In the end, as we were once and for Germany, we wanted to say and to all the young people of this world to learn, we wanted to make a national stand, and to all the people who did not want to be lost, we wanted to make a right, and to all the people of Germany, Welcome Caribbean Rhythms, episode 89, and I tricked all of you. I have a very special guest. This has been simmering for a long time. I have on my show Mobug. He needs no introduction. He is world famous, eminence, grease, and old shaman of the, I do not want to say the right, but of the faction of truth. And Mobak, welcome finally to show. How are you? I am very well. I am very pleased and very honored that to be brought on your show. I've wanted this for a long time. You know, we've worked together since probably the 70s.

And for various agencies, of course, we can't say. And to meet now on Caribbean Rhythms is a tremendous honor. Noah, the honor is mine, Moldbug. And I see lately you have been doing some traveling. Have you been having the sushis? You enjoy sushis? I enjoy sushis, yes, yes. That's an interesting way to put it. Ascending from, if you know my story, being a widower, I'm engaged in the pursuit of eugenics, actually. A lot of people practice. A lot of people are into eugenics in theory. But I've sort of been looking at the question from a more practical perspective, because I have a very strong belief that life should come out of death. Yes, I strongly approve of your project. And I invite you, perhaps next summer we go together to Kazakhstan. Because I was thinking of finding

tall, robust, Asian-looking, but natural hapa. Natural hapa, yes. Yes. But actually, this question about sushi is one of my favorite episode from Bobby Fischer interviews. I may play it on, yes, maybe on next episode, Mobak. But I want to tell you a certain story, Because I am in a certain chat on Twitter, or DM group, a chat group. It's an NRX-adjacent chat. Many people from old Neo reaction, many friends are in it, you know Zero Lovecraft, but other friends. Oh, they are admirers of yours. You come up frequently in discussion. But the other day, I don't remember how this came about, but I saw them talking. They were saying that they had never seen a black man with chest hair, always hairless chest. And then they added that sometime you see Mulatto and his chest hair, but it looks weird.

And they did not mean that it looked weird in the context, because, oh, it's half black with chest hair, but the actual hair itself looked off somehow. And this reminds me of a long time ago, actually, the first forum I really posted on. There was a certain prolific poster there. His name was Limit. Please search Limit if interested. He was, let us say, some people would say mentally special, but I would say a seer of a kind. A seer, yes. Yes, a seer. And he had various very interesting theories. One of them was about how black people have pubic skin all over their body. Yes, he had this theory. On the scalp, entire body covered in cockskin. He says this, and he had, since you ask about that, he had such phrases as, imagine the fourth cubic centimeter

of the water shower on the pubic scalp. Imagine, this is what he said. And so his theory was that this is why black hair looks how it does, because they can only grow pubic hair, you see. The coils, the coils, the coils. Total body pubic, total body pubic. And I wanted to know your opinion on this. My opinion is, frankly, I mean, if we may be frank, I want to register two opinions. One is that, frankly, some of us are gayer than others. And some of us are more imaginative than others. And in any case, yes, it's a very interesting concept. It's a brilliant concept. It's really one that deserves to go down on the permanent record. I have no evidence of my own to suggest that this is true, or false, you know, and so I flag him. Well, I mean, I don't know.

Look, he was not just obsessed with this. He had theories about- This is very advanced critical race theory, Bap, right? Yes. You know, and so I'm just like, I'm not, you know, this kind of theory is so strong that I don't think I'm ready to judge it. Well, I mean, on the one hand, you could say this is an ancient tradition. Herodotus in book three talk about, I don't know if it was his observations, but he say that Ethiopians and Indians both have dark skin and also that the seed they emit is black. When she was lactating, I asked my late wife this question. And I proposed that contrary to Herodotus, the breast film was not black, but that it maybe had little black specks in it. I counted coconut milk. All right, all right, I have to control myself here.

This is brilliant work, and this is not the direction that I expected the sort of advanced. Well, look, we don't need to have a show about this. However, it shows something to me, because this type, I mean, the guy, OK, he had other theories, too, about the number of ribs that Jesus had, and bananas have these strings in them. He had very complicated theories, but yeah. He also had the black checks. Yes, exactly. But to me, he exemplifies this old internet that sometimes you talk about where, you know, my test for it is if you have schizophrenia posting, if you do a Google search for something and you find forums with schizophrenic like these complicated theories, you have freedom. I don't know. To me, yes. All right, let me talk very seriously after that excellent introduction

about the values of the old internet, because I'm such an old that I will tell you I was internet famous in either 92, 93, something like that. I was internet famous basically 30 years ago. Yes. Let me tell you, to imagine the internet of 30 years ago from the perspective of the internet of today, It's like imagining the Rome of Augustus from the perspective of the last Byzantine emperor, like Constantine Palaiologos. I mean, there's just no fucking comparison, right? The closest thing, what we had back then that was built on the internet was Usenet. And Usenet was basically a working, decentralized society known was in charge. basically the people who, the rules of Usenet were number one, you could only get an account if you were basically part of a certain kind of elite.

It wasn't that you had to lift. Maybe you should have had to lift. Maybe that would have saved Usenet if you would have had to lift. But you definitely had to be a nerd and you had to be either a student or an employee of a tech company. And that basically was a kind of quality restriction that sort of created a world that had kind of high quality, high trust socialization by default. That was the first thing that basically made Usenet live. The second thing was that sort of being composed of these elite people, sort of democracy of all kinds became a much more realistic possibility. You can't really have democracy among 50 IQ orcs, right? It's just not, you know, and we know just by extrapolation that we are descended from

exactly this kind of homo erectus, this beast, right, you know, that we would just like, you know, this orc and that's what an orc is. An orc is a pre-human and an orc is homo erectus and we have this deep terror of these things. You know, what the internet was 30 years ago was the opposite of that. It was the internet of elves, you know, and on this internet of elves, it was possible to have things like distributed self-governance. I think Ork is too kind, Mollbug. I see these threads on Twitter from, you know, I'm not talking about frog threads, but normie threads. I don't understand anything anyone is saying, is one word replies, anyway. I think that we can learn a lot from Tolkien's mythos. And I think it very significant that Peter Jackson did not

film the incredible ending of Tolkien. That should basically be, you know, the scouring of the Shire should be a movie of its own. And it should be done not by Peter Jackson, but more by Tarantino, maybe. Because it would have this, I mean, the great thing about Tarantino's last film is that it's sort of in this beautiful way gives this association between Manson and Jane Fonda or whatever, or the world of Jane Fonda, which is sort of obvious in retrospect. But you're just like, holy shit, this whole thing is like Hitler in January 6th. Of course, it's obvious, right? And I want to let Neapolitan Mastiffs loose on the Congress. Yeah, exactly, exactly, exactly. I want them to do what Napoleon did to the Chamber of Deputies or whatever, right? I'm totally pro-Napoleon on that one.

All right, next question. Where was I? Will, you were talking about Usenet. So OK, can it return? And the answer is it can return only in the case of a society that is in some way accidentally gated in this sense. Let me talk for a second. You have probably never been to Burning Man. I've never been to Burning Man. If anyone goes to Burning Man, let's say you took a 17th century or 13th century noble to Burning Man. What would they think of Burning Man? They would basically be like, this is an assembly of nobles. And then their second observation would be, this is an assembly of degenerate nobles. But the thing is, it doesn't really matter if a noble is degenerate. He's still a noble. This is a matter of what Tolkien would call blood, right? An elf can put on orc gear and, like,

shamble around with the orcs, right? And he's still a fucking elf, right? And so this is this kind of gathering of sort of degenerate elves. And what you see, basically, they're still elves. They need almost no government. And they sort of create these kind of beautiful collective structures as they come together. These are still the most valuable people in the world, you know, despite how fucked up they are, right? Yeah, this is a sort of difficult realization. And so Usenet sort of came out of this world, and it was a totally ungoverned space. So the space that I was in Usenet, in principle, was a space called talk.bizarre, which was exactly what you describe. It was often indistinguishable from schizophrenia.

I think that in retrospect, what some people called racism had been purged from it sort of before I entered it, but I was sort of, you know, one of the Rumbos of this space. I was really very similar to Rumbo in my kind of personal habits and my, the general difficulty of being around me. I did not go off and run guns. I basically went and worked in the software industry, but, you know, six of one, half a dozen of the other and you know I would return only unlike Rumbo I would not return to die I would return with next question that was basically that so the thing is that experience of the early Usenet was the an experience of the sort of the power of kind of true freedom to basically push forward certain kinds of excellence and of course even ten years ago we had the

blogosphere that could do that sort of thing and today Google search is simply indexed on and they sort of demand that it be more and more indexed on this like garbage clone you know bureaucratic media content which is just hilarious to anyone who remembers the internet of even ten years ago. Google is horrible not just because of political censorship but you used to search for anything and it would be these strange forums and now it's all like you say it's a search desert it's created a search desert it's like you know you basically dragged the bottom for these delicious prawns of content And now all you have is like garbage fish and algae, right? And so Google has turned into basically a search engine for the mainstream media, which is incredible. It's dead, you know

And this is why yeah, I mean I you know, well you created orbit I did Do you want to talk at all about that? No, I don't I don't like to talk about her a bit. Okay. No, it's okay Well, I because I want to know what alternative are for near-term future as As censorship increased, I was banned recently, many people are banned, I think the current state of what gets called the online right, but which I really unironically call the faction of truth. I like the faction of truth, it's strong, it's not weak. But the city bureaucrat reminded me, because I complained a lot lately about the condition of the right, and he reminded me, we were always in a minority, I mean the frog Twitter so-called faction, what came to be called frog Twitter.

And it's only, we made an alliance with the rest of the right because we had common enemy and common interest during essentially Trump campaign towards 2015 and so forth. Right now situation I think very bad, not just on Twitter but elsewhere, and it's I I think mostly caused by problem of censorship. Do you see, I mean, OK, not talk about URBID, but do you see any solutions for this in near term? I've been encouraging people to go to the contact and maybe I will be more active there. I don't know if that's solution. What do you think? I will say something briefly. URBID is, to me, it's primarily a technical project. I would have a hard time explaining it to most audiences. But for me, the main work is technical. But I sort of never, even though I designed it to, in some ways,

exist in this world of censorship, I never really expected that world of censorship to actually exist. So as long ago as like 2015, I would be like, oh, anyone? Yeah, in theory, Blogger could shut you down, but anyone can post anything to Blogger. So it's sort of interesting to see that world come about. My answer to the near-term question is, no, I would not move. I would basically keep fighting on Twitter as long as it's alive and basically start to use more and more tools. For example, you might want better tools to generate re-follows, for instance, so that your follower account, basically, if you use alternative external structures for the state that Twitter cannot destroy when it deletes you and when you create a new account, you're always fighting this kind of interesting struggle

with the evil bureaucrats at Twitter. And they have limited time and space. And so you see, basically, very notorious people manage to come back repeatedly and reliably. It destroys their follower structure. But the answer, the sort of the simplest answer is to find external ways to preserve and restore that kind of structure. And I hope that some frog will basically build something like that, preferably. Never mind. No, I understand what you're saying and need for discretion. I've told people my banning has not really hurt me. In fact, after they banned me, my book went to rank 200 to 600. It stayed there for three weeks. So thank you very much, Twitter. But it did impede me in one way, which is that I used to get information basically from,

I have frog friends in every major city in the world, and they would send me information. And so, yeah, and it breaks all these random connections. And so the answer is that you should not basically trust Twitter as a place to store this random information. Basically, you need to consider that account as a dependency of something more permanent that you actually own. And then you can reconstruct. Eventually, you should be able to reconstruct those social graphs in an ephemeral way on Twitter. Everybody should create a new account. You communicate in this separate world, which could be any. I mean, if anyone else has a, if there's any separate world that anyone has. You could communicate in this separate world and then automatically re-establish your graphs.

This is a more general case of the question of basically building cohesion out of internet movements or internet structures or internet whatever. We typically operate in our very atomized disjoints world with very loose connections between leader and follower. There's very little that followers are willing to do for their leaders. If you imagine basically, OK, how many orders of magnitude between A, someone follows you on Twitter, B, someone pledges 1% of their after-tax salary to you. Orders of magnitude. And yet, in the world where loyalty and duty, where collections of people could generate, I mean, if you're a Mormon, you tithe 10%, right? And so how many Bapists would say, OK, I'm so into BAP that I will give him 10% of my salary so that he can live in the necessary style, right?

And he needs to live in a certain way, right? I don't have salt pool yet. Where are my 20 hookers? Yeah, salt pool. No salt. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. No salt pool. I have no salt pool either. And so this is like the Rajneesh Osho Generated this kind of loyalty why she do not be able to right, you know, and and and so the Why she do not be able to and and and so, you know, this is basically shows the weakness of modern man I you know, I think we should break soon But I want to sort I want to recite a story from people eat tain whose absolutely wonderful Origins of contemporary France read all five volumes. Everyone should read tain is a god France has not progressed in any way certainly since Tain was writing in the late Victorian

era but he recu- he's basically he's recounting late in the Jacobin revolution and he's basically saying this is like 1791 1792 something like that and it's he's basically like how the fuck are these Jacobin motherfuckers still in charge when everybody in fucking France hates them just as we hate the like you know the the the longhouse HR diversity shrew bureaucrats right? You know, how are these people in charge? No one loves them. As soon as the worm turns and the table flips, you know, they will just be revealed as the creatures they are. And they'll have no way back like Stasi employees. It will be a source of permanent embarrassment in their lives, you know. But, you know, today we are still subject to their, you know, deranged ovarian rule. So, you know, what

is going on here? And Tain has this answer for it. He's like, basically, the The people of France cannot rebel against the rulers because the people of France are as disunited as the dust on the roads of France. Yes. Pre-asphalt. Remember this. He's like, there's not one Frenchman who can command the unconditional loyalty of a hundred other Frenchmen. And I read this and I had an epiphany, it was like, you know, history had reached out and touched me. Yes. And I was like, why are Americans so weak? There's not one American who can command the unconditional loyalty of five other Americans. Yes. And atomization is a sort of natural and complete condition. And so when you have subscribers who support you, who listen to this amazing show, for example, Caribbean Rhythms,

in a sense, those people are paying dues to a political party whose leader is you. Yes, but be careful. Yes, be careful. And so there's a sort of beauty of this structure, which People should lean into more and understand. This is only an analogy, of course. But this analogy is an important analogy to understand, because you should be able to navigate in the space of that analogy. And this is sort of another beautiful thing that has become possible on the internet, as many of the old roads have been closed off. Molbag, this very much to think on. I think you're right. We should take a break now. I meant to ask you, actually, a very important question. Many frogs, it's related to everything you've just said. Many frogs, I told some friends I'm going to have more bug on show.

What would you like me to ask him? They really want to know about correct path for young dissidents. I don't like the word dissidents so much, but people in our thing, how should they behave and so forth? You want to leave that for later in show or talk now? No, it's very simple. It's very simple. They should behave as if they had no strange ideas. The thing is, one thing you find among the upper classes, at least the most stable members of the upper classes, they live their lives in very simple, conservative ways. And so you really don't have to have any strange ideology or religion to be trad. If you feel it, you feel it. If it's real to you, it's real to you. That is great. Do it. But to live your life in a simple and traditional way while being completely undetectably normal

in your perspective is good. And the thing is, there is never any time you reveal your power level or even sort of behave differently than someone that was not afflicted with the truth. Because the truth in many ways is an affliction. The truth is a burden that you will have to carry. And in some ways, simply to carry this burden is enough. to share it is a virtue, but simply carry it and live your life as if you were not carrying this burden. And then when you find people that you absolutely trust that will not betray you in situations where your operational security is perfect, then maybe you can get together and share this burden in some kind of gay self-help group. But that's basically, that's the most. And I was just like, live your life in the straightest possible path.

It's very, very simple. I will have much more to ask you on this, but for now, Brennan is getting very feisty. He's getting impatient. He wants bathroom break. He's been massaging my feet. Brennan, why don't you put on that Merry Klezmer music for Mobug? Put on the Merry Klezmer music. The Jew music, the Jew music. Let us dance with the Jews. To Caribbean Rhythms, very special guest on show today, Mobug. And you may wonder why I call him Molbag. I'm not doing this to be snide. There are many frogs who I've met for a long time. Some are very close friends. I've met them over 10 years. And I still call them by their first code name. And a reason might be worth to get into. I don't know, Molbag, if you want to talk on this. But when I first went on internet

to play chess or comment on history or this, it never once occurred to me. And it's not even for personal safety or protection, but it never occurred to me that I have to use my real name or that I have to put my credentials up or whatever people do now. That would have been considered an extremely poor taste, actually. And the internet could be, in some way, a superior, I don't like to swear, but a superior space in the sense that it's entirely based on ideas, and that's good. And I'm proud to say, if I do not flatter ourselves too much, that both Mollbug and I have advanced entirely by the strength and attractiveness of our ideas to other people or nothing else. And I'm very proud of this. And that is what I believe internet should be. So that is why I call Mollbug, Mollbug.

I hope you don't mind this, Mollbug. I don't mind this at all, and I quite understand the reasoning. I mean, I date to that internet before the internet. On the oldest, the oldest layers of the internet had exactly the values you describe. yet men posted under their own names. And I can't even describe how this was. But, you know, it's like, you know, as Talleyrand said, you know, only those who have lived before the revolution have known the true sweetness of life. And so when I hear these things, I understand, I respect the values are true, but they're right for their time. And that is all that you can say of a set of values. Nonetheless, I pity, I have pity. So for the world that has never known the sweetness of life. By the way, I'm not against face fags. I'm not against face fags.

We need face fags. But face fags should not attack anonymity, because I still think it is, you know. Anonymity is the soul of everything. And one does not achieve face faggery. One has face faggery thrust upon one. And if there's any other way to become a face fag, let me know. I mean, I'll tell you actually how I became an explicit face fag. So there's a friend of mine here in the town in which I live, which is not the world's largest town. And I've sort of known him on the internet for many years, and he's become quite a good friend locally. And one day he comes to me, and he's like, do you remember how you originally doxxed yourself? And I was like, yes. Well, what happened is that I got this email from someone that was like, hey, just so you know, your identity is not really secure

because I can figure out this and that from the posts that you've made about using it and about grad school and so forth. And I think you're so-and-so. And I was so-and-so. And I'm like, OK, well, clearly, there's no protecting this. And I'll just break a hole in myself rather than living in fear. So I did that. And basically, about a month ago, my friend comes to me. And he's like, remember the person who sent you that email. It was me. And by the way, it really wasn't super easy to do that detective work. It took some pretty serious thinking there. And so I treated this as the hilarious gift of fate that happens to all of us. Maybe it's for better. Maybe it's for worse, the moving finger rights. Well, just give me that name, Molbag. I will have them deported to Mauritania.

They will be sold in a white slave market. At their time, there was no malice intended whatsoever. This is a true friend. This was the ethos of the old internet. And yes, nobody know. I mean, look, I'm not saying there should not be a white slave market. That's a different conversation. And the question of, I feel you have a kind of extremely broad-minded, one might almost say liberal idea on the subject of deportation, I think that should be considered as well. These are important perspectives, but let's not separate, let's not discuss them, let's not discuss them in the context of my friend, because as a certain friend of ours said, everyone has this good, nevermind, but... But I don't mean for some kind of population exchange where we point the feminists to Africa,

But that's a different talk. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we have to discuss where in Africa, because it's a big, my friend, it's a big continent. I thought it was the one country. I didn't know it. No, no, no, no, no. Very large. In any case, let's get back on track here. Yes, so I should say that Molbag and I were ordered to have this episode by a certain organization. This is, you know. But thank you. Yes, yes. It's important to acknowledge that at least, because people have these suspicions. And mostly they're wrong, but we want to be transparent. But that's as transparent as we can be. I'm sorry, go on. Yes, well, CIA was what people thought it was. But I want to talk on this segment about an interest that we've both had for a long time, which is Cold War history

and the fact that so much of America's establishment is, to put it mildly, left wing for a long time. And I would say it's much more than that, but OK. And we are both longtime readers of a certain Hilaire du Berriere. Have you read much of the HDB report? If there's one thing you have, how do you find it? Where is it from? It is now online. You can download it fully. And I'm in talks, I hope, with someone to have this published formally, but it's difficult. Hilaire Duperrier was, let's say, an adventurer. He was a mid-best American of the best kind, of French background. I think he was born in North Dakota. And he ended up being one of the early pilots of 20th century and fought on behalf of Haile Selassie. He fought in Spain on behalf of the nationalist forces.

He's fucked more woman than you've ever met. Yes, he's basically what James Bond pretend to be. But eventually, he ended up in Asia. He spoke numerous, both of course French, but numerous Vietnamese dialect, and ended up being the liaison of the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai to the outside world, essentially, and played some role in that conflict, Vietnam conflict. And he has a famous book, Background to Betrayal, which I was going to talk about next. But you wanted to say something about him. I'll tell you the way in which I found Background to Betrayal is I was in a closeout sale of a used bookstore. And I found this beautifully designed set of 12 volumes called 12 Candles of Liberty with just these beautiful paperbacks, immensely more attractive than, I'm sorry to my friends at Regnery,

but immensely more attractive than any conservative publishing could imagine today. Sort of beautiful art deco-ish covers. And within them were 12 little paperbacks. It was a box set of 12 paperbacks. These were published by Western Islands, which was the publishing arm of the John Birch Society, which there were giants in the earth in those days. And these giants were people being published in the 50s and 60s, but people from the pre-war and wartime eras. So they had the knowledge and understanding of the old world that is now lost. And these were great, great, great men who wrote these books. And they're all different. They're not part of some corporate Marlboro scam campaign to print out Cato Niskanen paid reports. These books were all books by individuals.

And I read with increasing amazement, because I bought this thing almost as a joke. I read with increasing amazement as they were all beautiful and amazing and true, each in their own ways. And together, they said more about the history of the period than I had ever even known. And one of them was Vietnam Background to Betrayal by Hilaire Duberrier. And through it, I sort of had a parallax view of the Vietnam conflict that I had never seen before. For example, I'd never seen the way in which Diem was essentially a leftist and how closely he was aligned with sort of the New Frontier and Humphrey and the American ADA liberal establishment. Yes. I mean, it's amazing that he was promoted by the AFL-CIO to begin with and, well, many other such thing.

I direct people if they want to read this book. It's one of most, if you want to understand politics today, I think this book far more valuable than, you know, a lot of people read Carl Schmitt today. Carl Schmitt's great, but this book names names. This book show example. Carl Schmitt is great, but in Carl Schmitt, there are no secrets. You know, in here, in here, you're introduced to a secret universe, which is much more compelling in many ways than the universe. And I know a lot about Vietnam. And you know, this book, it's like I know as much about Vietnam from background to betrayal as I do from all other sources combined. Yes, yes, no, absolutely. And it's not, the thing is, it leads you to study other things, including not just his book, but there are many other thinkers, perhaps,

well, not many, but a few who hint to similar things. This is what I wanted to ask you on this segment, because I just want to tell people on my previous, what you call it, the word is, member, by the way, People should know I'm drinking champagne, which I don't ever do during my own recordings, because I keep giving people this advice. If you ever record monologue, the worst thing you can do is have even one drink. It makes you sound like complete retard. But in conversation setting, it's fine. And so I'm having champagne right now. But on my previous account, I mean, the most hate I ever got was when I talked to people, when I made posts about how the CIA is essentially a leftist or even communist organization. And I have no idea. They have no idea. They have none.

And I would actually use the word communist. And who I would have jump at my throat when I say this is the so-called, I don't want to call them dirt bag leftist, some of them are good people, but the so-called post leftist, they would jump at my throat because they would say, oh. It's so part of, finish it, you know, right, right, right. It's so part of their mythology. And they take sort of the interesting exceptions and the deviations and typically deviations. It's all United Fruit Company, you know. Yeah, deviations, which are typically sort of favorable to these institutions. They take the deviations as the rule, and they don't see the rule. Because I want you to talk. I know you know a lot about this. I want you to talk about this for a second.

I just want to give audience some background. Because a lot of audience believe same thing. these leftists who present themselves as edgy online and who believe essentially that the CIA is a great Satan controlling world events for the last few decades, controlling reality for the last few decades. And essentially, they believe in some kind of mysterious union between the CIA and Nazis and capital with a capital C. But this is the view of Hollywood, actually, which has been promoting this for decades. Of course, it's the old Stalinist view. It's basically, it's straight up 1950s, basically literal communist propaganda. And so do you want me to talk about the roots of the Cold War? I do. I just want to tell audience just a quick background to this so they more completely understand.

Because again, to them, maybe if they saw Hollywood movies and if they were indoctrinated in school they believe roughly the same thing as the leftists do but they must understand no no no the CIA was never a right-wing organization in any sense it was basically communist and the examples that were just given if you read this book you will see how DiEM was essentially a creation of the Labour left by the CIA and similarly the CIA supported the Labour left all of this is perfectly true all of this is perfectly true and I can I can I can explain it in a simple way that you know essentially can I explain this for a sec yeah yes but let me just give audience one or two examples first so to make it concrete for them because the

counter-argument to this is all well the Soviet Union was left-wing it was communists, so the CIA had to go in places where communism was popular and present its own alternative left-wing brand to compete with that, and so they were forced to do that. But this is complete, so to speak, cope, I hate this word cope, but it's cope argument. You just consider the case of Vietnam, there was no left-wing movement there, the CIA created it from scratch. Similarly, I had show on Angola, more than one. I think number 25, but also my second show, which I was very unsure about, but many people say it's their favorite show, whatever, but it's on Angola. And the thing about Angola is, OK, you have, how did leftism take root there? You had American Committee on Africa.

The board included people like Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson. They started Union of Angola People in Leopoldville. The CIA started. This is not, when I'm saying these things, this is accepted history. It's not like conspiracy theory. The CIA started Union of Angola Worker, together with American Labor Movement, AFL-CIO. All of these were started in Angola, in Mozambique, as clear as case possible. FRELIMO was the communist movement. The founder of this, Eduardo Mondlany, Mondlane, whatever you want to call him, he was an anthropology professor at Syracuse University. And he started FRELIMO with a Mozambique institute founded by Ford Foundation. By the way, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's accepted by all major establishment historians. I just want to give people a guess.

This is a universal pattern that goes back to the 19th century. Yes, Tishombe in Congo. Anyway, I just want to, now I'll give it to Moldbag. He knows, sorry, I wanted, because people don't know. They are still into, oh, Pinochet, this and that, but. You could take it back to Kasuth. You could take it back to Lafa fucking yet, right? You know, and this is all, you know, you can certainly take it back to the Russian terrorists of the late 19th and early 20th century. These are all supported by Western energy. This is a completely normal and ordinary thing. And the problem with people with Cold War history as such is that I've noticed that something people do with history, which is, as you say, a cope, is they basically look at history.

And they say, well, up until such and such a point in time, history is the honest. History as we know it, as we read it in Wikipedia, as we read it in textbooks, is the honest and true story of what went on. It is as Ranka said, as it really was. Vian, Eigenlich, Gewissen, something like that, right? And so they sort of, but they realize that the narrative of the world they live in has diverged from this story. And so they ascribe a time, a date in the past at which this divergence must have happened. For example, for most conservatives, the state in ordinary cons, CPAC cons in America, the state is somewhere around 1960. You will find that they think basically Kennedy is fine. Kennedy is OK. LBJ is bad because he's a liberal. And then FDR is good.

All of history before of that completely converges with the mainstream track. This is an element of weakness. And there is simply no reason to think that the 20th century has anything like this shape, or any period from which the observers in the contemporary intellectual world are not far enough from the observed narrative to be fully independent. For example, today's historians still have a very clear bias on the subject of the English Civil War. If we get back to the Wars of the Roses, you don't really find that. You don't really find historians who are pro-Yorkist. Nobody writes a Yorkist history of the, nobody cares. And because nobody cares, OK, if you go back really fully 500 years, maybe 400 is pushing it. If you go back 500 years, rather than 50 years, Jesus Christ,

50 years, 60 years, you're just a pussy, right? And it's not even that you have to be prepared to rethink the mid-20th century, you have to be able to rethink the mid-18th century. This is a degree of power that most people, even almost everyone who thinks for themselves, doesn't really have. And so in some ways, it's much easier to deconstruct or reanalyze World War I, in which there are no real stakes than World War II. The usual summary, but the thing is, when people talk about the Cold War per se, they are normally speaking about it as sort of something that is built on the basis of World War II and of basically the tumultuous period between 1933 and 1948. And then their sort of history picks up. And if this history of 43 to 48 is sort of built

on a purely mythic kind of retconned propaganda basis, as I believe it is, then you have something sort of like your concept of the Cold War can't be very clear. Moreover, what's interesting, what's kind of cool about the propaganda in this period is that it sort of includes this interesting bait of, OK, we sort of justify this war largely in terms of the Holocaust. What if the Holocaust never happened? Actually, having looked into the matter, I think that the Holocaust is one of the best documented events of human history. However, almost everything else about World War II is kind of a lie. So for example, if you'll read, even if you just read the recent mainstream book Stalin's War, which basically shows very clearly that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a trap laid by Stalin for Hitler

to basically start the war, also known as the icebreaker hypothesis, completely mainstream historical book, then it's fairly clear that the FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor and basically used the fleet in Pearl Harbor bait as bait. Conspiracy theory is completely true. And just completely, the fact that we cannot find documentary evidence of this is as unremarkable as the fact that we cannot find documentary evidence of Hitler's Order of the Holocaust. Nobody would have written that shit down. And Hitler would not have written that shit down. FDR would not have written that shit down. And so the thing is that your story, once you accept, the first thing that you have to accept is the essentially mysterious nature of World War II. If you want to start, you might say World War II,

good for the Jews. It clearly wasn't. So the idea of we've been sold this war to save the Jews or whatever, World War II was never a war to save the Jews. Nobody thought that at the time. If anyone thought that, it was Hitler. And that's such a completely, no historian will tell you that. And yet, no academic historian will tell you that. And yet, basically, that's the belief in people's minds. In fact, World War II is also presented in terms of the story in which it was presented at the time, which is this world domination plot between Germany and Japan, which has essentially no historical basis whatsoever. Sorry to interject, but speaking of this, what you just said about, I have a friend, he is an old Jew, he actually fought in Israel, founding war, and he thinks that, essentially

he agrees with everything you just said. He thinks that if there had been no World War II, if the French and English consuls had been in Warsaw, there would have been no Holocaust whatsoever. Hitler's plan was not to kill the Jews, it was to deport them. Hitler's plan after deporting the Jews was to hold them as hostages. And what he didn't realize when, And he said this explicitly in his speeches. And what he had no idea of when he said this is that there were certainly influential Jews in the West. There were, for example, the Salzburgers of the New York Times. There was Felix Frankfurter. There was Brandeis. These were very influential and important people. But what they didn't realize is that these people were what we Yiddish-speaking Jews called Yekes.

They're actually basically stuck-up German Jews. And so these basically lice-ridden, jargon-speaking Eastern European Jews have been a burden on them for quite some time. And so Hitler is basically like, what Hitler has done is the equivalent of kidnapping your ex-wife, who you hate, and threatening to kill her. Of course, you're saddened by this. You don't want her to die. But the level of ethnic, World War II is not at all a Jewish war to conquer the world. And so Hitler's actions are on the basis of a view of the world that is, in fact, completely deranged and wrong. And that's one of the many, many reasons that he loses the war. So don't, under any circumstances, be wrong. But the thing is, when we look at the truth is that, in a way, when you look at the imbalance of material power

that Hitler and or Mussolini and Tojo, none of whom were acting in concert in any way at any time, They're all, you know, they barely, what we call the Axis is a press release. You know, for example, one thing most people don't know about World War II, you can easily look it up on Wikipedia, it's called the Pacific route. Most of the raw materials supplied to Russia in their victorious war by America, in their victorious war against Germany, were supplied by, you know, American built freighters flying under Soviet flags, sailing under Soviet flags from San Francisco to Vladivostok. And if you draw that on the map, basically, that's essentially right up Japan's asshole and out their mouth. So the Axis is such a real thing that Japan lets America supply Russia by crawling up its ass.

Why does it do that? Why does it not basically just say, oh, in 1941, wow, we can conquer Eurasia, like in the Philip K. Dick fantasy, like, you know, Germany goes east, Japan goes west, done. Easy enough in retrospect, it's the obvious move if you're playing the axis. The problem is there is no axis. There is no conspiracy to conquer the world. These are rebellions by three countries against what we have come to know as the international community, which is essentially the Anglo-American empire. And these rebellions include, you know, which are crushed with enormous force, you know, sort of naturally have a very bloody character to them. And many bloody deeds are committed amidst these rebellions. And we can sort of blame, in a way,

the failure of the rebellion and the bloodshed created by it, namely the Holocaust, are in some ways inseparable because they are both signs of profound misjudgment. And it is a misjudgment that, like, you know, whatever God's rule history is utterly impatient with this terrible misjudgment. On the other hand, when we say World War II intended to save the Jews, no. Good for the Jews, no. This is like, from the perspective of the Jews, World War II is a horrific act of organized negligence at worst, at best. And like anyone who's basically planning FDR's decisions and actually cares about the Jewish populations of Eastern Europe would have many easy solutions to basically not produce that result. The truth is actually these people were anti-Semites even the Semites in you

know we're anti-Semites in the sense of hating Yiddish speaking Jews like my ancestors and and they didn't give a fuck. And so you know but that's only a minor aspect these atrocities in a way from a historical perspective while immense and truly meaningful are sort of from the sort of history from the diplomatic history of World War II a minor aspect. And the true diplomatic history of World War II, to be very very simple, is that the leading figures in American high liberalism viewed the Soviet Union as their strong right arm. And they basically saw this, they saw World War II as an excuse for the revolutionary conquest of the world and the destruction of old Europe, which they hated and so and of the old empires which they wanted to basically

confiscate and destroy and so you know when you met when you mention Angola for instance or you mentioned Vietnam of course you know there are very active cases of the US and the USSR again totally undisputed by history for example in the Suez crisis what we see is sort of the the last old guard of the this is certainly not unified Britain and France but this is the last of the Imperial Guard in Britain and France against and and then rising power of Israel against the US and the USSR. Yes. And and and so again you sort of see the old Revolutionary Alliance. And so you know what explains the Cold War so so to speak is that this is one I prefer to refer to as the Anglo-Soviet split because this is essentially one movement for international revolution. The

The Americans in this revolution never see themselves as tools of Moscow. They always hold the actual CPOSA and the actual tools of Moscow at an arm's length. They see themselves as superior to Moscow. Moscow is their pit bull. And then only in 1945, when the pit bull has killed all the cats it can find, do they realize that it is not their dog. And that is where the sort of world of competing empires comes from. Those empires will always combine against something that they perceive to be prior to and outside of it. As we're getting late in the episode, so let me tell you one more story that in my days of sort of researching the structure of the world that I found. This was back, must have been 15 years ago. And I think it was before I was even blogging.

And I was reading some very extreme South African blog, very obscure. And it claimed that in around the year 1960 or so, a scholar at the Carnegie Foundation had produced a military plan for a joint US-Soviet invasion of South Africa to eradicate apartheid. And I found this claim so unbelievable that I went and used inter-library loan to basically search out this document. It was called United Nations, South Africa and United Nations Collective Efforts. It was written by some woman in her 20s at the Carnegie Foundation, not unlike the way the Japanese Constitution was written, for example. And, sorry, Japan, I feel so bad for you, Japan. And the guy, yeah, you're so close to having balls. There's so much there. I love you, Japan. But in any case, this was the last true.

This military plan was only the last chapter in this incredible document. first there were plenty of economic sanctions and so forth such as were afterward applied. Furthermore the ANC was being funded both by CIA and KGB. Nelson Mandela our hero who was sold to me sold to us by our hero and terrorist. Its biggest fund was Sweden you know. Yeah yeah but I mean you know it's all one thing man I mean you know the the the and and you know Mandela is you know Mandela is this guy who is sentenced to jail for basically plotting to blow people up with bombs. While in jail he authorized killings in which civilians were blown up with bombs. Some have harsh on me for comparing Mandela to Breivik. I'm sorry I don't believe in blowing

up civilians with bombs. I think it's retarded. And yet for Mandela it was quite effective. He first became, he sort of came into, I remember when Mandela was coming into sort of American consciousness in the 80s because he was like, he was still on the international terrorism list for many, many years. I think they only took him off in the early, maybe in the early 2000s. It was a serious problem when as the president of the new communist South Africa, he had to visit America. Of course, it was always denied that Mandela was actually, as well as being the head of ANC was on the Politburo of the SACP, the South African Communist Party. That was also revealed after his death, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So one of the books in the 12 Candles of Liberty book is this very interesting book called The Shanghai Conspiracy, in which sort of MacArthur, MacArthur was the last non-communist shop in the U.S. government. He had an intelligence officer named Courtney Willoughby who wrote who was also non-communist. And sort of Willoughby was shocked by the fact that in Shanghai essentially the U.S. and Soviet intelligence world interconnected and became one thing. Yes. And it was just like it was like finding you know it was like the finding the resonance of Innsmouth who were like a half human and half fish god right you know you're just like wow like the one thingness it's sort of like the one thingness that connects the quote civil rights movement

of the 30s, self-determination in the black belt, et cetera, et cetera, National Negro Congress with the clean civil rights movement of the 60s. You shine even a small microscope on this and you recognize terribly important institutions like the Highlander Folk School that are members of both of these things. You identify people like Stanley Levison, who Levison, who basically was Martin Luther King's handler and speechwriter, who was also until the same year in which he started this, a member of the US Politburo, right? And so the thing is that this world in which there's this kind of magic purity of American liberalism of the FDR years and American liberalism prior to what I call the Anglo-Soviet split, where, again, the American best and brightest, the real powers

of these bureaucracies, were very, very capable people at this time, realized that the Soviet Union, that Stalin is not, in fact, their hard-right fist, that Stalin is a competitor. And at that point, you get this effect of these competing revolutionary empires and often collaborating revolutionary empires when they're ready to collaborate, for example, against Salazar's Portugal, as you saw in the case of Angola. So this is a very simple picture. It makes complete sense. And it's much easier to explain the Cold War while explaining that context of the Cold War. Oregon, the Anglo-Soviet split. Yes, the South Africa story you tell remind me very, you know, there are some factoids that very revealing. One of them is Botha when he was defense minister

had this communique saying that we have far more to fear from the United States than from the Soviet Union. This was in 1977, I think, or 79. Yes, but Botha makes a great mistake. Botha, like the Greek, like the Greek colonels, basically believes that he has succeeded, and therefore having succeeded, he can open up. And so, it's under Bota that television comes to South Africa. Bota selects as his successor, de Klerk, who is the South African Gorbachev, right? And so, and surrounding the whole country. I'm not defending Bota, but I'm just, I'm illustrating part of what you're saying, which is, yes, absolutely, this United States, which the United States CIA, which is supposed by leftists to be, you know, they have this mythology about Operation Paperclip and what you said earlier.

No, no, no, they were not supporting apartheid and, I mean... It's all gay, it's all gay. It's like, it's not worth, it's not even worth, like, it's not, you know, these people need to realize that, like, you know, it's sort of like trying to refute the logic of, like, Jim Jones in terms of, like, you know, the logic of Jim Jones. Yes, at a certain level it refutes itself, but, You know first, you know, you know, it's sort of like it's like, you know Sort of arguing with an addict about he does too much heroin. He should do a little less I'm like man, you know this whole way of thinking that you have this whole world that you have is Like I know you believe in it. It is based on a delusion, you know, there's something you know

When I just switch subjects lately, I know this section is going on very long to switch subjects, you know In a certain way, you know my attitude toward the feeling of giving up leftism reminds me of a totally irrelevant anecdote that I learned from my first motorcycle instructor when I was learning to ride a motorcycle. Some have seen me in my motorcycle jacket. They feel it's an affectation. It's a protective garment. I no longer ride, but I could. And this motorcycle I was talking to at the motorcycle safety class, I was talking to the instructor because I lived in a city, I was a 20-something metrosexual, and I was like, maybe I'll get one of those little faggy scooters, like the Italian Ragazzi ride around in all the time.

And I mentioned this idea of getting a scooter to my instructor, who of course rides a BMW, which is the only acceptable bike except for certain Italian vehicles. And maybe if you're a true kind of American, a Harley. But you can't fake being a Harley person. Don't do that. Don't larp that. In any case, but anyone can ride a BMW, and should, if they're going to ride a bike. In any case, basically, he looks at me and he's like, well, you know, there's actually one advantage to a scooter. And I'm like, what is that? He's like, well, every scooter can be repaired with the same simple tool. I'm like, what tool? I'm like, all you need is a long chain. You need a simple chain. It needs to be about 20 feet long. And if you have any mechanical problem at all with your scooter, here's what you do.

You take the chain, you wrap it, you knot it around the steering column, and then you walk out far enough until the chain is completely taut, and then you drop that end of the chain and go get yourself a real bike. And that's, you know, that's what giving up leftism should feel like. It should feel like just this incredible shit. It's not logic that like, you know, wants to propel this turd out of you. It's like the turd itself wants to leave your body. Are we done with this section yet? Was that, that was a little long? No, no, this is good. Look, Bolbai, I could talk about the history of this type of details all day, and you can get as autistic as you want. Actually, I did have one more question about this subject, but perhaps we leave it for after break,

because, you know, Brennan is here, he insists, no, Brennan, if you wanna give me a foot massage that cost you $2,000, he does not have. This is the perfect perfect time to do this because they're actually, you know, for like there are no women in my presence And and like so this is amazing. We should take full advantage of this and go wild. No, this could move back So let's think break and we will be right back. All right. Thank you so much I have our autistic spergoloid discussion on Cold War but this is good because history very interesting Bolbag, we were talking about a problem of similarity American communist policy during, let's say, a period after 1940. And I just want to tell, excuse me, 1948 or so. But actually, 1940 is fine, too, because FDR organization,

this used to be a conspiracy theory denied by many. But now, Venona paper reveal how basically entire FDR administration was Soviet-owned, all the officials and so forth. But for the, yes, OK, well, we can get to that in a moment. But after 1948, there is, I want to give audience some background on the two main theories of what was going on with so-called CA or State Department collusion with the Soviet Union. And there are two views on it. One of them is that this is the minimalist case, is that the CIA, and I've used that as shorthand for other government organizations also, was completely penetrated by sympathizers with Soviet or communist ideology. And this is very easy to see now. When leftoids attack me for this now, I like to ask them, there are very many ambitious young men

just like you in 1930s and 40s. What do you think they did? You don't think they joined OSS and CIA? They were welcoming that. And there are many both events, which partly we covered on last segment. We can do on this one other examples. But there are also small anecdotes that I like to tell, for example, when Ho Chi Minh succeeded in Vietnam in 1940s, I had this from primary source that OSS men did a little jig. That was the expression. They did a little jig. Now, why would they be so cheerful at Ho Chi Minh's success in Vietnam that they would do a little jig? Is it because they hated the French so much? Maybe, but no, it's more likely they were communist sympathizers. And so the minimalist case is that some of these examples we discussed on last segment were because entire CIA State

Department full of, you know, James Jesus Angleton, he came in, he was convinced that entire United State intelligence apparatus would be penetrated by the Soviets. And so he took extreme measures to prevent that. And after James Jesus Angleton disappeared, what he predicted actually came to pass, which is that by 1980s, this penetration was complete. And so, Edward Blutwach, who was a commentator, historian, he's very entertaining, he's fond of pointing out that actually America completely lost the intelligence war, that the people that America thought they had in the Soviet Union were actually found out after the fall of the Soviet Union to be living in dachas outside of Moscow when America thought that they had been executed for being spies for America.

In other words, America never had any human intelligence, so to speak, that was believable after James Jesus Angleton because they were completely penetrated by communist sympathizers, communist spies, and so on. But that was the case even before, and maybe during, James Jesus Engleton times, to the extent that there were these coteries or cliques of communists and so forth. Now that's the minimalist case, at the very least I think that's true. The only exceptions that can be maybe pointed to are the ones you see in Hollywood movies, United Fruit Company, Guatemala, and Pinochet of course. But in Pinochet's case, I like to point out, was it United Telegraph Company, or I forget the exact name of the American corporation. ITT. ITT. ITT, yes. Had enormous investments in Chile.

It was going to lose them when the communist Allende was running and they saw that he would win and they wanted to prevent that because they would, you know, he would nationalize their businesses, their investments, they would lose everything. So they went to the CIA in the 1960s and they begged them, please kill Allende or coup him, stop him from winning. And the CIA repeatedly refused to do this. And Allende came to power in 1970 and people forget he stayed in power until 1973, 9-11-1973 is when Pinochet overthrew him three years later. So when people say actually, oh, the CIA overthrew Allende, well, CIA had many opportunities to stop him and did not do it. What people actually mean when they say that is the CIA did not stop Pinochet from overthrowing Allende. That's all they- Exactly.

Exactly. Pinochet did not need CIA to overthrow Allende. He had enormous popular support. But this is the minimalist case. The maximalist may be case for, let's say, Soviet-American collusion, would be something that I read from reactionary sources from 1970s and 1980s, which says something like the following, that there was a cartel, and no, it is not the Jews, okay, although some of them, they had a partnership in that, they claim or whatever, but no, it's some kind of cartel that used the Soviet Union as military muscle to destroy European colonialism so that corporations belonging to this cartel could step in and take over from, let's say, the fall of European colonialism. So this is a very interesting claim because it shows that globalism is not the success,

In some sense, it's the successor, but it's not a continuation of colonialism as lefto aides and others today suppose. It is something that is against colonialism. When I first heard this case that the United States, certain factions that own the United States were using the Soviets as muscle to destroy European colonialism so they could move in and take over, I thought, no, this is weird Alex Jones tear stuff. I don't believe it. I mean, it's funny, but I don't believe it. But these people bring quite striking historical examples that are difficult to mold back to explain in any other way. I mentioned Angola. There are examples from there. But one of my favorites is the Congo. Now, leftoids like to say that, so the Congos belong to Belgium, OK? And leftoids like to say that Lumumba,

who was the first, let's say, African leader of Congo who took over after the Belgians, they don't say how he took over. But they say he was overthrown by the CIA. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is exactly the opposite. Lumumba took over from the Belgians in 1960 with Soviet direct help, but with American funding. And this, I think, quite well documented. Lumumba was then overthrown, not by the CIA, but because his rule was so brutal that African tribal leaders had had enough of him. They got rid of him. And they brought in this man named Moiset Shombe. And Shombe was a very debonair, dapper, elegant man, a member of Congolese royal family. His sin, however, was that he was pro-Western. He was pro-Belgian. And so he was overthrown in, I think, 1964, 1965.

He was overthrown and replaced with Mobutu. Mobutu Sesekekukundigabenga, I love this name. But he's a- This is a much longer name. This is only, you've not even scratched the surface of Mobutu's name. It's very, yes, it's very prestige, long name, yes. But he took over after Tshondae and he was an anti-Western leader and he took over again with CIA help. Now, the common line in all of these happenings is what? You have Belgium owning Congo. What does that mean? They're extracting resources from Congo. And who's benefiting from that? It is Belgium. And yes, it is the Belgian elite, but it's also the Belgian people. The most extreme example of, let's say, popular colonialism is Portugal, of which I know the most about. And in the Portuguese empire, you could go to what is now called Maputo,

but it has beautiful train station. Lorenzo Marques. Yes, Lorenzo Marques. And it was a beautiful Portuguese city, more or less beautiful, but with a lower class, lower middle class, middle class Portuguese man who felt that he didn't have opportunities in Portugal. Could live very well. They could go there and live very well, exactly. And so what I'm trying to say is that actually colonialism was a kind of supranational system in that Portugal, Belgium, et cetera, respectively benefited from it. They were nationalist systems, essentially extensions of nationalist systems. And what this argument is saying is that there was a certain cartel that did not want this. Not because they hated the Portuguese people per se, but because they wanted those resources for themselves.

And so they used Soviet subversion and Soviet muscle to, let's say, destroy Belgian ruling Congo, put install Lumumba, or later to destroy pro-Western ruling Congo, destroy Tshombe, who was a pro-Western leader, replace him with Mobutu, who was not Marxist, but he was a nationalist anti-Western leader. And what really struck me in both cases is these people document how actually Belgian companies lost franchises, and they were replaced by other companies, by American and multinational actually companies. And so they document quite well, I mean, the facts in this case speak for themselves. Soviet muscle was used, European colonialism was destroyed, and who profited? It was multinationalist, multinational companies that moved in and took over.

So this might be conspiratorial mindset, but whatever, this is the maximalist case for for what I'm saying, as opposed to minimalist. This is just introduction for audience to understand reactionary 20th century, some, we're just scratching surface here, but some of the history. Mollbach, what do you think about this? Where do you stand on it? What do you think of these two competing theories or do you have your own? Well, both of these theories are sort of slightly wrong, I would say, with no offense intended, but they're sort of slightly wrong in interesting ways. Let me first go into the first theory, which is your minimalist theory is sort of the theory of classic 1950s anti-communism. And it's interesting to note how much the sort of fear of kind of the puppets of a foreign master

kind of it has this kind of science fiction quality, this invasion of the body snatchers, like the communists are like servants of the invisible puppet master in Moscow far away. This is very far, when you refer to the world of the American communist, high or low, this is very, very far from what I would regard as the truth. And the truth is much more, for example, when I look at the world of Alger Hiss, if I compare Alger Hiss to an 80s spy like Aldrich Ames, Aldrich Hiss knew that he was a traitor. Alger Hiss did not think of himself as a traitor. This is why everyone in Algiers is the founder of the United Nations, Assistant Secretary of State. His shop is discovered to be passing documents to the Russians, internal State Department documents to the Russians.

The truth is that this was almost certainly approved by FDR. No one around Algiers regarded themselves. Dean Acheson, his boss, did not regard himself as someone who had been betrayed. They regarded Algiers as someone who, unfortunately, had to be thrown to the wolves. And so what Algiers was doing, in a sense, is imagine someone in the Pentagon today, a neocon, who was like, Israel is our ally. We should treat Israel the way we treat Britain. Because of this, I will basically give Israel the same access to our secrets. I will do unilateral foreign policy in the interests of the United States. And I will bypass bureaucratic restrictions and give Israel the same access to our military secrets that we give the UK, right? And so once you basically sort of imagine

that in the world of the American communist, you start to see sort of the true relationship, the true pre-Cold War, and even post-Cold War vision of the Soviet Union. Because it was always the vision from 1917 to 1989 was always of convergence. these two systems, this was always the vision of the American establishment. Yes, our Russian cousins were rude and crude and, you know, they would eventually converge with us, but just as they were in World War I when Russia was under the Tsar, it was unavoidable that, you know, they would become the strong right hand of the sort of Atlantic world in its attempt to crush the old continent. And, you know, I always refer to my three-word summary of World War II, if you have to describe World War II in three words,

the best you can do is America invaded Europe. And once you settled on that, the details of how America invaded Europe, what else happened, why America invaded Europe, why did Europe not invade America? Would you make the same case for Harry Dexter White and such? Yeah, absolutely, Harry Dexter White. And so the thing is, basically, these people do not have any conception of the Soviet Union as a peer. They do not see the Soviet Union as a peer or a competitor. They see it as a satellite. It is a troublesome satellite, but a very useful and effective satellite. And so that vision of, unfortunately, in that vision of Russia as an American satellite, the people who condone Russia's crimes are very similar to, say, the Vichy French who condone the crimes of the SS they were working with

or whatever. Or like the Nazis when they're like, oh, we didn't do a pogrom in this town. That was the Latvian SS. Well, you opened the door for the Latvian SS, right? And so that gives Americans who supported Stalin, who viewed Stalin as their kind of strong right arm, really a very substantial amount of complicity. Imagine if you were, let's transfer this into the 21st century. And instead of progressives, which they called themselves even then at the time, let's use lawlbertarians. So imagine that you're a lawlbertarian, and you read that the lawlbertarian paradise has been established in Honduras. And you see all this great press coming out of Honduras. It's like Gulch times 12. It's taking off. Everybody's using Bitcoin. It's all beautiful.

Pictures are coming back, blog posts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And then there's some asshole. Some asshole writes some random pamphlet, blog post, freak stuff, totally fringe information about how, actually, in Honduras, hundreds of thousands of native Indians are being killed. Just actually, they're being buried alive, literally, to fertilize the soil. And you don't really want to believe that. You want to basically be like, OK, yes, this is the new good Honduras. Yes, everyone there is suspiciously white, whatever. This is a part of, I don't know, Honduras' new eugenics program. It's fine. It's good. And you start making, this is the way my grandparents behaved with respect to Stalin. I just want to take a short aside to tell people, none of what Mollbug and I are seeing here

is motivated by personal animus against... Molbak family, he does not hide that they were communist. My family, I've told you before on this show, all my grandparents were communists. Some were communist government official. They were hardcore believers in the justice of communism. I know many old-style Marxists who are noble, people that believe in justice and so forth. None of this is motivated by that. I just wanted to tell people that... No, no, these powers are bigger than any human being, you know, and yes, yeah, yeah, so essentially that misperception that is sort of what you call the minimalist perception that's very similar to the 1950s perception, it sort of really minimizes the problem because Whitaker

Chambers said it very well in his memoir, Witness, he's like, well I aimed at this sort of strictly communist thing, this tools of Moscow, but I hit something else which was sort of the main force of American liberalism, and I realized that, you know, I was basically, you know, shooting at the tail and ignoring the dog. And, you know, the dog that is basically the America that decided it was a cool thing to, like, conquer, you know, Europe with Stalin as its strong right hand, no matter how much of European civilization it destroyed or how many Jews got killed in the process, you know, that America has some fucking shit to answer speaking as a Jew, you know, and then to go and destroy the third world.

It's like when you, the problem with your maximalist interpretation is that it has this weird Marxist tone that I just want to get rid of. The truth is much worse than this. There is no cartel. It's an entirely decentralized cancerous force. You're talking about the maximalist case. maximalist case. I have now switched to the maximalist case. And the way, it's very interesting that you should mention the Congo in this case. I forget what source I was reading. I've read many sources on this Congo disaster. You know, the history is, you know, you simplify the history a little bit, but you're basically right as far as I know. And there was one point, I really forget the source, where they interviewed this Belgian who was being forced

out of the Congo. And the Congo, just as you describe, you know, the world of Portuguese Africa, the world of Belgian Africa, everyone sort of skips over the period from Leopold II, which by the way itself is kind of much debated, to like, you know, the like Congo civil wars. These are the, you know, these are the period in which the Belgian Congo is just the marvel of the world, right? It's completely successful. And they build hospitals, they build, yeah. Yeah, Leopoldville turns into this amazing city, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I saw a New York Times story that was sort of forced to acknowledge this because it sort of attributed the rise of AIDS to this period. It was very, very strange and shameful.

But if you read Adam Hochschild, who was like a hereditary communist dignitary, he'll just skip right over this period, or he'll be like, oh, yeah, somebody was like beaten while in prison. Yeah, sure. You know, presumably no one is being beaten in Africa today or even in the Congo. But the, you know, hack of a job, Adam. But in any case, the Belgian who is being interviewed is like, I understand why America would want to steal the Congo. It's a beautiful place. It's an amazing place. I don't understand why they would want to steal it and burn it to the ground. And so, you know, if you look at the profits that are lost by the destruction of colonialism, and by the way, you know, one thought I've had for a little while is that, you know,

I think in the future when we look back on, you know, the tremendous destruction that was just so recklessly wreaked on the rest of the world after World War II, we're going to think about it and we're going to realize that, you know, I think people should really, are really going to learn to see anti-colonialism in much the way we see anti-Semitism today. And so when I hear these kinds of remarks, I'll be like, cool it with anti-colonialist remarks. And so that's the future, but now we're in the present. We're establishing this horrendous truth. And the Belgian is like, I don't understand why the United States would want to steal the Congo and then just burn it to the ground. I would think they would want to exploit it. And yeah, maybe there's some exploitation,

but this fantasy of the multinational corporations is like something out of a bad James Bond film. Like, it needs to go away. And what's worse than that, this is an entire cultural movement based on power and domination. This goes back to the United World Federalists in the 30s. These are people who are like, this is very much the feeling of state and post-war, pre-war state actually has kind of one of the last reserves of kind of right-wing power inside the bureaucracy. Post-war state and post-war CIA, they're always on the same page and it's always the leftist page. And the ideology of state is that we are going to conquer the world for its own good. And the thing is, once you have an ideology that says

we are going to conquer the world for X, you don't really worry too much about X. You basically worry about the job of conquering the world. And so when you're basically, it sort of feels good to have an impact it's like the destruction of the Congo is the same thing as the Arab Spring but nobody really argues that you know who got anything out of the destruction of Syria of Libya whatever and what this always makes me think of is basically the difference between a dog and a wolf if you go back for example to kind of the Golden Age of American imperialism you will see an animal that hunted and it often hunted using some of the same tactics that we use today sort of liberal imperialism you know the Spanish

which, you know, maidens are being violated, but this is 1898, you know, and so, you know, we use these kinds of, this kind of, you know, frankly predatory and just sort of like pro-prosterously demagogic liberal imperialist techniques to seize Puerto Rico and Cuba and the Philippines. And you know, one of these is a very valuable place, unfortunately it's the one that we have the least control over, and relinquish the soonest. And like, but it's like enormous profits are made out of this. And this is something, this is why you have this meme, is that it's something that as the farther back you go, the more, you know, like you can go past 1898, you can go back to William Walker, the gray eyed man of destiny, right? You know, who doesn't love William Walker?

You know, is he not one of the great American, yeah, right, you know, this is, is this not the true tropical Yarian, William Walker, right? gray-eyed man of destiny right and and and so you know you sort of go backward into the past and like United Fruit is this like extremely tame version of William Walker and it's tame and it's bland and it's corporate and so you go backward into the past and you find real imperialism you find that the same ruthless liberal techniques which are used to tear down the government that exists are also used to create something that's new the u.s. occupies Haiti use occupied motherfucking Haiti and gave Haiti the best government it has had since Louis the Fourteenth was a little boy. And then left and Haiti resumed its kind of heskith

state. It went full Lothrop Stoddard and now it's coming here. So that's sort of this history It's like you go back to, like, is the acclamation given to Louis Cassuth after 1848 any different from the praise given to, like, remember Google Guy in the Arab Spring? These were two incredible shit shows that caused incredible bloodshed. And America's like, oh, let's cheer, oh, yeah, cool, Forces of Liberty, oh, sorry, you got fucked in the ass, Forces of Liberty, oh, well, good try, you know. And yeah, that's sort of, you know, Cuthu's kind of defeat tour when he comes to America in like 48, 49, whatever it is, after getting his ass kicked by the avenging reactionary Russians. And yeah, so this is not a new game. What's new about this game, however, and what's new

and destructive is exactly the opposite of what you posit. Because you posit that this game has a purpose and a meaning, and it's to make certain Bond villains money. If you will forgive my English this is pure crap you know actually it's it's quite the opposite of that it's like the difference between a dog and a wolf like a wolf is a natural animal and has all the natural instincts of hunting and killing and eating put together a wolf will basically break into a sheepfold it will kill a sheep it will eat it it will not be excessive I'm not saying this is true of real wolves but it should be but you know whereas a dog has sort of these reflexes that it's like fun to kill, but it will basically go and kill a sheep, a two sheep, three sheep,

four sheep, five sheep. It's like, you know, playing Doom on easy mode, right? And then go home, you know, and like demand its kibble, right? And it has this, it still has this killer instinct, and which sort of manifests as the urge to liberate, which means basically taking the Ghidafis of the world, the Asads of the world, and a one stone that is upon another stone, pushing it over. It's like the Monroe Doctrine, first you can't have European monarchies in the New World, then you can't have any monarchies in the New World, then you can't have any dictatorships in the New World, now the whole New World has to basically be run by the Latin American Studies Department of Harvard. This is a natural progression along which the shooting of Emperor Maximilian or the

the fall of the Científicos of Porfirio Díaz, these are just steps down in this endless, relentless pass of facilis de sensis a verno. And this is the tragedy of the third world. And once America decides that no person is illegal, which is no one can really say, oh, yeah, your rights as a human being, your civil rights, should depend on the GPS coordinates where your mother squeezed you out. Does God already have you tracked, your soul tracked on a GPS or something? It's ridiculous, right? Obviously, no person is illegal. This is just plain racism, you know, the whole idea of immigration control is obviously racist. Therefore, you know, this is already happening, you know, like, like what we're seeing is small like the whole world will come here, America will become a third world country.

This is clearly the future and you know, and this is totally consistent with the thrust of U.S. foreign policy since the birth of the United States, since Citizen Genet, right? You know, and that's, you know, to understand that story as like a normicon is just like, it's devastating. It's just like they've just taken this like suppository, it was just like immense dose of ayahuasca. Like they can't even hold it in, like it's too brutal, like I would never tell like Tucker Carlson's audience, like these incredibly dark and bitter truths, you know, but I'm I'm telling you. Yes, we can say it on this show. Well, I didn't say I believed either the maximalist or the minimalist case. But your maximalist, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Your maximalist case is almost good except for the cause.

The cause is even worse than you think because the cause is this vision. The cause is an ideal. The cause is this pure desire for power. The cause is like the vision. Yeah, but it's not even motivated by money. It could be digested if it was motivated by money. It's just a dog that likes to kill. Yes. No, I don't doubt that. And actually, I want to talk precisely about this on the next segment, because it leads to what the nature of the so-called elite of modern world is, which I believe is stupid. But we can leave that for the next segment. That's my theory. But we've been talking about very abstruse, maybe, for Normi's history on these two segments. Would you care to tell audience, I mean, I think you basically already have, but just to sum up for audience the importance

of this Cold War history for modern, current-day politic. You know, whoever, first of all, as Kikuro said, whoever does not know history will forever remain a child. If you're a child and you're trying to reason about politics, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. And so if you basically don't connect your present to your past, you have this kind of complete ungroundedness, which is very, very difficult to get beyond. For example, when you're trying to root, understand the Cold War and kind of tease these things apart that Bap was talking about, and then you connect this to this sort of purely imaginary FDR propaganda history, or often retconned FDR propaganda history, not even the original thing that was originally published,

propaganda history, you're basically, you're just tying, you're trying to tie something living. The past needs to kind of flow like an artery of truth. This is why the name the faction of truth is so strong. The past needs to flow like an artery of truth into the present. If that artery is cut off, you're basically, you know, attaching, you know, you're taking sort of the dead limb of your thinking and you're attaching to something else that is dead. It has to be attached to something that is living, that is powerful, that's true. Otherwise you're actually just theorizing in a complete vacuum. So you really can't understand the present without having a really really clear sense, not just of the past 10 years, the past 20 years, the past 50 years. You have to

really be prepared to rethink at least the last quarter millennium. Most people aren't really up to that, which is fine, I guess. But if they're not up to that, then maybe they should just find someone they trust and believe in them. Yes, they must listen to us and to Hilaire du Berriere. And I just want to tell the audience, we are planning to soon, perhaps, put out and be for free his entire newsletter, which ran over 50 years or so, so maybe it was 30 or 40 years. Like a modern Tacitus almost. You know. No, he's amazing. But look, we should take another break, and we will come back for a final segment. I just want to tell, in closing, the audience a theory based on something you said, completely tangential, has nothing to do with what we were talking about really,

But that Mengele, that he invented the AIDS virus. No, look, there is a, I believe, New York Times article. I will link it on one of my accounts sometime soon. Or I didn't say that. Some friend will link it on some account soon. But it's a mainstream media account of how there was a German, some type of official. I don't remember exactly, but in the 1920s or 30s or, excuse me, look, I'm on tobacco and champagne right now, so I'm getting my time wrong. Yes, very dangerous. It was not 1920s or 30s, but it was after World War II. At some point, he was in the Congo, actually, which we've been talking about. And they're trying to tie his activities to the spread of AIDS, excuse me, HIV. And the theory behind it goes that Mengele actually was researching diseases isolated

from herpetic lesions on Jewish victims, a Jewish study. This is documented. He was doing this. And the main theory goes that because Nordic peoples are immune, basically, to AIDS, to HIV, and this is a fact, the only area in the world that is basically immune to HIV is Scandinavia and Northwest Russia. Now, why are they immune? They're not really immune. You just have, I think, something like 3% to 7% of the population that is actually immune to HIV. They have the CCR5 defect. Yes, exactly. And they are immune to this. And what that means on a population-wide basis for a virus like HIV, which is actually extremely hard to pass on, I just want to tell the audience this. Reminds them again, it takes hundreds or thousands of populations with a woman to spread HIV. it's really difficult, OK?

I'm not advocating irresponsible behavior. Don't try it, but it's really, really hard. And on a population-wide basis, if you have 3% to 7% of the population that is immune to it, it's basically impossible for this virus to spread. So let's say if it's spread all over the world, the only areas that are spared are Scandinavia and Northwest Europe, basically what the Germanic ideal of the Aryan race would be. So these two pieces are actually three pieces, basically Mengele's research, the activities of this German official in the Congo, which are documented, and this other latest fact I mentioned, the immunity of the Nordic peoples. This is used to make the claims that Mengele designed HIV to basically kill off everyone but the Aryans. I don't know if you want to comment on this while we

end this segment, Mollbart. I shall be happy to investigate your evidence, but to me it sounds slightly fanciful. Yes, but I love amazing theories. Amazing theories are a very important part of Caribbean Rhythms, and with that, let's take a break. Very good, we go for a smoke break, we will be right back. Welcome back, Caribbean Rhythms. I'm here with Moll Bug, and the audience will excuse us. We are both deep into our, I'm doing the champagne, and much tobaccos, and a little sleep, and a mole bug, I think, is on bourbon. Is that right? Yes, yes, yes. I'm on the Trader Joe's High West Double Rye, which is a really solid American bourbon, and I recommend it. Yes, this is very good bourbon. I think the audience will excuse us in our anecdoteage

based on just being tired and having much alcohols. But I did want to have this final segment where I bring up maybe two main objections I have to you. Now this maybe you could say, oh, I end show on negative note. I just want audience to understand. Molbag and I may have some occasional disagreements, maybe sometimes even about big things, whatever, but it doesn't change anything. People must understand friends can have disagreement. Molbag is my friend. I will always be grateful to him. He promoted me to mass media. He told him about my secret plans to have organization on Washington mall. And I, again, I will be grateful for this. So people must not misunderstand just this agreement and this so forth. That should happen between friends and so forth.

That should happen within the faction of truth. Yes. It must happen within the faction of truth. It must happen, yes. So, but my two main disagreements with you are briefly, I think on the nature of the current elite on one hand and on the nature of the cathedral on the other, more actually on the way your cathedral argument has been received by normies and so forth. And I'll just briefly say them in turn. I just want to start maybe with elite problem, because I think you have a much higher opinion of elite than I do. I think that's trash, OK? Now, when you say the Burning Man faction and the people who go to Burning Man and so on. I actually agree with you on that. I don't consider myself trash or my friends at the time, maybe 20 years ago. I was going to go to Burning Man twice.

I didn't go for practical reasons. I agree with you on that. The tech people are impressive. A lot of people who are part of that world are impressive people. They're not bad people. But I don't think that, and I'm not going to talk about frogs, but even just the average populist, when they say elite or establishment contemptuously, they're not referring to the tech elite you're talking about. They're not even referring maybe to Jack. For example, I've had posts or whatever telling people, well, Jack from Twitter, I'm talking about the Jack Dorsey, the owner of Twitter, he's not really a bad guy. He's basically a techno-libertarian who believes in freedom, but he's just a coward. And very recently, we saw, just two days ago, I think, some senator or whatever

apparatchik of the United States government grilling a Facebook official about some term, and they look like an idiot. But it was just a replay of what we've seen over the last few years. Can I pause you? Can I pause you for a moment and say something about Jack Dorsey? Yes. This was a little in-joke between me and, let's just say, a colleague that developed a very long time ago, where we were talking about the nature of leadership and the nature of the CEO. And of course, the miracle of Jack Dorsey in being CEO of two companies at the same time was revealed to us. It was like a medieval monarch who was the king of two kingdoms, which was a thing. This thing would happen. And so we started to think, in what way is Jack Dorsey like a medieval monarch?

What would a medieval monarch make of Jack Dorsey? And OK, this was, to be fair, this was before he grew the beard. If you remember Jack Dorsey before his Jedi beard, this was by Jack Dorsey. And my colleagues' presumption, which I'm afraid, what we wondered is what William the Conqueror would make of Jack Dorsey before he grew the beard. This is 2013, Jack Dorsey. And my colleague's hypothesis was that William might, I'm sorry, that William might, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I'll say, you know, that William might think he was a woman and try to fuck him. And so, you know, this is, I think this concern is very core to the purpose of Caribbean rhythms, but please continue, you know, Jack Dorsey. Yes, no, but even with what you say,

And I have contempt for Jack Dorsey based on just what you just said right now. I think he's a woman. He's a coward. Zucker face, he's a coward. But they're not fundamentally bad people. And when I've made this argument, actually a lot of populist small bug agreed with me. They don't harbor hatred for these people. It's not who they mean when they say establishment. Who they mean is people like Anthony Viner. They mean people who are questioning these people and intimidating them. And I encourage people to watch this movie about Anthony Viner and Huma Abedin. I forget what it's called. It's so good. I forget what it's called. It's so good. It's a perfect movie because it shows the nature of this elite are extremely humdrum, everyday people, morons, just morons. OK?

I mocked them since my first show, Podesta with his lobster risotto. You've said, this is a, forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but you've said, oh, they have the best taste in food and so on. No, they like lobster risotto, like podesta. This is what people mean when they meant the elite. They mean the people who Mark Ames mocks when he talks about Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein. And even by, let's say, conventional normie standards, these are not the best people. They don't actually go to the best schools. They're stupid, moldbug, OK? The American system somehow has turned into a place where the selections for the people who make decisions, the ruling class, the elite, whatever you want to call them, I call them the occupational class,

because they're only virtue of being there is that they occupy it in other ways. They're not distinguishable from yokels who drink Coors. They just drink Chardonnay. But they're just stupid, very pathetic people like Samantha Power and so forth. They're trash, Mulbug. So I'll tell you, just one moment. And I think you have a slightly older view of an elite that is worthwhile but misguided. And I share that with you. But those aren't the people making the decisions. It's these types, the Podesta's, it's the Huma Abedinnis, the Samantha Power, affirmative action has also, I don't know, you use your real name, I don't expect, you don't have to comment on this, but affirmative action has highly degraded the quality of the occupational class and so forth.

So this is one of my disagreements with you. Why do you go on shows and defend these people and say that they're worthwhile and they're nobles and so forth when they're trash, really. All right, I can give a simple answer to that, which is that we are defining elite in a slightly different way. To me, the elite are actually the most fashionable people in society. They're the people who others emulate. And so whereas you're defining, well, you're sort of defining two separate kinds of people because the Samantha Powers of the world or a slightly different class than the Huma Abedin's. These aren't really what you see when you see what I saw when I saw the film, and I forget what it's called about Weiner and Abedin, was that these were really empty people who mean nothing.

If you're looking for the people who actually make decisions that matter, you're looking for people like Fauci, people like the guy sort of the king of global warming, who my mother worked for at DOE, Joe Rome. You're talking about people who normally never appear in the public eye. You're talking about sort of permanently ensconced like bureaucratic wheelers and dealers. And you can almost guarantee that these people you see on the screen are people, yes, they sort of have fought very hard for the jobs that they have, but they actually are people of very little significance. And so you're really not even looking at power, but sort of at fake power. You know, when I say when I describe the American elite, it's simply the top of the fashion ladder.

And it has always been that sort of the oldest and most aristocratic classes were at the top of this ladder. This is why they became communists in the 20th century. 20th century communism was always an elite. In America, certainly, and also elsewhere, was always a top-down thing. it was always sort of came from the elite downward. And so the farther you go into the past, the identity of elite with money and like, literal power rather than influence matters. Today, you know, to be elite is not actually to have some job on the Hill, it's to be a New York Times reporter or something like that. You know, if you look at the people that make the most, and so- You think that New York Times, you think Josh, John Barrow, I forget his first name, Barrow, Oh, you think he's an idiot.

The thing is, you're using the word elite in multiple senses, and you're creating sort of, there are many different senses in which that word can be used. And I would say, ultimately, that the most elite people are the most that essentially have the most cultural contempt for the rest. And this is what basically causes me to sort of locate the tip of the elite in sort of very, very fashionable scenes, whether it's Burning Man or like Brooklyn or Greenwich Village, something like that. But they don't run the decisions. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. So here's a concrete example of thinking of this way. Who are the most important people in the society? Well, if we go back in time and we say, let's take the attitudes of every average college

student in 2021, which will soon be the attitudes enforced on everyone in 2021. And let's look at the people in 1921 who had these same attitudes. What you're going to find in this group, which is clearly the sort of kind of er, it's the equivalent of like, who are the Proto-Indo-Europeans? Who are the proto-wokes of 1921? You're going to find these people. Are they going to be the people in power? Are they going to be the people making the decisions? No, that's actually not what matters. Where are you going to find these people? You're going to find them in Greenwich Village. You're going to find them at Harvard. You're going to find them at Provincetown. These are the people who have the most influence on the future. But do you think Lauren Stribe or Elena Kagan are great leads?

I mean, Elena Kagan. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the thing is, then you're switching from that to their actual talent. I agree that basically, and you're assuming that their sort of talent and status should be correlated and I completely agree and admit that their talent has declined and and and you know so when you declare compare Elena Kagan to Felix Frankfurter you know who occupies a very similar position of course you know you're comparing for all of his faults a giant to a pygmy in fact to a pygmy lesbian but I have no It's the bourbon, it's the bourbon. It's the bourbon, it's the bourbon. I would never say such a thing about the great honorable Justice Kagan. But the extreme court justice here. Extreme court justice here, especially as we're working our way down the side

of the bottle of high west. In any case, yeah, so the thing is that sort of the word elite conjures up these emotions for you, and it has a kind of poetic ambiguity. And what I try to do in my thinking is really to strip it of these ambiguities so much as possible. And the interesting thing in your observation is it brings to mind a line of Napoleons in which you said that every government is safe in which the most capable people are in charge. And so whatever the way in which the federal government works, whether it's the CDC fucking up the COVID tests or whatever it is, I think what we can agree on is that the decision loop, to the extent that there even is a functional decision loop, is not in the hands of the competent. On the other hand, this absol, and I had this debate recently

on stage with Michael Anton. And I don't think many people would say, with all due respect to Michael, that he came away with a winner there. And there's this sort of belief that this incompetence is a good thing because it will allow the system to fall in some sense. Actually, as an oligarchy, it's completely stable. It's a rock. It will just get worse. It will just become more third world and won't fall of its own. So this incompetence is, to me, a real thing. This decline in competence of the bureaucracy is a real thing. But it's also a thing that is not really particularly to our advantage. That's how I feel about your elite argument. Shall we move on to the next one? Yes, we can move to the next one.

Just a quick note, if I may say, anecdotes that is illustrative of many other anecdotes. I know a boy, if I may use that word, he's a man, but he's a descendant, a great-grandson of an ex-United States president, I will not say which. And he's very handsome. When he was 20, he was very good with women and so forth. He was not stupid. He's smart. He comes from, obviously, I don't want to say which, but you could think the highest pedigree of American family. He does not have, in any sense, a position of influence at the moment. He is, you know, it's a rather sad decline of a family to where, I mean, he's not doing badly by normie standards, but it's not. My point is just I want the audience to understand what the populist anti-establishment,

anti-elite argument is not directed to people like that. Because people like that are not, you know, It's not, quote unquote, the best people by normie standards who are running things. It really is the Huma Abedin's, I believe, mollbug. It doesn't matter. Even it's like it would be easiest to say that no one is running things, because no one can sort of push the machine. The machine is sort of operating on pure inertia, and the people in it matter very little. But must you go to tell people that the elite are the best, and so forth, when it's John Podesta and these types? I mean, it's. Yeah, again, it's a question of what you define as elite. John Podesta is not often seen at Burning Man. But Burning Man is irrelevant is what I'm saying.

Yeah, no, Burning Man is irrelevant to the present. But is it irrelevant to the future? And when we look at what is most relevant to the present 100 years ago, we see that it is basically circles that are completely cultural and seem to have sort of no real relevance to the existing political power structure. So if you want to be relevant on a long-term strategy, don't focus on affecting the world today, because you probably can't. Focus on how am I going to infect the world 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now, basically as soon as I could possibly do it. Well, on this, I completely agree with you. And fundamentally, maybe frogs and such should focus on cultural production and so forth. Maybe on that we agree. Maybe we do. Can we do it? Can we? Yes.

I want to ask you about the second objection I have, which is the cathedral problem. Your argument about the cathedral, whatever its virtues may be in itself, I think the way it's being received by many, the way it's being used in casual talk, and I don't blame you for that because you're not responsible for the way people pervert ideas, But maybe you, yes, the drunkenness is getting to me, Mollbach. But I mean to say this. It's that you talked, we talked on last segments of show about the way Marxoids use the CIA as an all-powerful, demonic entity that explains all the contradictions they see in day-to-day lives that they cannot explain. And it takes the place for them that capital, with a capital C, took for Marx, the shadowy, demonic, satanic enemy that

explains all of the evils of history in his time. And Nietzsche described the milieu theory. This means the theory where you are affected by impersonal forces that affect you in your own time. He describes this as a neurotics theory. In other words, where you believe you are the plaything of just history or impersonal forces again. Now, the way most people are, though, most people are NPCs. They are NPCs. However, your own theory, the cathedral, does not use historical analysis to reach this conclusion, but it reaches a similar conclusion. Maybe it's a wrong conclusion, but it reaches a similar, I mean, wrong conclusion from your point of view, but reaches the similar conclusion using systemic analysis. In other words, then people are not to play things of historical forces,

of dialectical materialism, of economic invisible forces. But the way you analyze society, politics, and so forth, it's in this other mechanistic, systemic way, which has, for some people, the same effect of making them feel entirely powerless and so forth. You say that NPCs, they are powerless. I don't know. I think that history does not work by impersonal systems, and it's not explainable by impersonal invisible forces. No, no, no, no. Like capital or like cathedral. Look, I'm not saying you mean cathedral this way, but like cathedral the way it's understood by others. I believe it has to do fundamentally with human quality and decisions of particular human beings. Maybe you think this view is simplistic, But I reach this view in full awareness of arguments

like Marx's or like the one you make, which is, I believe, roughly analogous maybe to Marx's. Would you care to answer this maybe? Yes, I would love to. I would love to. I think that at a super level, a superficial level, you can certainly compare these kinds of theories. Of course, classical Das Kapital style Marxism seems completely unrelated to the economic model of the current real world. I guess I would say that a couple of different things. One is that I think I have a very clear, and my theory does not say that history is inherently impersonal. My theory says that oligarchy is inherently impersonal. And so when we look at the quality of the 20th century form of government, we see that whether you're East or West, it is fundamentally oligarchical,

and it becomes more oligarchical over time. Even the monarchical structures, the, quote, authoritarian structures of the Eastern Bloc, basically become more oligarchic. And as power spreads out from the top, They naturally have this tendency to dissolve themselves and disappear into the broader Western oligarchy. And so when we have a theory of why an oligarchy behaves as it does, it had better be an impersonal theory. It had better be a distributed theory. And when we basically look for a theory that assumes a center, what we're doing is we're sort of reacting to these antibodies against monarchy, which basically our revolutionary training has given us. These antibodies are actually garbage, and they're the main thing holding us back. And so when you sort of look for a center,

or you look for a force, or you're like, oh, if we organize against this, and we bring this down. Sorry, I'm just getting up to get my lighter. I hear you just yet. It's quite all right. So when you're basically like, here's this cartel, here's this thing, we could bring down this thing, it's basically like you're expecting that there is a center which can be cracked. And you're sort of inhabiting this Campbellian myth. You're in Star Wars looking for the one weakness of the Death Star. The Death Star has no one weakness. It's ridiculous. It's a Death Star. What the hell? And so you're always, you're basically, unbeknownst to you, the sort of most plausible evidence for sort of thinking this way is that you're actually enmeshed in a kind of larp. And I will tell you basically where

the boundary between personal and impersonal history ends. It is the boundary between oligarchy and monarchy. And so when we imagine, for example, let's imagine you're like, OK, what do we think about this cathedral thing? We can argue about it this way or that. We need to basically define, actually, we need to answer three questions. What is the cathedral? What is it defined as? And I would say it is defined as all institutions which generate or transmit thought. That includes Harvard. That includes your local public school. That includes Wikipedia. That includes basically all the things. And what is basically the only way to cure all of these institutions? Well, they obviously can't be cured. What can be done is that their personnel and facilities can be used in the rapid construction

of new institutions. And so essentially, if you're a Harvard chemistry professor, probably the year after the change, you will still be teaching chemistry. If you were a professor of race studies, maybe not so much. And so the level of when you basically look at what defines the cathedral, first of all, it's simplest to say, let's define it most simply by saying what has to be cured, what has to be cleaned up? And the answer is all of these institutions basically need to be coordinated into a single national structure under executive control. That is the only way, like, you know, let's compare that to, for example, laws against critical race theory or something, and you'll see that my medicine is like five orders of magnitude stronger than these like very brutal, you know,

like heavy doses that the grifters are showing you. I'm like, no, real medicine is chemotherapy. It is like, it does not hurt people, but it is like powerful, and like no institution can survive it. Yes. And so that is sort of the easiest way to think about, oh, can we do something about the cathedral? No, until you're basically talking about serious measures like this, it's like saying, what can we do about the Stasi in East Germany? Well, we could cut back its influence. You know, they could, you know, the Stasi could give people a right to an attorney, whatever. No, no, no. It's way past that. I'm sorry. It's like until it ceases to exist, it is like, it is, you know, this whole system has obviously been ideologically contaminated and like that is clear as a bell and there

is no way to preserve it. Many of the employees can be preserved with new policies. The most, you know, this effect is actually most comparable in terms that normies will find hard to reject. This process is most comparable to the denazification of Germany between 1945 and 1947. Every institution has to be completely purged and cleansed. We could even call it demarcification. That's basically when people talk about, oh, what is the cathedral and what can we do against it? That's sort of the important point. second most important point is to basically understand why it's like if you want to kill a weed you sort of you kill the weed you pull up the roots you pull up the seeds you destroy everything you eliminate the flow of water to the

site you sort of destroy everything that could recreate the weed and so to understand why the cathedral exists is is you know an important and necessary problem in kind of systems design the reason that the cathedral exists is that basically you have a lack of executive authority, which thus delegated executive authority to what was supposed to be an advisory system. And because the advisory system was not responsible to any other system, it basically had a natural tendency as a marketplace of ideas to reward ideas that rewarded the advisory system rather than the system as a whole. So it basically sort of, the marketplace of ideas basically learned to jack itself off with ideas that were more and more powerful, but that actually did no good in the world,

but that made individuals or systems or the systems containing individuals more powerful. And so, you know, this was basically... This sounds like a metaphysical enhancement of Burnham's idea of managerial relief. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Christopher Burnham, I feel, didn't quite understand the difference between a monarchical and a bureaucratic organization. A monarchical or executive organization is how, you know, everything gets done in the real world. It's shaped like a pyramid, armies work this way, restaurants work this way, tech companies work this way, you know, car companies work this way, everything that fucking works works this way. The way the federal government works is sort of more like a bureaucracy is almost a quasi juridical organization. It works by basically, like a court,

it works by operating according to the right process. And the idea, and so like, once these process mechanisms become corrupt, what you've basically done is you said, OK, let's solve the problem of who shall watch the watchman. I know, we'll give it to this process full of impartial people. Well, once you expose these impartial people to the temptations of power, once you basically delegate power to them without any executive to say, what the fuck why are you going around collecting bat coronaviruses and like fucking with their DNA, right? You know, it's because oh you want to predict that it's that it will go on, you know It's like one scientist said well, this is like looking for a gas leak with a lighted match You know my example is that it's sort of like finding the you know

Your ten-year-old in the in the kitchen trying to you know light fire to the curtains and you ask him why and you're like well You know Well fire safety is very important and I you know, I predict that the curtains might burn down and then well what happened? You know, could we get out? Could the dog get out? You know, and that was basically, that was how far this expertise had gone from the actual public interest. And so this problem of sort of delegating the great decisions of power to pseudosciences of government, which involve a basically, I won't say meritocratic, but let me just say neutrally selective oligarchy. And we've all been through the processes of this selective oligarchy, which still people compete very hard to be selected by it, and the very hard.

Yes, yes, but I would disagree with you. Well, OK, I would disagree with you that it selects for good people, but OK. There are many things that it selects for. It's a huge bag. Some of them are retarded. Many good people still get in the door to these systems. I mean, look, Fauci did many bad things, including saying that AIDS was going to spread in households or promoting AZT. In a genuinely meritocratic system, Fauci would have been fired long ago. But again, this is why he did not see meritocratic. It's like no such thing exists or could exist. I just mean selective. And sort of, I'm not angry at this system for not being what it's supposed to be. I'm just like, it is what it is. Acknowledge what it is. It has certain deficits. It has certain advantages.

It's worse than the government of Singapore. It's better than the government of Angola. I don't know. It's sort of like, to regard it sort of neutrally as a piece of history involves, you know, first of all, it actually involves the ultimate level of contempt. It's much more contemptuous than being angry at it, to basically just sort of contextualize it as a piece of history. No one gets angry, sure, was the Byzantine Empire corrupt? Nobody, no historian gets angry at the Byzantine Empire for being corrupt. And so, yeah, you're just like, it's a sad, you know, it's sort of a sad thing. But it's also kind of to understand it at this kind of engineering level and is to basically really confirm to yourself that, hey, more oligarchy won't work. You can only think in terms of you

can't really think in terms of atomization and dissolution. You can only think in terms of basically who is the next Napoleon. Yes. No, with this last thing you said, I completely agree. Look, the show is running long. I want not to end on that note, because maybe slightly negative discussion. I want to ask you one last question. And by the way, I have had great fun on this show. I hope you return many times, because we have many things left to discuss and so forth. You mentioned Byzantine Empire just now. I was thinking, you say it's corrupt. It was corrupt. It was its political system in many ways was ramshackle. I actually have borrowed the phrase occupational from its ruling model where the Caesar ship was an occupation, whoever occupied it. But it worked.

It lasted 1,000 years in incredibly difficult geopolitical situation with no defensible borders. And well, I believe it worked because of its incredible inherited intelligence system. We can talk about that another time. Lutvak has good book on this. They managed. Just to give a small example, they realized very early, we cannot fight these step barbarians, because if we exhaust ourselves defeating one, there will be another one coming on. So they realized they have to play them off against each other and sort of. But that was dependent, I think, Moltbag, a long tradition of geopolitical strategy inherited from Roman Empire, which doesn't exist now. And so I despair at ability of, let's say, this oligarchy to continue much longer. It's not despair. I think maybe that's good.

But who knows what will come after it collapses? I just want to end this show by asking you, What do you see, perhaps, as a recent reasonable alternative, something positive? Would it be something like Lee Kuan Yew? You mentioned Singapore. Would it be Salazar? You know, the neocons and so forth, they like to attack authoritarians and so forth. But their idol, Leo Strauss, said that Salazar was probably a wonderful leader and the best that the modern world could hope for. He didn't put it in that way, but pretty much in that way. I absolutely agree about Salazar, and yes, absolutely, you know, the new Caesar, the new Napoleon is absolutely, it's the only thing that our country can hope for. And you know, one of the things that you should give everyone hope, I've repeated this spiel

before is that when you look at American history, you know, America does not have just one constitution in the small c sense of the actual structure of government. has a different government. First of all, between obviously 1776 and 1789, that of course is the Congress of the Confederation, a period that was so heinous and awful and incompetent that it's airbrushed out of American history. That's the first republic. The second republic is the republic founded by Hamilton and Washington, Washington being the front man and Hamilton being the guy who actually did the work of running the government, really a startup founder. And that regime lasts from 1789 to 1861. And then, of course, you have the regime of Lincoln, which again, isn't... You would not consider Andrew Jackson a change?

No, no, no, no, no. There's some change in policy, but there's no change in basic structure and form, right? Again, you're listening too much to sort of the rhetoric and not enough to the structure of government, but with the structure, with the national structure of government and the immense size of government that Lincoln creates in order to win his war, you know, you see a genuine change of republics and then of course you see a genuine change of republics in 1933. And so you know what you're seeing in basically all of these changes of republic is you're seeing a radical centralization of power. You're seeing a recreation and a renewal of the executive branch and they basically happen at a very reliable time sequence

like the San Andreas Fault or Halley's Comet or some shit like that and you basically look at that time sequence and you're like, is we do? And the answer is we are overdue. And so you know the question of the only way to whether you want to reform or replace and generally the answer is replace and of course the functions of a new regime will be completely different from the old but you know the only way I mean there's no such thing as a functioning sort of collective organization unless it's functioning on pure inertia the only way to create a new regime is just to create the only way to scale up any kind of new governing organization is the same way that any normal company is built and that is a purely sort of executive monarchical structure and so

So you basically have the sort of opportunity for some person or movement with genuine executive talent to basically ask the American voters to use their power of popular sovereignty to give him or his team absolute executive authority over all federal and state governments. And given that ask, which I suspect, of course it's an authoritarian ask, that's what authoritarian means. If you basically take Aristotle's three forms of government, monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, the rule of the one, the rule of the few, the rule of the many, and translate them into the language of the New York Times, what you get is authoritarianism, democracy, and populism. is called democracy, which is utterly ridiculous. And then we have this curse word for monarchy,

which has been by far the most common regime in human history and has created almost all of the glories of the human race and was not implicated at all, the only political form not implicated at all in, well, I guess you have Hitler. But the old monarchies, you could not imagine the atrocities of the 20th century under them. And so, you know, Hitler is to a really great extent. No, the 20th century is the sort of sclitzy and make-a-fool. Right, right, right, right. And so, you know, when I basically, you know, to say that, oh, we would like to solve this problem, we would like to clean this thing up, we would like to fix this thing, but we would like to do it without having a monarchy and without dissolving all existing institutions and without completely reconstructing

all our institutions of thought and communication. I'm just like, you're not serious. And if you're not serious, don't try. And so I think that's basically my last word on the subject. Yes. Well, very good, Molbag. I think, actually, whatever our disagreements in the midsection on the last word on the subject, we mostly agree, I think. And let's leave it on that good note for good luck. Eternal life to the affection of truth. eternal life and power and I greatly enjoyed you coming on and I hope you come many more time. We have many things left to discuss. Many autistic tangents. We do and I greatly appreciate the privilege. It's been wonderful. Thank you so much, Bap. Very good, Mollbach. Yes, until next time and so-called Heil Puthler and Bap out, cheers. Good night.