This is one hundredth episode show of Caribbean Rhythms Radio Broadcast and I declare war on all mankind. There is such a thing as spent life, not worthy of continuing, and it's not me who decides. It happens by clockwork, in life history over organism or civilizations, when certain signs and omens appear. And I mean that a hundred years ago, almost exactly, mankind decided it was a good idea to give people who get off sexually on violence, who get off on being violated, on humiliation and such thing, to give such people political voice and power and even to make them half of the electorate, to include them in political community of decision. Yes, does this seem a good idea to you, to give overgrown narcissists who get off on being slapped around political power?

Now this is different from advisory. In advisory it might even be a good idea to consult a woman or even you could say sexual inverts and even mental deviants such as schizophrenics, although I do not believe in schizophrenia, I believe this word is a creation of ash psychiatrists and that schizophrenics are actually in contact with being from other dimension and such thing and you should consult them. But I mean such people may see things from a different direction, they may see things you do not, and ancient Germans, they famously consulted women before every major decision, but then to actually let such people take a decision and to include them as equal in political community, this was previously untried, because men throughout history, in most civilizations

we know of, knew that women and sexual inverts are untrustworthy, they are traitors, they They are disloyal for whatever reason, that may be a profound topic for another time. But this inclusion of women in a political community is new for so-called human, new in history entirely, and had come about at around 1920 in many countries, which is also when the Russian people revealed their manifest cretinism as they say, hey, this Bolshevism things sound good, let's give this a try, this is what the Russian believes. And these two crazy ideas, the timing is related, the content is related too, but maybe not in the way you think. When you get rid of the state form, you do not get rollicking freedom when you get rid

of the state, when you get rid of the stodgy authority of the European state, with its above and its below, I mean the image you might have of the state in the 1600s and thereafter But the traditional state with the distinction between rulers and ruled, and the propaganda is that when you get rid of that, you get liberation, that you get the freeing of social relations from authoritarian political constraint. And no one believe me when I say, no, there is something else that is, from the point of view of authoritarianism, it's worse than the authority of the political elites, in the old sense I mean. It is the long house, as I say in my book. And I have many friends who, they like me, they are well-disposed and friendly to me, and they say, Bap, we do not believe you.

We did not believe you. We thought the idea of the long house was a nice allegory, an interesting thought experiment, but we didn't believe you. And then the Wuhan hysteria happened. They didn't believe me, but do you? Do you believe me now? About one year and maybe one year and a bit after I published my book and just a few months after I started this show in August 2019, you had this pandemic Wuhan which, how was I to know this? But could have I asked for any historical coincidence better than this to illustrate, to make you actually feel the pain of the longhouse yourselves? Could have I asked anything better than this peasant hysteria, worldwide peasant hysteria over the fear of death, the event since spring 2020. And only now it finally seems to be waning. Norway ended restrictions.

Mexico never had them, that's interesting. And Denmark mostly ended them. And I just saw articles that Denmark is actually planning to get rid entirely of its vaccine program since they were completely vaccinated almost and they noticed it does nothing to stop so-called omicron variety. And in fact, maybe even speeded up the omicron infections. So they are planning to get rid of vaccine program and reminder, they have a social democrat woman president and Denmark is the leader of the Nordic countries, which are the lodestar for progressives worldwide. So once they drop these completely and permanently, it could maybe mean that this crisis is ending, Although we have to see because people went back and forth on this before, they come up

with new reasons to continue hysteria, but it seems to be waning and now it's joined by the actions of truckers, which is something else that I have called and I've predicted this a long time and I talk on this show, I've called for it, I should maybe toot my own power in seeing the weak points of this regime and why something like truckers strike could be so effective, but it doesn't take special insight to do this. I just know the weaknesses of these societies because they have fake economies and they have unmanned, castrated, caponized, half-educated masses who are living on the largesse of a highly centralized distribution system, and the only real work is the infrastructure maintenance done by white working class men, which includes trucking, water sanitation, and many such things.

And on the other hand, in the case of America, 80% of combat troops are still white working class, and the American economic system is held together by dollar as world reserve currency, which only reason that continues is because of this American military. So in other words, I think almost entire 100% of the real American economy is held on the shoulders of white working class men, mostly, who if they simply choose to withhold their labor, they can bring everything to a halt. I do not know where the dope Trump is hiding. He could become leader of this movement and coordinate it, which he should have done during his presidency, but he will not do it now, of course, he's compromised somehow or he's a dope.

But even if this trucker uprising fails, you can see how in future it provide model where let's say you had coordinated trucker strike, water sanitation and other sanitation worker strike and maybe the plumbers decide to stay home too, and you have a leader who calls for withholding debt payments on a large portion of population, and without violence with simply this kind of limited strike, you could bring all Western societies and thereby all world financial system to a crash down within maybe two or three weeks, very easy. It doesn't take genius to see this, but it's a problem of coordination and of mostly historical imagination of people being able to believe in themselves that they can do it. Anyway, that is a political topic for another show.

Maybe I will invite the leader of Trucker on this show to discuss. We will see. I talk about this later, maybe. But let me explain a little what I mean on this, on the dissolution of the state into actually something much more authoritarian than the old stodgy European state, which is something that has been a century in coming, this dissolution. So 100 years ago, you get simultaneously the madhouse of giving political presence to sexual deviants, which includes all women with their fuck-crazy desires. On the other hand, you also get Bolshevism at the same time. And don't imagine, by the way, that communism was socially conservative. Early Leninism included many free love type thing, excuse me, and while it is true that

Stalinism restrained some of the early Leninist excesses and Trotskyism, it restrained some of them for expediency, women still held tremendous power in the East Bloc throughout the life of communism. They held power in family relations, in divorce matters, in many type abortion things, and In schools it was still taught that the Marxist end state would come with the dissolution of the family. This was taught during and well after Stalin. Now the family itself as a form of social organization, in the formal sense, is not purely natural. It has a strong natural basis of course, but in history of mankind it is almost entirely a residue of Roman influence and culture. I mean the idea that family is a basic social unit of political system and before family

for a long time in various cultures there were associations by sex, by the sexes meaning, associations of men, of women, of on the other hand older women and older men and so on in turn and these were a form of, you could say, authority and social organization for the longest time before the family as such even existed. But these did not last either and then they were replaced and the family as a basis of social order comes out of Greco-Roman patriarchal customs and only makes sense in that context. And today is basically almost gone as a social and political institution which is why social conservatism is such anachronism. It actually works in opposite direction from what it intends. But anyway, here is problem that feminism and socialism are two different things that

come into the void around the same time, and this is not coincidence. They come into bloom after the modern state has declined already to a great extent, even if it hasn't withered away. And the cause is not World War I, as some conservative pessimists imagine, although that idiotic war did a lot to discredit the form of the European state as it had existed for some time. It's personae, it's this type of leader and ministers and generals, but even for such imbecile and wasteful war, and you can listen to what Selim says about it, the deaths at the Somme, and even so when you see in that history there are worse calamities than that. In Rome and Greece had worse calamities than World War I, proportionally speaking, and they got over them rather easily.

For example, the social wars in Italy at the end of the Roman Republic, I think around 90 BC when a huge number of people died, and this was conflict between Romans and Samnites and some others who wanted full equal citizenship in Italy and so on, but it was just a bloody civil war that proportionally took many more people than World War I did from Europe. And following that, there were prescriptions of harsh men who came to power in the time that followed, in the dictatorships of Marius and Sulla, when many of the noblest families got whacked in really huge numbers. So you know, it's not just World War I, you can make the argument that it was uniquely dysgenic because modern war is dysgenic whereas ancient war is the opposite.

But these massacres were dysgenic for Rome as well, destroyed many of the patrician families. But still there were many Rome glory days ahead because they had a spiritual resilience and political vitality that Europe, and in fact the whole world, no longer had after 1900 or so, or had only in pockets and outbursts scattered around. Asia has long been spent. The blood of Numenor is spent in Asia. And the reason it no longer had this vitality, I will try briefly explain now, all while reminding you that I know very well that we live under an unfree and authoritarian system of some kind. It's a system that's arrested by friend Ricky Vaughan for funny and innocent memes, and that right now has just passed an action in Canada to arrest truck drivers and to steal

their bank accounts for simply protesting not wanting to be treated like livestock. So do not confuse what I'm about to tell you regarding political dissolution or disintegration of the state for saying that this is followed up by freedom, this is big misunderstanding, it's quite the opposite. Men's lust for power, or what someone called men's cleverness and selfishness, this will soon invent new forms where the state fails or declines, the vacuum will be filled. And two of these forms are Bolshevism and the so-called emancipation of women, which of course was no such thing, but it was rather the giving over of society to a new kind of demagogue and pimp who could cater to, listen, it's not just women, but once you liberate

women in that sense and legitimize their so-called political opinions, you're also freeing up weak men who live under their wives' thumbs and so forth. But men have always known in history, I repeat to you, that people who like to be abused cannot be trusted with political decision. The Greeks made this explicit in brutal way to the extent of even if a child was known to have been abused against his will, he was still not allowed to hold office or speak in public. And this sounds cruel to us, but for whatever reason, experience, the experience of centuries spoke to them that you cannot trust such people. Maybe it has something to do, if you've known victims of child abuse, they are for maybe entirely justified reasons, they don't trust anyone and they will betray.

And most sexual deviants, including women, will betray anyone but their closest blood relatives and even then, you know, the female orgasm is a hysterical paroxysm, indicative of a physiological and psychosexual disorder that is best treated through surgical excision of the clitoris. I joke, okay, that's what I just told you now is an old Ixebert line, do you know who Ixebert was? He was an autist extraordinary, Ixebert had posted something like 40, 50,000 pages across various forms by the age of 22 or 23. I think even before that, he was 20. He disappeared, unfortunately he got involved in psychedelics and that took all the tension out of his mind. That's when we lost one of the – I would say maybe he was the most prolific artist of the internet. Possibly he was ideologically eclectic.

He switched from Stalinism and sometimes he was far right and beyond. I am not sure if he ever dabbled in Islam, that's a common thing, but he was more prolific than Ghislaine Maxwell was on Reddit. He's an Ixebert, you know, in the tradition of Childebert and Dagobert and so on. So anyway, this is a lost internet lore, but I joke though, I wish for a world where women actually will sexually select men once again in a brutal Darwinian fashion. Most men today should not breed, but certain things have to happen before this can be done Yes, I'm not Somali or Egyptoid for clit cutting, although on this note, on clit cutting, clitorectomy and this, it should be noted that female circumcision is not in any appreciable way worse than male circumcision.

Those who claim that it's different only do this by comparing the worst cases of one with the least bad of the other. But that's a propaganda PR trick. Most so-called surgical excision of this is not as brutal as you've been made to think. I still think it's bad, but I also think male circumcision is bad. Just absurd that America has let Kellogg, Seventh-day Adventists, and Judaism, batshit intersects, introduce a cultural custom, mass circumcise its boys. It's become a curse nor hide land. These are the wages of the obelisks in your great cities, you see. So anyway, I'm having fun now, this is my 100th show, I'm allowed to have fun, but where was I? So what happened is some procession of event when you have a state in classical European

I mean, the state as it developed after Machiavelli, after 1500s, 1600s or so, when you have the king and his ministers and varying degree of so-called absolutist rule but what is really cabinet rule, the king and his cabinet of ministers rule, they form a core of the state. It's post-feudal. Actually, many of the ministers are not even nobles but are chosen for their intellectual evidence and their ability to give advice counseled the king, who is not threatened by smart men and he needs to make use of their brains, the demands of the state are too large for his brain which is only one. He needs to make use of many brains, but this is why classical monarchies are much better for the arts, for intellectual advancement, than republics where at every level in a republic

you are surrounded by insecure equals. Most of them are inevitably average men, and they have an interest in keeping anyone of higher intellect down. So they do not get mugged and so forth, whereas the opposite holds in a monarchy. But I go on tangents. So yes, you have this kind of state, which is a variation of the state as a political animal that has existed for some time in distinct form, at least since Rome. But for some time, let's say, of history, and in this state, religion is very important. The state, when you hear philosophers talk about the state, the state in this sense, it sounds a little bit abstract. Friend once tell me, Bep, I like the way you talk about the state and some things you've

written because it's organic, vivid historical sense, but when philosophers talk about the State with a capital S and Schopenhauer, who is a very vivid language philosopher, he talked about the state in the same way. It turns off many modern readers, it sounds like something very abstract, but just to make it concrete for you, think what I just said. The king and his cabinet, that type of imagery, the king and his cabinet plotting together, Louis XIV and his close advisors plotting, and such state needs religion, it needs priests on its side or some kind of religious authorities. Even Napoleon realized this, that without the help of priests you do not become legitimate. Now the priests may or may not be genuine in their belief, but the state authorities,

even if they're genuine, they still need to be able to use religion as a tool and therefore they need to be able to stand outside it, to have an objective view of it, and so you start to have a long tradition, political tradition, centuries and even millennia, intellectual tradition therefore, of the uses of religion for statecraft and for political life. And this political unity enters complicated relation with genuine religious faith, which also sees an interest in having the state on its side for obvious reason, but this is then the so-called cutillary religion, state religion, and the reason is necessary is because for state to exist in this classical sense, where there is an above and a below, a ruling

minority and a ruled majority, religious awe and religious mystery need to imbue political life. The majesty and sanctity of religion needs to accompany political authority. Otherwise this no work and priests and even genuinely religious people who are concerned with the propagation of their faith, in turn they find this useful again for many reasons, no less of which is that the average dumb person is unable to convince himself of obedience to power or to conceive of divinity in its majesty except in this earthly way. So for the average dumb, the king or the might of the state imbues him also with the awe of God. But something very different happens in a democracy, and people who try to extend this, what I've just said now, this classical state model, and this political use of religion,

and the tradition and political philosophy of talking about state and religion, people who try to extend this model to our own time are very wrong. Because none of what I've sketched out here exists now, even by analogy. Not even in Saudi Arabia where this model is still attempted in some form. Maybe I will give you Bhutan, maybe, but who knows if it's still true even there. But after a democratic age comes, and it doesn't need to come practically if it comes spiritually if people are convinced that the people stands sovereign above all, but once that happens something very different takes place. In a democratic age for a number of reasons it becomes impossible for religion to be used for political benefit in this same way.

And yes, I too have heard of Karl Rove, thank you, and even Erdogan and others, but that's Hollywood schlock to believe that these kinds of pimps use religion in the same way that the king and his cabinet did before 1800, or that a Roman official or magistrate did. No political authority today carries that kind of sanctity and awe, and that secularization you can say, but really vulgarization of political life is a side effect of democracy. Because religion can then no longer be used for political benefit in this way, it devolves to a private affair. And without state support, it evaporates finally in a kind of subjective interpretations, even if you don't have open Protestantism and so forth, it degenerates in sects, in personal

vague preferences, and on the other hand, the state itself becomes just a tool to get things done. A bureaucratic administrative apparatus, a machine that has to be captured to punish your enemies and to benefit clients and this type of thing. Much like Schmidt say, the state has become this machinery for benefits that factions in a country seek to capture for their own partial good. It becomes a Benny's engine and nothing more than this. Its majestic dignity evaporates completely. It becomes a tool. And what sets off in motion you see this change is the lack of religion, but ultimately what sets off this is democracy itself. And at first democracy seems to intensify religious belief by separating it from political and institutional use and making it a private thing.

Tocqueville talks this, how religion in democratic America actually seems stronger than in Europe when it is a state affair. But that privatization of religion inevitably leads to a dissolution of religion in general and then a contempt for the state as such, which can't survive without a tutelary religion, which is why a wise man called democracy the historical form of the decline of the state, which is everything I've been telling you in this segment. The problem with this is what happens after this decline of the state, which I repeat to you is not anarchy or chaos. That happens last, if it happens at all. What happens is emergence of possibly new forms into that creeping void. And these new forms are this new creature that we see today, which doesn't completely

have a name, it's not quite fully defined, it's still wearing the skin of the old states. Some of the forms, it's inhabiting them. But what it is is a type of genocracy and a type of absolutist herdism. It's very far removed from the state as existed where you had executive power in the king and the cabinet and so forth and a clear above and below. I don't call it socialism actually, I call it a kind of gynocratic herdism that has put safety as its highest promise and therefore it caters to the already dead, the nursing home society, the rebirth of pre-state socialism of pre-Aryan Europe or what I illustrated in my book as the long house, and what luck I, a humble internet poster and humorist have had with this Wuhan thing, but what misfortune mankind has had, that now you see in practice

how everything I told you is true, that you live already in this, although it hasn't understood itself fully in this explicit way yet, but you live already in a post-political, post-state gynocritic order, so to speak, where you know quite literally all these policies, they are not put into action by shadowy cabals or as Alex Jones thinks by European nobility plotting satanic things since ancient Babylon. That's people who still have the vestiges of political thought and think, no, there must be a smart executive planner behind this whole thing, but actually you are just enslaved by the desires of 40-something femme cells who haven't been fucked in years, or by the husbands of the occasionally married femme cells who bully their house-bounds.

And I repeat to you that before the modern age, there was some shame in being dominated by your wife, but now, since it's promoted as normal, you have this large mass of men, at least 20 to 30 percent, who, in the state of nature, they would probably be gay of some kind and they live under their wives, they're their house-bounds, and this kind of political order is what the – excuse me, I misspeak – it is not a political order, it's very much a sub-social order, it's a kind of biological order, but that's what this emerging administrative condition caters to. And the predictable outcome of the decline and withering of the state is not a return then to hippie freedom and to individual self-fulfillment, but you see already now that the seemingly

authoritarian forms of the stodgy old European state with its religious mystery of authority, its wars and its militarism, its exclusion of women, this was actually necessary to keep back this night descending on mankind now, which is this night is always in the background of human nature looming to descend, because it represents one strong persistent side of the human so-called animal in its broken state. And the old European state, the old political order of men, the political community of men since, let's say, the beginning of some effective history, was keeping back unfreedom and the smothering of life by women and fags and olds and secular mass democracy and so-called enlightenment which Nietzsche rightly or wrongly calls naturalized Christianity.

But these things represent freedom and apathy and lassitude. No, they do not. Some conservatives fear that, oh, the end of the state, the liberals are right, it represents chaos and anarchy and lack of order, but that's not what comes. A previous dark order comes, the dark yoke of female and deviant tyranny, which is darker, more hopeless and brutal than any that has existed, a tyranny that promises horrors even worse than what Bolshevism or communism delivered, which are themselves attempts in a different way to inherit the forms of the state and replace it for a similar purpose. And this is why I tell you that with my book and show, although I use humor and I try to joke with you, but in part because I joke because it's the best way to break free of

this lame, narcissistic, self-important style that is now favored by intellectuals. It's also the best way to talk to people, I, you know, humorist, but in part also because you can say bap is a food, you know, I enjoy a joke. But these are my attempts as a humble internet poster to declare war on all mankind. I declare war on them for this idolatry, this embrace of Moloch. I declare war on the bug creature who is born and lives in fear of death and wants to make a world a surveilled, padded nursing madhouse. And I know there are still some like me and I ask, do you want total war? Do you want total war on this meek, sniping, scurrying centipede people who couch themselves in language of equality and freedom, but now no longer even in the language of freedom

but of safety, it's come out in full and explicit desires. But they welcomed through this the most satanic tyranny the world has seen. I declare war on mankind, total war. I come with tablets of hatred and destruction for this breed of mankind. In hundreds of years they will say, you came on a donkey with tablets of hatred for all mankind. He owes a Moses to the frogs. He owes a Moses to the redeemers of the world in fire. show and what you just heard is Blas Piñar, a great orator for Generalissimo Franco. Do you enjoy this majestic voice? He drove a crowd to frenzy, and that address is from 1981, I think, by the way, which is after Franco died, and Spain was no longer a quote unquote dictatorship, it was supposedly a democracy, different kind regime. So you cannot

say the crowd reacted that way because they were forced to or because they were trying to curry favor with an authoritarian government. A common misunderstanding of Franco and also Salazar who was dictator of Portugal is that people didn't like them, they were unpopular leaders or they were stodgy, alienating, elitist authoritarian types who did not offer people anything like pleasure but only repression. Its leftist Iberian media and Soviet propaganda lie, shitlib lie in general, because the Spanish people actually loved Franco, many still do, they were never restive against him while he was in power and they loved him as you can hear after, and his nation was also much freer than modern so-called democratic Spain by the way.

But what I mean to say, everyone know Mussolini and Hitler riled up the people and had wild Dionysian demagogic rallies and so forth, but many assume that Franco or Salazar were these stodgy types who ruled by dictatorial, dictat authority and by force only, or who ruled in name of religion, stodgy religion, cynically, or who were placeholders for monarchy and therefore as the plebs imagined of monarchy, that they had in general some kind of dour rule. And I think similar many think someone like Lee Kuan Yew, that he was only in power because of his economic miracle, that his legitimation was the prosperity of Singapore alone, or that he was some kind technocratic corporatist business leader, a CEO type. And to be fair, neo-reaction people maybe rightly or wrongly love him for this, but

they wrongly love him for this alone. So in other words, there are a kind of authoritarian nerd, of which I say this in a friendly way, neo-reaction people are one kind of authoritarian nerd, and then the Catholic monarchist is another kind, and these generally tend to be dour people, like most nerds, hyper-cerebral and divorced from emotion, and such people who popularize either Lee Kuan Yew or Franco Franco tend to be dowers himself, so even the defenders of these I mean forward these misunderstandings, these misinterpretations of these leaders. But if you look at rallies of any of these three men, Franco you just heard, but also Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Kuan Yew used a thunderbolt for his logo imagery. He used a British fascist logo.

And Lee Kuan Yew, you see, he actually had great populist charisma in his speeches if If you watch some television speeches where he talk, he sometimes go in white shirt and he was not afraid to let loose, man. He was not inhibited. He could talk with charisma of any demagogue like Mussolini. And this, what I try to tell you, you can't – I know some of you are autist dork and that's fine, maybe I'm a little like you also, but you cannot have effective state that is based just on technocratic management, that treats a country like corporation for profit maximization, or that treats it like a religious moral doctrine, that is based on this in the case of someone like Lee Kuan Yew, some neo-reaction imagine that it is

built purely on this corporatism plus authority or force, and that omits or avoids the emotional charismatic element. After the death of a tutelary state religion, you see in 20th century there are attempts to substitute for this instead. You have this instead the natural magnetism of certain men is meant to substitute the previous religious aura that hung about the state. But perhaps the charisma is something had always been necessary for leadership, But now it becomes maybe the only thing to rely on besides force. But the point is you need, the state needs authority to come shrouded in mystery and a religious type of awe, of which the natural magnetism of someone like Mussolini, and many don't know it, yes, but somebody also like Lee Kuan Yew, or in case of Frango, if he

himself was not that charismatic, he found men like Blaas Pinyar to make use of them for this purpose. Because you absolutely cannot have a state of any kind, actually, without this. You can't have cold fish state, this misunderstanding of what political authority is. There is no such thing as cold fish political authority, and this is not a small thing. In fact, it's even the core of political being and authority. I mean this passion that you heard in Blas Pinyar's voice. That is voice of the state. If you do not have religion, and I'm afraid to say the word religion because nobody understands it today. Religion before, let's say, 1800 was all like that. It had the terror and aura of true belief. It wasn't just a doctrine a nerd says to justify his own infidel.

Unfortunately, that's what religiosity means a lot on the right also. But this is why I disagree with many neo-reaction things, where they think like, define monarchy as a mechanical process, or that they can have a purely utilitarian and technocratic definition of monarchy, the way many modern political philosophers had entirely mechanistic definition of republic. So Kant famously, I think it was Kant, he said you could have a machinery of state that That could work even if you had devils in that state. Only of course that is false, can't happen for a republic, but still as so for a monarchy where everything really depends on the personality of the king, and in fact for real monarchies the great mystery is the body of the king himself.

If you would think it through, it is his biological being, because monarchy can only really exist in society that prizes nobility and honor, where the king is the first among the nobles, the most noble of the nobles, and therefore when in fact you have state as a kind of biological breeding project, without which it becomes just a nursing home of janitors like you see in technocratic Europe now, which is a state that can command actually no real authority, More of thieves and pig trough like in post-war Japan government, that's what it is. The state is not a machinery that can be defined abstractly. You cannot put Joe Pesci or Jerry Nadler in position of king and then pretend that Pelosi or European green career mom are the nobility.

I mean, you can pretend it all you want, but nature and the people will disagree with you. And life and political life most of all carries the same sexual allure even, the same charge that female selection of men in nature does. And that's a story for a long time, very long story, but I play Blas Piñar for you at the beginning of the segment because his voice, his delivery, long been an inspiration to me to start my own radio show. And I say radio because I never liked podcasts, they're chatty, and I got the idea to start my own radio show around 2006 or 2007 when I first started listening to Michael Savage. There were not, as far as I remember really, podcasts back then, I didn't listen to them anyway, but you

will allow me this digression, since this is 100th show, you will allow me to reflect a little bit on my own episodes here on Caribbean Rhythms. And the reason is simply why I wanted to start even back then my own radio show. I was just excited, entranced by three voice performers, by Blaise Pinard, somewhat who you heard, by Michael Savage, and by Phil Henry. And the politics of these men are far less important to me than their skill, the delivery, the performance. And Michael Savage, you won't know it so well from listening to him now because he's older, but around 2000s nobody equaled him in fire, demonic humor. He has some wonderful routines, even in later years, about when he reads White House dinner menus and makes fun of them.

He's excellent in that, making fun of pretensions of what passes for high society. His vulgar demagogic populism is over the top, I loved it, and he had also some best historical imagination too of the different talk show hosts who were his competitors. But politically, by the way, he's quite good. Immigration has been Michael Savage's signature topic since early 1990s. Almost no one else besides Pat Buchanan would talk about it, but he was the one who popularized this subject so much, much more than Ann Coulter. He was the one who introduced it to Trump. Trump had always been – people say Trump came to his opinions late, it's not true. Trump had always had similar opinions about foreign policy and trade back to 1980s.

It's why Roger Stone was trying to get him to run even back then as a kind of inheritor to Nixonianism, but on immigration specifically, it was Michael Savage who pushed Trump towards that. Trump has been showing on Michael Savage radio program since 2011. Nobody else was having Trump on back then. And yes, I'm aware of what Trump has become, that's not the point here. But Michael Savage has been very good on this, most important issue of our time, immigration. Bill Hendry, on the other hand, he's a ventriloquist who pretends to be guest on his own show. For example, he pretends to be fictional character Bobby Dooley, who is a woman, so he mimics voice of a woman quite well. And she's a member of Homeowner Association, exceedingly annoying boomer. But he does this.

He pretends to be his own guest on his own show. It's always something completely ridiculous like this Homeowner Association bitch or a man who sues his own wife for humiliating him, and people call him not knowing they are arguing with the host and guest being the same person, and sometimes he makes three or four characters interact seamlessly in dialogue. I think he must have half schizophrenia, he must have incipient multiple personality disorder, but his amazing performance, I've never seen anyone do something like that. His politics are stupid, Phil Hendry, I don't even know what he is now, but he's just a norm icon, he became Trump deranged, he hated Trump and hated nationalism and racism and this, but it doesn't matter. He's a voice humor genius, he should be much better known.

But simply the excitement of listening to these three men made me want to have my own show someday, and I thought I'd even do what Michael Savage did the way he started. He He blind sent I think 300 show samples to radio stations until one of them hired him in off hours and once he was able to get any small platform he quickly became audience favorite because nobody had his fire and humor. Now I do not know if I equal these men, Michael Savage and Henry, but I hope in future I will and I am glad to know that my shows start also quite small and steadily has grown to where I think I have over 5,000 subscribers now, which I never thought I would have. I say naughty things on my show, but it spreads primarily by word of mouth, which makes me

proud because again, as I am told, no one gives you this density of information, unusual opinion and also laughs on every show, if I may place myself. And in preparing this show I looked a bit also and I asked to see a number of listeners who were curious about my own views, how I came to them and why. Why I start a radio show, how I came to my ideas and I see no reason not to tell you because it's not doxable information quite because being a bona fide spergoloid like many of my dear listeners, my intellectual origins, so called, are entirely internal. They're a matter of my own daydreams and reveries. I spoke the other day, for first time in many years, to an old friend, who is now a macher in Sillysog Valley.

I would not say anything more about him, but from him and some others, I know I have many listeners there. This, by the way, is what makes many angry at me, because Sillysog Valley was not my intended audience, but still they listened to me and not to people who imagined themselves advisors to the prince for the tech. You have these guys, they say, specialized nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, synergies, they have the paragraph describing themselves this way, or some adventurous slut like Steve Saylor has discussed who I can't understand why Silly Zog Valley guys pay girls like this to go and write quote unquote tech philosophy, these are people who have no tech expertise at all but right tech-themed philosophy. There's this girl running around now. Look, I don't

want to attack people, but these creatures imagine themselves advisors to the prince of the big tech aristocracy so-called. And then they find out that these guys don't really listen to them, they listen to me. And they get mad and then they attack me with lies and all kinds of envy and so forth. It's very funny to me. I'm telling you the truth. Silly Zog Valley was never my aim, so I mean, I welcome listeners from wherever. So I talked to this guy because he's an old friend, and he brought up this question too. He told me, Bap, I've known you for over 20 years, and you've always thought pretty much what you think now. In private, you've always said much the same things, but where it come from because it's not a product of any online communities or places. You've always been

like this, he didn't adopt it from, I don't know where people got their liberty forums or other forums in the 2000s, no I didn't get it from there, yes this is true, I got it from myself or not from any other groups, I'm not associated, but it's strange to think that before second term of Obama, actually America was quite a bit of a freer place, It was not free, but it was free-er where someone like me could go around and I mean look I have accent also and if you have accent and you are seen as eccentric it gives you a lot of elbow room for some maneuvering and people tolerated more or less some of my views even though I was let's say in public at most 50% open about what I believe. I had very few friends and actually many abandoned me especially around let's say middle of

first Obama term, but I could still in general live in normy world somewhat and operate even though I talked then as I do now about Junger and Nietzsche and Celine and so forth, and even though I didn't press too much on matters openly at least of eugenics and biology, but I was relatively open about so-called casual racism and naughty worlds which they excused you this before if you did it in the right way. And again, I, you know, I have an accent, I was always open about dangers of gynocracy. On that I was uncompromising, the gynocracy, the woman question. And about also the utterly stultifying and piss-dry character of modern life. And in the America of before Trump, but actually it was getting pretty bad starting around 2014.

This is not just a reaction to Trump, as some would have you believe. But before then, you could, if you did it right, you could maybe not operate fully in normie world, but half move in it. You could have some freedom of motion in it. In other words, you would not have a mob necessarily after you. But anyway, you will excuse this digression. So even so, I was at most half open about what I believed. I don't want to give you – and I did get plenty of rabid pushback at times also. I got in trouble in high school as early as that and consistently after, not just from shit libs, but reliably you know who attacked me the most, you know who hated me the most? It was normicons, even back then. It was normicons and the strivers to become part of the normicon and neocon so-called

establishment which is very easy to become part of them. A high IQ is not required. Just look at Jonah Goldberg or what's the other guy, they look the same. The cuckold with bald hair and goatee from National Review who wrote that he wants to see the white working class wiped out, Kevin Williamson, I'm sorry the physical description describes all of them, they all look like that, but these are guys with IQ at most 115, it doesn't take special intelligence to become part of normicon and neocon establishment, you just have to repeat what they like to hear. And if you're an immigrant and you say that, they love you for it. But if you're an immigrant and you say opposite things, they get a little bit iffy. These people hated me the most.

Some dwarfs even one time say I forget his name because again they look interchangeable and it happened more than one time, more than one iteration. But some dwarf conservative intellectual wannabe got mad because I mentioned Plato and Nietzsche, I mentioned Schopenhauer and he said, oh, you just named the reactionary thinkers. So this is how far intellectual conservatism had declined into this doctrinaire thing, it's all party line, you know, Bill Kristol is a spoke's mouth for a party line and they worship Lincoln and Churchill and anything outside of that, you're a dangerous fascist. And these were the worst, much worse than the shit lib. In much the same way, you know, they still are the worst, and now the alt-light people also have joined them.

People who are the most sensitive at thinking that the left might unperson them at any time, so then they become the worst kind of sycophants and pointers. Oh, look at him, he like Junger and Celine, I am not like him, I am the right kind of liberal, I denounce him, I denounce, do you denounce, comrade, do you denounce, this kind of thing. But anyway, to go back to where my views come from, I will tell you from nowhere but my own reveries and readings and imagining since I was maybe 13 or so or before, I don't remember really, but I never remember really thinking anything much different. Maybe in form it was different but not really, not in – for example, I remember I read Plato Republic first time at 13 and then I quickly became a communist, Plato the typical

old socialist as Nietzsche called him, yes. But I became communist after that, but communist of a certain kind, because I very quickly took communism to an extreme conclusion. I remember believing around that age that the essence of the universe is logic and reason, reason defined as logic, and that mankind's destiny therefore was the abandonment of all individuality and the melding into an eternal, unified, logical consciousness, right? Because the consciousness, the conscious intellect is universal, not individual. So something very much like the Borg from Star Trek, but that's a bad depiction. So it's like I believe that kind of good or light kind of Borg, although I hadn't decided if this evolution into common consciousness was going to be biological or technological

or both, but I saw this as a logical endpoint of platonic Marxist Leninism. So you know, my Marxist end state was a little different from fishing in afternoon and painting in evening, or whatever this kind of boring nursing home fantasy Marx had for this paradise. But then, at age of 16, I came upon Nietzsche, and I can say I read all of his books by the time I was 18 or 19. I don't pretend I understood them all, but he had a magic charm on me, as he has on many people who read him freshly and with excitement for the first time. Because I read it that way. I read it naively as the possibility that here I was finding the full truth. I always want to read things this way, by the way, and I always have. Your brain will not put in the work to fully understand something if you read it, quote

unquote, critically. As an external observer, you lie back and you make notes and you snipe and criticize the points, that's good maybe for a third, fourth reading to clarify your understanding. But on the first or second reading, you must have this excitement that here you are finding the truth of the world. This also how Nietzsche read Schopenhauer, he found him in a bookshop when he was 22 and he stayed up three nights, couldn't put down the world as will and representation because he felt here was revealed the true nature of the world. So this is how I read Nietzsche, not maybe with that intensity. I didn't stay up that many nights, but I read it without secondary literature and without going into the idiotic pedantic debates about him.

And at first he made me exceedingly angry, you know, very, very angry, and I disagreed with everything. How could he say these things? But then I read more of his words, you know, his very seductive effect. He has this, he has some, you could say, he doesn't, I was going to say he has a womanish character but I don't want to get into that where he says he's a female elephant and this, but no, he's a very seductive man Nietzsche, he doesn't just exaggerate that. He placed a charm on so many minds in early 20th century for a reason. Greatest writers and artists became Nietzscheans for his seduces and I became converted to his ideas entirely in time, and I abandoned my earlier views, and I saw that whatever

I read that was written after him and actually also many things before were just a footnote to him, or some misunderstanding of him. So I felt lucky to have found him so early just by chance, and by the way Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and of course many other good philosopher, but them especially, they, if If you read them, all of their books and so on, they give you lists of books that are their favorite and that they comment on, so they can provide you with an entire education just if you follow the authors they mention. They mention fiction, they mention poetry. That alone can teach you so much more than, and actually I read quite a bit less than academics I've met who read hundreds of books maybe, but I know much more than they

do. How is that possible? Because I read the right books and I read them with excitement, so I absorb things, whereas they read many books and understand nothing. In any case, ever since I was that age, 18 and 19, and I finished reading Nietzsche, this is what I believe, and I don't much care if people say, oh, I'm just a popularizer of Nietzsche, because to make a prophet's ideas vivid and alive for many, this is a good thing, I think. And by the way, I wasn't saying for many as in the many in that sense, I mean for many good people I try to popularize Nietzsche idea and this is a hard thing to do well and I'm proud that I do it well and those who attack me for it are not original thinkers like they imagine of themselves, they're actually not even able to be popularizers of Nietzsche

or anybody else. Ask them to describe for you Hegel and they can't. But I am the most important thinker since Rodney Dangerfield. I am dynamite. Alfred Rosenberg appeared to me in a dream in saffron robes. Look, I can't talk this now. Don't question me. I tell the ADL, do not question me. Alfred Rosenberg, that's a bagel salesman in Niteroi outside Rio. He makes the best lox bagels in town. Oh, God, I made a fool of myself the other day. I was in a taxi, and there's this very old guy, very drawn-out, thin face. He looked, you know, like serial killers. You know, most serial killers are omega vagrants or drifters. They're lumpenprol at best. Serial killers are not like you see low-order SVU billionaire or they're not charming doctors.

And Ted Bundy, as an alpha male serial killer, that's very rare. He might actually be the only one. But this guy, he looked like vagrant serial killer. He looked frightening. And I see this wheel hanging from his car mirror and a saffron ribbon around it and I says to him, that's real, that you're a Buddhist, that's a good will, you're a Buddhist, and he ignored the question entirely. He acts as if I didn't even ask it, drops me off and asks him one more time when I was getting out and I figure, I want to ask him because this guy's an esoteric Hitlerist. He's got a picture of Antarctica in his wallet, this is what I'm thinking. I was going to bring up Savitri Devi, but he totally ignores me again. So I leave, I figure he's super secret about his views.

His father was in the SS, who knows, and she talked to me. But then I see in another taxi something similar, but in middle is a faded picture of the Virgin Mary or of a saint, I couldn't tell, but it was certainly a Christian symbol. And I didn't know it could be a wheel, but both of them had a wheel, so I was wrong. The first guy was silent and cold, maybe because whatever was in the center of his amulet was faded and I made a mistake. I didn't realize what it was. I thought it was like a Buddhist wheel and I felt like a fool for this. But, you know, this is how we recognize each other. You can't blame me, you know. My friend Inkari, he's exploring ruins in Peru. He goes on expeditions in Peru. He gives, I hope if some of you go, is it Cochabamba? I forget where. He's somewhere

in the mountain jungle and he gives tours to adventurer tourists, he gives them tours into the jungle, but he also go exploration himself in private of ruins, which many of them in that area are undiscovered. And he goes there to find alien remnants and this kind of thing. I like people like that, they are my friends, I want to meet them, and I couldn't help try to see if I had met a fellow Savitri Dedi fan, you know, in the taxi. I mean, imagine if Sarah Palin was an esoteric Hitlerist and she started to repeat things said by Miguel Serrano. Look, what can I tell you? I wanted this segment to tell you a bit who is my inspiration was for show and so forth and my plans for future. That is a more complicated matter because while I've been pretty complete with you

about my intellectual background so far as my ideas are concerned, I'm leaving out – by the way, don't pay attention to that noise. I believe there is some kind of creature, perhaps giant leech, in what I'm recording right now. I have not been able to find it. I moved furniture. I don't want to get into this. It is frightening. I had nightmares. But insofar as, let's say, literary origin of my ideas are concerned, I'm being honest with you in what I told you. I got it, my ideas originate almost entirely in the readings I told you. But I am leaving out certain other personal, you could say, sources of inspiration, which is that a little friend whispers in my ear since I was a small boy and tells him to reveal things to me. He showed me old things, including in dreams.

He transfigures cities I've been to into giant temples with white pillars and violet black light. Do you want me to get into that? Because I will not. Nor will I get into my other plans. So what I do on Twitter and this evangelism that I do with book or show, these are means of meeting friends ultimately, but what I plan in future to do with certain friends that I choose and that we meet slowly, we meet first online and then we meet slowly, but what I plan to do with a close friendship group is something quite separate. And I'm just, the reason I'm saying this to you, because if you're young and excited by ideas of me and my friends, which can excite you, but to not confuse Twitter postings or even this with activism or a movement. We are not a movement online.

Our job is just to tell the truth online and ultimately that is just pillow talk and there will not be a movement either in the sense of, oh, we're coming out into the open directly from online. That's a more complicated subject for I leave for another show because I would have to get into detail for you. You can use online to organize but not directly. In other words, people who go and think they can take the online into real life directly like Paul Nalen or some others, they are fools. So you never see that kind of idiotic so-called movement from me. But there might be something better though, but I can't talk it. You will see. When I unleash my might on the world, you will know it. In the meantime, for further amusement, consider if I should in short run ride pilot to special

It would be a great improvement on Seinfeld, I think, where it would be Thomas 7-7. You know my friend, he has come on this show twice and he has a very popular account. He revealed many things on history. But Thomas 7-7-7, he would be starting in this sitcom along with other frogs who go to Japan to live in one-room apartments in Tokyo and get to all manner hijinks and talks and this, and it would be a celebration also of Tokyo, which has not ever been shown in series format in American Anglo media as far as I know. Certainly no one has shown expat life, I think, in Tokyo or anywhere else in the world that I could do that as a light-hearted exposition of our views and way of life and our spurgeries. I even have opening scenes in mind.

It's that Thomas 777 of the streets of Chicago doing his wood thing, posing in bathroom mirror subway, flip knife, menacing various people, journalists, and then in bar putting down some roasties with his humor, my friends are racist so shut the hell up, and this. And various other frogs posting online, we can show them in opening scenes, cut scene, frogs posting at compute art, me meeting train master for Popeye Chicken communicating on iPotato phone about breast milk's economy, making breast milk economy proposal and train schedules and so on, the Minnesota Democratic Party and Peter Daou coordinating mysterious on phone about the danger of Bronze Age pervert, and then you cut scene to smoke filled room,

smoke-filled wood panel leather room, you know, like conspiracy movies where the Bobs meet. And in this smoke-filled wood panel room you have Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and other Nazi neo-liberal billionaires smoking cigars and talking darkly about a change in spirit, this new awakening, quote unquote. And they are in communication, very large electronic screen, zoom with various Japanese Zaibatsu Megacorps about the need for a new east-west axis of awakening running through Tibet. In shadowing corner of Zoom screen, you see man in shadow with green gloves, he is stroking orange kitten, he is watching, waiting, listening. And in this meeting, they decide a centerpiece of this new axis as a cultural exchange program

where undercover of English teaching, they send Thomas and some of the other frogs to Tokyo. It could be very rich series, deep content, the conversations in the apartment building and the public area of apartment building with board games as Seinfeld scenes, the high energy night scenes in Tokyo and at Pajinko Parlour and many other such things. I could make fun show on this that's never been done before in multiple ways on television or even in movie. You will see nothing. I like Caribbean Risen, number one sexy show. There was a man in Beirut, an Al Qaeda captain who was living as playboy with whores and coke and this kind of life because to him this was a cover. As a cover it was another sacrifice that he would live as a criminal from his point of

view, from point of view of his religion. He was willing to pretend this because it wasn't about performing the life of a religious man to show others for clout and so on. He needed this as a cover, a playboy high-living in Beirut, Nassim Taleb dancing on table. Nassim Taleb will convert to Ethiopianism, I don't want to talk about that. But in the case of this guy, the Al Qaeda, who was, you know, undercover as a playboy, he still got caught anyway. But he was doing a smart thing in the same way that in Japanese history, the 47 Ronin, They were samurai whose master was killed and to take revenge they acted like drunks for a year and dissolute they were acting like this after their master was murdered.

And they did so to draw attention to themselves as harmless carousers and to get enemy to lower his defenses. And my point is, do you have this minimal discipline now to do and act what's necessary in moment or are you instead interested in playing a role, performing as if we've already won? It's called, my friends, Tartuffery and Pharisaism, and I'm not interested in that. I have an interest, you could say, in short term in reaching PewDiePie audience and similar. I have no interest in performing and being a minstrel show monkey for intellectual class. And if you all ignore me in intellectual class, I don't care. It would change nothing for, you know, it wouldn't change anything for me. We have other priorities. Number 160 show. Anyway, ask HBO if they want to do my Tokyo series.

I'm serious. It's very nice. I'll be right back. To show, you know, I wanted to play for you Rachmaninoff's Symphony No. 2 on these breaks. It's one of my all-time favorite musics. And if you want to listen, look up the Golovanov recording, which that's the conductor Golovanov. It's a wartime recording. I think 1943, very intense. One of all-time best music recordings, actually. It's very emotional music and I was keeping it in reserve for a special show but I thought okay show 100 maybe okay this too on the nose and it really draws to itself all the attention that music. So instead I play this which is also special to me, do you like it? It puts me in contemplative mood, I give memory of old walks, it's strange I always walk alone in city at night and it's strange I never see anyone.

I'm surprised I'm the only one taking a night walk. Some places like Tokyo, almost always you see people and some parts are full, but otherwise even very big cities in Europe and America, you can go at 2 or 3 a.m. on a weeknight and likely you will only see maintenance worker or taxi driver. Occasionally, you may walk by bar or club that are full even on weeknights, but otherwise you're the only one walking at night. I wonder why nobody likes to do this. I'm always only one at night on the street. But the most frightening is in forest alone at night. And you let pure terror overtake you and let the terror turn into savagery. And if I was able to carry that savagery into the city, it's something I've wondered about.

But this has been the rarest gift to be able to walk a city and have a rush of predator giddiness overtake you. It's very rare, very hard to achieve this excuse. you need a certain clarity of mind to do this. I recommend coffee and a pill of theanine. But anyway, so to something else happened end of 19th century and beginning of 20th, the banning of slavery. And of course slavery still exists in Africa and Middle East, and in fact it exists elsewhere, everywhere maybe under different names, but the formal banning of it by European men was, and I say end of 19th century, because Brazil banned it in 1898, I think, without a civil war, right? That takes the legs from this leftoid and neocon trope about how the civil war was necessary

to end slavery in America and the world, and how Lincoln is a tragic great man. And if you ever point out to the leftoid this fact about Brazil, and that if only America had waited a few decades, then slavery would have ended on its own. Without carnage, without war, they will lose it, because for them it's about frothing at the mouth. It appears in the end these types and the neo-cons who are also leftists, but they have some serious disorder where they desire the supposed sacrifice. Actually, it's not a sacrifice to them, it's for its own sake. You see these types, like Jenniger Rubin, and yes, I'll say nigger. I spit on your gay taboos. Go after this dope Joe Rogan. He apologizes like a pussy. So you get Neocons and Leftoids like Janniger Ruben on Talmud vision, frothing at the mouth

for blood. You can see the spittle on the side of their mouth because that's what it's about for such people. And in book I discuss earlier on this show, which is Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, he says this following about socialism, I am quoting, having rather always to work automatically to eliminate piety because it works on the elimination of all existing states which need piety for their upkeep, it, meaning socialism, can only hope to exist here and there for short periods of time by means of the most extreme terrorism. Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror and drives the word justice like a nail into the heads of the semi-educated masses to rob them completely of their reason

after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semi-education and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play." That's right. That's Nietzsche in 1878 or 1979, I think. He knew exactly what socialism would be, a short-lived paroxysm of blood. And I guess since America has not had any experience with this, and since Americans, and especially the so-called educated college ones, are so parochial and arrogant and chauvinistic that they would never dream of learning from Russians or East Euros or even the French, and they wish now to have a go at Bolshevism themselves, or we can do it right, not like those Russian boards and so forth, and there might be no stopping it until they start putting a few millions of you mamzers in ditches.

And this is an old forum's word, mamzer. Alex Lind, or is it Lindar if I remember him right, he's a schizo poster into dual seed line. Look, I can't get into this now, but he calls people mamzers. Ask David from what this word means, or Ellen Dershowitz, ask them what mamzer means. But anyway, this bloodlust I just quoted, it's common to all leftoids and neo-cons and other detrimental robots who inhabit the bloody socialist spirit. And so you bring up the Brazil end of slavery that was peaceful and they lose it because you know, they want, they want that blood, that hysterical and in general conservatives of all kinds, they too have a ridiculous respect for Lincoln who is actually a fanatical tyrant.

He drove this, he drove his country unnecessarily to civil war, which in other situations conservatives are one with classical philosophers in recognizing a statesman who leads his nation or civilization to civil war that is avoidable, that man is a failure. But that's what Lincoln is. He's nuts. And Churchill, he's another dark nut case who also led Europe to the end of its civil war, which was entirely avoidable. A war he started for Poland that wasn't in the end saved. A war supposedly against racism, but in fact the chalacost couldn't have taken place with the British and French consuls in war, so everyone knows this. A war in any case that ended England's empire and bankrupted it and burned ancient European cities to give advantage to Stalin.

And that's Churchill's achievement, destroying English empire. So these people worship Lincoln and Churchill, who any ancient philosopher, including their Their beloved Aristotle would recognize these men as dangerous mental cases and in Churchill's case very likely a corrupt and compromised drunk. He started that war for quite different interests. And yes, he started the war, but anyway, so all of this madness over the ending of slavery and why? I ask you, because the overt existence of slavery shows labor and therefore life itself for what it is. There was this madness over the ending of slavery. They couldn't abide slavery not because they thought slavery was this great wrong. Look, I'm not saying any of this was planned or foreseen in any deep way, but that people

who are dedicated to a vision of life based on drudgery and self-domestication, who think that it's good, who are deluded about this, who think that it's freedom, and they cannot tolerate the existence of overt slavery because it makes a mockery of all their claims about life. And I will try to explain what I mean. Bible itself recognizes labor and earthly life as punishment. Labor is not good. It's punishment. There is no dignity to it. There's no value to it. Every great aristocratic society recognized this. And it's important to clarify this here because in this vibrant tapestry of multiculturalism, you have Arminoid and Syriac rug merchants. You have people from New Delhi or Calcutta stinking of sweat of fenugreek and cumming with paneer overflowing out of their pockets.

You have Vietnamese clerks with long nail and Thai cock rubbers. You have Chinese who – Han Chinese who leave their own dead in the middle of the road. Not even crows do that. And dumb cenophiles see the Han Chinese abandon their own dead literally in middle of street And they say, oh, here we have a noble and self-sacrificing hive culture. She supports his own people. But anyway, a lot of these Oriental types that have immigrated to America, they also have great loathing of manual labor. They think it's low status and so on. You've met these people, so they, you know, they go for spelling bee, for office job and paper pushing, for commerce, and they think that's much better. But actually, in any real aristocratic warrior culture, such as Europe and Japan, the commerceman,

the merchant, the middleman, he's below even the manual laborer. He's around the same level as the actor and the Katamite prostitutes. So I tell you why Greeks, for example, saw this as actually a profound and seemingly depressing reason about life, but it's true. It's a series of insights that are just taboo for moderns, that would melt the life of somebody like Lincoln melt his mind because work is not noble and man is not dignified, he does not have any rights, equal or not. Work and life is punishment. Work is slavery under another name. And blacks of course continued to be slaves after the Civil War and slaves in the South. They were just paid slaves, they were paid money, but they were still slaves.

And the life of a northern industrial worker of course, you know, was likely worse off and a slave in the south, everyone knows that, but for a Greek philosopher, even the statesmen and aristocrats who didn't have their day to themselves, this was slavery too. But okay, you can say that's taking it too far. And yet the lot of man, man's destiny in moving between poles of pain and strife and stress on one hand and boredom at the other end when he solves the problem of stress, the salvation, even if only temporary salvation from this swinging between pain and boredom, The only temporary salvation is something called high culture, which can absorb your mind with intensity, but the production of this depends entirely on slavery, slavery existing under whatever name.

This is a requirement for having a certain class of people freed from the pressures of work and strife and to make them relatively secure in their position, which actually no No one in America or Europe right now is secure, which is why it's absurd to talk of American Europe as having any kind of aristocracy or upper class, not even Bezos. But you need that. You need a class of people that is secure, that is freed from this struggle so that then they can develop higher needs and higher tastes. They can develop certain pains which can only be satisfied by certain unusual and subtle things. They are then catered to and shaped by, in some cases, even created by artists, by thinkers and such, by unusual religious thinkers, and this whole edifice of culture requires not

just an elite or people who are temporarily freed from labor and commercial activities and other vulgarities, you actually need a class that is more or less permanently, generationally freed from this so that generations can grow in that certain direction and can be refined for such needs and tastes. But this in turn requires other classes of people who are then slaves under whatever form or word you want to use. And this realization that higher life that escapes or maybe just obscures the cycle of man's punished life of pain and boredom, this thing that it requires slavery to exist and absolutely requires it. This you can say is a kind of tragic or pessimistic insight because fundamentally what you're saying is life isn't worth living as it is. Mere life has no value, no meaning.

That's what the realization that work is undignified as such means because the mere upkeep of life, the effort isn't worth it because mere life isn't worth it. And then the human being in his given state is therefore not dignified, does not have any rights, does not have any nobility in his life, and the life he lives is maybe not worth living. Do you like this? But it is the fundamental insight on which Greek culture with all its heights and joys and optimism, the life you know as the Apollonian radiant gods, it is all built on this, the wisdom of Silenus, the satyr Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, who when captured he said this, this is the secret, you stupid mortal, life is bad, it's not good, it's

better not to have been born. Once born, it's good to die fast." Now this is often called nihilism, if a normie hears it and he will think you want to kill yourself if you talk this way. But actually it's just an honest starting point for life and the possibility, the only possibility maybe of building higher life for a civilization comes from this realization. So you can see why a self-righteous, moralistic, wholesome drudgery man like Lincoln and all of its kind, the moralistic socialists, the abolitionists, why they couldn't abide this and they want to end all indications of this life, they want to end this with blood and carnage as a supposed sacrifice. And the reward of which of course isn't liberation, but universal slavery under another name.

Slavery for everyone now, without distinction. But it's worth it anyway to ask why this should be so for men when it isn't so for other animals. An animal in natural state, for them, their mere life is worth living. You can see this now, just observe any animal in nature, how they behave. Why should it be that way then for a wolf or an elephant, but not for men? And many philosophers and religious men and others, they give many answers to this question and many of these answers are false half-truths and I always find them unsatisfying. They are based around some homily, like man's supposed reasonable nature not being satisfied with mere material life or this or man's knowledge of his own inevitable death or other

such things, instead of recognizing simple truth that man's life generally as it is practiced is something unnatural and distorted because man has self-domesticated himself. And so when you cannot compare them to wild animals, you are comparing free animals to explain men's puzzling misery, but that misery doesn't become so puzzling when you look at broken animal and beaten mule and so on, which I went into some detail in my book to explain this difference, but if I may allow myself an analogy of a low subject, but you see now with this so-called mass vaccination, you see how hard they try to get everybody to take the vaccine, because large pockets of populations without it would have meant you have a natural control group, which would have revealed their scam, that the vaccine

does nothing or even hurts you, maybe even speeds up infection, maybe in the future it will make infection even worse. And to hide this they try to scare everyone and intimidate everyone into blindly taking it as fast as possible, everyone, so there can be no exceptions to make comparison. Or when you see hysterical BPD female, she throws scene when people are having a good time because she wants everyone to be miserable like her. So you see this principle, right? Because as numbers of the most domesticated serf men, as these numbers swelled after 1800 because of technological and other inventions, but these men achieved a kind of degraded hive consciousness around end of 19th century and therefore worldwide crusades to end slavery

and impose the same homogenous incipient genocracy on everyone, this took place because example of people not subject to self-domestication and self-brokenness, this something they could not tolerate, you see, and slavery is integral part of free life. So this is Lincoln and this is the fanatic abolitionists and then the other fanatics of now who under the words of liberation and equality, in fact they seek to impose a universal and homogenous slavery because they cannot accept example of this control group. Such a control group would make their life into a mockery and expose their slavery and delusional cover-ups of slavery, in the end expose their meaning, their delusional cover-ups of the meaninglessness of their lives.

It's a deep rot that eats at them, they know it but they try to suppress memory of it. Because this is man's original sin, this is his fallenness, this is his domestication. So anyway, I'm glad to see some spirit in the truckers as I speak. Even if they should fail, it is good to see some fight in some people, but I hope it can be only a small beginning and that it's something that will end in just this, a general declaration of war on all mankind, on all the fem cells, on all the salt stick inner thigh waxers and prattlers. I want to see a promise among my friends for the destruction of all chattering mules, all pack animals who want to drain you of great will to range as predator on open steps, of these prattling people who polite small talk and smiles in everyday banalities

and domestic coziness. They want to rob life of its urgency, its violence and needful longing for Nemea. And some of us will live to see the new dawn of the Black Sun. This is what alchemists who paid for this knowledge with their lives. They stood up as witnesses to truth to pay with their lives for this. They call it Negrito, excuse me, Negredo. Can I say that on air? Negredo, the black sun, the second sun of purification and purgation. They were martyrs for this, as am I. And if you see me in public, ever, I will wear the red bandana for the same reason the Pope wears red shoes, to show my readiness to die as witness for this truth of the blood of martyrs until next time and thank you for 100 shows number one Caribbean sexy beat show until next time BAM out