Caribbean rhythms episode 112 of welcome to the show. And of course, we are all enjoying tears and lamentations of the left this weekend I am personally responsible for this result if you are Christian and have been working for decades To stop abortion and so forth. You have to thank me because I am the reason Ruth Baylor Ginsburg was destroyed I personally am responsible for her death Because you may remember I think it was a show long time ago when old woman interrupt me, but the day before or whenever the night that Ginsburg died, I was seeing a prostitute and I had her read a spell in the act and also a story from the internets about Doug and so forth and I focused Just incredible psychic energy. Just if you saw Dragon Ball Z, that type of, from my head, a flue, a flame, and I saw it

in a sphere, it go out the window. And this is what led to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. So all of you integralists and other Christian traditionalists and others who are celebrating Now, you believe that they were sacrifices to Moloch, this abortion thing. You have to thank me for that. It is because of my incredible sexual power that this happened. But what can I tell you, this 2016 energy is back, it's been building up for a while, and now Clarence Thomas just took a jizz on one of the idols of the left, on the face of the idol of the left, Roe versus Wade. And my friend Zero H.P. Lovecraft is correct that quite aside from the content of this ruling or of what its consequences will be, for that alone, the fact that one of the left's taboos and idols

has been shattered, that's cause for celebration. Now on the right wing, the biological, let's say, people who are interested in human biodiversity in human biology, in demographics, that type of thing. Some of the secular left, some of the neo-reactionaries and others are skeptical of a result like this because they know that most abortions in the United States are black women and other minorities. And they are afraid that right now, for example, America is 13% black. I think it's scheduled, projected to be 15%. Well, what would happen if America was 25% black or 30% black, which they think it might be without abortion? I think America would probably be over at that point. There would be no country left.

Because you couldn't afford Beni's for that amount of population, and so it would lead very quickly to social breakdown and war, I think, there wouldn't be money, and then of course other minorities would similarly expand and demand things. But I think this is wrong way to think about it because, excuse you see, I say these things and yeah, so I think this is wrong way to think about it because in the medium term even and certainly in the short term there won't be any demographic changes. There's going to be massive funding so that some people can move out of state or go to different states and get abortion and so forth. Of course, the white girl from good family who had abortion before will continue. And that is a shame because that is really the demographic America should care about,

but this ruling won't change that. I think there is a different substantive reason aside from the tarnishing of the Left's ideals, and we see now the Leftoid girls with very pale cottage cheese thighs and colored hair and they're crying on television and calling, you know, they've taken to calling Clarence Thomas some very bad words, it's a friendly show, I can't repeat them here, but the Leftoids think it's fine to call him that. And of course many are saying, are trying to gin up insurrection and violence at the same time they attack Trump supporters for so-called January 6. But quite aside from this enjoyment, I think there is a substantive reason to celebrate this ruling, even if you are skeptical of its demographic possible effects.

And this is its return to the laboratory of the states. It's a return to localism. That's what the ruling really is, it didn't outlaw abortion. It allows different states to go their own way, and this is something we should support for many, many other reasons also, if you're on the right. So anyways, I don't want to talk this show about, I'm sure everyone talking Roe v. Wade and so forth, this show about quite different things, but I think this point of localism, of rule returning to people who actually live in the place that is affected by the laws they make. I think this is trend of world in healthy direction, away from big states and centralized control. And this is what actually this show is about because I believe the state system of the

world is withering and it, by the way, probably won't lead to this kind of healthy localism or small, you know, the city-state is the best form, I think, but it probably won't usually lead to that. But to mess barbarism and break down what comes after, in any case, will not be a utopia. It will not, for example, be a self-governing anarcho-syndicalist humanity on the Marx model, where as leftoids hope, you would receive a free society, a stateless society. It would be self-organizing on compassionate and egalitarian principles, where the necessity and pain of specialization, the drudgery of labor would be eliminated, where the life of man would become a free associating purely economic activity of production and distribution.

As Nietzsche said, it would be a free society, this false ideal of the socialists. which says the famous wooden iron, wooden iron and not even wooden, free society, impossible. None this Marxian utopia will not come. Actually listen now to how Carlitos Schmitt, the famous Castillo philosopher, Carlitos Schmitt, listen to how he describes this, and I'm quoting now from The Nomos of the Earth, it's one of his later books, Carlitos Schmitt. The transformation of the community into an administrative state responsible for total Social welfare leads to a paternal totality without a house father when it fails to find any archie or crassie, any form of government or rule, that is more than a mere nomos of distribution and production.

I consider it to be a utopia when Friedrich Engels promises that one day all power of men over men will cease, that there will only be production and consumption with no problems, and that things will govern themselves. These governing themselves will make every archy and crassy, every form of rule superfluous and demonstrate that mankind at last has found its formula. Just as, according to Dostoevsky, the bees found their formula in the beehive because animals too have their nomos, their custom or law. Most of those who swarm around a nomos basileus, these are word for custom is king, is if you We remember Herodotus, look up Herodotus, custom is the king of all men. But so, Carlito Schmitt say, most of those who swarm around such a notion of nomos basileus fail to notice that in reality

they propagate just such a formula, end quote. A formula of total human slavery under ubiquitous custom and law. What you think about that? The free society of the socialists, no such thing, nor will ever exist. But actually, I will read for you later this passage from Nietzsche about wooden iron and the false ideals of the socialists because on this show I talk about this, the future of Europe and the world. There is journalist Aris Rusinos, quite good journalist, I do not attack him, he is a good man, he writes many good things and he is embedded now I think right now in Ukraine with the right sector or something like that, with one of the hard right groups in any case who are fighting there. And he's been writing quite few article lately about how idea of nation state is being replaced

in very near future or even now by something called civilizational state where instead of a state corresponding to a Nazi or a people or an ethnic, the state instead would correspond to a civilizational sphere. So for example, think the Roman Empire if it had survived or the Byzantine and had become a modern state. And he believes such states now as China, or Russia, or India, or maybe even Turkey, that they are or want to be of this kind, and that Europe is trying to, or maybe must become such a state too for its own survival. And this is the reason Rusyno seems, I think, keen on the Ukraine war, because similar to other European rightists, and I hope I don't mischaracterize him, I don't in fact know that he's a rightist, but he thinks on this, like some euro-right friends, he believes

that Ukraine war is the making of Europe, the awakening of Europe to the necessity for realist power politics, to the need for providing for its own defence, waking up from its slumber, at least after the Cold War ended or maybe even from before, providing for its defence as American power wanes or as it gets redirected to the Pacific to deal with rising China. And he wrote an article recently, and I'm not picking on Russinos, he's a good guy, He is repeat in clear way many things I disagree with. That is why he repeat things representative of what many others are saying, and so, okay, so this is why I pick on him. He write clearly so it's easy to say what he says and then attack him, and he wrote articles the other day saying nonsense that Macron embraces Nietzsche's civilizational

model of a united Europe, where Europe is uniting in the response to the Russian danger. I was just taken aback by this. I think I've read for you before the passage from Nietzsche or from Beyond Good and Evil where he talks precisely this. I will repeat it, I think, later in the show. Maybe it's a good passage. But if you remember Nietzsche's tone about breeding a European ruling caste that is able to project its will thousands of years into the future like iron, does that sound like Macron to you? I mean, Hitler also wanted to unite Europe, you know. That's not enough. like that Analogical thinking in politics and philosophy sociology whatever is very hard and because of this it's usually wrong

And I mean macron's European Union has nothing more to do with nature than it does with Hitler the grill lay on the grill SS man from Belgium He had quite a bit to say He lived after World War two and he had a lot to say about the difference between the vision of Europe for which he fought which he said was animated by the flame of his ideal, and he contrasted it to the low midget of the European common market, which is reflected I think most of all in this abortion of humanity, Macron. This mannequin of the international finance cartels, they've groomed him with his reptiloid hag of a wife, he's apathetic, takes pornographic photographs with Africans, had an ongoing affair with his His Arab bodyguard, everyone in Europe knows this, Macron's Europe is an economic zone

that is the midwife of an African Europe. He is the midwife of Europe's Senegalese future. Does that sound like Nietzsche's intention to you? How people online or commentators in general now and many of these pan-Europeanist accounts, you may have seen them, they repeat this nonsense. Some of the white nationalists in America too, some of the Richard Spencer people, they They say they believe that somehow the European Union can be an institutional path back to a revived Roman Empire, or some of them openly say the Third Reich, others don't want to say that, so they leave it vague, they say Roman Empire, Holy Roman, whatever, but something like that, and they believe the European Union can be a path toward the right. I don't understand how they can do that.

In other words, they've never achieved any right-wing goals in any of the individual Nations, but they believe they can achieve it in a united Europe I there's no explanation for why but in any case these pan Europe Europa accounts the Europeanist you may have seen them I happen to know some of them are Activists for the vault party in Europe. I mean genuine bona fide members of that party and You know you look look up vault party and that people who really say nothing you could not say under your own name They celebrate NATO and the European Union, but they want to capture the allure and energy of anonymous posting from 2015 and so on Oh, I'm saying something dangerous. I'm saying something some is that you must agree with me because I and

But they're doing it to say entirely normal fag things in support of the vermin who run the European Union They're not saying anything that Von der Leyen or any of the European bureaucrats aren't saying so, you know, it's an abusive anonymity to do that but somehow the people from the Third Reich itself or from the international European volunteers who joined the SS they did not think that the European Common Market was a possible path back to the vision of the United Europe they they had in mind not the one they had in mind. By the way this is a disprove I think not only of these right wingers or hard right wingers who believe that the The EU can be a path to the right, but also you may have heard of leftoids who have theories

that the Nazis took over the West after World War II through Operation Paperclip and other such things, and that the EU is a Nazi path. It's very bizarre. Even Alex Jones believes something like this. But the people who are actually in the Third Reich, people like Leon de Grell, its ideologists, they didn't believe this. And I've played his video, I think, or did I? I will play it, it's worth listening again. So here is Léon de Grell, Belgian man, he joined the SS, and after the war he became one of the writers and ideologues of the European hard right, and he escaped to Spain, otherwise he would have been shot. And here is contrast he makes between his Europe and that of the European Union, and He's in French, but he's very short.

the world, this divide of the world, this desertion of the universe. When we are in our own country, the decomposition of the earth, the state of the country, the state of our families, the state of our society. When we are in our own country, there is more material that is used by the big flames of the idea that we live in.

and in the end, we were able to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a way to find a

the people of the world and of the masses of the people of the technical world. embellishing a little, but that is the gist. Not once did someone like him imagine that it was a good thing that Europe was being integrated by this other path. And why? Because he knew it empowered a certain type of bureaucratic refuse of the kind you see now in Yolanda van der Leyen or Ursula, whatever her name is, and yes, in Macron. And the European rightists who imagine that a return of Europe's greatness and virtue is possible through any structural or institutional beings of this kind, in other words, they believe, again, you know, how can you say when you cannot achieve within any of the respective nations after World War II your aims, when you fail on every count on immigration, on

moral and cultural matters, but that somehow empowering this other layer of aggressive and petty, malicious bureaucrats, because they're malicious, I mean, look at the outburst of the lift in the United States now, but not just there because Boris Johnson, he felt he had the need to comment on this and others in Europe do too. It's an international class of petty, malicious people who are emotionally incontinent. Look at their reactions this weekend. It's amazing to see. These are people who can rule anything, let alone project their will thousands of years into the future because a post-Soviet conflict forces them to. That's absurd. But these people who manage the new Europe's overlapping institutions, how is it possible

that somehow through them, through these incontinent morons or through this new structure, will you get what you wanted? Only because it's sort of like or analogous to the Roman Empire or the Third Reich and because it can be mobilized sort of by hostility to Russia. I think this remarkable, stupid turn of mind, because they have no plan. I mean, the people on the right who believe they can infiltrate somehow or use the European Union. It would be one thing if the hard right had managed to secure a presence in the European Parliament as a powerful faction, or if they had people inside the bureaucracy or even inside some of the parallel other institutions like NATO, but they have no one. They've got no one at all and they are completely powerless.

one on the inside. I mean, I know these guys. They have zero. They have less than we do in America, where at least you can say there is this politician or that who, okay, maybe they read my book or if they don't know about me, they're sympathetic to some of what the frogs say. But, you know, Politico tried spreading rumors that I had friends in the Trump White House or this, but in Europe there's nothing at all like that. What is their plan? The The European Union is designed specifically to stop people like us from ever having any voice, let alone power, and it sends people to jail, actually, who say things much less than need to be said to save Europe. This is all a mere hope on people's part that somehow the EU will turn into a based Roman

Empire type thing because of pressure from Russia or Turkey that it will turn. How can you turn from this anti-European, actually, technocratic nightmare? What are the prototypes for the bug man? How can you turn that into some kind of European empire driven by military or other high kind of virtue? Military conflict alone does not guarantee this. America has been in military conflict for 30 years now, and things just get gayer and more effeminate in America. This actually America's military adventure since 9-11 allowed the worst of the worst to rise to the top of American society and government. 30 years of war, 20 at least, many simultaneous wars, and what is there to show for it? A few faggots like Tom Cotton or Eyepatch McCain and so forth.

And how will military conflict and preparedness, how will that turn this Europe of the technocrat bug man, how will it turn it better when it did not work in America, why? What is the process? But why has this happened? Because there is no military preparedness, in fact. It's all small-scale police actions, and the military class can be deliberately kept very small and marginalized, and then veterans are hounded and harassed, and they're curated, and powerful men like my friend Sam Finlay, who wrote Breakfast with the Dirt Cult, and he was on, I hope his book gets made into a movie someday, but they are excluded, and Their stories aren't even allowed to be told or heard. So what will be different in Europe?

And there's no sign that even someone like Macron, by the way, is preparing for war. What Macron is proposing, Aris Roussinos talks about, Macron is saying he wants to increase military spending. He should know better. The posture against Russia is another theater kid fop job, an affectation for show. Because for example Poland, next door to Ukraine, Poland is under threat, but Poland is not instituting a Finland or Switzerland style infantry model where 18-year-olds are drafted or an Israel model of a mobilised society. Luttwak mentions this, I think, when was he on? But not by the way that this model actually has helped any of these countries from being faggedised either, they all have, Finland, Switzerland, Israel are all fagged countries

full of migrants, gay marches, trannies, other things. Worst of all, they're ruled by the same type of bug men with life force vacuumed out of their military services, not stop any of that. But big talking Poland has not even tried that. So who will do it? None of these people plan to fight. They're making arguments instead. They're turning off your air conditioners or patiently suffering, which is all these small people know how to do or letting your grandmother die scorching European cities in August without air conditioning. This is their plan, how to stick it to Pootler. The European Union, by the way, has emptied many East European countries. Like Poland, it's emptied them of their youth. They go to work in the West.

So you have this weird thing with then the country becomes lopsided, aged, and so will they call the young people back to serve in the military? And I think these young people will not return, they don't want to get blown up by Russian missiles. So I know East Europeans, they will not fight. So worst of all, the entire European leadership class, and Macron especially, is this migrant situation in Europe is worse than it's been in a long time, it's getting worse by the year. And only Wuhan put the temporary stuff to some things, and Macron is basically the open intention of bringing in untold number of Africans. So you know, tell me how Nietzsche and Macron is going to oversee Europe's transformation into an extension of Africa. I will be right back.

Living embodiment, proof of why the state system is falling. So far from bringing about a civilizational state or whatever, a new revived European empire, Macron is proof of why states not just in Europe but across the world are collapsing, unable to solve vital problems in China, they cannot solve their water problem, their food problems, I will not mention what goes on in Africa or Latin America, but all across the world, not just Europe and United States, this new crop politician represents a catastrophic decline in human capital, in intellect, in emotional continents and character. I will give you just two examples from many I could give. But during Economic Crisis 2008, they were trying to propose, let's burn down housing stock to artificially raise the price.

Or Paul Krugman saying that there needs to be alien invasion to stimulate spending. And of course their biggest idiocy is the forgetfulness of differences between human populations which is something obvious even to a five-year-old and it's always been obvious to mankind and their denial of this, their maniacal egalitarianism, this stupid idea is causing all the mass migrations that will lead to the collapse of the global north under the weight of the global south. And this leads to end of all state system across world because lack of human capital to continue technological civilization and it's embodied in people like Macron and those who populate the European Union technocracy right now. So what is wrong with Aris Rusinos and all these types saying Macron is Nietzsche or

the European Union accomplished Nietzsche's view of a united Europe, because the vision of a united Europe these people have, even if you let's say dismiss any cynical motive. So let's say that Macron is not a rent boy for, by the way, I may not be able to continue power voice throughout this show, this very long show. Some of you may not like it, maybe you will listen more than one sitting, but let's say that Macron is not a rent boy for international bank cartel and that he and Merkel were not just planning to flood Europe with people who are willing to work for slave wages. This gives them benefit of doubt, but their vision of United Europe is not based on race. It excludes race as consideration for European identity and heritage.

And so the unnatural and logically absurd position that a people's heritage must exclude their biological inheritance. And for this reason, whether as he does you base Europe on some misunderstanding of the Enlightenment or of man as an economic animal, or even if you have Christianity in mind, Europe on this new basis that excludes race must welcome in vast numbers of non-white replacement population because it's only through this instrument that you could break the Europe of nations that you're trying to erase, right? If you are Finnish, if you are Hungarian or French, traditional French population, you don't have to think in racial terms because by default, if you're Croatian, people in in Croatia have always been white.

There is no such thing as a black Croatian because, you know, there's no Senegalese in Croatia and so forth, historically. But this is problem, because when you unite, the only basis on which you could unite Europe is a racial one, actually, if you want to limit it to just Europe. And so when you unite it on some other basis, you have to erase these nations that do not welcoming newcomers, let me put it politely, right? Because if you believe what Macron and European Union class believes, what stands in way of a united Europe are these separate nations and where the natural solution to this would be racial, to say the difference between a Croat and a German and an Austrian and even And the Spanish is less than between any of them and somebody from Nigeria or Thailand,

and so we're going to erase the traditional nations of Europe and make an amalgamated united European race, which, by the way, I don't know that you'd have to do. I mean, Nietzsche talked about doing this for an elite that would rule Europe, but I I don't see why you would have to mix the nations forcibly. But if you're trying to get rid of the nations, that's what you would have to do. And so it is these separate nations and the borders that stand in way of what European Union class believe. Because you deny that and you deny the nations, the only way you really have out of this is to flood it with non-whites. Because that gets rid of borders, it gets rid of the national identities of Europe. These are your antagonists.

And by having a, let's say, Senegalese or Bangladeshi mouse, whatever platitude proposition you're positing as the true heritage of Europe, it's case closed. Now, of course, it won't work. It will lead to a kind of continent-wide permanent Bosnia of perpetual blood and the rape gangs on all sides if you try it. And honestly, I don't believe Macron or the people who run him want that result, but they're stupid and they're going to get that hard. And the same way the white rulers of South America, who thought they could play with race in the same way, they didn't need to import populations in that case, they could bring them in from the countryside. But they end up getting it hard in the end too. You know, the left does not win, nobody wins, it's just going to be Bosnia everywhere.

But I don't think that's what Nietzsche had in mind. So let me read you the passage from Nietzsche that Aris Russinos and some European rightists have in mind when they bring up this in comparison to Macron and the chest puffing over some miserable post-Soviet conflict that doesn't concern anyone or anything in Europe but they're trying to gin it up as some Russian threat that will unite Europe. So anyway, I am reading now, I am reading now, okay, this from Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 208, our Europe today, I'm reading now, our Europe today, the scene of an insanely sudden attempt at a radical mixing of classes and consequently of races is, as a result, skeptical in all ... Oh, by the way, excuse for interrupt.

I think Russinos, as well as other people who invoke this idea that Europe is now becoming united as a consequence of having to face down Russia, I think they live out this part I just read to you, isn't that ... I don't know, they leave that out, but I'll restart. Excuse. Our Europe today, the scene of an insanely sudden attempt at a radical mixing of classes and consequently of races, is as a result skeptical in all heights and depths, sometimes with that flexible scepticism which leaps impatiently and greedily from one branch to another, sometimes gloomy like a cloud overloaded with question marks and often sick to death of its will, paralysis of the will. Where nowadays do we not find this cripple sitting,

and often how well dressed, in such a seductive outfit? This illness has the most beautifully splendid and deceitful clothing. For example, most of what presents itself in the display windows today as objectivity, the practice of science, art for art's sake, purely disinterested knowledge is only dressed up skepticism and paralysis of the will. I'll stand by this diagnosis of the European disease. The sickness of the will has spread unevenly across Europe. It appears in its greatest and most varied forms where the culture has already been indigenous for the longest time, and it disappears to the extent that the barbarian still or again achieves his rights under the baggy clothing of Western culture. Isn't that nice?

Anyway, thus, in contemporary France, we can conclude as easily as we can grasp it in our hands that the will is most seriously ill, and France, which has always had a masterful skill in transforming even the fateful changes in its spirit into something attractive and seductive, it truly displays its cultural dominance of Europe today as the school and exhibition hall for all the charms of skepticism. The power to will and the need to desire a will that lasts a long time is already somewhat stronger in Germany and in the north of Germany even more so than in the middle, but it's significantly stronger in England, Spain and Corsica. In Germany it's bound up with apathy and in those other places with hard heads, to say

nothing of Italy which is too young to know yet what it wants, and which must first demonstrate whether it can will. But its strongest, the will is strongest and most amazing in that immense empire in between where Europe, so to speak, flows back into Asia, that is, in Russia. There, the power to will has for a long time lain dormant and built up. There the will waits menacingly. Uncertain whether, to borrow a favourite phrase from our physicists today, uncertain whether it will be discharged as a will to negate or a will to affirm. It may require more than wars in India and developments in Asia for Europe to be relieved of its greatest danger. It will require inner revolutions too, the breaking up of the empire into small bodies

and above all the introduction of the parliamentary nonsense along with every man's duty to read his newspaper at breakfast. He's saying it may require all this to dissipate Russia's will. I'm not saying this because it's what I want. The opposite would be closer to my heart. I mean such an increase in the Russian danger that Europe would have to decide to become equally a threat, that is, it would have to acquire a will by means of a new case which would rule Europe, a long, fearful individual will which could set itself goals for thousands of years from now. So that finally the long-spun-out comedy of its small states, together with its multiple dynastic and democratic wills, would come to an end. The time for petty politics is over.

The next century is already bringing on the battle for mastery of the earth, the compulsion to grant politics." End quote. Yes. Does this sound to you like Macron, the mastery of the earth? Please, I posted this passage, I think, last year or the one before, I forget, and actually I had weird replies even at that time that this is the European Union or this is NATO. I don't know what I can say to you if that's what you see, a caste able to plan thousands of years in the future, a eugenic pan-European caste able to design great projects. I mean, the European Union is about pensions and healthcare, human rights for trannies and Gambian refugees. In other words, it's a descent into muck, into trash, into the proliferation and preservation of deficient life.

I can't abide, you know, I can't abide, man, this type of analogy-type thinking, this structural analysis so-called as for the idea on this show that of Civilizational state what can I say other than for reason for reasons? I think the state system is failing It's because precisely as I tell you people like Macron are running the state. So, you know, there's no hope for them It's just collapse and what comes after isn't the leftist utopia of stateless society organizing itself economically heard without a master But what comes after is chaos and brutality and I hope it can be a productive chaos a revitalizing era of darkness for mankind. It's time to shut off the lights for a while, I think, anyway. But I promised you this other passage from Nietzsche, and here it is.

It has to do with the socialist's hope for a stateless society, but even more so, it is an explanation of this other one that I just read to you, to help you understand what Nietzsche meant by the possibility of planning for a thousand years into the future. You make comparison not just to Europe of now, but to Russia, to China, and there is no comparison because this exhausted modern world of fakers, Macron, the minstrel show Napoleon, Xi in China, the minstrel show Genghis Khan, please you listen, I read from Nietzsche how Europe will become ever more artistic, from the gay science, I read to you now. Providing a living still enforces, even in the present day, in our transition period when so much ceases to enforce, it still enforces the need for providing a living, enforces

a definite role on almost all male Europeans, their so-called callings. Some have the liberty and apparent liberty to choose this role themselves, but most have it chosen for them. The result is strange enough. Almost all Europeans confound themselves with their role when they advance in age. They themselves are the victims of their good acting. They have forgotten how much chance, whim, and arbitrariness swayed them when their calling was decided, and how many other roles they could perhaps have played. For it is now too late. Looked at more closely, we see that their characters have actually evolved out of their role, nature out of art. There were ages in which people believed, with unshaken confidence, with piety, in their

predestination for this very business, for that very mode of livelihood, and would not Not at all like knowledge chance or the fortuitous role or arbitrariness therein, ranks, guilds and hereditary trade privileges succeeded with the help of this belief in rearing those extraordinary broad towers of society which distinguish the middle ages, and of which at all events one thing remains to their credit, capacity for duration, and duration is a thing of the first rank on earth. But there are ages entirely the reverse, the properly democratic ages, in which people tend to become more and more oblivious of this belief, and the sort of impudent conviction and quite contrary mode of viewing things comes to the front.

The Athenian conviction, which is first observed in the epoch of Pericles, the American conviction of the present day, which also wants more and more to become a European conviction, whereby the individual is convinced that he can do almost anything, that he can play almost any role, whereby everyone makes experiments with himself, improvises, tries anew, tries with delight, whereby all nature ceases and becomes art. The Greeks, having adopted this role-creed, an artist-creed, if you will, underwent step by step, as is well known, a curious transformation, not in every respect worthy of imitation. They became actual stage players. And as such they enchanted, they conquered all the world, and at last even the conqueror

of the world, for the Graeculus Histrio, that means the Greek actor, for the Graeculus Histrio conquered Rome, and not Greek culture, as the naive are accustomed to say. What I fear, however, and what is at present obvious, if we desire to perceive it, is that we modern men are quite on the same road already, and whenever a man begins to discover in what respect he plays a role, and to what extent he can be a stage player or an actor, he becomes an actor. He becomes a stage player. A new flora and fauna of men thereupon springs up which cannot grow in more stable, more restricted eras, or is left at the bottom under the ban of suspicion of infamy. Thereupon, the most interesting and insane periods of history always make their appearance, in which stage players, all kinds of stage

players, are the real masters. Precisely thereby, another species of man is always more and more injured, and in the end is made impossible. Above all, the great architects. The building power is now being paralyzed. The courage that makes plans for the distant future is disheartened. There begins to be a lack of organizing geniuses. Who is there who would now venture to undertake works for the completion of which millenniums would have to be reckoned upon? The fundamental belief is dying out on the basis of which one could calculate, promise and anticipate the future in one's plan, and offer it as a sacrifice thereto, that in fact man has only value and significance in so far as he is a stone in a great building,

for which purpose he has first of all to be solid, he has to be a stone, above all not a stage player. In short, alas, this fact will be hushed up for some considerable time to come. That which from henceforth will no longer be built, and can no longer be built, is a society in the old sense of the term. To build that structure everything is lacking, above all, the material. None of us are any longer material for a society. That is a truth which is seasonable at present. It seems to me a matter of indifference that meanwhile the most short-sighted, maybe the most honest, and at any rate the noisiest species of men of the present day, our friends the socialists, believe, hope, dream and above all scream and scribble almost the opposite.

In fact, one already reads their watchword of the future, free society, in quotation marks, free society on all tables and walls. Free society? Indeed, indeed, but you know, gentlemen, sure enough, whereof one builds it, out of wooden iron, out of the famous wooden iron, and not even out of wooden. Yes, end quote. By the way, compare what Nietzsche say here with the arbitrariness of one's chosen vocation or specialization. Compare this with what Marx and the Marxoids say. Nietzsche has a quite different view of what follows upon the end of labor specialization. In fact, he says it happens sometime already in history. But what do you think of that, what I just read, the rest of what you say I mean. It's no material for a society, no material.

A productive explosion is the most we can hope for, gentlemen. We are at opposite pole in energy of world from where states can be born or maintained, let alone empires or new peoples. I will be right back. Quick smoke break and you enjoy music. So I am talking about journalist commentator Aris Russinos, an idea of a civilizational state or a regional empire as supposedly a challenge to Western liberalism and a notion of universalist liberal world order and so forth. So Russinos is good guy, but I disagree with him on this. And of course, he and others who embrace this notion of civilizational state or regional empires as a challenge to the West, to the West view of one world that's united under a liberal world order, but they are following Samuel Huntington in a famous book, Clash

of Civilizations, written 1996 or late 1990s, I think after an article he did that made a splash, similar trajectory of Fukuyama book about end of history, and it's obvious challenge to Fukuyama. And I think in this sense there's a lot that's true about Huntington's idea, and certainly America would have been better off if it had followed his advice and his view of human nature, political world, instead of that of the neo-cons, who you could say he preemptively criticized the neo-cons, although actually not real because in criticizing Fukuyama, you know, Fukuyama is cut from the same cloth as the neo-cons. There are some differences, but not so much in Fukuyama's view of human nature and how it relates to politics. In other words, Fukuyama believes that after collapse of communism

and end of Cold War, only liberal Western ideology is left as survivor of 20th century struggle modernist idea fight. And so liberalism is fated to become ideology or worldview or regime type of, call it what you will, of all mankind, being in accordance with a view of history and human nature promoted by the thinker Fukuyama Fallo, in this sense he is different from most neo-cons because Fukuyama Fallo Alexander Kozhiev, and Kozhiev was Marxist I believe on payroll of KGB actually, and he was also a promoter of various types of European Unionism, but in his honest thought he was actually a dissident Marxist. He follow Hegel, rather, and I'm not using his language right, but I will summarize for you a brief of what he believed.

For Marx, it is the stomach, in other words, material need that is strongest human drive. For Marx, every other human problem is solved when this economic problem of production and distribution is solved, and this is why Marx believes not just the state but even the family and even sexual exclusivity and many such things will disappear in the end state, after the problem of material production and distribution is solved. And he followed in this Rousseau. Both Marx and Rousseau believe that family, property and such things are unnatural impositions on the egalitarian and indistinct blob they both posit as original nature. Maybe they do so consciously or not. But for them life is this vague, indistinct, egalitarian blob, and property is an unnatural

imposition, but so is family, or even more primal, the feeling of sexual jealousy. The feeling of sexual jealousy, in other words, not natural to men. It comes from oppression, from an imposition on a nature that wouldn't include it. So sexual jealousy, this too is unnatural and will pass when the problem of material distribution and the subsequent end of specialization. I mean, it's complete loony. It's a view at odds with what is known about human impulses, which cannot be deleted and which are themselves actually source of drive for property and for material accumulation, and not the other way around. In this sense, artiste is right. Ultimate market, if you want to call it that, is the sexual market. I mean, you can't let go of sexual jealousy.

But on the other hand, it's funny, the rationalists and the post-rationalists and so forth are discovering this no matter how much they try to talk it away, right? Because people like Yudkovsky, but many others of that group, and I can't even... What are they called? Post-rationalists. They're all into polyamory, right? So I've known tech people who are into this avant-garde supposedly thing, and their line, very reasonable when it's talked, is that these are feelings, sexual jealousy that have evolved to protect against false paternity and so forth. But if you know that you will not have to care for another man's child by whatever means, why do you then have to give in to the, you know, whether it's by testing or contraception

or so forth, excuse me, they attack me when I talk this, but why do you, the post-ration, the Yudkowsky, I don't even know what they're called, but I hear Elon Musk likes them, maybe I can convince Elon Musk. But such people ask, why do you have to give in to these feelings of sexual jealousy, they are evolutionarily wired into you, they agree, but their evolutionary purpose no longer applies so you can reason your way out of them. But why demand possession of a woman? To which I replied to, I was arguing this with a tech dork, and I told him, you may be able to temporarily talk, hold on a moment. I'll be right back. I think someone is trying to attack. I hear a ray. I'll be right back. Women, forgive me, I thought I heard a ray sound, and this is a long show.

I apologize for the interruption, but I really thought I heard a buzzing sound, and I thought perhaps they've finally done it. They've sent people, but I asked this thick dork who was making the argument that you don't need to give in to sexual jealousy, asking, you may be temporarily, you can talk your way out of jealousy, but on the other hand, a woman's biological response to this situation isn't just to become jealous when you take another woman, for example, but when she takes another man, her biological response is to become contemptuous of you. And that's something much harder to reason away. And so a woman's loss of respect for a man who does not possess her exclusively is as a biological reaction.

As you know, I get extreme agitated, for example, when I hear a baby cry, it drives me to very troubled mind. It wipes everything else from my mind, actually. The baby cry is designed to do this, right, to get this response. It's so primal and powerful that even from a block away, it can seriously unsettle you and agitate me. So how do you control that? You can't, or the reaction to smelling carrion. These are not matters of moral opinion. And even though I've seen ugly shit-lib girl especially, they try to argue even these things are. So you know, the Marx-oid view of man's nature is just so wrong. But Hegel's view, as interpreted by Kuzhev and continued in popularized form by Fukuyama, is that man's fundamental drive is for recognition and that the liberal state succeeds in conquering

all mankind because it can universally and equally satisfy this, the need for recognition in all men. For respect. I want respect. It's one of these things I find loathsome because the drive for honor, distinction, and even fame can be charming in a great man. I think Nietzsche say this about Tacitus, talking about Tacitus that even for the wise the desire for fame goes away last, which means never. But while this is awesome to see in a man like Tacitus or a character from Joseph Conrad book, in the average man it become loathsome desire for social approval. the trannies and the gays and the ethnic narcissist's desire for social validation of their chosen identities and so on, respect my people. So to posit it as fundamental drive of humanity that can serve as basis of universal and final

regime is I think, I don't know, I don't think it works. I think there's another desire that is stronger, greater, more natural and terrible, and on behalf of which most men seek recognition only as a means. And again that is the desire for sexual possession, artiste is right. It is the one market that determines all the others, and the laws of breeding of a society are the fount of all its other laws and more as an organization. But anyway, Huntington, who only mentions Fukuyama one time I think, he has good criticism of Fukuyama and not just Fukuyama but Neo-Khan view and a liberal universalist view. I think we would all share this. I will read it. It's about a page or so. I'm reading from Huntington's book now.

criticizing what he calls the one-world euphoria and harmony view, so I'm reading now. One widely articulated paradigm was based on the assumption that the end of the Cold War meant the end of significant conflict in global politics and the emergence of one relatively harmonious world. The most widely discussed formulation of this model was the end-of-history thesis advanced by Francis Fukuyama. We may be witnessing, Fukuyama argued, the end of history as such, that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. To be sure, he said, some conflicts may happen in places in the third world, but the global conflict is over and not just in Europe.

It is precisely in the non-European world that the big changes have occurred, particularly in China and the Soviet Union. The war of ideas is at an end. in Marxist-Leninism may still exist in places like Managua, Pyongyang, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, but overall, liberal democracy has triumphed. The future will be devoted not to great exhilarating struggles over ideas, but rather to resolving mundane economic and technical problems. And he concluded rather sadly, it will all be rather boring. This is Sam Huntington describing Fukuyama's view, and Sam Huntington then continues. The expectation of harmony was widely shared. and intellectual leaders elaborated similar views. The Berlin Wall had come down, communist

regimes had collapsed, the United Nations was to assume a new importance, the former Cold War rivals would engage in partnership and grand bargain, peacekeeping and peacemaking would be the order of the day. The president of the world's leading country proclaimed the New World Order. The president of arguably the world's leading university vetoed appointment of a professor of security studies because the need had disappeared. Hallelujah! We study war no more because war is no more. The moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War generated an illusion of harmony which was soon revealed to be exactly that. The world became different in the early 1990s but not necessarily more peaceful. Change was inevitable, progress was not.

Similar illusions of harmony flourished briefly at the end of each of the 20th century other major conflicts. World War I was the war to end all wars and make the world safe for democracy. World War II, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, would end the system of unilateral action and the exclusive alliances, the balances of power and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries and have always failed. Instead, we will have a universal organization of peace-loving nations and the beginnings of a permanent structure of peace. World War I, however, generated communism, fascism and the reversal of a century-old trend toward democracy. World War II produced a Cold War that was truly global. The illusion of harmony at the end of that Cold War was soon dissipated by the multiplication

of ethnic conflicts and ethnic cleansing, the breakdown of law and order, the emergence of new patterns of alliance and conflict among states, the resurgence of neo-communist and neo-fascist movements, intensification of religious fundamentalism, the end of the diplomacy of smile and policy of yes in Russia's relations with the West, the inability of the United Nations and United States to suppress bloody local conflicts, and the increasing assertiveness of a rising China. In the five years after the Berlin Wall came down, the word genocide was heard far more often than in any five years of the Cold War. The one harmonious world paradigm is clearly far too divorced from reality to be a useful guide to the post-Cold War world," end quotation of Sam Huntington from his famous book Clash

of Civilizations. So, okay, he's right when he says this, as he is also right when he calls attention to problem of migration. Huntington, to his credit, was very skeptical of mass migrations to the West, the Mexican migration into the USA, and Muslim into Europe poses an existential threat for Western civilization, Although it should be added that Samuel Huntington was worried especially about Mexican migration because he thought it would challenge leftism and liberalism within the United States. So he shared the conservative's false view in my opinion, it's a false view that the Hispanics or the Mexicans because of their religion and their supposed social conservative views that they would shift the United States away from liberalism. I don't think this through so much.

I think if you look at rates of illegitimacy and other such things among Hispanic migrants, Mexican migrants especially, it is not such a good site and of course they all continue to vote far left, whenever they can they vote for left, but I continue that another time. Sam Huntington is right most of all I think when he emphasizes the role of culture in political organizations. In other words, he sees the West as unique and so are the other civilizational or cultural spheres and it's not easy to transfer forms from one to the other. And he seems by the way to use these words loosely, civilization and culture and sometimes interchangeably but it doesn't matter. His meaning is plain that you can't universalize Western legal social political forms or to

export them to other countries, and that when other countries try to ape Western forms, they become a neither-nor. They become a kind of schizophrenic half-and-half mix that doesn't work, and in all this, again, I think Samuel Huntington much better than the alternatives or would have been better for America and actually the whole world if United States rulers had taken his advice. On the other hand, I think he's very wrong, just totally wrong on his model of civilization spheres and so forth. It is kind of Babbie's first risk map, you know, risk the geopolitics game of dice. And I think with these fantastical made-up maps of his. So what are the cleavages of mankind on Sam Huntington's map? He's wrong about that.

Wrong also he is in the model itself, quite aside from where you draw the lines. So he includes, for example, the Koreas in the scenic civilization, so-called, the Chinese civilization. But this is wrong. There is no scenic civilization. Koreans have tremendous contempt for the Han Chinese and are not now politically nor have they ever been united with the Chinese. In fact, they're one of the Asia peoples who resolutely refused to be absorbed in this, in the Han board, to their credit. Even North Korea, okay, which you hear in geopolitics circle or in conservative circle, North Korea is perceived as the pit bull of China. In fact, it's not friend of China. It's very different culture, very different political organization.

It frequently disobey China, and there are small factoids that are very telling. For example, any Chinese-Korean mixed pregnancy they terminate, they immediately abort any such offspring. So in this, they are very much like the Manchu, with the Koreans, they probably shed a lot more temperamental and cultural or historical ties than the Chinese. I mean the Koreans and the Manchu. And the Manchu are the founders of China's last dynasty, the Qing dynasty, which forbade any interracial marriage between the Manchu rulers, not just the rulers, but I mean the Manchu founding ruling population that lived Manchuria, between them and the Han Chinese. It did not allow also the Chinese to enter the Manchu homeland. It forced many other things such as Han men,

Chinese men had to adopt the Manchu hairstyle and other such things. So does that sound to you like a member in good standing of a civilizational sphere? I can't think of any example where Roman neighbors adopted such measures. Even people who were enemies of the Romans, let alone peoples supposedly part of the Roman civilizational sphere, to have had such contempt and disdain for the Romans as the neighbors of the Chinese have for them never heard of such, to ban interracial, whatever you want to call it, inter-people marriage, it's unheard of. And it's not one or two things that Sam Huntington gets wrong like this. Let's just stick with the example of the supposed cynic civilizational sphere, okay? Because it's not just one or two things, but within China itself, Huntington at least is

honest enough to say Tibet is not part of Chinese civilization. But he says Tibet is part of another civilizational sphere that he makes up, which he calls Buddhist, although I'm not sure what the ties are between Tibet and Thailand or Sri Lanka. He imagines some ties there, but I don't think so, whatever. But okay, at least he's honest and say Tibet is not part of the Chinese sphere, even though it's technically within the Chinese political state. But although he concedes that the Uyghurs are different in words, he includes on the map Xinjiang on the map of scenic civilization. Why he does this? Because then if he excluded both Tibet and Xinjiang on the map, he would be forced to make the map of such civilization much smaller, I think.

It wouldn't correspond to the borders of present-day China. It would destroy much of this idea of civilizational state on one hand, but also idea that Chinese civil... You'd be left with the absurd result that the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, who are founding vassal members of the actually civilizational Qing Manchu state, to which the modern Han-dominated China is actually the successor state. So the peoples who had relatively equal status in the Manchu, actually civilizational sphere, because the Manchus had a feudal lord vassal mutual, based on mutual loyalty, relationship of respect with the Uyghurs and the Tibetans, but not with the Han Chinese who were considered serfs. They were allowed no part in the rule of the empire as a whole.

So there's something called the system of dual administration within the Manchu Empire. So the Manchus were the ones who actually stopped Russian Eastern expansion at the Amur River. I don't remember if it was, I think, late 1600s or 1700s. The Manchus actually had an imperial and geopolitical orientation as the inheritance of their very non-Chinese step heritage. But okay, the borders of present day China, they are really created by them, not by so called Chinese or cynic civilization. They look down on cynic civilization, except that people who are willingly part of the Manchu Union are now under Han rule only because they are coerced, not because they are part of any common cynic civilization. This I think really blows up not just Huntington's map, but also his model.

So I have much more to say on this. I must take a break. I must take break, because it's opportune time. It might not be opportune time in show, but it is for me. I must drink some goat milks with glycine and passion flower to calm down. I will be right back to talk more of this about China and Samuel Huntington's false model of what he calls civilizations. I'll be right back. I was talking China situation and how no such thing really scenic civilizational sphere, the way Huntington imagines it. By the way, did you like the musics? I played one of my favorite things, it's Bach English Suite No. 5, E minor, the prelude, the first movement of it. Did you like? It's maybe hard to listen to because Bach alien music, but it's very intense, it's alien extraterrestrial music, I believe in this.

But anyway, so regarding China, the model of scenic civilizations based on some kind of willing sympathy and consent to Chinese leadership is wrong because it's actually not even just these people I mentioned now, not just the Koreans and the Vets, and even within China you have the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, and what this means historically, how it contrasts to Manchu China, it's not just them I mean, but even other minorities within China who are there perhaps unwillingly. The Yi for example, YI, but not just that, many others, the black Yi, and some of them the Black Yi, for example, made a sport of the Han up until barely a hundred years ago. They considered the Han to be prey to be hunted.

What scenic civilization, even the South Chinese, the unity of the Chinese language is a scholarly fiction. I think one of the great lies of academic linguistics, some people accept this idea that there is a kinship between Mandarin or North Chinese, Chinese proper, and the languages of South China, which are really culturally and otherwise, you know, they sound like Southeast Asian languages, in manner many Cantonese are like Southeast Asians, and men are often in looks, and in fact there's no linguistic connection between the languages claimed to be cynic even. It's kind of astroturfed kookery, it's taken seriously however by academic linguists, and it would be as if you took seriously the claims of Serbian nationalist schizophrenics who

who say that Moses and Alexander the Great were Serbs, and to find, you know, a word in the Bible with the letter V and K as proof of the Bible was written in Serbian, right? I mean, the Chinese similarly say that Genghis Khan was a great Chinese general. So this gives you an idea of what scenic civilization means, right, I mean, the Mongolians don't agree with that. And everyone laughs at what they just said about the Serbian lunatic scholars, but a lot of claims about Chinese linguistics and history I don't say more there, but they're accepted because academic linguists are pussies and it is power and authority they bend to. They don't like the truth. So why are these minorities stuck under Han ethnic rule, which is what China is, by the way. It's an ethnic supremacist state.

It's not a civilizational state or a broad ranging empire. Empires have to be able to put together various peoples who are then more or less happy in some way with that rule. Iran is much more a civilizational state than China is. The Persians have thousands of years of experience ruling minorities, people who are not Persians, whatever you want to call it. And right now I think only about 50% of the people in the borders of present day Iran are Persian. The rest are Balochis and Azeris and Arabs and so forth and others. And they are, you see them expand and they are frustrated in their expansion because Israel and United States and others get in the way. But they could very easily expand to the Mediterranean in a year or so, the Syrians who joined them.

That is a civilizational state empire you can think of. But they're not doing that. They're not expanding. Whereas China is very different. It's not like an empire has to be clement and generous, like the imperial Manchus, who they were able to forge and melt together various peoples and hold them in various alliances. Why is China right now, which is not able to do this, why is it able to dominate and bully these minorities? It's simply through coercion, through demographic weight, which is quite different, again, from imperialism and also through Western meddling. This is how it came to be. The West, first of all, stopped Japan from dismembering and neutering the Hamburg and ending this nightmare for all of Asia because Japan would have protected the minorities

within China and given them freedom. You see, and there's also meddling in many other ways from the West, such as supporting Mao from the beginning, the United States. Mao would have never happened without support from CIA and the communists and the English intelligence services of, you know, helping Mao destroy Axis Tibet and many such things. Furthermore, it's very revealing, and I go on long time, but this example is important because it shows, because Aris Rusinos himself say it is in China, this notion of a civilizational state has been most welcomed by so-called scholars, court philosophers in other words of the grubby Han ethnostate. And forgive me also my Chinese friends, but I say nothing here that I have not said worse in the book. You know, I love you.

You know, that's the thing, you know, I feel bad saying this stuff sometimes. I think I have some Chinese friends, I love Chinese foods, I like Sichuan spicy pepper hot pot, intestine stir-fry, but you know, I think they can deal with it, okay? So anyway, very revealing, I mentioned Vietnam, it's very revealing that Huntington include Vietnam in this scenic civilizational sphere, which, from one point of view, he should, because Vietnam not only embraced Confucian ideas, but Vietnam even imagined itself as mini-China, China in the jungle, China in Southeast Asia, China 2.0, with Vietnamese emperor modeling his rule, his court, his style and clothes, and everything on the Chinese emperor. And even more than Huntington say, at least in this book, I don't think he says it in

in the book, but Chinese emperor, this is how they spread their influence or imagine that they did through gifts, through a kind of cultural diffusion where you'd find natives on south, you know, in the jungle of Southeast Asia, they'd be wearing grass skirts and so forth in the jungles, and the Chinese would come and tempt them with fine silks and many other accoutrements of civilization. And then they would threaten to withhold them when they didn't pay ritual obeisance or they were perceived to get out of hand or something like this, except this isn't really a workable model of rule. So politically, not only was Vietnam not a part of China, but it's a traditional antagonist. They're always at each other's throats, despite the cultural pollination, you see.

So this is big weakness of Huntington model. And I mean, it's so obvious, a fact that Vietnam and China were enemies that he himself has to recognize it. He mentions it once or twice that, Oh yes, you know, Vietnam, by the way, is an enemy of China, and they fought a war in the 1970s. He doesn't add that it was extreme vicious war, but China got its ass kicked in that war with Vietnam. I mean, the fuck rate, or I'm sorry, the death rate for China in that war with Vietnam was atrocious. So what is then political significance for Huntington if Vietnam, despite some cultural sharing, is nevertheless a political hostile perennially to China? And in fact, this is constant actually in Chinese history with its neighbors, where it spreads its culture in the same way to steppe nomads,

and tries to bully them by withholding silks and other such things. It considers gift-giving a tool of power. This is quite different civilizational character, a cultural character, from what Tacitus says about the Germans, that they gave gifts expecting nothing in return and received them without any sense of obligation, which is really noble, very noble Aryan quality of character, but just think of people who see gift and favor giving as a way to exert power or to incur debts. It's awful, right? I mean, I know, I knew darn Chinese girls who were like this. You know, some of the nastiest girl I've ever known was like this, a petty and malicious soul. But this angers people, you see. So the response at times from Chinese so-called clients was, oh really, you withhold the silks?

You've made us angry, so we're going to invade you and take your silks and take your women and slaughter you, okay? You know, and this happened repeatedly in Chinese history where most of the dynasties were not Han Chinese. They were not natives. Huntington wants to sweep all of this under the rug. In other words, what he's right is that if you attempt to introduce a Western political form in Vietnam, you might domestically within Vietnam experience the same difficulties as if you try to introduce Western forms within China because both share certain Confucian ideals and such, but what he's wrong is in assuming that this creates any sense of solidarity or unity between Vietnam and China, that it makes them into a politically significant so-called civilizational sphere,

or even between, by the way, the minorities that China now rules and bullies within its borders. And he even says so, he says, yes, okay, they've always been hated enemy, but, he adds, but in the future, because I say they're part of the same civilization, it's possible they will become friendly, and Vietnam reverent toward China as the core state of that civilization, because, and here it come, he gave game away, because the nations of Europe have been able to do the same. So there you see the cause of much of Huntington and also Aris Rusino's ideas. It's Eurocentric, and excuse me for use this word, but it's Eurocentric in the bad way, in the same way liberals or neocons are, because they confuse Europe's very limited, actually recent experience, they confuse that

to the rest of the world. And I give you other example, he make up something called Islamic civilizational sphere. Now no such thing exists. There is basically nothing uniting an Indonesian to a Moroccan to an Indian Muslim. Despite the common religion, there is nothing there that can form a civilizational commonality or the basis of any common political group, let alone a state. The wishes of ISIS notwithstanding, the civilizational state in question actually here is pan-Arabism. Now Arab civilizational state, Arab empire is something that could have maybe worked. An Arab super state, secular pan-Arabism, the vestiges of which you saw in Saddam Iraq and in Syria where you still have the pan-Arab bath party running things. It's a secular model of state.

It's a mix of fascism with some Stalinism and other such thing. It's a very sturdy system, actually. It's based on a mass party grassroots mobilization and on slaughtering your enemies. And Huntington should know this. He talked of it in an earlier book on political order, I think, and it's very interesting that Israel promoted and helped Hamas, the religious party, the supposedly Islamic civilization party, Israel promoted them at the expense of the secular pan-arabist pillow, the secularist Palestinians. By the way, an interesting factoid, I think in Israel history, Israel-Palestine war history, even up to now, most of the suicide bombers, you probably think they were religious Islamic fanatics. Most of them in Israel history were not, they were leftist secular Palestinians.

And if you look worldwide, most suicide bombing, not the flashiest that you know about, but most actually that has happened statistically is secular people. It's people like the leftist secular PLO or it's the Tamil Tigers or people like that. But it's very interesting that Israel helped the supposedly dangerous and formidable Hamas, No, they're Islamic, but Israel helped them at the expense of the PLO, just as it helped ISIS against Assad. Apparently, Israel does not really believe in practice that religious nationalism or Islam as a political force is a very formidable opponent. It's concerned much more about the anti-Zionism of a secular leader like Assad than the supposedly formidable ISIS or radical Islamic anti-Zionism. Now, why is that?

Maybe because for all the seminars in academic rooms about political religion over the last 20 years or about Islamic pan-state, civilizational Islamic state, Israel realizes there's no such thing and there's no such thing as a religious government. A religious government is government run by cretins. You can't make political decisions theologically. It leads to cretinism. This is why Muslim Brotherhood waits for 80 years and actually is quite good at undermining secular Arab society and agitating and infiltration, but then when it finally gets a chance to rule over Egypt, it destroys its own economy and all of society in, what was it, a year or less. Whereas the Arab secular leaders, for all the failures they had, they gave Israel and

West a run for their money, and in any case they managed to maintain order in their countries for decades. Saddam was that country, his government, order and peace, which is what Samuel Huntington claims to care about or to be investigating in this book, Clash of Civilizations, as well. Whence comes political order and peace? What are its sources? Well, it appears here it's not Islamic civilization at all, it's Arab secularism, pan-Arabism. And as a tangent, I know what I'm saying now runs counter not only to political sentiment trends in America and Europe, even among the new right and so on, who have lately especially made a kind of obsession this idea of religious government, and how only religion supposedly

can save you from bad government, and how everything bad can be attributed to secularism, as if Japan for example is a religious society and not one of the most secular, and it has none of the problems that bothered us in United States or West Europe. But anyway, what I'm saying now runs also counter to discourse in the Middle East, where for the last 20 years, more than 20 years, you've had, and you can see this on memory, but surely you've seen clips of angry Arab men in dirty robes, they're screaming on television, in interviews about how Arabic secular dictators and monarchs are faggots. And really they use these Islamic ideologues, they use a very sexually charged language on this, trying to emphasise the weakness and effeminacy, and specifically the faggotry

of the secular Arab rulers, and how only the men of Islam are the real men. But then you see the results, not only with Muslim Brotherhood Egypt, but also ISIS, which was not pan-Arab, but a truly pan-Islamic force. They accepted Sudanese, Pakistanis, all their leadership, actually, funny enough, ended up being red-bearded Chechens, in fact. But look how quickly it fizzled out. The crisis lasted two, three years. What was it? And Israel never thought it would be a threat for some reason. But leaders like Saddam and Assad and such, they were seen as threats. So in these and many other ways, you know, the cleavages and blocks of loyalty posited by Samuel Huntington, and by extension also Ari Stroussinos and other people who talk

of civilizational states, their cleavages of mankind are all wrong. But even more wrong by the same reason, you know, is how they falsely generalize. recent European experience to the rest of the world. I say more of this in a moment and why these people are acting like pikers. This big topic, long show, I hope not leave some of you bored, but is big topic future, let's say, near to medium term future of world, what it will look like? Is there a trend for how states will look? And I say Samuel Huntington, Aris Rusinos, and other heralds of so-called Civilizational State model, which are empires and Rusinos is honest enough to call them that. But I think they're all wrong. There is no trend in direction of empire or even federation or confederation.

There is no trend where smaller states are clamoring to join into larger unions of some kind except in European Union, which I think is coerced with this bigger topic. But aside from that, there is no such trend. I think trend is in opposite direction. I think that the only well-run states that are actually financially solvent, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Norway has what, 4 million people, and relative to bigger states they are much better run, and why, you know, bigger states are financially busted and why do they exist in the first place? The only reason large states and large empires exist, aside from conquest, but when you have willing union of tribes or peoples into one larger nation. You see this in Robert Drew's book, End of Bronze Age.

He speaks of the process of ethnogenesis, of why Nazis, nations in the not quite modern but in the proper sense of the term, why do they arise at the end of the Bronze Age whereas As before, you didn't really have, the territory was not run by a Nazi or, you know, the Hittites had an elite of a different race and people and native people were of a different sort and they, and that was seen as okay and Mycenaean palace societies were run in the same way that where the people didn't even speak the same language as the rulers and there was There's no nation in the proper sense of the word, and they arise at the end of Bronze Age. But why? The purpose is for common defence. Bronze Age ends because these small city-states end up getting wrecked by Sea Peoples and

various other tumultuous uprisings, and so then after that Sea Peoples episode ends, you start to have nations in the proper sense of the term occupying and ruling a territory for the purpose of common defence, and this is also why large empires and large nations exist today. They can conscript many men and so forth. But I think the defence reasoning for a very large state disappears with nuclear weapons, but also with development of various kinds of technology, and I'm not going to comment on Ukraine, Russia, so forth, but you have many examples of very small states defeating larger conglomerations in the last 50 to 70 years even. I don't think there is a reason for large empires to exist. Nations don't just decide to come together because of some civilizational similarity

perceived by a scholar on the outside. But let's look at the trends. In other words, you cannot use China and Russia as example, because China and Russia have existed for a long time already. They are not trends of anything. And I try to make the case brief that China now is a less cohesive version and smaller than the Manchu Empire that the modern state of China succeeded. And it's held together by in part coercion and in part past Western meddling, and not because the component peoples, aside from the Han, want to be part of it. It's not a civilizational state, again it's an ethnic supremacy state. For there to be a trend proven in the direction of empire or civilizational confederations or federations, you'd have to see examples across the world of, let's say, previously

separate states, separate smaller states, that at some point in the past may have been part of an empire or a common sphere, you'd have to see such states joining together for whatever purpose. Like if China were broken up previously somehow into different warring states, nine states, and somehow by chance and now they were joining together, or same for Russia or India. But in all these cases, these large states exist only because of European meddling. in the case of India and China, India as a result of European colonialism, and European conquest also in the case of Russia, Euro conquest of Siberia and so on. So you know there's no such trend anywhere really that, you know, for unity example among the Latin American countries which were quite recently united under the Spanish Empire have

the same language, have very similar cultures, social organization and customs, no trend whatsoever for unity among them, or to create some neo-Spanish viceroyalty or something. You don't see in Africa, neo-Dahome or whatever, or anywhere else except, again, for Europe, and they are trying to wish this rather than to observe it, in other words. They have to posit, well, some future hypothetical friendship between Vietnam and China, or a of false unity between China and the Koreas, which, you know, unite China and Koreas to me makes about as much sense as unite China and Japan. You know, there's a lot of Chinese civilizational or more properly cultural influence in Japan too. One of Japan's two major religion, Buddhism, all came from, all the teachers of Buddhism

and the schools of Buddhism came from China. So in the case of Europe, the only reason you see this supposed unity now in the European Union, which the European Union was started by the United States, of course. But that's the reason Europe's cities were burned 70 years ago. It was occupied by Anglo-America on one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. And it is puppet governments with almost no sovereignty, and they coerced their peoples into these overlapping institutions, in some case forcing them to vote in referendum four or five times in fraudulent elections until they got the right result. We have a referendum, we didn't get the right result, we just keep voting until we get the right result. This happened in France, in Netherlands, in Ireland.

Not to speak of NATO, where nations like Spain that I don't think ever had a vote to join NATO and people never wanted to join and they do not want an American base there and so forth. And now Sweden and Finland, because of the hysteria over this post-Soviet conflict with With Ukraine, that has nothing to do with Europe, neither Ukraine, nor if Ukraine is part of Europe, so is Russia, and if they're not, they're not. But Sweden, why isn't Sweden holding a referendum vote to join NATO? You know, I asked this online and you know what I was told, you know, the pan-Europeanists have an answer to this. Oh, it's because 80-90% of people in Sweden, of course, support joining NATO, so there's no point in a referendum. Really, you think these people would forgo getting an 80-90% referendum result,

it would be a great PR win for them, but I don't think the Swedish people want to be NATO. You know, what you see on the news, which is controlled of course, the media channels are all controlled, all the newspapers, that's not what the people in Europe want, they don't... So, if you crush a continent and you kill off many of its leaders, you exile them, you threaten others with jail, So, yes, maybe they will join in this neutered version of an empire, really a common economic zone, based on the thin syrup of human rights and tolerance for refugees and other such, but you can't generalize from Europe, even if you disagree with what I just said, because Europe has been under, fine, you don't think it's been an American province, it's been under American defense umbrella,

you can't generalize from that to rest of world, where there is again no trend toward coalescence of smaller states into larger empires that existed before or not. So I'd say the trend again is opposite direction and Rusinos as well as Huntington, idea of civilizational state, it's supposed to exist in opposition to Western liberalism. This is another, it's true when Samuel Huntington says it, I don't think it's true when Aris Rusinos, the way he puts it. I'm not sure what actually liberalism means for either Huntington or Rusinos. if they think that liberalism means embrace of liberal democracy, so-called as it exists in America and Europe, they might be right. They might also be right if a civilizational state, let's say Turkey trying to resurrect Ottoman,

although Russia trying to resurrect Russian empire, that it exists in all cases as a form of regional particularism of kind. In other words, something showing up the international institutions of the United Nations, not playing along with them, or trying to resist other international bodies which seek to standardize laws or standardize rights across the world. Or you could say in the same way that these states like China and Russia, to a lesser extent India or Indonesia, that they want to resist this international UN judicial priesthood or bureaucracy that tries to meddle in affairs everywhere. So if that's what you mean by they define themselves in opposition to Western liberalism, then yes, such states do not want such meddling, and you can say they exist in opposition to that

if you want to call it liberalism. I guess it's called the liberal world order. You hear regime toady types repeating a stale phrase. So in this limited sense, you can say at most, well, some states are trying to resist this with varying levels of success, but Russinos and the other people who say the civilizational state or regional empire is the future, they take this claim much further. They have a false view of human nature and of situation now, where they claim that liberal individualism, which they identify with thought coming from Locke, or from consumerism, or such similar individualistic ideologies, are responsible for lack of loyalty or public spirit in the West, but that ethnic solidarity exists in China or in other non-Western places because of a rejection of such ideologies.

And I think this is wrong. I think the problem is worldwide, and it's caused by exhaustion of all ideologies that can bind people together, not by liberal anything, you know. I can tell you that not a single person in the West that Russinos or these people are thinking about is a Lockean or anything of the sort. Actually, Locke is quite strong on national sovereignty and I think it's possible to make the case that Putin is a 19th century liberal nationalist and such things existed. I'm sorry, this is just a bad idea. It runs among Washington, D.C. intellectuals and others, and also some people on the right, my other wise friend Nick Sallow, but their idea is that the faults of the West right now are the result from too much individualism

or from liberal individualist or capitalist doctrine, and I don't even like Locke, but it's simply false to blame this. Almost all the people you encounter in the West now, and especially the left, but almost all of them reject Locke. They reject liberal individualism. They embrace varieties of communitarian or communist thought by other names. And the Lockean individualists, as the libertarians also, they are a politically and culturally powerless group. It's a favorite target of all the other factions, because many of them, they're a little ridiculous, and because it's easy to posit them as a cause of decay, because after all, the ideology of the West, or at least of the Anglo world, used to be Lockean some 100 or more years ago.

So you know, it's easy to then make a genealogy of modern corruption where you trace it back to this Western liberalism idea. It's also very safe, a very safe thing to do, but it's false. There is a worldwide exhaustion after the Cold War, and not just in the West, and it's got nothing to do with liberalism. Even actually I think ethnic solidarity is failing in many places, there is no glue to hold many ethnic groups together that existed before, let alone larger societies or states. And the causes of this, that's an interesting question, but it's certainly not liberalism. I think it's something much worse. Some dysgenic force, combination, taking apart many states and societies. Most aren't going to make it. I think, for example, Argentina, there's basically no hope for the future.

I mean, there might be a place on a map called Argentina, but there's a process, you know, when you pull apart strings of a cloth. That's what's happening there. And to many other places, sorry for my Argentine friends. It's a very charming place, but in that case it's very clear because you have third and fourth generation Italians who say they're Italian and they don't want to be Argentine. Their greatest hope is to get a European passport. Then of course in Europe they're not accepted as Europeans. But anyway, Aris Rusinos believes the civilizational state, by which again China, Russia, India and yes Turkey, apparently Turkey's trying to capture the allure of its Ottoman past, But he and others who think this way believe such places are taking their bearings and

forging themselves by reacting against Western liberalism. But again, I have to question these categories. For example, when Russinos, I mean, what does this mean, Western liberalism? When Russinos points out that Erdogan government now in Turkey, they're trying to define itself against Kemal Ataturk. And when you end up call Ataturk regime Western liberalism, I think there is, you've reached the place with a problem. What could liberalism possibly mean in this context? Kemalist Turks are considered basically hard-right fascists, not just in Europe, but by actual Turkish liberals. The Kemalist ideology is based on militarism and progress and such thing, on promotion of militant and manly virtues.

The Turkish military is the seat of the Kemalist faction and the guarantor of the Turkish constitution, At least before Erdogan purged it in 2016, I think it was the coup, Erdogan managed to purge much of the military. In what possible way is that liberal, unless by liberal you mean secular state. I think that's a terrible definition of liberalism. Even if it is the definition that Washington, D.C. centered intellectual commentators, they are going with that. I mean, they are at the stage where they are calling people like Kemal Ataturk, and I suppose by extension maybe also Saddam Hussein and Assad are liberals because they believe in secular government. And I suppose then that Frederick II Hohenstaufen, medieval Holy Roman Emperor, is also a liberal

or a proto-liberal because he refused theological and papal meddling in government. He said a true king must rule by secular necessity. The king of this world is necessity, pragmatism you can say. And he inherited this view, by the way, not only from his reading of Aristotle via probably some Arabic commentators, but also from Byzantine emperors who had very similar theories, statecraft, where the necessity and matters of empire allowed them to ignore religious authority and law in making decisions of politic. And I suppose then they are liberal too, they are kind of liberal. And I think this has gone too far, this religious mania of the DC intellectual class. It's infected all levels of the left and right in America, maybe some of Europe too.

When you are calling Ataturk liberal, you've gone a bit too far, my friends. But these same people, there's a girl who now orbits Hazoni, who's promoting this idea, and Vermula and all these types. She called my book, if you can believe it, I think she called it liberal. The same book that Antifa and Peter Daouw and them party officials, they chimp about, it's fascistoid and so forth. They call it liberal. I think I saw some threads recently that the fascists and Nazis were liberal, too. I don't recommend praying to the rosary and going to church and kissing the hand of a weird guy in robes as the solution to all political and moral problems, you know, so that I'm a liberal. On the other hand, Catholic charities for refugee resettlement and vermula with the

miscegenation society for refugee resettlement of Oaxaca in the United States, they are definitely not liberal because they pray, time to pray, prayer, show prayer, be a Pharisee. But anyway, so you know just what I mean, what this, you can't reject secular government and try to smear it as liberal. I think actually there's no such thing as a religious government, at least not competent because truly religious people make decisions based on theological and not practical consideration. It leads to mistake. For example, Egyptian priest become pharaoh, he disrespect warrior class. Instead of preparing for war, he disrespects the warriors and he prays for deliverance from a Hittite army that is invading. The warriors refuse to fight for him.

And in that case, which is a tale from Herodotus, the god answers his call and sends rats to eat the Hittite bows, and this is really what a religious scribe or priest's fantasy means. But it's always like this, you know, the Zulus and other tribes in preparation for a battle. Instead of taking it easy, resting, eating well, trying to engage in practices that make body strong and mind steady and prepared for long battle, you know what they do? They force purgations of their soldiers, they make them vomit for ritual reasons and many such things, so they come to the fight weak physically, and whatever is gained in terms of confidence and fanaticism and adrenaline that the gods are on their side, physically they cannot last long against the disciplined foe, like the Boers for example.

And the Boers, as well as Europeans historically, whatever their religious convictions, and I'm not saying they were not religious in their private lives, but they didn't run battles and war and government by religion. They didn't have religious government, they didn't make military or political decisions based on religion because they are not ruled by priests and shamans and such. So the Boers had a very different heritage of what it takes to prepare for battle. So the question of a king or emperor invoking divine grace to justify his rule, the lip services paid to the religious foundation of a state, that's another thing altogether from religious government proper. I'll be right back to talk more on this and the Byzantines. Religious government.

Just because you have secular government doesn't need to mean that you adopt shitling policies. For example, monkey pox, especially after the last great worldwide six pandemic aids, And by the way, Wuhan Flu was also spread at gay events, at gay super-spreader events in the United States especially. That's how it was introduced, I think. But leaving that aside, just monkey pox on AIDS alone, you have there argument based on public hygiene, on the good of the state, and on the good of the people to ban or at least highly regulate homosexuality. you don't need to scream about religious convictions and so forth. Conversely, you can have religious states that are left-wing liberation theology in Latin America and Christian Marxism spreading in the United States.

People such as Bruning and so forth. You can have Christian arguments for left-wing positions also. I think the turn that much of the conservative intellectual elite so-called in the United States mistaken, with the religious obsessions, which mirrors not reality as such, but their own particular spiritual journeys, often as a class. In other cases, I don't want to get too graphic, but their own, let's say, difficult past and temptations and so forth. But I think it's a huge mistake, because America, even if you say, oh, it's not a secular nation, it's a multi-confessional nation. And when you bring religion into argument like this, you introduce sectarianism and you break apart the right, actually.

The evangelical Protestants are and will always be a majority of the American right, whereas many of these intellectual conservatives are Catholic so-called integralists. Someone wrote me recently, he said, Bap, why do you rail so against Catholic conservative intellectuals, the integralists? Because they introduce sectarianism between Protestant and Catholic, and they destroy the right, it's almost enough to make you think that's what they want to do. So in a country such as the United States especially, where you have a multiplicity of religions, you have to be able to advance science-based or secular-based arguments based on experience, common experience. I won't say science-based because when I say science-based you think of Reddit and so forth,

but there is a long tradition actually of right-wing science-based, progressive right-wing, again coming from Nietzsche. It stopped existing around 1950, I cannot say more, etc. So anyway, I was talking about Byzantine, who I just mentioned in the previous segment, And the emperor of Byzantines tried not to interfere too much in religious definitions and doctrines, but by the same reasoning religious authorities were not to interfere in matters of state and of political necessity, which again run according to quite different logic from religious thought. And it's interesting because even in a religious empire like Byzantines, they recognize this, but you can't recognize this anyway. But even so, the emperor's lack of control over religious matters, I think, hurt the

political standing of the Byzantine Empire quite a bit. He should have been able to control the religion, but he was not able to. It hurt reconciliation with the West, ultimately, between the Byzantines and the West. That's the only thing that could have saved the Empire. But even before that, I always found interesting, this, that the provinces of the Byzantine empire in the south, Egypt, Syria, and so forth, they were not really hot for mainline orthodox doctrine as it was pushed by the priesthood at Constantinople. They weren't many icons, for example, but they had serious doctrinal theological differences. They liked monophysitism, for example. And so more than one Byzantine emperor, who by the way did have title equal to the apostles,

so they had some theological authority, but not as much as the orthodox hierarchy. But that's the point, he didn't have enough, and for reasons of state, to keep these provinces loyal to the empire, the Byzantine court, the emperor tried repeatedly to get priests to reach a compromise, a theology, and they never would because, you know, priests are like that. They're contentious and fanatical, and they even tried, an emperor tried to introduce novel theological compromises themselves between mainline orthodoxy and monophysitism, the the kind of Christianity that was preferred by Egypt, Syria, and so forth, those provinces, the Arabs and so forth. And they tried, I think it was called monothelitism as a compromise, it was called this.

And it was rejected again by both sides out of fanaticism. And the result of all that is that Christendom lost Egypt and the Levant, you see, lost them. They're no longer Christian because of such things, because monophysites rejected the Orthodox theology and they resented also the Byzantine taxation through, but theologically it was easy for them to then move to Islam, which they mostly did willingly. They just didn't like the theology that was pushed on them from Constantinople. And the Byzantine emperor's attempts at compromise were also rejected by Orthodox priesthood. So you see, this is how empires and states and provinces are often lost, because religious fanaticism. I will not get into how the left lost California for America. But this weakens empires, not strengthens them.

I go on various digressions and tangents. I hope you enjoy. My point on this last, though, is that the people who promote idea of civilizational state don't really have a good idea of what it is that motivates these anti-Western movements in the third world. They confuse it with liberalism. They say they're reacting against liberalism, and they're confusing secularism for liberalism, and they're missing in this the ethnic component that drives much of this change. I think actually the Turks themselves, since that's what, you know, let's talk about the Turk, successor state to the Byzantines, right? I think the Turks themselves, not to speak of others, they don't think of things this way that I said now, that Samuel Huntington and Aris Rusinos do.

They're not rejecting Ataturk or Kemalism because it's liberal, whatever this means. And as a manifest reality, they're actually less competent at holding minorities together in a supposed empire. Not only less competent than the Ottomans who they want to emulate, actually I don't know they want to emulate the Ottomans. They want to invoke their name as a form of prestige. But they're far less competent than the Ottomans at holding minorities together. Ottomans were quite good at that. They were, they were clement rulers of minorities, but I think they're even less competent than the secular Turkish state. They're basically antagonistic, arrogant Turkish ethnic supremacists. They cannot command the loyalty of Kurds, for example, or anybody else, let alone to

dominate Arabs and others like the Ottomans did. Why do I go on this tangent? Because it gets to heart of problem, this idea that mankind is moving back toward empires or civilization or super state as they call it. I mean, the Arabs are not hot to be under Ottoman rule, you see, nor are the Albanians as far as I know, nor are Crimean Tatars, who were previously part of Ottoman sphere for sure. And I can tell you about Ataturk and how Erdogan's Turkey rejects Ataturk, because it gets to heart of, you know, do you know why they are actually doing it? Why Erdogan's Turkey rejects Ataturk? It's got nothing to do in the end even with religion versus secular state or anything. These are stand-ins for ethnic and ultimately for racial conflict.

It's because Kemalists are educated white people from Rumelia. That's the European part of Turkey. I don't exaggerate in calling them white. Istanbul is whiter than South Italy in my opinion. I mean the people actually from Istanbul, not the ones who migrate there from the provinces. They're educated, white, secular. Many are groomed to be very intelligent because the Turkish educational system tries to promote an intelligent caste and so forth. Steve Saylor talked about this, how despite a relatively low IQ overall for the nation of Turkey, there's definitely a very high IQ Turkish elite that are clearly groomed by their educational system – excuse the word – and they look down on Anatolian peasants

and hicks, most of whom are darker skinned, and it is this Anatolian hick and the Anatolian small business owner who is Erdogan's power base and these people, yes they are more religious and actually they're more pro-free market, therefore the less business regulation, they're the faction against business regulation, which was part of Erdogan's program because the statist and militarist Kemalist faction that ruled Turkey had statist socialist, pseudo-socialist policies, in any case highly regulated business in Turkey and the Anatolian small biz owner wanted free of that, and as happens everywhere across the world, this void – I go on tangent now, you will please see if patient – because as happens everywhere across the world, the

smart white people who rule the state breed and reproduce far less, while in this case the Anatolian darkling hick population balloon, and that explains the situation Turkey now finds itself in. It's a racial and demographic problem, as in this same Anatolian Turkey will soon have other problems because the Kurds who are hickier and hillbillier still, they out-reproduce the Turks overall. And this adds a paranoid, violent color to the discourse in that country. But there's absolutely no prospect of its becoming a super state. The Kurds will secede or take it over. No prospect – aside from the Azeris, I'm aware of no neighboring people which is well disposed of the Turk or wants to join them. And it's the same for China and so on and so forth.

And in China, again what you have, not civilizational state. That's the more appropriate description of the Manchu Qing Dynasty that preceded it, which was actually able to glue together a multinational coalition of various peoples. What you have in Turkey is hillbilly Han ethnonationalism, and they promote this false idea of civilizational state. Why? Cook designed to unite with ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia and in Indonesia and the Philippines, those places have Chinese minorities that run all the commerce. You may have heard of Amy Chua and her theories and so forth of middlemen minorities. I think she come from Chinese family, if I'm not wrong, from Philippines and she witnessed an ethnic riot because the Filipinos didn't like that the Chinese

were ruling all the commerce in their country. So there are periodic, very strong backlash against the Chinese minorities in these places. So anyway, there are Chinese minorities everywhere here, Chinese ethnic. And perhaps China mainland seeks, if not to unite with them, then to use them as a pretext for expansion. Speaking of mainland Chinese, by the way, I said I feel bad attacking China because I have some Chinese friends. I said I'm attacking the Han because I have some Chinese friends. If you think what I said is bad, go look up this song, Locust World, I think it's called, and it's not made by crazy, whatever you want to call me, white supremacists. It's made by Hong Kong people. It's made by Hong Kongers. It's an old Hong Kong song.

They have enormous hatred for the mainland Chinese, and it's not because of Western liberalism. It's for the same reason other people in Asia, who Samuel Huntington believes are some part of cynic civilization, they don't want to be part of that spending blob of the Han ethnic. But China's effort to spread with the pretext of joining with its co-ethnics in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, so forth, which parallel actually Russia's recent activity where it's not really trying to take back countries that were part of the Russian empire, it's It's just trying to unite with ethnic Russians in those places. But this is quite different from what Huntington and these theorists, including Russinos, are talking about.

They're trying really to talk about nationalism of a kind, and Huntington is trying to give a patina of historical and intellectual dignity, Oswald Spengler and so forth, the mutually exclusive civilizations, intellectual dignity to a kind of nationalism, but it's the kind of nationalism they'd like to see exist. It's a very polite kind of nationalism. I mean this idea of civilizational state promoted by Huntington and his followers. It's not true to what's going on. It's much too polite. It's a nationalism that doesn't address the true cleavages which are ethnic or in countries that are already internationalized, the cleavages are racial, and it doesn't really want to touch these issues or even when Huntington acknowledges them, he believes they can be ameliorated.

That the Bosnia world of racial strife that is coming, in many ways already here, he thinks this can somehow be ameliorated by believing in civilizational spheres or in core states that can impose somehow a regional order. And in fact he's quite open about this, that his ideas are a wish as much as an observation of reality. I think that they are much more a wish than an observation because reality is, you know, Tom Wolfe novel Back to Blood and many such things where mankind is faced by exhaustion of all uniting ideologies and all belief and is devolving to ethnic or tribal loyalties where these exist and which are necessarily much more restricted and smaller scale than anything civilizational or imperial or where such ethnic loyalties don't exist the trend

is then to simple criminality, social breakdown. So you see now in Libya, in the absence of Gaddafi, there is a return to tribalism and just very bloody endless internecine clan conflict. But in neighbouring Tunisia, where clans and tribes have ceased to exist some time ago, there is instead a total social breakdown, anomie, and also interaggression of the individual back into itself for survival, for criminality. And it's not because of luck, but because of mankind's blood is exhausted, the blood of Numenor is all but spent. And I end you on this observation. These people act as if World War II and Cold War never happened, or actually they misunderstand them. They act as if that's an age of so-called ideologies, but now that ideologies like communism,

fascism, liberal democracy, or whatever you want to call it, now that they're over, that older civilizational loyalties in the Spenglerian sense, that these older cultural spheres can or should reassert themselves as the organizing sources of order and peace. But should is not is. I know they want this because they fear barbarism, which Huntington admits this is his real intention for pushing this idea and his real adversary, they fear a dark ages, but in their wishfulness they misinterpret what went on in 20th century because those ideologies were what you need to organize large societies and civilizational spheres and empires now. That's what you need. have actually a large super state on the continental or semi-continental level without that kind

of fanatical and enthusiastic creed to bind it together. That's the point, dummies. After Russia Empire and the traditional monarchies fell, you need something as crazy as Marxism to glue together a large multinational empire. On the other hand, you need something as vehement and sexy and charismatic as fascism to get Europeans to glue together and you know to win for themselves the territory and wheat and oil to actually be independent. In the absence of religion which has lost all of its vital force in the modern world, I mean no one, and I will stand by this, I will fight on this hill, no one believes today with the sincerity and fanaticism, almost no one believes with this fanaticism that people did a few hundred years ago with the innocence and sincerity of that. Nobody.

Not enough people anyway to serve as the basis of a state or of a social order. So you know a strange guy like me who has unusual reveries, or those of you who go on spiritual quest or who convert to a thread Catholicism, before that it was Sufism that was fashionable, people in search of a spiritual meaning, that is a super minority for the vast masses of mankind, God and the gods I think really are dead if they were ever alive for them. In this new age, you need a crazy, overwhelming intellectual and spiritual force like Marxism or Nazism to bind people together to anything like a super state or a civilizational state. America isn't really, by the way, it's an Anglo state or it's nothing at all. That's for another time. It spreads on a continent, but it's not a civilizational state.

It's very bad at gluing together minorities, actually. But for a truly imperial project, you need something crazy like that, like Marxism or Nazism. You know, art styles and folkways and even common religious heritage isn't enough to bind different peoples and ethnicities and races together if that's what you're seeking. So these people like Huntington and those journalists and commentators who follow him, I think they do not understand that what they are talking about has already been tried and it failed or it was suppressed through war or whatever, but that what faces mankind now is not only the passing of the gods into mist and obscurity, but also the exhaustion and the withering of all secular ideologies that could seriously bind large civilizational spheres together.

As Marxism, Marxism presented an alternative civilization to the Westerns. And so, with that gone, it's back to blood, to ethnic, to race. And the prophets of New World is none of these men that I've said so far, but instead Pierre van den Berge with his idea and understanding of ethnic solidarity and Nietzsche and Darwin. It's about chaos, about breakdown, about low-level violence endlessly until this international system is ground down because the intellectual capital in terms of ideological resources for maintenance of large states is gone and the human capital for the preservation of technological society in general is declining fast, becoming too rare, the gradual decline in IQ worldwide, in having enough people to administer the economies and technological

base of these large states, this biological fact, this disappearing, or becoming too small to handle things anymore, or even when good people exist, they are pushed out by aggressive and proud and mediocre, as happened now in the United States. So there is neither ideological nor human capital for large states, or I think even for the state system in general to have a future long term or even medium term. This is why I believe a kind of return to a sort of dark ages is probable and maybe even a salutary, a saluble, it could be a healthy few decades or century reset if done the right way. But that is the path of things, Nietzsche and Darwin and Wellebeck. As Wellebeck says, the struggle now moves to what dick gets into what pussy.

It's about the politics of who owns the pussy, you see, the high-grade pussy, the wombs, about who has the machetes and the bullets and the pussy. It's going to be a wonderful, just wonderful new world, you see. I just want my island resort club with nice pool and maybe a secret submarine base. Is this too much to ask for? But very good. I say to you, too much now. Until next time, BAP out.