constantly talking about Western-centric perspectives and things yet they're the most provincial fucking people I've ever heard and the entire the entire the entire gay sensibility that really is only a western and and really like anglophone thing like I'm not like you can say like homosexuality is bad and it's the subcultures that spawned were bad I mean you could argue that either way but the gay subculture

that's basically like only like an American thing you know what I mean that's not the way and You know, there's this weird tradition of kabuki, there's like this kind of very pagan sensibility about sex that, you know, I think James Clavell kind of overstated it because I think it was kind of a pun, but you know in his novels and his essays, he was always talking about that. You know, like this is not, this idea that in Japan of all fucking places, like some literary type guy who like went with men sometimes, people would be like, oh, is he gay? Like that's not, that's like 180 degrees from the like the Japanese cultural mind. it's not even like remotely the way they conceptualize this shit so yeah and it's also too I think in some ways like you know Mishima like he wrote all the time

about eroticism we didn't really write about sex and like like a lot of introverts and like a lot of writers I don't think he was really that comfortable with it and I think in a lot of ways he was put off by it so like he was talking about like what he found stimulating like in a very abstract in the exact sense, and the only time he really talked about the kind of gory details of sex is when he was talking about jerking off. I mean, that's not some kind of accident, and it's not even like being weirdly prude, it's because that's the way he thought about shit. Yes, I just want to interrupt you for a second. I'm going to read something you wrote on this, if you don't mind. Great writers tend to be fake romantics who are infatuated with their own inner lives more than worldly people are.

They are sensitive and emotional personalities who ruminate over passions and impulses in ways that are obsessive and abnormal, but at the same time are not spontaneous. You discern in the stories of guys like D.H. Lawrence or Yukio Mishima that their homoeroticism stems in large part from their extreme introversion and discomfort among other people, and that it doesn't have a whole lot to do with actual physical lust and pedophilias. It's an abstract kind of eroticism, in other words, that are often disdained sex on general premises. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, I stand by that very much. Yes, I thought that was very insightful of Mishima and everything you're saying now, and these efforts to... See, it's very funny because they don't actually try to reclaim him

as a kind of gay writer, because of course he was a fascist, and they don't want him, and they are very uncomfortable, actually, with the things he actually says about the gay world. But on the other hand, they want to secretly claim him by saying he was a repressed hobo, and this is a complete, as you say, parochial, provincial misunderstanding of these things. Yeah, exactly, and it's also, too, part of it is, it's interesting, because there's a vestigial Freudianism. In a lot of ways, Freud has kind of been done away with because he no longer really serves the, like once you have, I mean, once pornography is ubiquitous and free, once the family's been abolished, once you have contrivances and outrages, like quote gay marriage, like Freud kind of becomes superfluous. But one of the,

so he's not really invoked anymore, either in popular discourse or in the ideological strictures of the woke or the regime. But the one exception to that is this idea of sublimation and repression. This idea that man's mind is just kind of like the pressure cooker of irrational passion. And if these things are suppressed, it just emerges in pathological ways, like that kind of misconception is endured. So yeah, the, you know, like Americans are totally, they're totally hostile to eroticism of any sort, but they're obsessed with sex, and the way, just the way they look at it is like, oh, well, if you're quote gay, like, you've been forced to suppress the sort of natural impulse towards, you know, being gay, and if it is suppressed, it just emerges in, you know, pathological ways.

And you can't really make that case about a guy like Mishima, Not just because he's very, not just because he's very alien in terms of his heritage, but because if you read anything that he wrote, like you realize that that case just cannot be made. So I think that's part of it. Because of the central story of discourse here. No, I was laughing because how absurd it is, because he wrote the book, actually, even many right-wing people don't know about this book, they don't read it, it's called Forbidden Colors. It's one of his early books, he wrote it in 1950s, he was very young. It is a very brave book. I mean, he wrote this before the gay movement or anything, and to call him repressed or closeted or whatever they say, he was very open. I mean, the book is about the gay underworld

in Tokyo in the 1950s. But the reason, of course, they don't want to touch that is he shows how completely utterly corrupt and dirty it was. I guess they would say, well, that's because he had moral power. he shows exactly what this underworld was. And this book, very amazing. Actually, I would recommend it, especially for right-wing people, because even in writing about something as degenerate as this, Mishiba, this book is all the more shocking, because completely writing about urban, the most urban, modern type of environment, the eruption of the, let's say, ancient murderous virtue in the middle of this is very uh very stark is a very very amazing book i thought do you have anything to say about this book forbidden colors oh i agree and i wanted to

tell you this is going to sound strange to people who are only familiar with the film but forbidden colors reminds me a lot in terms of its motif not its narrative or or the story whenever there's motif for the book midnight cowboy like i think that movie is garbage but that book that book is is fucking horrifying and basically what it's about is about this guy in like 1960 America who's uh you know kind of downtrodden kind of stupid like basically the guy gets like forcibly raped by like these you know these kinds of rough human like homosexuals and it basically like destroys his life you know and it's like that's why like uh it's fascinating because yeah you'll hear like woke types like midnight cowboy was like this great movie but they like never ever mentioned

in the book. In terms of the way it portrays the subculture, it's darkly violent, it's nihilistic in all the most destructive, not fertile ways. There's a hopeless cynicism and just a nastiness. It's very much. It's a microcosm of urban decay in terms of metaphysics and social cohesion and everything else. Yes, and the explosion of women as modern faggots as well, as the complete drainage of men's vital powers through these years. Definitely. Anyway, I recommend these books. But look, Thomas, this segment already quite long. What do you say? Do you have time for one final short segment? We can discuss some more of literature and history, perhaps, to Brazil. What do you say? Yeah, that would be no- Very good. We will be right back. Welcome back, Caribbean Rhythms.

We are talking Mishima, but in closing segment of show, I want to ask Thomas some of his views on caste and class system, extreme importance in the politic, and Mishima was of samurai background, samurai class, and you can see much of his work as attempt to preserve samurai sensibility about death and samurai virtue in modern degraded life. And this very powerful literary device I learned from Mishima is that the ancient virtue is more powerful when it comes a little, just a little bit, it erupts in the middle of modern degradation. This very powerful device you could use not just in the book but in movie or anything. But Mishima's effort reminded me that Thomas has written extensively on the class or caste system traditional to the West.

And what this means is there is, for example, anthropological historian Dumézil. His name is Dumézil. He is a French anthropologist. And I know that, Thomas, that you like him, yes? Yeah, definitely. He is a prime thinker on the so-called tripartite structure of Indo-European society. This means that he went to different, let's say Aryan, I don't like Indo-Europeans politically post-1950 correct, let me say what it was before then, Aryan societies, and he noticed many of them are divided into three, roughly three, cases. The warrior case, the farmer-peasant merchant case, and the priest case, and a very interesting study on this. And one thing that always struck me is that Japanese society similarly constructed on this, and there are theories that it was important from the steppe.

In other words, that there was a steppe invasion from Scythian, possibly led, Altaic groups that conquered Japan before 1000 A.D., before recorded really Japanese history, I mean the Japanese chronicles are older than that, but there is a theory that in other words it was conquered by groups that had Indo-European Aryan leadership, and that this is the reason that the tripartite structure exists also in Japan. If you look at imperial house, the imperial treasures are a mirror, a jewel, and a sword. And the jewel stands for fertility, that is the people, the merchants, the farmers, and this is what came to be identified universally as the people. The mirror is the priestly class and the sword is obviously a warrior class.

And I wanted to ask Thomas about maybe if you would like to comment on his thoughts of tripartite structure in modern world, because recently, Thomas, you had a wonderful thread on Nicholas Wade's book on genetics in which you remind people what our real objection is to white nationalism, so-called. And it isn't, for example, that I want a racially mixed country or a state, because historically Actually all, let's say, European societies were de facto white nationalists. They were, you know, they were not mixed, they were almost 100 percent white. But they weren't organized according to, let's say, white identity. Of course they were not. They were organized according to this case of class structure.

And in fact it is only when this case structure was replaced by modern mass democracy that That you've got mass immigration and mixing and so forth, for example. So it is actually modern democracy that is responsible ultimately for the miscegenation of European societies. And it is only the class of case structure ultimately, I believe, that can save us from that. In other words, if you are quote-unquote white nationalist, what you're advocating is a kind of white democracy. But that is what the Western world was, let's say 1900 to 1950, and that's what led to the modern globalist disaster. And so it isn't that I want mixed societies, but that I don't think white nationalism is enough. I believe in this cased, organized society, or in other words, an organic society based

according to natural hierarchies, which divides roughly into three. This is a long preamble, Thomas, excuse me, it is you, our guest, you are here to talk. I ask you, would you care to comment on this and on your thread of Nicholas's way to explain it some more? Well, yeah, I mean, the key takeaway, I mean, there's two things, there's two things going on here. First of all, anybody on the right should be concerned primarily with the perpetuation of culture and the creation of it, okay? Yes. That does not have a biological source. Like, yeah, biological race is a real thing. Yeah, people should not deny its existence. And in fact, denying its existence is a kind of a sync-o-ism and it's a lie. But this idea that like, oh, well, you know, we can judge ethnicities and cultures

by their biological material. I mean, that's really very much a 20th century conceit. And that's also just not the way humans are. So that's number one. Okay, you can't just look at the biological material, vestigial or otherwise of an ethnic or national group and say like, okay, well, if we just preserve this material then all kinds of great things are going to happen. That's number one. Number two, Wade's whole point is that in any historical epoch, there's many transitions underway, demographically, socially, biologically, obviously. One of these transitions that picked up in earnest after the middle ages, you know, as we entered modernity, if you accept the linear view of history, is that the peasant caste basically was being annihilated, like physically, like literally annihilated.

They could not survive anymore. Part of it was being subjected to deliberate hardship because they were redundant. Part of it was that they simply could not adapt to burgening urbanization as their way of life ceased to exist. But, and this process is really completed with the Second Industrial Revolution, okay? So basically, Wade's point is like, in any given epoch that you live in, from the modern onset of the modern age onward, you're watching the eradication of castes and subgroups within those castes, you know, as they can no longer adapt to rapidly changing conditions and structures. And incidentally, that's like a lot of the woke, what they, because they're not intelligent enough to perceive these things, part of it's that they're cynical,

part of it's that they're just unintelligent. You know, they look at any iterations, phenomenon is, oh, that's racism. That's why this must be happening. So that's one. Secondly, within this kind of subset of the second point I want to make, Wade made the point in one of his earlier books, and he reiterates it in a Troublesome Inheritance, if you look at cultures that have a rigid caste structure, whether you're talking about the UK, I realize that's changing, but for many generations it was present, or India, or Iran, or Russia before the revolution, the difference between castes is often as pronounced is between insular ethnic populations. So you're almost talking about different ethnic groups of people, they're that different, okay, at the genetic level.

Now this is gonna obviously lead to profound cognitive behavioral differences. So when I run across, say, white nationalist types like William Pierce, who I actually think was a very smart guy, and I actually invoke him sometimes, like approvingly, but he had this notion somehow that he, this kind of high-flying physicist, would, you know, had something in common with like a white fast food employee. And like that's nonsense. And like had he been actually immersed in a culture or societal conditions where he was surrounded by those people, I think it would have disabused him of those ideas very quickly. Like he came of age in the 40s and 50s and he was very easily, he was very early on in life identified as part of the quote cognitive elite. He was a physicist.

So he found himself kind of from an early age, you know, surrounded by these sort of elite colleagues who were his intellectual peers. That's obviously kind of a privileged position to find oneself in, but I believe it very much colored the perspective of him and others like him. Now, he's rare for a white nationalist. Others among them, I think they're basically just kind of basically well-meaning, but kind of proletarian types, and they don't really understand the interplay of caste with culture and with social order. So, and they've also internalized a lot of the structures about democracy, to your point, and about the basic equality of all men, not just of value, but of ability. So, it's very, very easy for them to kind of advocate the opposite of what their enemy is advocating,

like, oh no, I'm against immigration, I'm against racial mixing, I want heterogeneity, and that will restore the culture to a position of health and prosperity. I mean, so that's basically the issue. It's more complicated than that, but that's what I want to do today. No, it's very good. I cover on last show a little bit of Gobineau, and he says something similar, that Europe in its history was, for example, especially in places like France and Germany, the ruling case almost had nothing to do with the people and so forth, and he believes that the coming age of democratization was really the end of civilization. I just want to maybe, it's a useless question because we are not dictators, nor in a position to be, but I am of opinion that only a kind of junta can save the West right now.

I don't know if you want to comment on this, but there is no democratic path of any kind, whether parliamentarian or not, there is no democratic path. It has to be some re-establishment of this primal order of things, what you see. Yeah, definitely. And what you're talking about, I mean, I like Sam Francis a lot. He's probably one of the few white nationalists I basically approve of across the board. He was a Hamiltonian nationalist. When he talked about economics, he was an acolyte of James Burnham, like he knew the man. I don't just mean that he, you know, internalized his intellectual ideas or concepts. But Francis's whole point was, look, he's like, he talked about, you know, we need a revolution from the middle in terms of providing the mandate to rule.

But he's like, in terms of who will rule going forward, he's like, yeah. He's like, you need to cultivate our own elite in order to replace the hostile elite. You know, that is essential. And there's not, he's like, yeah, okay. He's like, I'm all for populism. if it causes people to become skeptical and then secede from a poisonous culture, but he's like really the only purpose of that kind of democratic populism would be to grease the skids, as it were, to provide a mandate for the emergence of a new elite, to replace those in competent positions in the managerial structure that are, for all practical purposes, our enemy. So yeah, I agree very much. Obviously, Francis was very much a 20th century man

very much a Cold War intellectual. I think it would take more than just a friendly managerial technocratic elite. Yes, of course. I think there is a call to debate genuine aristocratic values. I agree with you on that. That's a more complicated question. I don't know that they can drop a tactical program for how that would be implemented, except for the fact that, yes, any revolutionary tendency moving forward would have to be elitist, categorically, definitely. Yes, and it would be easier to form such a thing, of course, if there was a populist Caesar on our side for a while. But these are tactical questions that we shouldn't discuss now. I want to ask you in closing, I know you've mentioned before regarding Dumezil that the

Third Reich was the rebirth in the modern world of this organic Aryan prehistoric order of the tripartite state. In closing, would you care to comment at all on that? Yeah, I think it's, I mean, I think it's very obvious that that's what was being cultivated and looking forward, I mean, that's one of the reasons, I mean, Hitler himself made that point and he also made the point, I mean, love or hate, the Third Reich and Hitler, he did not intend the Fuhrer state to be this perennial thing and that's why, like, he, you know, Hitler's final act politically, I'm not talking about his last one in testament, and I mean like his political succession or was to restore the Weimar Constitution and that's why he appointed Don at the right presidents, not Fuhrer, but presidents,

according to the 1929 Constitution. And that was his view for the future, even had the day of defeat not been looming, even a final victory had been on the horizon. Like his notion was like, look, like the mandate of National Socialism is to restore this integrated biological, cultural, social historical whole in order to facilitate literally a thousand-year reign of a palagenetic political structure that is going to facilitate culture once again, with the SS as the new warrior cast, with the men who came up through the armaments and design ministries under men like sphere would be the intellectuals and the technocrats. You had a warrior Yeomanry, who served as regular army reservists, who would be awarded homesteads in the east and the newly

colonized steppe lands. This is all very clear. People make a lot of the fact like, well, oh, the Nazis were these biological materialists. It's like, yeah, they were, and it's not really admirable, but that's the way everybody thought in the early 20th century. That's the way people thought in the UK, in France, in Japan, in the Soviet Union, despite its egalitarianism in the United States. Like, it seems weird to us now to talk that way, but there was not some weird contrivance of Germans and National Socialists. That's just the way everybody thought. So there's kind of overemphasis on blood and biology over more nuanced, discrete cultural factors. That's where it stems from. So yeah, I think that in a very brief kind a way describing it, I mean, that's definitely the key takeaway.

Yes, Thomas, I know you are saying that for the audience, but for me, I have to tell you, if you attack biological materialism and vitalism, I will be very upset because these are things that I genuinely believe in. And if you continue on this path, I may ask frauds in Chicago to start monitoring you. I am just warning you now. You might be monitored. I'm used to it. I'm sure that there's plenty of people who are already up on that. But no, I mean, in closing, let me say in rebuttal, I don't have some sort of conceptual bias against emphasis on biological factors of race and ethnos. My point is that it is not the proximate source of these things, it is the component, it is not the ultimate source. That is my point. Yes. Thomas, very good.

I think I actually could agree with that and we should continue this talk next time. What do you say, since you talk about St. Francis in context of Cold War, what do you say we have next show on Cold War history, and since we did Jünger and Mishima, next time we talk Céline and Cold War history, what do you say? Yeah, that would be outstanding. There's nothing I'd like more to do. Very good, Thomas. Please come back soon, anytime you want. We talk soon. On this note, we say goodbye and high putlers to you. Yeah. Oh yeah, man. Yes, goodbye. Until next time.