Welcome Caribbean reason episode 78 buck breaker special. Have you seen as this movie buck breaker? His anyone asked Eric why black youth why they wear pants below the waist I hear as this is called prison style to signify that you've been buck broken and to advertise to so-called Prison daddies or whatever the word is. Is this correct? When you wear the pants below the waist to show that you are ready to be buckbroken rape-style prison bathroom. And then there are the do-rags, they were on the head. Did you see Obama carry a handkerchief, this out the back pocket? I saw this in photos when he met Netanyahu in White House. There is famous picture of the two of them together, and Obama goes into this hyper-effeminate

style, letting his nature shine through and gays do this with the hankies, different colored handkerchiefs to advertise which fetishes they're into. So for example, red hanky goes for feasting or whatever, I don't know the codes, it's a color code. And then you wonder if the gang colors, the handkerchief durags of the gangster, if the gang colors, they were on head like young Muslim woman, is this also a signifier of gay buckbroken fetish. Does Tariq discuss buckbroke men's country? Obama and Rahm Emanuel on the movie, I don't know, I didn't see this. You'd think he'd mention Pester Manning and the long-legged Macdaddy freak. Look up Pester Manning, very powerful. I wish that the black community would choose Pester Manning as their prophet instead of Tariq.

But you'd think that Tariq Nasheed would be very upset that establishment promotes a Luo mulatta like Obama from East Africa background with no connection to American black descendants of slaves and establishment promotes him as a figurehead of the black community instead of at least chose Nigerian or someone from West Africa at least the same racial stock as American blacks, but no, it's an East African lure, these are people who actually enslave the Bantu in Africa, and in the United States, can you ever imagine someone of Clarence Thomas' complexion and background? He grew up speaking Gullah in South Carolina islands, and we all know that they would never allow a man like that to get elected president, but they allow Obama, and if I were American

I would find that extreme humiliation, but no, they like it and Tarik says nothing about it. And especially a man like Obama who made his name as Chicago rent boy in bathhouses. So this well known Obama reverend, I forget his name, the hysteric, but his church where Obama attended for many years. This was a meeting place for buckbroken black men, gay black men and bullying difficult black womans like Michelle, assuming it is even a woman, but does Tariq discuss this particular institutional fixture in Chicago social life, this church, Buck Broke Church, Buck Broke Mountain, this would seem interesting, does he address the rampant also homosex activities in Africa itself, where this behavior is, by the way, nearly universal in large swathes

of sub-Saharan Africa, West Africa especially, despite their laws against homosexuality, homosexual behavior very common, is that also, by the way, because of legacy of colonialism. Did they learn this from the English? Did the English introduce it, maybe, with their intung boarding school, boarding screw, excuse me, ways? Celine talks about this in his book, Death on Credit, I think, the boarding school English style. Research dominated by Doug if interested. This is the Imperial English way But this this I do many light political show today because I not discuss politic of cretin America in a long time and everyone is now talking about cretinus race theory or this I will try to tell you where part of it come from and it's not that it matters

What is there to say about politic in general? I very tell you is there anything I want to say on political life now is fed posting so I can't say it. Where Trump, why is Trump still hiding? Do they have a photograph of his meeting with the Grays in 2016 and this? Any reformer come in, Boris Johnson, Merkel, Macron, Trump, they get taken to a back room meeting and the Grays come out and tell them what's what and explain to them real cause behind world events. There is photo of Trump in White House chair very early. There's no one else. Even if they send you to jail, which they will send you anyway, they are crazed howler monkey. But just take off kid gloves, arrest hundreds of ringleaders like Bobby Fischer said. I think he says that with seven days in May or this.

Mr. Trump is, however, in his mid 70s and he might be tired. So what you can expect. But I have a fellow frog. He wants to remain a nun. But here's a theory, a Q-type theory that Trump is, in fact, still in the White House right now, but that the Biden administration cannot locate him. Do you understand this? Trump hiding in recesses of White House, loyal staff leaves him 20 to 30 hamburgers daily out. You know, he has plenty of food and the bureaucrats say is Parasite 2.0, you know, the movie Parasite is Parasite 2. Trump secretly will be living in White House for 25 years. Is it plausible? Is it, as noted philosopher Whitehead say, is it a fruitful hypothesis? The biggest stroll that could happen, I think I mentioned before, is he could run a Congress in Florida.

He becomes Speaker of House in 2022, and then impeach Biden and Kamala and become president. And then he can run again in 2024, have 10 years total in power. It would be the funniest troll in political history, one of the top three anyway. The Mongol sack of Baghdad may be number one troll, but I think this is the kind of circus America deserves. Why not? And look, Trump, of course, has been silenced now. But by the way, it would be ridiculous for him to go on gab or this other kind of thing. Just put it out of your mind. If you want to make opponents lose their mind, he should go to Russia's site, Vkontakte, the Russian version of Faceboard, and lead an exodus of Americans to Russia's site. Throw it in their faces. Be the defiant Trump again.

If anyone associated with Trump is listening now, do not even think about making your own social media site. You do not have infrastructure or the technical people to do it. It will be a disaster. People will be hacked. will be hacked, passwords leaked and this, look at gab and parler it is a mess. So go to vkontakte instead and GOP is very happy I think with this situation right now. This stupid talk spreading online and in articles about supposedly the post-Trump right, there is no post-Trump right and you're not going to make it come about with policy paper or TV show or this. None of you who are claiming about the post-Trump right did anything for four years other than and kvetch, no organizing coal miners, you did not unionize truckers or form cadres of

truckers, nothing, just kvetching. And so now you need to relax and enjoy show because an impresario mob-connected real estate salesman is probably the kind of Caesar America deserves. And the other ones are, you know, holly and cotton and they are closet cases and Rubio is the chief rent boy of the so-called working-class salt-of-the-earth caucus. Have you noticed the people spreading this are all part of some kind of lavender, fake fed cat bunch in DC. They keep coming up with these robot meme-injected servant POC guys, like Rubio with the clean-cut look, but In's mouth expression in the face, read Lovecraft's shadow over In's mouth, and There you have the Rubio mouth of the Reformicon GOP. Here is our colored fellow, this kind of red boys.

We have our own colored fellow because they had Obama, we have Jindal, and now Rubio. This is the girl. That's one of the most amazing scenes in cinema. Aside from being just very well done, full of artistry and mystery thrill on its own, But his biggest reveal on how American media and politics work. This is the girl. Watch Mulholland Drive. We working class party now. Yeah, that working class party, you're going to lead millions of urban workers. You know, where are, this is not 1920s Germany or what are your urban workers, your legions? Trump base is the working middle class. This is the nationalist populist base in America, the middle class, not the underclass or the working class, which does not exist.

And insofar as it is contractors and people with no college, that's a misunderstanding of what it means, because they, such people, and I mean the voters from who, let's say, other voter in community takes their cue. The farmer, the contractor, they make more money than the shitty salaries of these DC guys who are talking about post-Trump right and how they are the vanguard of the American working class. The working class you talk about make much more money than you. The poster we all love, Stud, he make much more money than DC pundit, okay? So there is no working class in America now of any significant size. Who is the supposed constituency of this post-Trump right that shits on the heads and insults millions of MAGA and Q supporters every day, this is what they do.

But of course, what all this talk is about is that it actually comes from top of GOP, this so-called post-liberal or trad socialism fakery where they talk about they're going to raise corporate tax raises. I remind people every week, Putler has 15 percent corporate tax rate in Russia. The American corporate tax rate was 35 percent before Trump lowered it to 21 percent. In Russia is much lower because Putler doesn't need to engage in fake performances like raising corporate tax rate on a corporation that may have nothing to do with cabal. Instead he take member of cabal, he take treasonous oligarch like Khodorkovsky and he throws him in jail. And of course, Khodorkovsky is outside of jail and I don't know where he lives now,

But did you know Khodorkovsky, he funds a lot of the never Trump media and people in United States like the so-called journalist Kathy Young. She at least is honest and admits she took money from Khodorkovsky. But he fund many people. I think he funded the intercept in the beginning. Oh yes, the intercept. I think so. But this is the big thing. The big GOP obsession with the so-called working class party is actually a backdoor to mass immigration. That's what they mean by working class party, not what Trump meant when he trolled quite successfully about American Workers Party, which is what they should call the GOP. But what they mean is we are going to cater to Latinos. We're going to use public funds to feed the drywall installer Pedro's wife and his seven

children from the public pig throw. And we're going to try to get in on the vote buying clientele system of the Dems and also offer some social conservative crumbs in banning porn or abortion or this that might appeal to wahakans and their pseudo-papist idolatry. So that's your post-Trump, post-liberal right for you. They've been salivating since the 2000s for this, by the way. It's not new. There was a book written by Ross Dowsett and Reihan Salam arguing just for this. And when Trump came about, they got a little glint in the eye and they're trying to piggyback of the Trump destruction of the GOP. A lot of these so-called post-Trump right, I'm a nationalist type, or I'm a populist. They don't see, they don't use the word populist, they want to own the word socialist actually,

because they're stupid, or because the GOP promote this word on our side, because they know that if they fold nationalism into socialism, into the Occupy Wall Street left, we become easy to control and marginalized. And they put therefore a division between us and the MAGA people who they want to claim back as their own voters by saying, see, these people are socialists. They're not on your side. But I perhaps will talk about this on another show. But I want to remind you, many of the so-called intellectuals pushing this in Washington, D.C. did not support Trump in 2016 or 2015 before the election, when it was actually risky to come out for him. A lot of them, by the way, are Cruz guys, or they supported

other people at the time, Bernie or even others, not Trump. Ann Coulter is exception, but many of these self-righteous, I'm a purist, nationalist type were not Trump guys in 2016. Now they are very ostentatiously, I am the pure nationalist and I will move beyond Trump and this. So, But it was Trump. It was him and not these people who wrecked Bush and Paul Ryan, wrecked them. And nobody believes that crap anymore, by the way. It's a dead fight. The Paul Ryan GOP, that ideology is dead for voters. It's preserved as a rotten branch in D.C. because the D.C. establishment is still there. By the way, many times when Ann Coulter, if you remember how ostentatiously she attacked Trump over and over like a nagging whore.

But many times she had very nice things to say about McConnell or not attack McConnell or the Senate Republican, just Trump, very interesting. But those dinosaur, the rotten branch of the old GOP exists as a relic in DC, but they have no constituency and no support. It has no future. But it was Trump who destroyed them in 2015 and not you with your repetitive criticisms of so-called neoliberalism now and fighting a fight already over, trying to take credit for it. You sound like 1970s Marxist adjunct professor with rancid avocado breath. And this will have no play with normal Americans if you embrace this kind of class analysis as your friend and this type of idiotic academic talk. The entire messaging of the post-Trump so-called right has no future.

I will elaborate this perhaps on future show, including name names. But point is, for now there is nobody else. So you have maybe two choices. Like me, you can drop out of talking about electoral politic. In America I don't talk about anymore. My support for Trump is on hold until he manifestly redeem himself. So let him see if he wins and then what do and then I will see. But right now, I just want to not talk about electoral politics. Maybe then you go back to 2015 and our plans from that time, which is what I try to do, not talk about this, because I think Trump's mind may be controlled by grace or so. So until he redeemed himself, I stay out of it. But I recognize, on the other hand, as a matter of fact, not wish, that he's still a symbol to tens of millions.

And you, if you call yourself nationalist, intellectual or this, you are not. There is no nationalist demographic in America right now outside of MAGA, Q and Trump supporters. There is nothing. So tell me who your constituency is with this rhetoric of working class party. You have no takers. But what I say is if you don't want to be like me and the frogs and to, let's say, stay out of electoral politics, if you want to continue involve yourself in this fray, then And maybe you recognize there is for now nothing outside of Trump movement. You know in Brazil for elections they have people on stilts and clown show, I mean literal clown show with colored cotton candy and this for every election they have this. Just learn to enjoy what it is.

If you want to involve or analyze politics in America there is no opposition faction outside of Trump supporters and if you don't want Trump which is understandable offer them something plausible or at least not shit on heads of Trump supporters and patronize them as if, believe me, they know all the objections you have about Trump. So they are ready, by the way, for massive action. I am proud of American people, actually. I think they are ready for a leader, for an uprising, and I don't mean violent, by the way, but something like what, Gandhi or Likvalessa, the massive civil disobedience, massive shutdowns of cities, strikes in key sectors of economy. And Trump could mobilize millions, and the enemy cannot. And Antifa is just tens of thousands, okay?

MAGA is tens of millions and can mobilize millions on the street. I don't know how many. I'd say three to five million on American streets easily. And the other side is not coming out to support Biden, okay? They have their Basiji militia of Antifa degenerates and pedophile. And aside from that, they have nothing. And Trump, or if not Trump, someone of his stature, I mean, somebody of that national stature could mobilize millions for this. It's a great missed opportunity if he doesn't want to do it for someone else. Elon Musk probably does not have enough fame to do it. It has to be someone even more famous, maybe Mariah Carey, I don't know. But no one is doing this. There is no coordination point.

You need somebody who will use rhetoric like, I will break them, we will break them, referring to this occupational class because only their removal from political power matters. Nothing else. Do not lose sight of this. This whole talk, even a Wuhan flu measure or China conflict or utterly fantastical subjects like socialism or neoliberalism or capitalism, this is all distractions. People now talk, for example, of infrastructure bill. I am sorry, but it will not work, infrastructure bill, for many, many reasons, same reasons that foreign war do not work, because the people in charge will take that money and distribute it to BIPOC, and you'll have Robert Reich, the midget, say that it should not go to white male contractors, and so they'll use it as another redistribution pig trove

for their favorite groups. And there have been major infrastructure project plan in recent American history, and Big Dig in Boston, for example, which is a complete disaster, took much longer, was much more expensive because even you have a competent, let's say, white male contractor, they will skim very much through corruption, as they should, because this is a broken political system. So you cannot have policies as long as you have occupational corrupt class in power. That puts incentives on people to steal and to engage in corruption and graft and all of this. The removal of the people who have hijacked this regime, peaceful removal through political means is only thing that matters. And with respect to this, even critical race theory is a distraction.

But since everyone talk about it, I will address on show today briefly what critical race theory and I need to go smoke, I do cigarillo now, I found Cuban cigarillo, is this okay? Very good, I will be right back. Critical theory is not new, I suppose everyone talking now because result of 2020 election fraud protest push, which was entirely engineered by the way, so that inner city black shiboon vote counters could not be challenged by weak repoop lawyers. So there are videotapes, as you know, of suitcases of votes in Shaniqua running the same ballot through machine hundreds of times on video. Oh, you cannot challenge that because of the Floyd parody and the threat of riots, which apparently John Chief Faggot Roberts of the extreme court, he cited the threat of riots

as to why the court could never consider the substance of any of the election law suits about the fake election. So as part of this push, they ratcheted up, they spun up to greater intensity this so-called critical race theory, pushing it in school and workplace, but it's nothing new. And in fact, again, with all due respect to Chris Rufo, because I think Chris Rufo doing good work, but it's a mistake to focus only on CRT or on banning it, which is very hard because it's a general approach, it's not even just content, it's critical theory regarding many different parts of life, not just race. But why ban it instead of taking the initiative and either banning much, much more against CRT only small part of leftoid indoctrination, or indeed why not push our own education,

own patriotic history in schools, which this should have been done a long time ago. But this is what conservatives always do, very little and very late, always reactive and therefore playing to tune of left tune, fundamentally they play to left tune, CRT is not new. I had this pushed on me in high school by carpet munching school marms. This was some time before Trump is not the reaction to Trump is not new. OK, so remember, a BLM terrorist shot several cops in Dallas. This is a Black Lives Matter identified person, you know, because of Barack Obama's racial incitement among many other events, all from before Trump. So in this case, I think more than others, you simply have to not take it seriously and

just understand cynically the motivations behind people pushing for CRT, because philosophically or theoretically, or even at low intellectual level, their claims are so weak. If you take it seriously, you make yourself a fool. So right, why does the old conservative guard, why do they get called coxervative? Many journalists misunderstand this. It's very simple. If you go to dysfunctional democracies like Brazil or Argentina, this metaphor is very old. It's very solid in culture. The people get called cucks because essentially as a politician, a rich man is the one who doesn't see the cheating, but lives in the delusions and words that manipulators use to hide their corruption. So the analogy to a cheating woman is very direct, right?

Because the conservative is the guy who, okay, the woman cheats on you, divorces you or takes you for all you've gotten, then comes up with rationalizations, the female brain being a rationalization machine right and maybe even blames it on you and so the cuck takes that seriously even if he doesn't believe it but just to take that seriously and argue is it makes you a fool and that's a very obvious case where you're simply dealing with a cynical rationalization and you should not take it seriously and the rights big mistake I mean the old establishment intellectual right their intellectual mistake was to take so-called claims of justice or the substantive content seriously from the left and to engage with them with words and reasoning as as you know words and reasoning work so

well with a crazed woman right so maybe not realizing or forgetting or maybe never having known that the people do not philosophize and so therefore you do not win this with reason you have to bulldozer them with ridicule or without guys it had in 1950s through 1970s, and so now either has really, you know, reversion to the mean types like Bill Kristol and chlorates that's on the neocon side, but the left doesn't even have that. It has the POC version of that, the room temperature IQ BIPOC freaks and women who got a head on affirmative action. So there's correspondingly much less intellectual content to go on in their propaganda even than before. So CRT is very transparently then just based on racial revenge fantasies, race resentment

and hatred and desire to take, to take post property and proceed status from whites as when that BLM queen in California buys something like four or five houses in this, or when black people now openly demand direct payments on Venmo from dumb shit libs as a testament to the sport. There is no reason in a practical or political level ever to engage it beyond this, to point out this or other cynical motivations. For example, that's at the low level, what I just said, or at the intellectual schmuck level. But why is CRT being promoted so aggressively by massive media outlets and government bureaucracies now? One part of it is what I just said, the necessities of the 2020 election cancellation that left

and also establishment right GOP was in on this, it ran it on America as to start essentially an insurrection against Trump and to illegally remove him with the coup that happened on January 6, which by the way, Mike Pence was full party to that coup as well as McConnell and all the gay gangsters of the Cunanan Gannon Hester GOP. But beyond this, certain oligarchs and large international financial interests push CRT For same cynical reasons, they've pushed anti-white ideology for decades now, in fact, which is that they desire the wealth and political hegemony of the white middle class, or to degrade what's left of it. You should never forget this, and this analysis is somewhat obscured, again, by the stupidity

and mendacity of the so-called post-liberal right intellectuals in Washington, D.C. And these are people, some of them around Vermula and so forth, but there are others, But there are people who accept the leftist lies about Trump supporters, tries to cast them as Arkansas trailer park people and this. But in fact, the white middle class is still the store of the majority of the wealth in America. And I'm not talking about paper wealth, OK? The actual property, the land, the houses, the capital tools, this is majority owned still by the white middle class and the oligarchs, they own debt and other paper wealth, but not the majority of the physical wealth in the country. You look at American economy, I believe it's something like $14 trillion annually gets

moved maybe, and total wealth in countries is $50 to $60 trillion. That's the aggregate wealth of America. And oligarchs, and oligarchs in question, by the way, do not include just all rich people or all 0.001% even, but it's a particular cabal, and they do not own the majority of that number, I said, of wealth, not even close. So you see now Bill Gates, he start to buy up land, and you see BlackRock start to buy up houses with government subsidies, by the way. They get, of course, loans that nobody else has access to, and it is a big deal, right? Because they're trying to use this latest crisis as a pretext to turn their paper wealth and influence into a grab finally of real assets. But this is why I believe you are seeing now finally a ratcheting up in the ideological

war on so-called whiteness, which really is a war on what they see as the greatest obstacle to their rule. The white middle class, both politically and financially, is an obstacle to them. And my friend, Nazi Thomas 777, agrees with this, by the way. We both think, for example, the Wignat or the white nationalist concern is a bit misplaced because what drives this at the top, these people don't fundamentally care about whites or whiteness as whiteness or white demographics or anything like this as such. It is about power. It is about sovereignty. It is about whether they rule unimpeded and about wealth grab. And the racial ideology part of it is just the propaganda part of their efforts. And in this sense, with their allies in government, the present, the current ACRT push is just

part of the greater trend of the modern managerial state, which is a demagogic state. I've talked on this show many times, especially in last few episodes, where they try constantly to mobilize the low against the middle, where they try to find underclass or revolutionary clients to use as a battering ram against the middle, and liberation is the excuse. And when they run out of clients, of underclass clients, they invent new ones and hence the multiplication of identities of struggle, gay, trans, and so forth, many others. So this is cynical and true explanation for why CRT being promoted, and CRT in this understanding is merely another name for so-called identity politic or an aggressive extension of it.

And for the people who say that whites should engage in identity politics, you will have hard time of it because it was designed against you. So who will be your audience, again I ask, the bureaucracy and the oligarchs who push identity politics do not want you as a client, they want to use identity politics against you. And I don't know if you can mobilize a majority of whites with this, maybe another argument, but that is topic for another show. What motivates, however, the stupid white shit lib who embraces CRT, it's unnecessary to do, as the mold bug copiers are doing, to explain CRD, to say that it has similarities to Calvinism or Puritanism, right? I'm trying to explain now why, let's say, I try to explain briefly the motivations

for who pushes CRD at the top and the intellectual push for it, but of course we all know there are many stupid white shit lib who believe in it. So why do they believe in it? When I'm saying the explanation that it's a form of secularized Calvinism or Puritanism where the need to feel more righteous than your neighbors in your own eyes as proof of your saved or elect status. People who make this argument are copying Maubach, but they do not credit him for this. But I don't believe this to be so, either in the motivation of people engaging in it or as a matter of historical provenance. It actually has no origin in Puritanism. What you're seeing is the problem of the yokel, okay? The yokel. First of all, this kind of public display of moraline is normally called Pharisaism, not Calvinism.

It's a Pharisee characteristic because it's done purely for public consumption and for the feeling of displaying social status maybe, whereas the Calvinist has a different theological belief that it speaks to his own salvation in heaven and this, but it's unnecessary even to call it Pharisaism, let alone Calvinism, because when the shit lib hick, the shit lib hick, when he puts out a sign on his yard in this house, or Instagram girl puts the black flag, I saw it the first time, I thought I was excited there, trying to advertise their commitment to Mussolini, or whatever, but you can understand this with analogy to what takes place in totalitarian states, where part is motivated by fear and the desire to show conformity.

But even late, for example, in East Bloc, there's always a lickspittle class of people who advertise this servility, how they get along with regime ideology, right? In East Bloc, you had kids who were the pioneer cravat willingly outside of school, the red cravat. They just got the shit beaten out of them in parks and such because regime propaganda was not socially tolerated by the people in the 1980s, but you always, even then I mean, You had this small class of people, the lickspittles. It's only that in America you have, in fact, a whole broad group of yokels who do believe in it socially, and the yokel problem needs to be addressed for a moment, okay? Because I don't need to say this, this disclaimer I'm about to make, but Loki and such and Frog

Twitter and people who alerted me especially recently to this yokel problem, you know actually where we stand. We stand with middle America and love the so-called flyover America. I don't like that word, but we love them politically and we stand with them. But if you are from the mid-best or let's say some hinterland of America, Alabama, or this, and you're very well aware of people there who are starry-eyed about the big shitty. You know the type of this, right? People who get a glint in their eye about life in the big city. Niebuhr was such a type. Niebuhr. So-called political theorist. Beloved by Obama and Comey. Niebuhr. The hick shit-lib who wants above all to be accepted by the coastal establishment. This

glint in the eye about life in the big city, whereas someone like Loki, who grew up in major city, I don't want to say which, but we know the city is nothing but gay nigger kike wasteland, but a certain kind of yokel does not know this and has high hopes. High hopes, I mean if you see the city as anything but a necessary evil in achieving your plans, I have some bad news for you. So the city all arranged for the desires and aspirations of portly twenty-something roasty with tires around the waist, that's the city. and catered to by various industries who seek to tap into this, the archetype of the vapid consumer, early 20s woman who maybe works for a state bureaucracy or this, but so you get these yokels and they move to the city or the outskirts and they do not realize maybe

that racial propaganda they encounter there and all of this is just the election talk so they end up really believing it. They don't know better so they promote it. So this is quite shocking sometimes for city dwellers to see, like Loki or others, to realize how amazing these people actually believe this. But America has this dynamic where there are many callow youths from whatever Minnesota they move to big city and are made to feel that they've made it when they move there. And so if you're made to feel that, the only way to plausibly sustain that lie is to show show how different they are from their neighbors they grew up with, right, or from the perception other urbanized shit libs have of these neighbors.

So of course then they become the biggest insecure advertisers, you know, I'm not like those people because they feel they're in danger of being confused for trailer trash and this, and this pathetic insecurity is behind the shit lib, the shit lib adopting BLM propaganda or whatever the white shit lib, the yokel, they feel more threatened by being identified with the stereotypes of the hick in their minds by any of the content of CRT. So they moused this. It's purely a sociological or a class thing. So you should be very acquainted with this on our side on the internet. We've had frog Twitter orbiters. Now they put something in my cigarillo. Did you know by the way that they fill cigarettes with licorice? That's why I moved to Sigarillo, because maybe Puro's tobacco.

Probably many of the health downside of cigarette smoking come from the licorice they put in and other additives. There are news stories every year about Nordic man who gorges on licorice candy and dies. Very dangerous, this licorice. But I tell you, on our side online, even on our side, I mean, you've had our own kinds of yokels with similar problems, all right? So this, I don't like to say their names, but this fat bot or cunt bot, whatever, and the irony fags, for example, they are types of the yokel who need above all to feel accepted, but what they imagine is the high society of the big shitty, and they see the big shitty as something to aspire to. So their whole thing, and they're not the only ones, but their whole thing is to advertise

to leftist journalists, and what they imagine is the literary intelligentsia that, oh, I'm I'm not a racist like those dirty frogs who are, that's a low class view. I'm an intellectual, I read Kant, I'm ironic, you know, and this. And the establishment, in the establishment right, this type of the yokel, very common, one of the worst is Kevin D. Williamson, who strives more than anybody I know to prove that he's not a toothless hick and so therefore he went as far as to claim that he wants to see a destruction of working class communities and, you know, because he's not like that. It's an advertisement. He's not like that. He overcame that, right? He's a glutton and obese on cheap Chardonnay and short rib and slap lobster risotto, right? He's not like that.

He doesn't, he did not get obese on Bud Light and hamburgers. He did it on short rib and Chardonnay. So you see how pernicious is the blight of the yokel on American discourse, America, size, huge continental size country, and the yokel moves to the shitty, and it infects all factions, right and left, but the worst is on the left, or on the broad leftist middle of American city life, where these are the carriers of CRT, and so our side, rather than try to engage with the supposed history of CRT or its substantive meaning, our side would be fully justified here simply to point out the cynical motivations of its pushers, what I talk about on this segment. And also then the yokel peasant striver origins of its earnest promoters. I think this will be more effective.

But since I am a generous man, I will also address the so-called substantive content of CRT and identity politic and their recent origins. I do so on the next segment. I will be right back. Yes, welcome back to show this experimental portion, longer segment than usual. Let us see if my lung capacity, which I think I've increased lung capacity over the last two years or so of this show, but this longer last segment, I want to tell you Jim Jones, amazing man. He had a cult in Guyana. I think he said he was a kind of prophet like David Koresh, Jim Jones. He said, I am the only straight man on earth. It's very unusual doctrine, this political doctrine. He said, I am the only straight man, and I will prove it by sodomizing all the other men in this cult to show that I am the only straight.

I will show them. This is very interesting. What mindset is this? Please ask Tariq Nasheed. But look, regarding CRT, the theory is passed around about origins of CRT are empty. And you know why they emerge? Because writers try to make name for themselves. Oh, it come from Hegel. It come from Puritanism. It's of course irrelevant to the practical efforts to get it banned, such as Chris Rufos who should be praised, but the theories are very similar to what conservative intellectuals and academics do, for example, when they try to trace all modern problems back to historicism or relativism. This is very common on the boat I ride, and some of the chief bunglers here are the bunglers, The Straussians, or those who study with them, and I speak of the so-called East Coast ones

who huddle around Bill Kristol because he provides them with funding for cheap cocktail party and to make them feel like they are advisors to the prince of this. But I speak of them because these are the ones I had read about in the debates of the 2000s. You know, I don't like, I think I said before, I don't like to mention them because whenever you mention them to criticize, it only adds to their feelings of self-importance when in fact they are, again, equivalent of a lady's reading party in upstate New York, but they imagine themselves as political maneuvers. So when someone like Shadia Drury, a leftoid, accuses them of being at the head of this conspiracy to subvert the United States government, although they deny that, it makes them feel

very important and it's not true by the way, they are largely irrelevant but they do drive some of the intellectual right discourse which is extremely ineffective. The other faction that does it is the Thomists, the Catholic intellectuals, who instead of historicism they might blame something like nominalism or some other medieval doctrine or heresy and they blame this for all modern ills and misunderstandings and what both are of racism and anti-racism, or with showing why the charge of anti-semitism is empty, why it's another one of these taboo modern words, please, if you look for this, you will be looking and waiting a long time for them to take that one on, or they might, you know, oppose the doctrine of the worship of gays and now trannies, but none of them will actually

take on any of this kind of actual regime piety, the kind that can get people fired than on person today. Instead, they will very bravely address, you know, something like historicism, right? It's very brave. So it all comes from Hegel, of course. Now this is very cute, right? This way they can pretend maybe even to themselves that they are incisive thinkers beyond the fray of the time and that they're going to the actual root of the idea in this. But of course it's a way to play it safe because nobody care if you criticize historicism of Hegel or Nietzsche or Heidegger and in fact in large part you're doing the work of regime propagandists who maybe for different things would also like to blame German philosophy

so it becomes this context of no you are the real German philosophy followers this kind of thing but I am not aware that Socrates ignored the actual opinions of his time that he refused to take them on, and that he instead engaged in irrelevant—and by the way, wrong, because these things do not in fact come from historicism or Hegel—but I don't think Socrates engaged in this kind of historical genealogy and these kinds of convoluted analogies of saying, oh, it is like that, it is like historicism, it's like Puritanism, and I mean in part in some way I also blame the copiers of Maudbug, not Maudbug himself with who I disagree, but his much more important mind than his copiers who do this, not just with Hegel, but with blaming Calvinism and the Puritans for modern ills, right?

So in other words, the Anglo did it. The Anglo did it. Isn't that cute? It's always the Anglo. It's still the Anglo's fault. Let me listen to a long podcast blaming British East India Company or the British Empire. That's another variation. It takes no courage at all to do any of this, you see. You're pretending to criticize modern problems, but in fact you're blaming it on a safe because a remote enemy, some shadowy satanic conspiracy from long ago. And this is met by the leftoid with humor, perhaps, but they do not feel threatened by it. think you achieved double of showing yourself as a rebel and critic but also again you are showing why you're like not like those nasty racists and the vulgar political people in this it's

in other words it's another kind of yokel move the people who engage in this you know and many of the post liberal uh right who are a bit different but the people who i criticize on previous segments of this show, I think they have similar insecurity when they do not want to defend nationalism and populism as a white, middle-class Christian movement. They want instead to pretend that they are the vanguard of a working class because that's not so déclassé as being a middle-class Christian, you see? Oh, no, no, I'm not like those bourgeois, those stupid manga supporters. I am the working-class vanguard. That's what I am. You know, this mindset of the post-liberal right now in D.C., again, motivated by this status insecurity.

On the other hand, what I've just talked about now, this attack on historicism, the East Coast Strausoids, again, I'm mixing up two different examples, but they are motivated fundamentally by the same thing, I think. But again, these Strausoids, the ones I've read of, I make this aside because the Claremont Strausoids seem different, so I'm not including them in this. But the East Coast Strausoids have very strong yokel energy in person, just striving not to be, you know, I'm not like those evangelical conservatives, I'm not like those vulgar political people and this type of thing. And this energy, this vibe, or rather this spiritual lethargy, is very common on the intellectual right, but let me not question them sociologically.

The substantive fault lies in this case, for example, James Lindsay, or whoever, trying to make a name for himself by blaming CRT on Hegel. And there's another reason they do this, by the way, because in the case of CRT in particular, To single out CRT specifically is a way to avoid having to condemn previous iterations of CRT. What's CRT? Critical Race Theory. But that's part of critical theory. And so if they would address that, it would involve them in a criticism of the gays, some of who are their friends and supporters and in their social circles. But also it would involve them in the criticism of the Palestinians and of the Jews in a certain sense. And I'll tell you why in a moment. But if you want to understand the origins of CRT, it is important to see that CRT understands

itself as a liberation, or pretends to, but it sells itself as a movement of liberation. We all know what it actually is. It is a slave revolt of the biologically botched and those who are resentful against health and normalcy. It has become actually that, you know, they even have obese rights and obese identity and movement and so forth. But in other words, it is the ultimate slave revolt of the biologically botched. You can see of the undermen. And it's mobilized by cynical government and financial elites for the purposes of political control and pillaging. That's all it is. Since, of course, it is not only about blacks, but trans and other identities that want to do away with any presence of so-called white supremacy in literature, in media life.

And white supremacy, as you know, involves also things like scientific method and debate and being on time and looking good, things that make them feel lesser than what they think they should be. And you'd think these people never forgave, for example, the white men for teaching their ancestors to stop eating off the floor. No, no, the white men taught me to use the toilet and to eat with fork and knife. That can never be forgiven. You know about resenting your benefactor more than anything else, this very common and human nature. You know about this. So in any case, that's what it is, address it as that in real life. But for the sake of form and for my own generosity, consider that yes, they claim this is a liberation movement.

And in this, they are copying also the earlier attempts of communists to package their ideology of equality in the rhetoric of freedom and liberation. So communism wanted absolute homogenous equality, but they packaged it, they used the rhetoric of freedom. So there is precedent for this. Commies and the worldwide Soviet propaganda also centered on freedom. And for this reason, it can be helpful if you look at, for example, Isaiah Berlin essay Two Concepts of Freedom. And I should tell you that for talk on this, you might want to look at very good article from Partisan Review. I think it's 2001 or 2002 by one David Sidorsky with the title The Third Concept of Freedom, which is a discussion of the roots of identity politics and really of all the idiotic troubles

that come from these claims. So again, the day 2001, I think, this is nothing new. And Sidorsky is good because he does not really condemn, does not engage very much condemnation, tries to explain in a calm way where this particular latest idea of liberation comes from and what it means. Very briefly he tried to say what may be wrong with it, but Isaiah Berlin wrote a famous essay, Two Concepts of Freedom, in the 1950s, I think, and he made the distinction, perhaps you are all aware of, that the original concept of freedom inherent, for example, in American founding but popular throughout 18th century, is simply freedom as freedom from government interference, negative freedom, so from being harmed by government or other social institutions,

freedom from having these take away your inherent rights. And note, by the way, government or also other social forces or institutions. This is a note to the lying vicious National Review crowd and others who would like to perhaps relegate the First Amendment to just some government formal artifact, when in fact such rights are supposed to be foundation of all political and social life in a country founded on these principles, and it is not allowed for private forces to deprive you of them either. For example, by government outsourcing these to tech companies, or I would suppose, why not also shut your electricity off as well? But in any case, this understanding of freedom based in inherent rights, which are understood

as natural or as, on the other hand, God-given, but this, but inherently some way to your person, to your given self. But this is challenged by positive conception of freedom, the second concept of freedom, which says this is not enough, and that if you are poor, for example, little good does it do you that you are formally allowed to wear fine clothes, or to get a nice watch or eat it. Now they attack me with cough. Yes, I need to take break to have a drink. Me nama jian chan, o shi xing tai ran, tai ran, shi xian da shang chu, sa mian chan, o shi xing zha tao, hui la yan wei. And the zet pause, my friends, was not caused by lack of lung capacity, but the Zionists or the Greys attack my throat. I believe they sent possibly nano-organism into my throat,

So I took break to have some coffee. I suppose I jinxed myself by saying it would be a long segment, but in any case there was some nice opportunity to play for you more favorite musics. But as I was saying, in this understanding of the second concept of freedom as opposed to the first, which is negative freedom associated with liberal regimes and so forth, but in the second, the positive concept of freedom. One example of it to think a little good does it to you, again, if you're formally allowed to wear a nice watch or eat at a nice restaurant when you cannot afford it. In this sense, positive freedom is freedom to achieve the potentialities of an individual or a group. In other words, you're not free if you merely have freedom from government oppression, but

But you need to actually be able to achieve the promise of these rights, to achieve your personal or historic potentialities. And therefore government action is allowed, even to the extent, and here is the problem of course because this conflicts with the first concept of freedom, that sometimes government is allowed to infringe on other individuals or groups to guarantee the self-actualization of this individual or class or group. And so this conception of freedom is amenable to a variety of, you could say, post-liberal in the original sense, political movements, whether 19th century nationalism, which let's say is this kind of 19th century nationalism challenge multinational or multiethnic states

in Europe and colonialism outside of Europe, to achieve freedom in the second sense, meaning self-determination in this case, self-actualization of this or that historic group or ethnic. Excuse me, they attacked me again. So right the line would go, it does not matter if, for example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire guarantees your negative freedom, if it gives you freedom from oppression, which it did by the way, I mean you were far freer as an individual under the Habsburg Emperor in 19th centuries and you're far freer than any modern so-called citizen is today. But the line was that is not full freedom because we as the Hungarians or we as the Czechs or we as the Zionists and so forth, we remain dependent, not a sovereign people. We're not in charge of our own historical course or destiny.

We're not able to have the power and freedom to achieve our potentiality. So we must be independent, must have a sovereign, independent nation and same and so forth for colonial states. And this is a very attractive claim because people are driven by this claim, they're willing to put up with quite a lot of privation actually to be even oppressed by their own corrupt bureaucrats than to be benignly neglected by foreign overlords from Vienna or if you're in Africa from Paris or wherever. So in many of these post-colonial states, in achieving freedom from European power domination, it actually represented marked decline for the individual. I mean the native blacks, for example, Martin decline, not only living standard, but in personal freedom, personal rights.

In other words, you know, the second concept of freedom, trumping the first and one of the funniest commentaries you can read on this. Well, there are many, but the recent one I've posted before, but I encourage you to search for the Mark Stein article from, I think the Irish times, his obituary of Reverend Canaan banana from Rhodesia Zimbabwe, a wonderful satire of what happened to Zimbabwe after it achieved so-called freedom from domination by the white man. And of course, you may have heard that many Zimbabweans want Rhodesia to come back. They want freedom from the second concept of freedom of so-called self-determinations that they achieved, which just replaced a benign master with a vicious one. When I sent this article to girls sometimes, I always got that icy silence or rage.

The Shitlib does not like to read this article because Shitlib believes these concepts of freedom are totally compatible with one another. In other words, you can always have your cake and eat it too. And of course, they also believe that European colonialism must necessarily have been so much worse than what followed, etc. But the biggest conflict between the negative and positive conceptions of freedom is of Of course, between liberal capitalism and communism, embodied in the conflict between United States and Soviet Union, each championing one of these concepts. With the added note, however, I must repeat that even in this case, it is obvious that the desire of the communists was in fact equality, not freedom, but the human hankering for freedom

is so great, it is very telling they chose to sell their equality program in the language of freedom. Isaiah Berlin, where he wrote this essay in part, wrote it as a genuine attempt to convince precisely these new nations that were coming about with end of colonialism, who were trying to win independence in keeping with the positive conception of freedom, but he was trying to tell them that's great, but if you really want freedom, don't forget the first concept. Don't forget negative freedom, because that is just as important to human flourishing. Look, I don't like this line of talk, but I'm using this mid-century bow tie language in this. But he was saying it's just as important as positive freedom. In this case, meaning the national ethnic groups self-determination, but he was telling

them you also have to support negative freedom and so forth. And this is the David Sidorsky point in the article that I mentioned. There is, however, a third concept of freedom, and in fact it has perhaps its origins in 1930s or 40s and even before, which is called freedom to choose and craft your own identity. And as such it invalidates those other two ideas of freedom because, for example, in the first or negative conception of inherent or natural rights, the boundaries of the person are accepted or set. The self is not in question, it's a discrete entity, the individual with such and such rights. second or positive conception of freedom, the historical identity in that case of a people is a given, or the rights and needs of a deprived individual, the worker, or whatever.

These are a given and they are concrete, unchangeable, objective realities. Whereas in the third conception of freedom, the self is understood as protean, a self-creative entity that creates its own meaning and identity that has no inherent given. At least that the sphere of that given is very small and perhaps is itself subject to change. And I don't agree with Sidorsky here, who locates the origin of this understanding of the self, of the so-called authentic self-creative self. In Heidegger, he locates this, or maybe perhaps in the left existentialist interpretations of Heidegger that came about in the 1950s and 60s. But he is right that this third understanding of freedom, freedom to choose your own identity,

And of course this means to have others recognize this with all the social and legal consequences that flow from that. But that this, whatever its origins, whether you choose Heidegger or Prometheus or whatever from antiquity, I think both of this is wrong, by the way, and unnecessary to carry historical trace out that far back of this idea. But it was in the 1960s that this understanding of freedom started to have currency in certain radical left movements and to spread. And critical theory itself comes from intersection of this with so-called Frankfurt School. I don't want to get into that, but this conception of freedom was kept a little smothered because world geopolitics, such as they were, the conflict between the two great powers, so

obviously embodying the negative and positive conceptions of freedom, these two held sway in debates and intellectual life. But then with end of Soviet Union in 1990s with end of Cold War, this third conception of freedom that had been bubbling under the surface, it came to the fore, and since then, since the 1990s, it's become maybe the most prominent one. And it has its own sort of, you can think, political concrete reality backing it that now as ideological communism versus capitalism political age ended, the ideological age ended, The world starts to have a return to ethnic conflict worldwide, ethnic politics return. And although, for example, the struggle of Chechnya or Bosnia or Timor, the struggle

of these ethnies for independence can be understood entirely on 19th century, let's say, self-determination grounds. So, in other words, on the second or positive conception of liberty. But the multiplying claims of fracture from central authority led also to agitation on On behalf of new or chosen or invented identities and in the gender realm, it is not just a gay identity, which is of course totally invented as a political fracture point in the way I said on last few episodes, but feminism also, in other words, the idea of the woman as woman as somehow radically separated from the man as having a trans-historical woman identity outside the context of this or that particular nation or social class, this is something obviously made up, invented. In fact, it's a fantasy.

I don't need to even touch on the tranny thing, right? I mean, the epistemology of the transsexual phenomenon is even weirder, somehow claim that matter or bodies can be wrongly configured and that you are at bottom this disembodied soul separate from your body, a soul capable of being breathed into the wrong body, but also that this soul is male or female or other essences, I mean is bizarre beyond all the strange gnostic beliefs of antiquity, but they genuinely, or maybe not genuinely, they promote it of course, and of course if you make for this allowance, you must also ask why not also that you are a wolf or a fox, or more precisely that you are a Disney character in the wrong body, and that you're therefore, you're a furry, and that if you deny that

I'm Donald Duck and you deny having your kid sit in my lap, you are denying my self-identity and therefore you're a bigot, you deny me my freedom, you see. But this much we already know, we were bombarded with it, of course. This is more like identity politics 2.0. At the one point, all was the gays, and then a writer of this article, Sidorsky, gave other examples of invented identities. For example, the Quebecois identity and separatism that is also invented because in Canadian history there was no such thing as Quebecois identity. The French are co-sponsors, you could say, of the Canadian foundation. There was no separate Quebecois consciousness. It's made up, totally made up history, and also of the Palestinians, and I know this

will make some of you jump, but it's really not arguable, I know some of you will jump on me for this, but Palestinian is totally made up identity. It has no existence really before 1950s or 60s, and I will not repeat here the disclaimer for the sick-headed, but I've told you before, I believe America should withdraw all aid to Israel and also to the Palestinians, who by the way also get a lot of money, and also all aid to Egypt and withdraw itself from that whole conflict disengaged and let those desert savages continue their battles under whatever names they wish. But given that, however, you will never get me to agree that Palestinian is a real thing because Arabs from that area historically always saw themselves as continuous with other Arabs.

They never understood themselves as a separate people, never called themselves Palestinian, Which I find, by the way, quite offensive, as they have no historical continuity with the ancient Philistines. The Philistines were a people with obviously Indo-European, I mean, very small, but obviously Aryan elite that had come from Crete. It's about five days sail from that Levant, Crete is about five days sail, and that was the self-understood foundation of the ancient Philistines. It's probably true they had a Greek or Aryan elite, and they engaged still in typical Aryan personal duels of champions, and this, like you see in battle between Goliath and David. But Palestinians today exist as much as if you or I decide to go to Pacific Northwest

and we call for separatism and we call ourselves the Chinook people, despite having nothing to do with the Chinook inhabitants of that ancient land. So actually neither side likes what I'm saying now because possibly many Palestinians are in fact the descendants of ancient Israelites who convert to Christianity and then some of them to Islam and so in that sense they have as much or more right to be there than let's say a Russian who pretends to be Jewish and so forth but they always understood themselves however as Arab and the Palestinian thing is as fake as the gay identity another identity of struggle against homogenous colonial oppressor in this, which by the way, I don't even think the Palestinian deny the substance of what I'm saying here, because there is no way to deny it.

They are not much liked by the Ba'ath, for example, fundamentally, as I'm saying fundamentally now, of course, as practical matters, Saddam at the time support the Palestinians. But the Ba'ath, the Ba'ath party, as secular pan-Arabism, would have no need for a separate Palestinian identity. No one listens to me on this. Why you think Israel funded Hamas, by the way? Because the bigger threat is secular Arab pan-nationalism. But anyway, this is an invented identity, and in a similar way, so is Zionism, in that Zionism was what? Was originally a religious identity that got converted into a national one. And so, in matter of sexual identity, of national identity, I mean, you start to have these different claims that identity, whether against sexual or ethnic or national, can be created,

can be changed, and that this is what constitutes true freedom. And then within Western states, you have parallel claims that the state must recognize both individuals and also group chosen identities and cater to them by giving them social and legal protections. And so you're very familiar with this, this last push, which has been alternatively called multiculturalism or identity politics and so forth, it's obviously politically very significant and it's the bigger drive behind so-called CRT or critical theory more generally. But to call it out as what it is, if you really want to go to its provenance, what I've talked about so far and not Hegel or this, but CRT, original CRT, might be what? It might be the struggle of the Jewish community in the West or in America for precisely this

kind of treatment. So the claims that Jewish communities made since 1930s and even before in the United States, what claim did they make? You have to allow us a separate social existence as a self-conscious group in your country, but simultaneously you have to give us as individuals full political and social participation. And that this is a claim no longer recognized as outrageous chutzpah, but it really should be. What I just said now is an absurd claim. No state that is sane would have accepted that kind of deal in history, because, and especially in American sense, it is breach in fundamental American promise that part of the deal is that you abandon your ethnic group and its commitments and historical self-awareness.

Maybe you keep some of it as family souvenir, but you do not, for example, continue to send your kids to fight in the German army or keep a social apartments by sending them to German schools in this, nobody would accept that, and I think the Dutch Americans, some of them still speak Dutch in the home, or they can't speak Dutch, but it doesn't go beyond that. They don't go to Dutch school and only marry Dutch in this. So then there is awareness that if you allow this, another step follows, which is that you must now also recognize the dignity of our social partners, our ethnic uniqueness in various cultural and legal ways, you must recognize this now, and by the way, because of our historical oppression at your hands, and because my granddaddy was not allowed

to join your social club in this, and in particular, of course, because of the Holocaust, your entire media and education must be scrutinized for any possible criticism or indignity directed at us, and even beyond this, we are going to promote relentlessly in media, in movies, academia that you are part of an exceedingly evil oppressive civilization that has always been founded on supremacy, on monolithic this and that, on anti-semitism and on denying us our freedom and our self-expression as a people, does this sound familiar? And can you blame then other groups and identities, including invented ones, when they say well you did this for the Jews, why not for us? So after all, when you take Tarik and his buck-breaking lurid pornography and the whole

St. Floyd pornography, this was just following the path of Schindler's List and other Jewish Holocaust victimization porn, and making similar claims on American media and culture to accommodate, for example, this time black specialness and black sensitivities, but in the same way that had been done for Jews. So you know the provenance of this is actually very direct and clear, has nothing to do with Hegel or Calvinism, but you may understand why the real and immediate predecessors of CRT and the tranny thing and such, why that's untouchable. Because these people, the self-styled intellectuals, they're not going to criticize gay or Jewish or Palestinian group narcissism. And it's interesting, in his article, Sidorsky says that simply repeating the truisms, the

platitudes even, the truisms that nature exists, that natural limitations exist, that history exists, meaning that time is linear and decisions are irreversible, that all of this may be enough to offset some of these claims of this third concept of freedom, which is a crazy concept of freedom. In other words, to remind people that adopting this identity will free you maybe from some historical circumstance, but not from the irreversibility of historical decision. In other words, it will impose new necessities on you. And so the promise of freedom is not achieved. He gives some examples. I don't want to read because this segment is becoming too long. You can find this article, but I think what I've told you in this segment is just mostly intellectual exercise, by the way.

In other words, there's no real value to arguing right now with CRT by taking it as seriously as I did in segment. Only value I may see remotely, you know, the cynical motivations I mentioned above obviously don't apply to a confused teenager, for example, who want to turn trans, right? Such a person might not be motivated by race hatred or by oligarchic self-interest. Such a person maybe actually believes in the promise of freedom. So in that sense, they may be benefited by being reminded of nature, right? For a trans 19-year-old or something like this, right? For a trans furry or 19-year-old, the self, what do they understand? For them, the self is understood as this polymorphous or formless and free as the fount of self-creating

nature and the role on the other hand of stultifying convention is taken up by a monolithic West that tries to restrict the self and the self-realization with arbitrary oppression and coercion and so on and for such a person it might be worthwhile to point out that this understanding of the self is wrong that the promise of freedom will not be fulfilled and also that the West are more exactly European civilization is completely misunderstood in this scheme You know, as for the reminder of nature, trannies do not like this. My last few shows on the gay movement, by the way, were deleted from SoundCloud, I just found out today. Trannies and gays are some of the biggest tyrants, and absolutely no public criticism

of who they are, where they are from, no reminder of the limits placed on them by nature. None of this will be tolerated. They are some of the biggest supporters of censorship, much more so, I think, even than black community. But of course, James Lindsay will not touch the case, right? For teaching children in general about the West, may I suggest to activists and to dissentists or to others, do not just ban CRT. Teach children your own education. Promote an education that praises the heroic and great achievements of European men both in antiquity and now. Do not just react against the left. Take the fight to them. Your own vision of education and of the future. It doesn't have to be a bronze age or this or my theories I by the way, I never tried to have broad reach

I really thought I was writing my book for a few hundred of my friends But they can take other things they can of course teach Homer and other thing They can just unapologetically promote an education that shows self-confidence in your own culture your own history Americana history is fine bourgeois Americana history, that's great, but openly celebrate then the supremacy of that. You don't maybe need to use the word supremacy, but yes, a culture needs to feel supreme in its own territory. Supremacy because it is good and just and beautiful, so you take the fight to these demagogues of the subterranean undermen. Can you do that? Because if you cannot do this, you will lose. You can win only by presenting the resplendent alternative to their own vision of crippled homogenization.

Present instead health and power is that simple. Until next time, Bap out.