Welcome Caribbean rhythms episode 113, I send happy July 4th to all American friends, the greatest country in the world, now I hope, for a while I hope, gentlemen, I hope on this day almost 250 years after 1776 that you continue the revolution, that's right, Viva la Revolucion of 250 years ago, in other world you free yourself from the constraint of old world and of Atlanticism, to continue instead the westward push, America's destiny, the conquest of all the Pacific and of China. This fascinated and obsessed American thinkers in the 19th century, its true meaning of 1776 revolution, the United Kingdom was holding back the colonists from expansion. The 1776 revolution, the Anglo-Dutch man's yearning for living space and for the tenebrous

This wildness, the dark humid heat of Malacca and the Indies and the adventure and trade to be found there, please read Joseph Conrad's book, An Outcast of the Islands. It's the story of the white man. Am I a white man? I am just an East Bloc peasant, you know, I mean, we are biologically white, but we are not an inheritance part of the white man's world unless we individually become it, like Conrad did. suspect this apply maybe also to many native-born American who either never left the Ellis Island polenta or a brisket style enclaves or who you know weird enough there are wasp Americans who acculturate themselves into that vermoula is an example a Mayflower American who wants to become polenta American the whole what I've called this lavender DC conservative intellectual

circuit which sees FDR America, Tammany Hall, claustrophobic big city machine, and Jesuitical casuistry and the pettifogging intellectualism. To me that's not America, that's the intrusion of some of the worst of Europe into America. And they look to Europe and England and NATO, I think it's all a mistake, America should focus westward, this of what I hope. To me, America is a West and duels an expansion into a great wilderness. You know, Tocqueville talks this, how even with this great expanse of land in the New World, it's only the Anglo that knows how to make use of it in the New World, where there was supposedly no constraint, but the French settlers in Quebec, the land prices in Quebec were the same as in Paris, as in France, because everyone just crowded around.

But in America, the Anglo, the Viking spirit, knew how to make use of the wilderness to expand and homestead on its own. The frontier spirit, crushed since 1990 by a progressively worse rational culture of what should you call it, it's a rational suffocation, actually national suffocation. It's to suffocate life. It's to suffocate life and mainly expansion of feelings everywhere in school, everywhere to where in Obongo years, which the coming of Obongo, right, it was seen with such excitement by the young technocrats, the dawn of a new era, and what was basic his first move? Well, his first move was to ban tanning salons, so, you know, stick it to whitey. But his real first big symbolic move was to cancel space flight, to try to turn back America

from its greatest achievement, the moon landing, and to declare a kind of new foundation, And symbolically now our best young people will not dream of expansion into space. The frontier spirit is to be suffocated and I want smart young people to mentally castrate themselves and become really a kind of slave, to build schools in rural Mississippi, to go tend to inner city, you know, pubic, total body pubic, to join AmeriCorps. America's dream is then not colonization of the solar system but to hold the hands of generational defectives. And it's not just a bongo, he was of course installed, a puppet of others, but in this he is joined by almost all the creeds and organs of American culture, even the supposedly conservative.

I repeat to you, go to any big evangelical church or Catholic charity, Lutheran I will not even mentioned, and it's all about trying to multiply mouths to feed in Benin and Congo. They're not playing wing commander like Paul Le Roux. I share this with Paul Le Roux. I used to just spend all day playing wing commander, but no more wing commander for American use now, all these cultural institutions, instead of arcade playing bunt to maximizer. Let's go to here. The pastor or the priest give another bet to maximize our homily today, dear. I don't understand this, why you would accept this if you're black. If you're a black guy, I mean, there are mulattos in the alt-right, you know, quite a lot of them. They're good friends, but actually, forgive I need to go on a tangent.

I was watching Top Chef recently, I watch this show while I eat, you know, I cringe to see the behavior of the contestants, I'm embarrassed to see this behavior on these cooking shows that also spine while also being precious and self-important, you know, cooking something and this is my daughter's favorite meal or some self-promoting stories. They work in, oh, I work in a Noma restaurant and they're repeating, you know, and crying. How do you live with yourself? You cry on TV. I made my daughter's favorite dish and I tell you, I was, so a friend took me to one star Michelin restaurant, Michelin one star, a couple of months ago and they did exactly this. brought out dishes and many small dishes and usually they tell you what's in them and leave it at that.

But at this place, each one had a whole story about what this dish meant to this chef and how it's written story of life of chef. And so on, I don't know, the food was not good, first of all. And then on top, they do this. By the way, Michelin, I don't know, Michelin is mostly a scam. In Japan, it's absolutely a scam. I will post article about how in a Michelin you can, Japanese food is based on very simple cooking techniques, braising in a broth depends a lot on fresh ingredients you use. It doesn't make sense to bring Michelin star there which is supposed to judge the complexity of the cuisine of chef or something like this. And you can talk to friends in Japan, they will tell you, you can go to any neighborhood

after work drinking bar where they have small snack, izakaya and so on, and that will be much better than the Michelin-rated restaurants in Japan. But I think the same is true for much of Europe and America now, it's just an invitation to cook overwrought food, okay? So at this place, each dish, how it fit in story of life of chef. And I was sleep-deprived, I had just gotten into town, and at one point toward the end they bring out one course and they start talking, the story included something of the chef was beaten by his father as a child. And I lost it, I mean I start to hysterically laugh because it's just so absurd. Why would they talk about that? And I'm not, as everyone who knows me, I'm super polite to service industry, I try to

be super nice, I try to control myself, but I couldn't control myself. I had hysterical laughing fit right there when they start talking about he was beaten as a child. I couldn't stop laughing for a minute or two. I tell men of this story, he called me an autist, okay, call me whatever you want, but waiter was offended I think so look there is movie Kurosawa movie I think I don't know if Sanjuro Oryojimbo that he does this but the main character the Ronin samurai Toshiro Mifune he tell these groveling peasants I hate seeing weak people and weakness and this you get a grip so anyways this what these chefs do on this show it's always some sob story of some kind and they think they can talk you into liking their food how does this work can you

talk a woman into, I mean, you can talk her into bed, but can you talk her into enjoying it? There has to be some physical component to, you know, a musical performance or food or whatever like that, at least I think so. But oddly enough, it might be the many, the many who are low IQ, I think the mind is stronger for them than for the higher IQ few, you know what I mean? I mean the word mind, the discursive mind, the reasoning, the purely reasoning word-cell, the word-focused, the logocentric word-cell part of the nervous system, which is the most recent development in man and therefore the most primitive and worthless. And I think this is actually stronger for the many. In other words, they can be talked into anything. Talked into liking a bad food, a bad music, maybe bad sex.

Anything you can talk them into, maybe. You can talk them into it. Whereas the stronger few mind, they're stronger because they can't. In other words, the more worthwhile part of the nervous system, those that perceive actual nature and feel it and understand it directly, they can't, you know, you can't talk them into two plus three equals five or this impossible burger with locust dust shavings, it tastes good or IPA is good or whatever. The whole moral world reasoning part of life. I think maybe that's much stronger in the superfluous many. They can actually be moralized into almost anything, maybe. So anyway, I'm watching this top chef and these weepy judges, and this is a season that's competing in New Orleans, and it made me very hungry for Cajun foods.

And I think there are quite a few frogs from New Orleans. I don't like so-called po' boy sandwich. I think it's become very popular food truck in America. It's a vital food. It's too much bread. It's not good sandwich. feed, but the other, the etouffee or gumbo from New Orleans, good food. So they're in New Orleans, and it's clear among them the best chef is this mulatta girl from St. Lucia. She's winning all the challenges in a row. And I know you'll say, oh, you know, it's affirmative action, but in her case, I don't think it is. She has a restaurant right now, I think, New Orleans, and I've never been, but I look at menu food sound very good, not pretentious, and all the things she make on show look good.

And she's a granddaughter of the man who founded St. Lucia, basically, the prime minister who presided over St. Lucia independence. And you can see how she was raised from her manner and the way she cooks and so on. First of all, she's not weepy like the others. She doesn't have the same, let's say, proletarian manner where you try to get the judge to cry along you. And second of all, much more serious, dedicated to her food and so on. The opposite of a Kamala Harris. A Kamala Harris is a Mulatta, a foreign Mulatta, who is inculcated with American office culture and over-socialized and contemporary moral culture, and of course she got ahead by sucking cock and affirmative action and so forth, but this girl on Top Chef, she's not like that.

She's still part of island Mulatto culture, okay, and island Mulatto culture is an old thing. It's its own thing. white aspiring, it's European culture aspiring, more accurately than white aspiring, they're their own thing, they're proud of who they are. Gobineau, the father, the steampunk father of racism, he talks this when he remarks on differences between Dominican Republic and Haiti, one of the best passages in any social science so-called comparative history that you can find. Look up Gobineau, Dominican Republic, he doesn't call it that, and Haiti, and see the few paragraphs on that is excellent illustration of the power of race but I like the island mulatto culture it's its own thing they should be proud of what

they are and it's a disaster for America and for American mulattos that this or something like it is not their culture as well that instead you know Kamala is too low IQ to be anything but the Obama archetype the mulatta with dreadlocks archetype in America, as my friend Yama Payne called it, the dismantler. He called that archetype the dismantler, dismantler physiognomy. But it doesn't need to be a dismantler. Actually, I think it's born to be a kind of preserver and mediator. In the islands, these are the types that preserve civilization. In some cases, they give it their own spin and own turn and so on. And even when they come to America, they grow up in enclaves like Obama attorney general, who was Bajan-American, what's his name, the guy who ordered the killing of Paul Walker

and the journalist Michael Hastings and of Anthony Scalia is Holder, I think Holder. So Holder grew up in enclave where his parents protected him from American blacks. He grew up with tremendous contempt for American blacks. Black nationalists in the United States like Tariq Nasheed, they know this, but white shit They don't they they they put them all together as if they're the same thing, but Harold holder holder like Obama and Obama was raised by white similar thing. He was not Black in identity or anything. He was raised by whites, but holder Like Camilla and all these others. I'm so an opportunity to identify with that with the American black culture So then he go the a black Panther are my people so such type in America's crazy racial

classifications are allowed to identify as black Americans, which is absurd, it's like me coming to America and saying I'm a wood, I'm a peckerwood, I'm a Scotch-Irish, down to earth Scotch-Irish, you know, as if I can pretend to be that or a Russian can come to America and say I have white skin so I'm a wood, it's absurd. But these types are allowed to say they're black and then they actually, as is well known, become revolutionary drones basically. On the other hand, someone like Clarence Thomas, who grew up speaking Gullah, and is from a slave descendant family, and many prominent American who are okay people come from that culture too. Someone gave, I think maybe Michael Jordan come from that too, but he gets, the shit libs are now calling him a nigger and all this, you've seen this.

And this girl on Top Chef, woman I guess, she referred to herself as black woman at one point. I had to roll my eyes. Why can't you be proud of your own thing? Why do you have to pretend to be black? Because I know she grew up in St. Lucia. I know how she was raised. She would have never called herself that. And Gobineau points out the blacks periodically massacre the mulattos on Haiti. This happens not just in Haiti but everywhere. There are actually mulatto and mixed race. She doesn't need to call herself mulatta if that is offensive in polite discourse. She could have said mixed race, and I'm proud of that. That's what we are in the islands, but I'm a black. It's absurd. In the third world, there are actually mulatto pride movements because they know they get

massacred by the dark blacks, which is also something undercurrent in American culture where the light-skinned blacks are not truly accepted by the dark-skinned black. go to inner-city school, they say, oh, that black doing well in school, oh no, they ain't black, they half-breed, this well-known. And I don't know, you'd think there's a lesson in the recurrent massacre of mulattoes in the islands in Haiti, that it could be a lesson there for Obama and Holder types about that perhaps they should not try to become the revolutionary drones of the black people who don't really like them and who greatly resent them. But I don't think so. I think people will never sacrifice short-term real advantage for long-term, you know, only necessity brings natural realignments about, we'll see.

But this was a tangent to say, if you're a black, the blacks are American, but why you have no self-respect enough to want to live according to your own future and your own destiny? I mean, you are fated to be forever a minority in this country, and therefore you will be at mercy of others, whether it's white or Latino or whoever, but you are fated to be a minority. So even men like Tariq Nasheed who realizes many of these things, but not even he, no black leader ever says we need to determine our own futures by ourselves. We need to have our own sovereignty. I don't understand. No one ever says where is black so-called Zionism, black Zionism, where is black Moses? And when I said this before, I was accused by some, there's this guy Quintus Curchas,

he's mentally ill, for some reason he go crazy all night, he start accusing me of being a Russian intelligence asset, I was sent by foreign power to promote racism in America, to break it apart, you see, it's a long ploy, it's a long plan, they sent me 20 years ago to become internet addict. So many theories about me, do you think this, do you believe this? Happy 4th to all American friends, may you continue your march toward the West, eternally. And I got carried away on tangent, but I will be right back. The Frenchmen love the mulattas. That's just a constant in that country's history, you know. But I ask you, I won't talk on this show America, its future, how to save it, how America might be seen in history, maybe topic for more than one show.

But I ask you how to save it and when Donald Trump came, many of us hope he might try to reform America university and school system because many things this way, only way save America long term. The rot is in the universities, the radicalization, the leftism comes from there. There's a pipeline from university to media and government and then back. Their institutions, they used to support themselves to give prestige and credentials to others like them. And more important, it is thought anyway, it's more important that they keep pumping out vast new numbers of leftoids. That is the biggest problem, so it is thought. And even when not overt leftoids, they pump out people who, if you look at college whites and how it went for Trump, the college whites went against Trump, I think.

So there's argument here, look strong for reform of universities, academy, and schools. Only long-term fix to America problem and decline, to European world decline in general maybe. So then you have Chris Rufo and DeSantis, and they're doing good things in this direction now. DeSantis signed law on July 1st banning critical race theory in schools, really should just call it hate white indoctrination, banning it in Florida schools. And I think his measures to reform Florida universities as well, he announced a plan with Hillsdale College, which is an Americanist conservative university, to help write a pro-American history curriculum for Florida schools. And these are the kinds of reform, in general, Chris Rufo has been great on this during darkest

period of Biden months, he was the only one, almost only one getting any wins for the side of normal people. He's been one of the most effective on the right in a long time, maybe one of the only ones around now who is effective. Some people say the only one. He's organizing American parents to take charge of their children's education, to become interested in them and provoking the left then to oppose this obviously reasonable goal and thereby to show themselves to be authoritarians, which is always good to do. It's good to provoke your opponent in modern world into doing this. My former friend Europe Esperance, who unfortunately has gone nuts with Ukraine and other things with Europe. By the way, you cannot do this in Europe, you can't even homeschool your children.

Horrible story coming out now of Portugal, where they tried to take children away from parents, otherwise children very well raised because the parents didn't want them to undergo gender indoctrination in schools. Horrible story. But Europe Esperance is right in this one thing that in a normie political world it's a fight of passive aggression, in the day-to-day aspect of it anyway. So you want to force the other guy into showing a ham-handed authoritarian face, into screeching. I think that's good. So Rufo has been great at this. He learned it from Trump. Exposing the left's insanely racist – I've called it the Interahamwe left after the Hutu because it's basically Hutu screeching, Hutu ideology, the leftist peddling, and this kind

of anti-white, anti-excellence, anti-so-called privileged education was already in some public schools for maybe even 20 years ago, but now it's spread everywhere, and Ruth was very good at this, and even beyond concrete wins, he's getting many concrete wins, but to me his value, his real value is in agitating, waking up these otherwise apathetic parents into saying, yes, maybe, you know, don't teach my kid that he's a blood-sucking vermin who feeds off the centuries-old suffering of POC and such. And in waking these parents up, he gives them ability to organize at local level, localism, the same direction of recent Supreme Court wins, which anything that takes the life out of this centralized, broken state, anything that denies it affirmation is a good thing.

It doesn't even matter the content. I say on last show, the abortion thing to me is primarily a win for localism, the laboratory of the states. And same thing with Rufo, getting these parents to take charge of their politics at the local level, and then the bonus, getting the left to freak out, getting the Holder DOJ to go Papa Doc Duvalier on them, sending the FBI after, you know, a father doesn't want teacher telling his daughter that they can someday extend her clit into a giant cock, so the The Biden holder DOJ becomes Papa Doc Duvalier. That's very good to goad your enemies into that kind of chimp state. And but, and I'm at all compliments now, honestly, and I'm not saying this to attack. Please consider.

But I fear none of this will be nearly enough to solve the problems you have in mind. Because have you ever met a kid who went college, right wing or conservative of whatever kind really, but who came out a shit lib? I've never met any or heard of any, and it's not even, for example, people who went in moderate and came out shit lib. I know there is a Twitter account on maybe a website called Anshiz Japois, before and after, which shows photographs of girls usually before they went to college and when they came out and they usually, they're fat by the time they come out, they have, you know, Not just fat, but, you know, aggressively fat in a political way and they have pink hair and piercings and an Antifa shirt on.

I think it's a bit misleading because Brazil is not United States and very few people actually go college in Brazil and that's a talk for another time. I would make the claim those girls would have become like that anyway. in any case, is very different environment in Brazil than from United States or Europe. Colleges and universities just don't radicalize people or turn their political opinions in this way. I've never seen it. It's still good to destroy the left's hold on them, first of all for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, because the university is supposed to be ivory tower place, I believe in ivory tower. It's supposed to be place for excitement of study of things that you can't get private

industry or elsewhere, things like I've had my friend Stone Age herbalist on this show twice, things like his study, Chinese shamanism, and weird thing of this consideration of problems that don't necessarily have any relevance to political situation of moment or to intellectual or other trends in society, but that are objective interest as such for sheer pleasure of investigation, of knowledge and so on. This is supposed at least to be their value. Now they likely were never really like this. I know some intellectuals and academics think they used to be, but probably never were. They were conspiracy of silence, for example, against Schopenhauer from the Hegelian Academia in Germany for decades, which kept his name hidden from public and from students.

So his fame spread in other ways, also Nietzsche's fame spread in other ways through artists and independent writers and such. And what was actually Schopenhauer, one of his big criticism of Hegel and his flunkies, is that they were ensconced in academia as an arm of state theology in the university. So even then they were politicized and many other such things, but on the other hand it was obviously not as bad as now, and there were otherworldly types like Tolkien and others allowed in, and in other words the university may be supposed to be a study of timeless topic of objective interest as such, which attracts what we call artists, what normally are called eccentric professor, absent-minded professor type, but now for primarily political

reasons but also, you know, for other reasons, I don't know if you'd call them career or economic reasons, I don't know what you'd call it, but it's just the type of guy that become a professor now, it's changed. So if the popular image of professor is some weird eccentric heading cloud type or an Oxford Don type like Tolkien, and now the reality is if you've ever watched Spy Game with Robert Redford, it's an excellent image. The antagonist in that movie is who I mean, the asshole new CIA type who tries to catch the Redford character is just the asshole corporate type. But that's very often now a professor, so an NPR, Dower, corporate asshole type who dream of being published in New York Times or of working in the Obama administration

is no dedication to thought, no excitement over discovery or ancient text or consideration of unusual ideas. It's all, you know, it's in their manner too. Everything is on a tight schedule, this kind of fake alpha investment banker type personality with highly regimented time and so forth. More often than not, these are the ones who become professors. So it's as if the children's end, the children's students, they are deprived not only of unusual ideas and consideration of history and knowledge objectively and without political agitation, but often even now they lack experience of otherworldly types of men who should be head in the clouds. see ivory tower as complement, but no, likely now the only place is you'll find a few such

types, you still see some, but very rarely in humanities or social sciences, but you'll still find a few maybe in physics or math among professors. You might see rarely one or two because math hiring isn't completely political and careerist yet, at least at very highest level they try to get the actual math genius. But, by the way, many conservatives don't know STEM fields are being large politicized also ever more combinatoric professor at Ivy League shiboon woman studying airport logistics and that's not you know I'm not making that up and it's not something unusual now but so Camille Paglia his essay Academy in the hour of the wolf written early 1990s I think and this has been happening in humanities

for a very long time, the entry of these craven careerists that are basically all spent out by now. It's craven people like this. I don't understand, I mean if you want to live that way, why not just go to make money and business? Because they live regimented, stressed and mentally regimented also, you know, no contemplation of taboo ideas, nothing. But overall they have this life of stereotypical investment banker but get paid very little. So I don't understand the point, and in fact until recently you were more likely to find free thought among investment banker now than in academia, although in last few years everyone has gone insane, bank shit, everybody shit. So anyway for this alone, for having a place where things can be investigated, where eccentrics

can find their autistic delights, and where finally if you simply want to have a research sector the universities have to be de-politicized, or at least as far as that can go. And second, there's a political reason to deprive the left of universities because again they use it not so much to radicalize and recruit new youth that wouldn't have been leftist otherwise, but to solidify their position, to reinforce, to groom their own people, to give them credentials, and like I said, a pipeline to careers in government or media, And then it goes back the other way too, so people move from government to academia back. In other words, it becomes one of their training institutions and bases, and you should deprive them of that.

That is the political reason, but as to whether by taking this away from them you will solve the ultimate problem, which is the radicalization or the left indoctrination of youth, how so many people now turn left, whether the social base of the left comes from this, I say you will not solve the problem, not even if you get your dream solution for universities. So I've been talking for a while, I must, quick break, I come back to this question where how youth gets turned leftoid, how it happen, I'll be right back. I can believe students come stupider and knowing less out of college than they've went in, I think there are studies about this. But I've never seen, and I asked others too, have they seen and no, they've never seen moderate even student going in moderate and coming out shit lib.

And I've known many conservative and low-key conservative students over the years, and they all tell me, you have to give them some credit, at 18 you're not that stupid, okay? It's not like you're naive and never heard of what a liberal professor is, and so forth. Often conservative students also come out of conservative families, and they're warned by their parents, but they don't need to be, they can read about it. I think this idea that college corrupts people politically is spread mostly by intellectuals, some of who are academics, and they are people who have delusions that they can shape souls. They like that word, that phrase. And others who are academic adjacent or intellectual writers, and again, they believe too much

in the power of their writing or preaching to persuade and convert, when it's actually very difficult to turn person with reasons almost impossible. And in college, aside from quite a few people who are teacher pet types, and even the best and the smartest and most interested students are only marginally influenced by their professors, even professors they like. I mean even the intelligent, let's say scholarly students who are committed to the material and they study, that very rarely turned by their professor politically. The teacher pet types, the NRO intern types, the guys who want to be intern at AEI or equivalent leftist organization on the other side, yes, they will kiss ass, but they're doing it for career reasons.

And students genuinely interested are, I'm sorry to tell you, they're looking, even the ones who are very genuinely interested, they're looking often on internet in class as much as the others who are not interested. For myself I can say, you will grant me that I have always been genuinely interested in philosophy subjects, in politics, history, and many things, and I was very fond actually of one or two professors as friends, but I cut class even with them as often as I could to go on walks, to get ice cream or such things, and I rarely could pay attention when I did go. I never took notes, not once, I can say without boasting, but maybe one day someone will ask professors I've had, and they'll tell you they were never able to teach me anything,

had not the slightest effect on the course of my education. Even ones who were friends, I had very few, because, you know, they say I'm Nazi and this, but before, you know, a few tolerated that. So they wouldn't be doing that, denying that they had an influence on me just because they're embarrassed of me. They'd be telling the truth. But I say this not to boast to you, oh I was never molded by a professor, but because I think that's very much so for other students as well. Even ones who are not like you or me interested in philosophy matters or political history matters. They may not be as set in following some thinkers as me or you or as stubborn or as passionate about some sorts of history on their own, call it whatever, but that lack of interest,

That void is not filled by the professor. It's filled by their own social and other interests. They just look at Facebook and so on. And I like learning by myself from book when I'm ready on my own. Sometime you find professor who can really talk, but then I listen to them as entertainment. Sometime you find someone who has very interesting material or delivery. I like listening Michael Savage and Phil Henry. But this is very rare, this gift oratory. And this idea of instruction, especially in our time, the idea, because when most students contact with professors, sometimes I was friends, I tell, we talk one-on-one, but for most students is so impersonal, you know, they don't see a professor as a guru or anything.

So where radical is they, in fact, they often laugh at professors, you know, they see them as kind of a dope. So even the leftists do, especially the leftists maybe, so where a radicalization, where do you think this political turning work, I've never seen it, I don't exaggerate even once, not once. Then you think, okay, it happened in primary schools, it happened in high school, it happened in middle school, and this is what I've always thought as well, and that by 18 your positions are mostly made up, by 13 even I would say where you stand and your personality and so so forth, is mostly set, and people do change their opinions, sometimes also later in life. But how often do they do that because of any kind of schooling? Some of you were leftists and turned later.

I know of people like this, and they genuinely turned. But was it ever because of an institution or a school or a professor? I've never seen that, and in this connection I repeat, I'm much more concerned about so-called conservative professors than shit lib. Because conservative and moderate students come in knowing to be wary of shit lib professors, but they think the conservanormy professor is on their side. They trust him. And it's here where actually corruption, if you want to call it this, I call it stupidification, because the conservative professor is usually someone who go out of his way to drive the student to impotent cuck thought. To drive their mind in circles on paths that are not fruitful. In other words, they seek not to have the student deepen their knowledge and explore

ideas and be excited about finding unusual new ideas, but to make sure whatever happens that this student won't cross this or that taboo line. The conservative professor, like the outlight commentator online, outlight, I mean, is often worse than the liberal because they're so paranoid about getting called Nazi or whatever they have to go out of their way to show them not like that, their whole teaching style becomes an apologia. And this is a corrupting effect on any student who entrusts education to such men. But this is for another time, it's much longer talk. So the primary screws then you might think is where you want, whatever you want to call it, radicalization or the left turning and left state education happens. And I've always thought so too, but I don't

think so. I think for similar reasons as reform of university, I support stopping the left taking over of schools, their racial propaganda, especially now and so on, which has intensified what Rufo is doing, and the scientists, it's great. Although I need to remind the Holocaust education, such as it is, such as it is education, for decades it was very much the same thing as CRT. And CRT is just other people of color and minorities demanding the same chosenness and victim adulation as the Jews were given with the Holocaust education. It's the same in general, I know conservatives who used to complain that Muslims want public display of Eid or Ramadan or whatever on City Hall, but when you put menorah in public for 2% of population, it's that, in front of City Hall.

And when Holocaust Museum in every midwestern city, why shouldn't Muslims demand the same? Why not also the gays and the Hindus and the black demand slavery memorial in every city? Why are Zoroastrians left out, for that matter? Why not Buddhist swastika in front city hall, maybe? So I think even here in primary school, however, is not really the cause of why people turn left. The same arguments more or less as in college apply. In college I'd go actually farther and see the students, the left-wing students, are already more left-wing than most of the professors. And from a left-wing point of view, the professors are rather normie and moderate. often again craven careerists actually pandering to the students.

Now it's not mostly this way in primary schools, but I think it's the case that teacher effect on student political turning out is minimal. Again at most it solidifies a leftist position, it might give encouragement, it might give protection, it will certainly shut down the conservative students from speaking out often, It shouldn't, but it does shut them down. If you're a high school student listening to this, you should not allow yourself to be shut down. You should fight them, I think, maybe. If you do it well, you should. But depending on students' level of rebelliousness, this can work out the other way around, too. It did not work, for example, in East Bloc. It had the opposite effect. It made all of us united in hatred of school authorities and school marms and the whole

communist indoctrination in primary schools was spat upon. The only people who played along with this were again the kissasses, the teacher pets, the tattle tales, and they were beaten up outside of class. We all had to go to Young Pioneer in third grade. This is like equivalent of Hitler Youth but for commies. And the uniform we wore, white shirt with red cravatte and made to march around or whatever, but if you wore that red cravatte outside of class, you got the shit beaten out of you. So control of educational institutions doesn't necessarily get you what you want because Because instruction of use doesn't really take place there, even in a quasi-totalitarian or at least authoritarian state like those of East Bloc in the 1980s and so on. So where did we learn?

Partly from parents, but mainly also from each other, from floating underground counterculture, which in that case had risen to be the culture, the actual culture, even if still technically illegal and underground, and that's what we want in America. That is through reform. If we can supplant the shit-lib culture with our own counterculture, it's how you save America. It's the true turning point, America, okay? But how do you do that? And first you realize it's not really the schools and the teachers where people are getting turned leftoid, apart from parents and acquaintances and friends over which, okay, you can have no direct effect over. The biggest cause is television, television, Talmudvision, as I've called it. This is cause of people turning leftist.

And now that especially younger people who watch much less TV, it's the successors of TV. It's various social media. But TV and to a lesser extent music and even lesser than that, movies, this is cause of people turning leftist. What was Gamergate about? It's because they are desperate if one area of culture and video gaming was becoming, you know, it was getting an ever larger share of the culture. But if one big area like that is not under doctrinal control and sending out shit-lib messaging, they got desperate, so they tried to inject it in video game. That where gamergate controversy come. And even, you know, the extent of reducing Japanese characters' breast size, that was a big deal. It's like a political message to have character with big breasts, so it's very insidious programming

on the micro level, and it's the real cause of leftist indoctrination. This media culture and TV, while still less than before, is quite powerful. I was, last time in America, I met this girl, and I thought she was mentally ill. The way, when talked to me across the table, she made these facial gestures, I thought she must be autistic, or I realized she had learned on TV, and she was thinking there's a camera on her and so on, and she was making Pixar-style gesture with eyebrow or other thing like this. So it affects people so much that changes not just their opinions but their manner, their facial expression. From TV people learn how to react in canned ways through certain statements, certain situations, so on.

Then of course the successors now of TV, everyone of course know TikTok, and I have to laugh because big TikTok, right, TikTok is hip, a place of youth culture, but who decides what video go viral on TikTok? It's unknown. In other words, it's decided by a Norwood bald Chinese commie party official. So a 50-year-old chain-smoking bald guy somewhere in North Peking decides the hip new video to become a weekly special on TikTok. Of course it should be banned, but then something else will take its place. And people already forget Tumblr. Okay, Tumblr's over now, but it was like a psychological nuclear bomb for a generation, or maybe I wouldn't say a whole generation of girls. A large cohort of girls, they learned their attitudes toward men, toward sex, toward that

whole sphere of their lives, toward gender or whatever. It was learned from Tumblr. And that is source of cultural, social, political indoctrination. These media biomes, TV, and now various social media. And I'll tell you, you can take over all the schools. Let's say you take everything over, the colleges, the primary schools. You put in there, you put patriotic education. You get your dream. You get the Orban dream, you put the curriculums of your dream in every subject, in every school, in every university, Americanist, originalist, whatever you want, American nationalist, Christian education, Christian, whatever. You won't get what you hope for because the left will still be the majority of these other organs of communications in various media.

Kids will turn leftist and you will have then a repeat of the 1960s but this time much faster and much bigger. Please do not give me Hungary or Putin Russia as counterexample. You don't really know what go on in Putin Russia. I had Russian with attitude guys on here. They will tell you the youth culture in Russia has been made very counterculture and they do not listen to what Putin schools say. They want to be with the EU and Tinder girl will put on her profile pro-EU and you know, It's not really working long term in Russia or Hungary, I think the conservatives fool themselves on this. But if you do that, let's say you succeed in America, what happens is a repeat of the 1960s but accelerated because the left will take on the mantle they prefer, that of a

counterculture, but this time they will be technically right that they're a counterculture. So right now when they say they're a counterculture, everyone knows it's false, they own everything that the establishment. Then they can truly become counterculture and they'll successfully paint you as the stuffed shirt, the canonist, the dour, authoritarian controller of academia and schools, of the canon. And this time they'll be able to quote you that you're doing it to indoctrinate people, that it's for political and moral instruction. You'll be the schoolmarm, the carrot in the ass moral instructionist. There will be so many probably successful caricatures of lame bullying teachers pushing traditional whatever, or trying to restart the engine of civic Americanism, it will be

disaster I think, excuse me, much faster than the 1960s. And just because it looks to conservatives and others now that the left succeeded in their institutional takeover by starting with the universities, doesn't mean that you can do that too. Because again you're missing, this happened off the back of a vast vital counterculture they had taken over for a while at that time and really take over of universities happened in the 1970s or late 70s even, starting accelerating in 1980s by careerists who were just trying to copy the allure of that counterculture on themselves. So Paglia is very right that very few actual radicals got hired or went into academia and so forth. It's going to be a disaster if that's all you place your hopes in.

And I, what do I see here, because I do think, again, these reforms are good to make for other reasons, both political and having to do with the nature of education as such. But my point is it's not nearly enough. It won't achieve what you hoped for. The real change has to be, and in this I praise the frogs and may I also praise myself, it has to be in that media environment where you contest that space, where the real political and moral inculcation and instruction take place. And I won't say that we've changed culture in the right direction, at least we've tried, at least we're fighting where it matters. And I think in some ways actually the signs of our influence are obvious, they're palpable. You take artiste for example, words and concept that artiste used more than ten years ago

appear in television show, in the show Girls, in the casual speak of edumacated sloot girl in urban and real life and so on, and you say well they're still shit lip. Yes, they are shit-limbs, but concepts such as alpha and beta and these words, which I disagree with by the way, I think it's a somewhat crude simplification of sexual hierarchy, but nevertheless such things are entirely at odds with leftist view of the world, and not even in one generation, but in some years an accumulation of many such notions and sentiments will cause a shift in orientation, I do believe this. And heartiest will be seen in future as far more important for changing of culture and of political life than any number of essays written by dour conservative intellectuals

on the common good or on the importance of submission to the pope or on the pernicious effects of capital or this. I'm aware some concepts on social media seem to have come from universities, yes, words like intersectionality and so on, but they're just words, those sentiments, those moral political positions were already dominant in the people writing about them or propagandizing about them, they would have spread anyway under other maybe better words for them. And conversely, if you think taking over universities will mean that people on Tumblr or whatever equivalent will write social media or there will be television shows and so on showing your concepts of common good written by gay Robert George or religion public life or similar

things or how liberal democracy is great because it allows someone to call themselves philosopher and play act Socrates or whatever other justifications conservative intellectuals use for a slightly less rabid leftism, none of this, I don't know, do you see that happening, I think it's crazy to have that expectation, they are ideas without energy, these thoughts don't come from universities, they seep into universities from somewhere else, so Hardis has done much and it's a shame I think he stopped doing his strength, he moved to white nationalism Instead, this is Chateau Rossi, you can look him up. I don't understand why he changed. It's not even that his white nationalist positions are wrong, but it's not his unique contribution. Why he should have given up his strength.

He had immense reach, and he was going to write a book more than ten years ago and never did. If you or a friend are listening, please write your book. It's a disaster what's happened. But he could have had so much more weight in culture, and I think he still can if he goes back to its strengths, but the frogs in general, as a counterculture movement I am saying, whatever our success in changing things so far, and we've only started very recent, at least we are contesting the right spaces in the world of media, social media now being dominant, where instruction actually takes place, and our words and images are surely enough slow seeping into mainstream. It's a knife fight, like Bannon said, it won't happen overnight.

And you see it start first with some concept like heart yeast having to do with relationship between men and women, but also from other posters, the health things, the attack on seed oil, the xenoestrogens thing, the some things. That's like a hook into a pool where the lyftoid fish and salamander can't swim so well, okay? And many such things. I mean the frogs, when you look at these young frogs now, the anime accounts, and there's not one over 25 years old. And they're some of the funniest things I've seen lately, the energy, the images, the humor. The left is nothing like this. The left is dour foot stompers who just repeat what Chomsky and Hollywood movies have said for decades. I have no idea why some on the normal fag ride want to inculcate themselves into that

discourse and to sound like a rancid blazer, a community college professor with tirades against the IMF or so on. Not that the IMF is good, but do you think you will change things so much if you sound literally like website of Latinx studies department at Brown University? I ought to post that again. It sounds their website from Latinx studies, quenching about the IMF as a form of neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism sound like podcast leftoids, the leftists who pretend to be cool and, you know, to present an edgy anti-establishment point of view. But some of you dopes on the right who try to copy them sound the same. On the other hand, the anime account, you know, this contrast shows, okay, it showed to young people who's truly funny, who's truly got energy of the way on their side,

who shits, who's the one who really shit on stuffed shirt pieties and the hickering that people have to put up in classrooms and so on, who stands up to school mom authoritarianism of the left. see that and they will slowly go with that if you do it well. Now how do you do it well, how do you do it best? What would it be that really changed things? It would be a change in values, a change in morality, an overturning and humiliation of leftist morality and a spiritual change, a change in moral code. This is what I mean if we are trying to do social media and other means now. This is why I praise even shows like The Shield or I get attacked but I will not stop for praising Gossip Girl, the original one, because one of the few things I saw in popular culture

that showed an alternative morality to an audience, a mass audience, without total condemnation. And not that I'm saying you have to exclusively address the masses or a mass popular audience, in fact not. I don't try to do that. Many of us are not good at that. We don't have a way to reach people, we don't run a television show, but there are various but you have to address this, the overturning of morality and its replacement by another morality. And you have to show that side of it in action. In other words, you can't give a list, okay? A lot of people on the left and I would guess government agencies try to tell you, do not be ironic, do not use humor, you are being a nihilist. You should give a list of your demands. What do you believe in? What do you stand for?

You should never accept that or play their game. give that list. You should spit in their face, humiliate their views, and then this alternative morality I'm saying, you must show it somehow in action. They say to you, don't express yourself ironically, no no no, you have to be serious and direct and plain so we can try to deconstruct and take you apart and put you on the defensive. So the primary focus is yes, do not do this, do use irony, humor above all, without humor we are nothing, humor humor deflates them, humor used as weapon to overturn and humiliate their moral codes very powerful. But ultimately, when you show your own moral transfiguration, you have to do it implicitly in action, in image, not in logical discourse, not in argument.

Remember Plato Republic, the first education of the very young takes place in music, in image, through the arts that act directly on the senses, in changing people manner. And this is the base. Later ideas are the superstructure, yes, you like this use of Marxian word, but that education of the perceptive and understanding rather than the logical part of the nervous system, that is fundamental also, the base of pillar when you try to change not even children's mind but anybody's mind, you have to speak to that. If you're, for example, carefully conservative, instead of another essay in style of Vermula or Robert George about necessity for common good, which just bores people, you know, something of natural law. Or now there are these accounts screeching at people about the resurrection.

It's a kind of neo-antifa religious right. It's completely ineffective. Consider instead using these means humor, art, image, consider aspiring to be a Flannery O'Connor or a Graham Greene. To those who are otherwise on our side and the frogs, what they're doing even on Twitter with tweets important because it's public market now, Agora, Twitter is. And some of the memes they make, the Jigga Chad meme, which was first made by Mena actually as a way to push for biological scientism and right-wing vitalist atheism. And then there are many of these young frogs making very talented upgrades to the Jigga Chad, but these images, very important, and the videos and so forth. And to others, if somehow our ideas can seep eventually more widely into TV show, a movie

and many things like this, and I know there are some projects ongoing but nothing yet I think that hit the mark because it cannot be explicitly political, okay, but those of you pushing in this direction, I think that will change things the most. And in this sense, if people want the end of the leftist nightmare and the murderous totalitarianism toward which it's driving, I think far more important than reform of schools or universities is to give us, to give the frogs, not so much to give us money or this, although some type of insurance against cancellation to some frogs would eventually be a necessity, but at least allowing us a space where we can spread our message and not get banned, okay, not get harassed and banned.

The banning takes a toll after a while, so that's really the most important thing you can do to change culture and change life if you're against the crazy left. And the Elon thing, if you can push through with it, would be one of the biggest changes but remain to be seen how it happened. What will not work is relying on the normal fag right, on the Quillette people, on many of the people who face the Conservatives who are so-called fighting the left now. Why will this not work? Because in fact they share the moral valuations of the left. Fundamentally they share them. the liberalism of a few years ago or to somewhat slow down the progress of this thing but it will not work because it does not seduce it does not present a

shocking new revelation of values you know they're only against some of the later consequences and effects of this crazy leftism but they're not presenting an exciting high-energy motor reevaluation of evolution which is the only thing necessary to divert this river of trash of the spirit the modern left. This is why nothing these normal fact conservatives do will ultimately have any effect beyond very slight delay. It's like shooting a bullet at a hill unless you go around it and show people new meadow, new vista, a moral revolution in turn of spirit, maybe a spirit of quickness of blood, of hierarchy, of vitality. Until next time, back out.