Welcome to Caribbean Rhythms, episode 117. I have special guest Zero H.P. Lovecraft, a well-known internet pornographer, and he also a hobbyist, science fiction, science fiction horror writer, but primarily I know him as the internet pornographer maniac. Hello, Zero, how are you? Hello, yes, it is an honor to be here. Yes, no, the honor is mine. People say, I know you want on the show, we will talk various books and topic and things, but this make me think when Loki Julianus, our common friend, he say he does not want to see me write a novel. He would rather see me make pornography. I don't know if you have opinions on this, you know? I think you could do both. In fact, you may know one of my hobbies is finding ways to fuse new media elements into old genres.

I don't know if I could ever just write a novel. I must incorporate many metatextual elements and different pieces and fragmentations. And I think you could write a novel which is both pornography and a novel. Yes. And this could be very effective. Zero, this reminds me of your story, God Shaped Whole. I would recommend all listeners read this story. You can just search, but I will link it. Would you think this story is good introduction to your work because I was just rereading it again. It's a so funny mixture of Blade Runner aesthetics, futuristic, artificial intelligence, science fictions with this kind, I kid of course about pornography but it's a kind of internet pornography humor that I find very appealing. And as you say, you insert things like beta you

and beta we and a proprietary skin tone and so forth. Yes, so God Shaped Hole is my probably most considered work. It was the second major thing that I produced after coming to Twitter. And I wanted to, you know, really work hard and put my absolute best into it and as much thought as I could. And so one of the things I think people don't really, it's hard to talk about this, but being online, you're always about two clicks away from pornography at any time. And no matter what you do, you will always see it. You may not want to see it, you may not avail yourself of it, but you will see it, you will encounter it. And I don't think anyone, even the most saintly person, has never watched pornography anymore. There was a famous academic effort to try to study the effects of porn on men,

and they couldn't find a single man to be in the control group. Yes. Yes, no, it's... Well, we can talk about this because I am quite concerned of pornography being, I don't think it actually is that destructive for an adult man who came to it late. But for younger boys who grow up with it from age of 10 or 12 or even before that, I think is very, we don't know what will happen with that. It is very bad. But that's different discussion. I am very interested in this story of what you like You like Blade Runner, I assume, because the aesthetics in it were very enticing Blade Runner style. Yeah, so actually, I had never seen Blade Runner when I wrote this story, I only saw it after. And, you know, many people compared it to Philip K. Dick or to some other writers.

But I mostly, I think, I spend a lot of time on phones, on internet, and I think about augmented reality. the people also compared it to Ready Player One, which I've also never read, never seen. Yeah, I don't know it. Yeah, it's not good. I don't recommend it. But it's just, to be honest, although cyberpunk aesthetics are something I've experienced maybe through some of the earlier works like Neuromancer. Yes, like Neuromancer. Yeah, Neal Stephenson, something like this. To be honest, I really tried to create my own vision as much as possible and not to be influenced too much by other science fiction works. Zero, your story is about sex robots. And do you believe this something that will genuinely happen? Because I remember Heartiest, and maybe we can talk Heartiest on this show, too.

I believe Heartiest and Steve Saylor are intellectual lights that made the so-called alt-right, alt-right, or at least the better parts of it. But Harteist was talking about innovation of sex robots, and the Japanese are apparently making fast innovations in that direction. He thought it would have a revolutionary change on sexual relation between men and women and so forth. Are you familiar with Harteist's writings on this, and was this an inspiration at all for that story? Yes, so Hartiis is a big influence on me politically as well and he was the first person I ever read with any kind of dissident opinions at all before Saylor, before Yarvin, or any of this. Yes. And I think, I don't know if you know Robin Hanson, the economist? Yes.

Yeah, but he has this book about a world where there are whole brain emulations and what I find so inspiring about him is that he always tries to think about the economic changes that will result from the new technology. So I spent, I am familiar with Harteis, he's definitely influenced me, but I was also really influenced by Hansen because I wanted to think realistically about the economy as much as I could in a sex robot world. But there are two big problems. Probably the masses will never have sex robots. They'll always be expensive and that may be overcome at some point I think more likely than everyone has their own would be like sex robot brothel yes but they're just too heavy the machinery needed for a fully functioning sex robot you may look like

90 pound woman would weigh 200 300 pounds you couldn't throw her around she'd be a killing machine, even though she was sexy. But some people like that, yes. This is Hollywood fantasy, yes. Yes, but do you believe that artificial intelligence will actually genuinely at some point develop to what you described in the story? Yes, I do. I think, well, yes and no. So there are fantastical elements. the sort of goddess character of Galatea, maybe, maybe not, but I think that the mundane reality of artificial intelligence is already very nearly here. If you watch some of these latest advances, Lambda from Google is the newest one, or I like to watch a YouTube channel, Two Minute Papers, where he always looks at latest advances in AI, it is much farther ahead than most

people realize and I think very very soon we will not be able to tell the difference only very smart people maybe people who are trained will be able to tell the difference between talking to an AI or human yes maybe we can talk this a little later on this show I am skeptical of idea that artificial intelligence ever will truly exist and I don't mean it in any metaphysical sense I mean, what you just described, something that normal people will confuse for the real thing. I like Scott Laughlin's article on artificial intelligence. I don't know if you have read this. He thinks it's misnamed. It's some type of machine learning and it can be tasked with specific things like backgammon or chess, but the idea is that there will be a general problem-solving type of intelligence mimicry.

He thinks it's nowhere near horizon, same as with nanotechnology or some other of these new technologies people have high hopes for. I don't know if you want to talk this, or maybe we talk this later on the show. I wanted to ask you a little bit more about Harti's idea. Is this okay? Yes, yes, please. Because a lot of younger right-wing people now online do not like the so-called pick-up artist scene. And I understand that, but I never thought this was the virtue of artist. His innovation was not especially his advice for how to deal with women, because really he's just giving advice you can get from a 70-year-old taxi driver in a third world country. But that common sense advice is maybe necessary for younger people who grow up without fathers

or with dopey fathers who give them bad advice. And if they get their opinion about women from televisions, of course, then they are completely lost. So I think Hardis Tetz may be some decent advice, but his main achievement was to reveal the nature of women. and his inspiration for this was F. Roger Devlin, who wrote four big essay, one on sexual utopia and some others, but basically F. Roger Devlin and Schopenhauer with their evolutionary psychology ideas about nature of women, which modern world suppresses and it suppresses idea of nature of women in the same way it suppresses idea of differences between races and many other things. This why I thought artiste excellent introduction to destruction of regime orthodoxy and establishment doxies

and so forth because their whole teaching is based on suppression of natural differences. And what better way to introduce people to it than anyone or any 13, 14 year old boy will encounter women in high school or then later when they're 18, 19, and find out very fast that they've been lied to. And Hardist is there to tell them the truth. And then this entryway to saying, well, what else have I been lied about, human nature? I think this very good. On the other hand, a lot of the Zummer boys now are facing very different situations from when Hardist was writing because of arrival of dating apps and because of explosion of obesity. So in Hardee's day, I remember, you could go to New York even, which is not an obesity center in America, but even in 2009, 2010,

you would start to see chubby girls in New York in places of Brooklyn and so forth. And now, of course, it's an explosion. Again, it's limited in the so-called upper classes, but it's still something like over half of American women are obese. And so Zoomer boys have very different encounters with womanly nature now. The ones who are not obese are Instagram influencer. And even if you get hurt and you bang this girl or she become your girlfriend, she still just Instagram whore. So, they react very much against this so-called pick-up artist scene and rouge-type people and artiste. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that because I still think his insight's very valuable and how you deal with this problem of Zoomer so-called incel, you may have encountered them online.

Yes, that's many things. Well, growing up where I lived was full of very fat squamous women anyway so I uh when I was younger my parents moved to very remote working class area and all all of the women most most of the women were fat uh and so I actually I can sort of there were no instagram whores but I can relate a little bit I felt almost despair uh getting an attractive woman a thin woman really just a normal woman was something that felt almost out of out out of grasp for me, like you had to be a rock star or a millionaire to even have a chance at getting a normal woman. And I don't think, maybe that's still true. Obviously I've moved on actually through Harteece advice in many cases. I learned how to get attractive girls, but it's a very depressing thing.

It's something that burns you in your soul. And I can see why the Zoomer rebels against this. But my father, he only ever gave me one piece of advice about women ever in my life. And he said, all women are the same. He said, they're low variance. They're all the same. And that was very good advice, but it didn't help me. It didn't tell me how to get grill. And Hartiste was there. I think a lot of people, they think that Hartiste advocating a life of just endless promiscuity and hedonism they think oh he's not he's not throwing up Christian gang signs so therefore he must be this this horrible attractor of sin or sexual sin and I don't think that's true at all I think that that knowledge is beneficial to every man and actually

especially you see these people like like Braxton McSoy yes and they teach the Zoomer, or not even the Zoomer, they teach men basically respect for women and they have this sort of Christian affect, which I don't even think is really justified by Christianity, but it's this reverence to women. It's this belief that they somehow have this purity or that they're closer to God. I don't think they would say it that way, but that's what they believe. And so when you encounter this, Devlin's essay, you know, very, very good, Harteese, all of this, it punctures a very what Harteese would call a pretty lie is this bubble you live in and you wrap yourself in this this rosy picture of the world and it's very hard to

let go of that picture and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise you see it as an attack. Yes, I mean, the reason I ask this, it has to do with your story, God Shape Whole, because I am wondering if the only solution to this is either something like pornography or sex robots. A lot of the younger Zoomers now, they like the anime girls, okay, we don't need to talk about that, but that is, again, something in line with evolution towards sex robots. Their idea is they don't want to be a performing clown for women to gain their affections, and they believe that game and learning these things makes you a performing clown. I think they're wrong about that, but there's something seriously wrong, and maybe I don't

fully understand what's going on in, let's say, 16, 17-year-old scene that makes a lot of the Zoomer boys just say, I don't want to have anything to do with these live girls. I'm just guessing it's the obesity combined with the few girls left over becoming only fan and Instagram whore. And I don't know. I do think it's that. I think that there is also a real lack of masculine examples and positive examples even more so than when like I was younger and growing up you know you watch movies nowadays you can see maybe Marvel movies I don't watch these but I think there's not really a performance of masculinity the characters are all just interchangeable there's no hero the irony is that the genre about heroes contains no heroes and no heroism at all yes and so where

do they turn if you watch children's cartoons or popular books or anything there's no realistic story anywhere that just shows what it's like to be a man what it's like to be a woman when they look at their family their millennial you know soy parents they have this disgusting egalitarian vision you there's there's nowhere to look there's no one to show them what you need you need someone to just show you this is what it's like to be a man I don't think have that at all. Yes. Maybe you've noticed, people talk about this, all Zoomers seem kind of gay, and many of them are not, but they, if you interact with them, they have these manners that I associate with homosexuality. Yeah, like Richard Spencer. Yeah, exactly. And they're not,

they actually are straight, but they just don't know how to act in any way like a man. Yes. I think that's a big problem. Yes. Well, look, Zero, I don't want to bore you with discussion of of what is manliness crisis today, but I am very concerned about this subject. Sex robot or virtual reality pornography and so on. Will mankind be reduced to fat blobs constantly in virtual reality world or in inhabiting body of robot or interacting with sex robot or so on? This bring idea of science fiction dystopia, which of course is your specialty, science fiction horror, if I may. Is that correct, to say this is your interest? Would you care to talk about some of your work in this, some of your books, and things you're working on in this regard? Oh yes, I would love to.

One more thing I'll say about God Shaped Whole is there was something you actually said, I think, in your most recent episode, that there are many things which cannot be quite expressed in words, but which can be expressed in stories. And God Shaked Whole was an attempt for me to tell a story that would express some truths about the nature of women, but hopefully in a way that was more oblique, kind of like in Dune, how you can't just directly go through the shield, you have to approach it at an angle. And this is what I was trying to say. But my science fiction, most recently I wrote Don't Make Me Think, which was exploring some ideas around Neuralink and what it would be like to have whole brain implants. I can't

leave this alone. I think it's just maybe we get AI, maybe we don't. Nanotechnology probably never, but whole brain implants already exist. You've seen these demos maybe where they have a monkey control a video game with its mind. Now that looks maybe like a toy, But very, very soon, that will not be a toy. I think, I think maybe it could be 20 years away, but it will be like smartphones. In 2007, a few people had them. By 2010, everyone had them. And if they can, if that could happen with Neuralink, then you will see a very, very different world. So this, this sort of haunts me, but. But what are applications? Forgive me for being a pedestrian minded, But wouldn't it just be having a remote control joystick in your brain? I mean, you'd just control a car or something the same way.

How would that change things fundamentally? Well, I think a few things could happen. In theory, you could, as the technology advances, you could probably paint images directly in the mind. Yes. And so that's one possibility where we have trouble now, I think, maybe not us, but many people do. I sometimes do, I think, differentiating between media and reality, and that could get so much worse that quantity becomes a quality all of its own, where you could live in a perpetual dream or hallucination. I think that's one possible terror. And then another is that a whole brain implant could potentially, maybe they go deeper, maybe you get more cyborg and and you quickly end up with Neuralink actually controlling your body, not all the way, but a little bit. Maybe fine motor skills,

maybe athletes makes them run a little better. Subtle things, and at first it seems all helpful and benign. Actually, maybe even appetite suppressant. I've thought of this. Maybe the killer app for Neuralink that will make people start getting it is someone will figure out how to use deep brain stimulation to suppress appetite, and then no one would be fat. You could shut off the will to eat zog chow. And so then that could change the world in a lot of positive ways, but it also offers so many possibilities for terror, for essentially possession at a distance. Imagine if you violate someone's human rights and government security protocol kicks in and immobilizes you with something like this. So I think all this is very possible. And what we've seen in the past 20 years

is that people will always trade their autonomy and their privacy and their security for convenience. So I think it could happen. Yes, I am concerned. I had a nightmare in which there was a futuristic world, tropical with corrugated steel, And actually it was not people in like you see in Matrix which is picture of degradation and horror, right? But I had the image of very nice pleasant tropical world where nevertheless there was a religious type movement to have people hook up artificial virtual reality world and live in a perpetual beautiful dream. And I found that so horrifying in these dreams There was me and a few other people trying to stop this from happening. It reminded me also of Wild Pounds.

There was a series in the early 1990s about a cult that started a drug-associated virtual reality movement. Do you think this is danger? Is this some concern behind some things you write? A little bit. People being drugged into virtual reality, perpetual world, you know? I think that drugs would probably be more metaphorical than literal drugs, you know, are good for putting people under and abducting them, but... Yes, no, I mean virtual reality acting like a permanent trip on people. Yes, I think that's a very real possibility, if people started getting brain implants, certainly. But I think it might not ever be for the elite that we often argue, not you and me, but people argue about who is elite and what is elite and is there even one.

I think Silicon Valley CEOs, they famously don't let their children on the internet, which seems wise. So maybe some people would resist, but you walk around the streets, you see these squamous masses, they will succumb to the dream, yes. Zero, you mentioned the Internet, its talking points, traditionalist, conservative, main state talking point to attack the Internet as a corrupting influence. I have not experienced Internet that way. Internet has allowed me to spread my schizophrenia all over the world. And I assume it helped you also. Do you have any thoughts on internet, so-called internet revolution in information spread? And also, you recently had your book as, you had a book that was very successful as EFT, is that correct?

Yes, so I did this, I released my book as one of, I think, maybe not the first, but one of the very first books to ever be sold as an NFT. And I did that because I couldn't resist, because it was something that I actually wrote about in my story, The Gig Economy, which was the first really popular story I had. So it became almost self-fulfilling, and I had to try. I think for distribution, for actually getting people to read it, I also give away everything for free, always. I strongly believe in this. That I think my sales were much better, because all my stories were free, because I would never ask people for money, except I can't give you a physical book that's bound in leather for free. I would if I could, honestly. I wish I could. But no, the internet, as horrifying as it can be,

to me is almost an alloyed good. I think, yes, of course, horrible things spread over the internet. It's a terrible place, or can be. But I think that what it really does is it is a way to investigate the depths of our own minds. And what we find is that there is a lot of darkness and horror in a lot of people's minds. I was always there, and now we can let it out. So it takes someone like you, or perhaps someone like me, we have to win, we have to have better ideas, more powerful memes, essentially, than the animal. I'm also thinking just incredible restriction of information over the last few decades. I don't really know what conservatives are thinking when they attack internet. Maybe they think the alternative would be classical Athens or Renaissance Italy or 17th century Paris

or some height of mankind like this where you have intellectual concentration of genius in a place and a flowering of the arts and letters. But really that's not been what going on in world since at least 1950, probably from well before that, but at least since 1950 of tightly controlled information regime, let's say, media in lockstep, publishing houses in lockstep, entire strains of thought, I think, suppressed Nietzscheanism is one such, where it's real and plain meaning, which was obvious to people before 1940 in Europe and so forth, was completely suppressed and distorted after. The only things that were allowed to surface to normal people's readership is highly filtered, this edited version through people like Walter Kaufman and so on, but that's just Nietzscheanism.

It's been the same for every other major current of thought. It's been the same for the findings of science and biology. And internet broke that apart in a way I think has not been true for centuries. I like this article, I know you've read it, by Second City Bureaucrat, Ideologies of Delayed Informatization, in which he's dealing with how mid-width intellectuals and people who aspire to join the traditional unified media environment, how they are adapting to this so-called internet revolution in information. And he shows that the whole phenomenon of alt-right, which I think is constructed by journalists actually, but it's really this older media or actually young people who are aspiring to join this older media trying to deal with the fact

that they no longer have control over information flows. And so now people like you and me can use internet to speak to an audience without internet, right? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to put out any of the things I do without the internet. No, I wouldn't even know anything that I know. I mean, I read Nietzsche on the internet. I read Harteist on the internet. I read Second City Bureaucrat on the internet, all of it. And I've never found any of that. I never would have woken up from my sleep if it hadn't been for that. All of this knowledge is out there and you can take it, but you just need a little bit of will and to know that it's out there. And they suppress these things more and more. On Google, you look, you won't find it. You won't find any truth.

It's just turned into a New York Times part two. Yes, the old internet is being suppressed, of course. But we should talk a little more about this article by the bureaucrat. I love this concept which he introduces, the assaulted intellectual. Yes, yes. Yes, you see it everywhere once you know what to look for, once you understand the idea, these people who, they know their culture is inferior, they know that they have nothing to offer and they're humiliated. So they retreat into this stance where they simultaneously believe that their culture has produced better and greater works than the culture that they've encountered that has humiliated them, and also that they just need to catch up and somehow differentiate and break away from it. So it's this very paradoxical state to be in

and you see it, all the conservatives online, they feel exactly this with respect to the frogs. You see it in the blue checks too in a variety of ways. Yes, everything you're seeing in traditional media environment is a global chimp out by people who imagine themselves paid mandarins and paid intelligentsia and chimp out over the fact that they don't control flow of information anymore and they've been shown up, really, to be second-rate Maroons. And, you know, it's, well, look, I'm keeping you a little bit longer for this segment. Do you want to come back and to talk this some more? And also, I wanted to ask you about what is in the book, the NFT you published, and some other thing, and opinions on H.P. Lovecraft and so forth. Yes, let me get some more tequila.

Yes, I get tequila, I get rum and cigar. I will be, let's take short break. We will be right back. Back to show Caribbean Rhythms, episode 117 with HP, ZeroHP Lovecraft. Zero, welcome back to show. We were talking about so-called internet revolution in information dissemination and how regime intellectuals are responding to this. I interpret the whole global chimp out since 2010 as regime authorities losing control over the lies that they had been pounding into people's heads since 1950, at least, over democracy and, well, many other lies. What do you think about this? I think that there's still so much work to do. We find this small bubble of people who have maybe become aware of many things about biological differences, about all the poison that they've been eating,

But most people I encounter have not had this realization at all. One thing that does give me a little hope is, you know, most people that I meet, most normies, they will, they'll make some noises about Biden. And they see, they see the dementia. They see that he's obviously a puppet, but it would never go so far as to then flip over and endorse a man of power like Donald Trump. So it's frustrating to me. Yes, no, of course, I try tell people on our side and on the right in general, which is very loose coalition of various anti-regime, I try tell people, you know, we have not complete our work by far. Our work is to convince most of normies or at least a large portion of mid-width normies that were right and that especially regime authorities are wrong and stupid and cannot

be trusted with anything. And we are very far from that. I think this lost on many people who moved to infighting or they moved to trying to promote their own vision of the – oh, I support Catholic monarchy, I support fascist nationalism and so on. They forget we are very far from anything like this, and we have no power. And we are entirely in some is that phase where we try to discredit regime authorities, and that work is not done. And of course, they're changing internet. They have noticed what we're doing. They're clamping down, and censorship has taken apart much of right-wing sphere online. Nevertheless, I do think that the traditionalist attack on something like the internet is wrong. The alternative wouldn't be a healthy public sphere promoting virtuous public morality.

It would be Dan Rather and the sclerotic establishment of the last few decades, you know? Yeah, my critique of traditionalists of all stripes, some people, I've had them say this, I thought you were trad. No, I'm not trad because trad is something dead. I want to learn from tradition. I want to learn from the past. but they will hold up all the achievements, really, of Western society, of which I think the internet is one. Things like aeroplanes, advances in chemistry, internal combustion engines, all of these things are modern inventions and they'll simultaneously castigate them and say, oh, all these modern things are bad, we need to return to tradition. But then, they look at the Negro or something and they say, oh, well, what makes us better? We've invented all these horrible things.

Like figure it out, find your pride. Yes, it's a self-misunderstanding, I think, on part of European men also, when they start to extol certain kinds of nationalism. I am for nationalism only because the current crop of international priestly class are so incompetent and malicious. They are both, you know, it's possible to be both. But Gobi Noh, the steampunk father of racism, He has entire chapters about how the signature quality of the forest-dwelling Bantu Negro or his transplants to Haiti is hatred of the foreigner and the signature quality of heronfolk superior races is that they spread and they form imperialist coalitions and so forth and unfortunately it is that that ultimately leads to their racial degeneration a downfall, but nevertheless, this kind of small time,

we need to, you've seen the movie Interstellar, there are many things wrong with this movie, but I think the dystopia in it is much more looming danger for entire world than something like Blade Runner or, you know, it's a kind of left-wing traditionalist dystopia run by women which would freeze humanity into its current technological state to enforce kind of small village moralities that I've called long house and so on. Oh, yes. I mean, we must be open to the future and to phase shifts, but this is sort of a misunderstanding. People hear that and they think, oh, he's talking about transsexuality or something like that. But in the end, no, transsexuality is a very small-minded and failure to launch any kind

of like futurist transhumanism, not that I necessarily advocate for either of those things, but it's like these are people who are literally up their own ass and they think they're the future and that's not what I'm talking about at all, but when we talk about technological advancement there's always going to be danger, but there's also glory. Zero, I am sorry to interrupt, I don't know if you want to go in this direction, but regarding transsexuality I think it has nothing to do with futurism or I know they try to, some Some of them frame it in this word transhumanism and so on. I see transsexuality as an outgrowth of identity, personal identity formation, which is itself a side effect of communitarian impulse in mankind, desire to find belonging, desire

to find approval, a pat on the head. It shouldn't be understood, and I'm not saying this to defend pornography or sexual liberation and so on, but I see transsexualism as part of same when you have invention of fake identities like Palestinian, like gay, like many other modern nations, like African American is also, I think, an invented identity. These are all communitarian, anti, I would call them actually anti-modernist slash perhaps even they are much more aligned with what people understand as traditionalism and communitarianism than anything futurist. I don't know if you would agree with something like that. I mostly would. I think that transsexuality in particular is interesting because it does on one level

to spread through pornography and I sort of compare it to the American Indian, the Native Americans reaction to alcohol. You know, some cultures, European cultures, we've drunk alcohol for so long that we can do it and it doesn't really hurt us. But when alcohol was introduced to the, I don't really like to call them Native Americans, but we'll use the term, you know, Many of them were ravaged by it. They couldn't control their alcoholism at all. And I think pornography is sort of like that. There's a lot of people who can handle it without falling into a multiplicity of paraphilia. But there are some people, and I don't know the number, I think it's quite large, I think it's much more than people realize, who do sort of go down this rabbit hole and they become the coomer, pretty much.

and one of the ways that manifests is in this kind of cultic orientation towards pornography. And then like you say, they make a false identity out of that. Well, I agree. No, I would agree with that, but you have to consider it's not just the tranny thing and the man or the boy idealizing himself or eroticizing himself as a girl. There are also people who believe that they are cats and they demand a litter box in the company bathroom so that because they're cats and others who say that they are a wolfkin and the whole furry phenomenon and so on. And again, I am not defending so-called sexual liberation. That's another topic, but I don't see any of these things as developing from so-called liberalization or futurist impulse, not that the two are the same,

but these come from criticism of hegemonic, of hegemonic white universalism, and there are kinds of human, excuse me, kinds of communitarianism. If you look at the left-wing criticism of European civilization, it is what? It is this technological universalist, based on high finance and capital that spreads around the world, it destroys traditional societies, it replaces them with commodification, and that the proper way to solve this so-called problem is to support traditional peoples in their socialist ways. So if you read Evo Morales or the Brown University Latinx Studies Department page, it often lately very much reads like these post-Trump, pseudo right-wing criticisms of globalism. I've played this joke on people before. I've posted that page in a paragraph

and you cannot distinguish it from some of these post-right criticisms. I don't know if you want to talk about this. Maybe we don't talk about this, but I see the attempts to form the gay community, transsexual community, furry community as outgrowths of this anti-white movement in which whiteness is associated with hierarchy, capital, the spread of international technology, and it's the fight of authentic local communities against this supposedly homogenizing universalist civilization. I don't know if you would agree with that. Do I agree that that is the... That this is the driving impulse behind what often gets called identity politics, but is this, the leftist coalitions of the trannies, the gays, the furries, the other minority groups,

which even if they're based on real ethnic groups, they become a kind of transsexual, right? Like, so the American- You become fit, I do, I do. Clarence Thomas is a genuine American black, but a lot of these people at leadership of NAACP are basically black trannies, even if they're black born. And almost all American Jews are like trans sexual Jews. You know, they're not part of a traditional, actually organic Jewish community. They are part of an identity formed as a wedge against a white civilization. I don't know if you'd agree with this. No, I do agree. I think it might be correct to call them transracial. In every way, they're a fake race, the same way that a transsexual is a fake woman. They're fake to you, or whatever. I do think so. I think that's a good analogy.

Yes, okay, we don't need to talk about this, but Zero, you are named after H.P. Lovecraft. Is he one of your favorite authors, or who are some of your other favorites? Yeah, so I really chose this name as a joke, though I do quite enjoy his work. I think he's a very skilled and advanced racist. Up until the very end of his life, you know, I got into it with some of these antifas. They, very late in his life, he wrote some articles renouncing his racism and his fascism, and they think, oh, like, I would care about that in some way. No, I like the younger Lovecraft, who he walked through the streets of New York, and he saw an inspiration, you know, because he likes to write about all of these horrible creatures and otherworldly monsters and dark places.

And really a lot of that was inspired by seeing minorities, seeing ethnic minorities. Like a lot of his work is a very thinly veiled racial allegory. So I do love that. And I enjoy that Lovecraft primarily. But my biggest influences, I think, would of course be Borges and David Foster Wallace, especially Borges, and I've written about him a lot, I've spoken about him a lot, so I, that's. Yes, your story, God Shape Hall, has, I think, very successful reproduction and even enhancement of the Borges type illogical humor. Yes, he was a master of finding very abstract philosophical ideas and translating them into narratives that were more metaphorical, that were physical, that you could sort of apprehend something like Berkeley and idealism, not in this very, very abstract way,

but in a concrete way, as silly as it may sound to say, you think of idealism concretely. So I love this about him, and it opened my mind when I first read him to so many different concepts. He loved heresies, he loved cults, but also piracy and gauchos and gunfights and gazers. So just, yeah, he's had a huge influence on me, absolutely. Yes, I like very much also, and you are currently writing a novel, is this correct? I don't know if you're comfortable talking about this. I am writing a new one, and I think it is in many ways my most ambitious work to date, because I've been very struck by sort of some old Westerns and this idea of all these sort of sprawling narratives and characters in a large and fully realized world. So I've undertaken something very ambitious

and I find it a little bit daunting myself, but you have to take risks or you'll never accomplish anything. Yes, and Zero, I understand you have been approached by major publishing houses, Simon Shuster and so on, they want to publish your book, is this correct? This is correct, actually, yes, and I was also approached by a random house, but I have turned them down, I must go my own path. Yes, it really shows them for what they are, you know. I mean, we are told we live in era of hyper capitalism and so forth. Even when people notice that Zucker faces he was pressured by FBI and you see what his name, I keep forget always his name because he's such a spiritual non-entity. Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, who I think is a genuine believer in free speech

but he was hauled before senators who intimidated him and his operatives, his employees, into censoring. And so, yes, we live in such era of corporations and hyper capitalism that apparently major movie studios leave Mel Gibson out after his, the passion, his gigantic worldwide success, and he cannot find way, apparently, to make movie now. But you and I, I think, fair to say, for independent self-published authors. Our books did quite well, and not a single publishing agency in touch tried to do our next book. And not that I'm complaining, because Amazon gives me much better terms than any publishing house, but the whole literary so-called industry is obviously not interested in anything exciting or fun. Yes, absolutely. And this is why it's such a ridiculous critique

to say, oh, capitalism will swallow us up. But there's nothing remotely like capitalism because there are huge markets that are underserved that will remain underserved because it's forbidden to serve them. And I will always make my works free. I believe in that very strongly. I also believe that we must sort of route around that old internet saying that the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Not as true as we'd like it to be, but still true. And I believe in routing around all of these sclerotic old legacy media. Yes, the legacy media is very interesting. If you want to talk some more about the second city, a bureaucrat, and his article on delayed, Ideologies of delayed informatization, I encourage people to read it again.

But the prospect of the regime aspiring intellectual and writer and so on, and how much they are obsessed with us and hate us, and apparently it's a few Nietzscheans or you online who is the big cause of modern problems. And just so, sorry to say, just to tell our audience, I'm not making this up, there's this Tara Isabella Burton who wrote, I don't know, five or six article about me and I know the Trannies and others are attacking you, Zero. And these so-called edgy intellectuals who, you know, they want to have job at New York Review of Books and so on, they never attack anything in, excuse me, any of the regime's actual orthodoxies. She happens to be a Christian. She does not attack the parody of Christianity that is Holocaustianity, which one of the regime orthodoxies.

To people like her, it is me and a few others, weird internet Nietzschean pagans that we are big danger, you know? Yes, yes. I am sorry, I think my secret location has been found by Zog, So we must resume this broadcast later. Zero, yes. Yes, after I say this name, they attack us. But it's no problem. We will be right back with Zero H.P. Lovecraft. Welcome to Caribbean Rhythms, episode 117. I'm here, H.P. Lovecraft, Zero H.P. Lovecraft. We are talking novels and the decline of literature and the coming of internet age and what this mean. And Lovecraft, I wanted to ask you about, I know you are working on book now. I know maybe you don't want to talk because if you talk too much when writing book about plot or such creative process or other such thing,

it can inhibit you in actually writing it. But I am concerned about problem of novel today, how all novel is more or less cringe. Even someone like Wellerbeck, who I like, he very good author, but he doesn't move you the same way, perhaps, a worse writer like Dostoevsky moves you. I think there is Hemingway, I think it's in Hemingway book, A Moveable Feast. I think that's where it's from. He talk about how can someone like Dostoevsky who writes so badly move you so much? And I find this throughout 19th century literature, the Russian novels, they are not always, wow, written unusual style, but you read some short story Chekhov or if you read a lady with pet dog with very simple plot where men meet woman on vacation and they fall in love, but they are married and so it's a difficulty.

But some people have called this story the best short story ever written and emotional impact very severe, it hit you like car. But then I wonder, if somebody wrote that story today, would it have emotional impact? There'd be something wrong with it, maybe. There's something very flat about almost all novels now. I think maybe the most modern novelist can aspire to is to be a good satirist of so-called high society like Tom Wolfe. I don't know if you agree with this. I just want to ask you, do you agree with this novel being a slight cringe now, maybe an outdated art form, maybe not, but how do you deal with this in your writing? Well, the first thing I think is that, like you say, no one is waiting for the next novel, but that's because they don't know what to wait for

and when a truly wonderful novel appears, I think they will realize they were waiting without even realizing it. But most of the novels today are cringe, nearly all of them, maybe because the people writing them are so cringe. I think that if you just write something, you know, you can't just follow Dostoevsky, he's already written all of the works of Dostoevsky, so if you copy him, of course it's flat because it's been done. So you have to, if you're going to write a novel that isn't cringe, you'll have to take a lot of risks and find a way to exist in our very contemporary milieu. And I don't mean the mores of the time, I don't mean like the woke or something like this, but you know we have the internet now, we have actually in my opinion what's even bigger,

much bigger than the internet, and people don't talk about it as much, is the agricultural revolutions of the 20th century. So we've gone from food being kind of a scarcity to something so ubiquitous that the poor people are fat. And I think this change, it's partly just one of scale, but it changes how we relate to a lot of things. Nothing is scarce anymore. That's how it feels. I think most past novels are written under kind of background assumption of scarcity, which simply no longer obtains and it's things like this it's the internet it's the loss of food scarcity that a lot of modern writers maybe even no modern writers or very few have learned to contend with and to write something that speaks to us where we are and to understand these emotions yes a lot of

modern writers thrive maybe someone like Brett Easton Ellis give you this sort of very whirlwind of images and signs that don't mean very much, and I think that does capture an authentic feeling of the times, but like you said, it's more of a satire. The thing about it is striking even that it moves us. It's that it doesn't move us. It's that it captures the fact that we aren't moved. Yes, Camille Paglia has this theory that's not very convincing, I think, about why novel doesn't capture anything today. She thinks, she makes kind of hand-wavy argument about it's because of electricity and images on TV and electricity change our relationship to how we take information. I don't like, by the way, this phrase change our relationship. It's what means she doesn't get too specific with that.

And she also say in 19th century, when the novel was published, situation was much the same as when it was written but today by the time it's published situation has already changed completely so novel fields the novel that you know the novelist wrote with fields are outdated I don't mean the novel as an art form itself but the novel that is in question feel outdated why what do you make of this I don't find so convincing no I don't think so and technological change in the 20th century. But I think what many observers have seen now, I tend to agree with, is that there's been quite a stagnation aside from smartphones. Technology hasn't really moved at all and it almost feels like we're stuck. So even if it's possible that Polly was right for a short time,

ironically the fact of rapid change itself may have changed, assuming she's even correct. Yes. But I think she doesn't need to be correct. Like, if you were a keen observer of the times, what would be a mistake is to write something very, very topical, something that's just of a specific moment. And of course, that moment will pass away very quickly. I think there might be value in that only as a way of capturing something historically. Like maybe in the future, someone will read your very idiosyncratic work and learn something about a very certain moment. But, you know, a novel should be timeless. We want to write with timeless ideas and timeless thoughts. And I don't think that's correct. Yes, what are some book from our past, maybe not necessarily inspiration for you,

but that move you very much? Something like what I say, I like Brother Karamazov and Demons by Dostoevsky. I find very moving, and I like some book by Mishima, and of course all of Conrad's book I find very moving. You mentioned David Foster Wallace and Borges. Are there any other authors you like and why? Yes, well, so one of my favorite authors and a book I find very, very moving actually is That Hideous Strength by S. Lewis. And it maybe, you know, is a dystopia, but it's a very unusual dystopia. It's maybe the only dystopian novel I've encountered that isn't sort of looking towards a future of liberalism and egalitarianism as if it's a positive thing for Lewis. These are demonic, explicitly in his story, demonic forces. And, you know, this is a topic that we maybe see a lot

line as a point of contention. I'm not a Christian myself, but Lewis inserts an altar call kind of towards the end of his novel and it's a very moving one, I think. It's a beautiful way that he sort of leads you up to this certain Christian perspective, even if you don't find it, even if it doesn't quite work for me on some level. It's a very, very moving scene and I think it's beautifully Yes, I want to write a certain novel myself now, and the reason I want to is because when I say message, I don't mean a doctrinal content message. It's precisely because I don't think I can put it in some kind of essay form or non-fiction book form. want to tell certain stories that has been obsessing me. And I think even for people who are motivated by,

let's say, you want to satirize the bourgeois, which was a very powerful motivation for some 19th century authors, or certainly Tom Wolfe does this. But even so, it must be something that burns at you somehow. and you have to show it in action, not just in essay form. Is this why you write? Maybe also, I don't know. I don't want to assume anything, but... No, absolutely. The first thing is, I think you are not going to make it as a writer if you don't feel an obsession. You know, when you were... So when I was writing God Think Whole, for example, I very much lived in that world. I inhabited it, and I felt in some ways more so even than the real world around me. It was a feeling of transport, and I almost think I left part of myself behind there as well.

I was very distracted at that time. It took me a long time to do everything, you know, physical chores, anything like this, because I was so consumed by the sort of story and the world. But yeah, there's something I wanted to convey there, which I think you have to sort of live through those, those motions or those beats. You have to feel the emotional journey of the character and kind of insert yourself there. And you work through much more profoundly that way than if you just read it in an aphorism or a teaching. Yes, I don't mean even necessarily that you need to have evangelical motivation to reveal something wonderful and new. But even in hatred of, let's say, a class of people or a society of people or mockery of them, that is enough motivation.

I want to read a paragraph here from Nietzsche where he talk about French novelist and Flaubert and not just him but him in context of psychologists in France. This is the title of the aphorism, From Beyond Good and Evil. Psychologists in France, and where else nowadays are there still any psychologists, have not yet stopped enjoying the bitter and manifold pleasure they get from Betty's bourgeois stupidity. It's as if, but enough, by doing that they are revealing something. For example, Flaubert, that decent citizen of Rouen, finished up by seeing, hearing, and tasting nothing else anymore other than this mockery of the bourgeoisie. That was his kind of self-torture and more refined cruelty. Now for a change, since this is becoming tedious,

I recommend something else for our delight, and that is the unconscious shiftiness with which all good, thick, well-behaved, average spirits react to higher spirits and their works. That subtle, complicated, Jesuitical shiftiness, which is a thousand times more subtle than the understanding and taste of these average people in their best moments, or even then the understanding of their victims as well. This is repeated evidence for the fact that instinct is the most intelligent of all forms of intelligence which have been discovered so far. Briefly put, you psychologists should study the philosophy of the norm in its war against the exception. There you'll see a drama good enough for the gods and divine maliciousness.

or to put the matter still more clearly practice vivisection on the good people on the man of goodwill on yourselves this end of aphorism I don't know if you like is this a favorite aphorism he declared mockery of the bourgeois to be passé even in his own time and he has this other recommendation I don't know what you make for that this recommendation of vivisection yes vivisection study Excuse me, study the philosophy of the norm in its war against the exception. I find this interesting. Of course, people now mean different things by this, we can get into this if you want. I actually think the left has a cult of normalcy, but that's longer discussion. But yes, he's saying study essentially the last man, the last man in his attack on men

of higher spirit rather than mocking bourgeois stupidity, you know. Yes, no, so it's an interesting inversion, the norm versus the exception, because I think that these, most of these leftist stories, I say they have leftist metaphysics, what they do is they present exactly this, the norm crushing the exception, but they invert it and they pretend that what is exceptional, in a bad way usually, is normative, in that they have this conceit, like, oh, the brown queer person is somehow exceptional and they're fighting against this normative white male society, and the opposite, I think, is true, which is one of the points that you sort of make routinely, which is that the queer brown kind of communist modality is actually the norm, historically, and the white man's fire

is really the exception, so. But it reflects itself even in the day-to-day, excuse me, the rhetoric of the left, because they don't actually have Nietzschean rhetoric of higher spirits, whatever some people may claim about this. Just look online at the Chappo retards and the leftoids. Where common phrases, go touch grass, have a normal one, you're, oh, I see you're having a normal one. Why don't you have a beer after work with your friends and be normal? Because when you sink into that comfortable mediocrity, nothing else really matters. From their point of view, why would you care if a brown queer wants to get penetrated in several directions or somebody wants to cut a gash into themselves and call it neo-vagina, why would you care?

The only reason you'd care is if you have issues, man, if you're not down and cool with. So they actually, I think some of the rhetoric of the right on this is wrong. The left has very strong cult of normalcy and it's how they appeal to the middle-class nice ladies and many other normies, you know? Yeah, absolutely, and they, what does it affect you, because they can't imagine, it does affect me, I claim it does affect me when I walk, you know, through the streets, I see ugliness, I see cruelly things everywhere. But see, even the judgment of ugliness means you have issues, man, you're not normal, you know, and... Yes, exactly, but who, it's strange, because who wants to be normal, and I think there's

There's an appeal there, you know, the Chapos, they use this term, failed son, and it takes one to know one. They have failed, and they expect to fail for the rest of their lives, so instead of chasing something higher, it's a kind of despair to secure and psychoanalyze them to say, oh, I'll never be anything great, therefore I will be normal, or everyone just has to be normal. But I don't accept that. We shouldn't accept that and we shouldn't tell anyone to accept that. Yes, I was just meeting with Frogs the other day and he had been traveling through Germany and it's remarkable to see the depth of last man degradation that the so-called European common market man has reached. What even normal questions sounding like which of these following nations, which of European nations you think

have been the greatest in Europe's history. And you can probably predict their answer. They flipped out, they said, I don't know what that means. You need to be more precise. The question doesn't have parameters. It is like asking, what does the number four have to do with what you ate today? It makes no sense. I've encountered this, and of course, under that pretense of normalcy is a actually quite emotional hatred they have of any form of things that are higher or more distinguished. This is what drives the left in general, but I'm afraid, Zero, that it's some type of biological phenomenon when you look at the reproduction of this just European type that I mentioned now. Of course, they're all over the United States. You might have heard many intellectual girls talk this way also.

But I think exploration of these in a novel or in a series of short story form, I'm just giving some abstract suggestion to maybe aspiring writer. If you are driven by exposing this subterranean hatred of any kind of distinction that's behind all modern so-called elite morality, do you think this would be a good project? I don't know. Yes, it's an interesting point. So some of my stories, some of the shorter ones, I think have been taken almost as a bait and switch because I like to write a protagonist who is very much this kind of last man, bug man. He is. And show him kind of complacently walking into the grave and being sort of a victim of these leftist forces of destruction. So I think this makes some people very, very angry because I try to write something

that they can identify with, that they will read and maybe see themselves and then show, oh, and look at how it is taking you to destruction. So I've seen, you know, a lot of very, very angry comments, people wishing for it, the death of the author could be literal, all sorts of things like this, which I enjoy. But I actually wanted to ask you a question, which is that as you are writing this novel, what is your technique, what is your approach to the novel? How do you come to it when you write it? Well, how you come to it I think has to be with a question like what I just read now. I mean, there's two different things. how you write it, the technical thing, which I'll say in a moment, but how you come to it, I think has to be with some type of obsession like this.

You cannot come to it, you've said this yourself, you cannot come to it by saying, oh, I want to be a writer, I want to live a writer lifestyle, be part of literary intelligentsia, get a pat on head New York review of books and write a great novel. I think this lead to crap being made, right? But you need some type of obsession like that, and the obsession has to be a message that often when you put it abstractly sounds very short and very not deep. But it has deep significance for human life that shows itself in action. For example, what I just read now about Flaubert and his obsession with making fun of the bourgeois. Okay, that's a sentence when I tell it to you. It can be a few paragraphs in Nietzsche or in Rousseau, but someone like Flaubert or actually many other writer

who mock the bourgeois, they can make colorful books out of it and it's only in the book that you really see what that means. You don't, you don't, you can actually misinterpret very easily from philosopher's abstract statement. And so, for example, your story, which I can see Borges' influence all over it in how you form sentences. It's very attractive, this shocking, logical incongruities you put. But a big theme in your story, God Shape Hall, is how can you be sure that the target of your passion truly love you back, that in that case it's a sexual experience, but even just taking it to experience of lust, How can you make sure it's a genuine experience? As you may know, I like ladies of poor morality. They are a prostitute sometime. And I don't mind paying them,

and I don't expect them to return lust for me or such thing. But it's obviously very different when you have intense object of desire and sexual passion and love. you want it to be returned, and this big theme in literature going back many thousands of years. So Xenophon has famous dialogue on tyranny in which the poet Simonides visit the tyrant Heron, and he is trying to find out and praising Heron's life, saying, you must have the best life. You are a tyrant of a rich city. You can have anything you want. you have the best foods available to you. He's very concerned with this, where you have the best food and drink. And Heron spends maybe half this dialogue complaining that an excuse, yes, you know it's Greek, so I have to say it, but the boys that he pines for

and he loves, he does not know if they truly love him back or if they're just afraid of his power and if they want something from him because he has power and money, is the big mafia don of the city. And so this persistent concern going back and obviously anything that has to do with sex robots, pornography, artificial intelligence, bring up this always question of authenticity of experience. Is person you love really returning it back? And now that I just said it, it's a simple sentence, right? But it has such enormous significance for human life, you can only really understand it in an image, in a image like a movie or image like painting or novel and so forth. So I think you need some type of thing like that, some type, whatever is your latest obsession,

to conceive, yes, I must do it and I must put it in novel form or movie form or whatever I have available. I don't know. Does this answer your question about how, why I would want to write something? It does, absolutely. So I'll just sort of riff on that a little bit. You know, in God Shaped Hole, I wanted to present kind of three different pictures of a woman and sort of three different types of a woman or types of ways that a man can conceive of one. So the first one is, It's written in sort of this epistolary format, and the first one he addresses a sex bot. So she's just, she's a robot. She's a sex slave who is designed to be perfectly into the man, and to just be obedient, do whatever he desires. And so I think this actually, this is a very real thing, and it doesn't, like, a woman,

when she falls in love with you, she goes through, you know, you both do this period of deliverance where a woman will be very malleable and she'll sort of become whatever you want her to be or whatever she thinks you want her to be, which I'm caught with the same thing. And I referred to a quote from Nietzsche there who said that a woman becomes, for the sake of love, I may be getting it slightly wrong, what she is in the mind of the man who loves her. But this period is ephemeral, actually, it passes after a few years and so you'll have some imprint on her, but she'll also sort of revert back to sort of her baseline, whatever that is, in my opinion, not completely, and so then there is... No, I think you're right, which I prostituted this period.

...where you have a woman who maybe has already been imprinted. This is one of the reasons people make such a big deal about finding a virgin wife or or virgin in quotes, like a woman with a low body count, because I think it's not just microchimerism or all of this, it's also that you imprint on them mentally and philosophically to some degree, and so when we go with many partners, she's a full vessel, she can't be filled up anymore, she can't become the thing that you personally want her to be, and that's sort of the second picture I present. And then the third picture is a woman as a kind of alien god, an evil, an evil, not evil, that's the wrong word, but you know, in Lovecraft there's this concept of something which is outside an incomprehensible alien being.

And that's sort of the third presentation, is a woman as something that's incommensurable to the male mind. And this, I like this also, Bataille and who it was both wrote about this, that it's that exact incommensurability that makes seduction possible. So I think about this question, is love returned, is it authentically returned? It's precisely that state of unknowing where seduction occurs. for signal, but now we are back, and they were trying to stop me from telling you that in this discussion of women and their love, and modern women in particular, I prefer the prostitute because it is a more honest experience, what you think about that. And also, if I may say, I am tired of art hoes objectifying autistic men and men with

Asperger's and targeting us as part of their, they want to have interesting life story zero. So they say, oh, this man, I am interested in him for his intellect. But of course, they have no ability to appreciate the intellect any more than they can appreciate a work of art or anything else. So really, you become just an accessory for them. And I don't want that. I want a woman to admire me for my manliness. I tell them I am tennis instructor to middle-aged women on cruise ship. This, you know, I'm tired, art hoes are a targeting frog with aspergers, many of us, and I don't, you know, I'm tired of being objectified. I prefer prostitute. What do you think about this? Yes, well, they will never take your thoughts, your convictions, or your best insights.

They won't buy into them the way that a man can or would. It's very superficial, it's a surface level, and you might think, oh, does she agree, does she not? No, this is the wrong question. So I don't really concern myself with that. There is a poem by John Donne, and he says, hope not for mind in women. At their best, sweetness and wit. And I've always found this to be very true. You may find a smart woman, and there are very, very smart women out there, but the will comes from the man, not the woman. And without masculine will, that intellect just sort of floats in a void. It's undirected. Yes. Zero, you asked me about Sorry Change subject. I don't like to talk too much about this race of women, so-called. but I have some idea about, you asked, the process of writing and so on.

I have not written my novel yet. I am trying to form certain character vignettes and build it around that. This is what Nietzsche recommends and some scenes. And in other words, you build it in components, and he gives this advice, I think it's inhuman or too human, I don't forget, I don't remember where, but he gives a very practical advice, how someone can become good novelist, you do vignettes about this character, about that character, you put them together. I don't know, do you like this tactic? Is this what you are doing or no? This is not what I do, but it's not to say that it's what I shouldn't do. Most of my stories have tended to revolve around one, one character and some people say that my stories can feel a little bit sparse, a little bit empty

for this reason and I think I do inherit a lot from Lovecraft in that regard. His stories tend to be from a single perspective. They feel like he's the only person in the world but I also think I sort of need to grow past that as a writer and I'm lately very taken with kind of these sprawling westerns, old westerns that might have a lot of characters. I've been reading Lonesome Dove, which is this old boomer classic, actually came out the same year as Blood Meridian. But a very, very different book of course, and it has many characters, and each one has like a distinct voice. But yeah, so I've been very interested in trying to get there, and I think it is good advice. I don't know if you've seen this Nightcrawler with Jake Gyllenhaal recently, it's tale of urban nihilism

and an autist on a mission obsessed with, I like also Taxi Driver, a similar idea, and then Scorsese has early movie After Hours, it's a bit different, but same tale of, humorous tale of urban nihilism, And I think we could make something better than all of these. Would not have any overt political message. Nobody want art with message. Art with message is a sermon. Nobody likes this. Any message would be very implicit. I don't even mean hidden, but implicit. What you think a project like this, you think frogs should try to do this, because I don't see much difference. A novel in a movie is just a maybe movie better way to tell story now. Absolutely. People want these sort of full media experiences. And as long as we are sort of limited to text, I like to read, you like to read.

And maybe there's a theory there that we reach the most elite audience that way. But we'll never really reach everyone. So, or even a majority, I think that a lot of the time I look at, like, progressive attitudes that I used to hold that I eventually managed to murder in myself, and I think, where did they come from? And I think they came from movies and cartoons maybe I watched as a kid. You know, you watch these stories and you see these morality plays, because I think every story has sort of a moral quality to it and people watch it, you watch it and even if you don't think about it, you sort of expect the world to work that way, the ways and the stories. So story and movies are very, very good ways to kind of configure or reconfigure people's moral intuitions.

Yes, you have any favorite movies? All my taste in movies, pretty basic, I think. It's no surprise, but Conan in 1982 is an all-time favorite. I've watched this movie many, many times, and it's very scarce with the dialogue, so each line, to me, feels sort of significant and powerful. It conveys something important. Another one I like, which I think I've mentioned this before, My Fair Lady, which is this old musical and it's sort of a retelling of Pygmalion, which is one of my favorite stories from antiquity. Yes, it's strange, I think studio system, possibly I'm told by some unusual people in Hollywood have started to write me, they tell me studio system is complete dead, they have open season on white men, so everything that get made now extreme ideological and so on.

Or the Marvel cape, so-called cape shit stories with flashing lights, I think that's all they are, flashing lights. So I don't know, we would have to make something outside studio system, but you ask about writing process and so on. I write something fast, I think. I wrote my first book quite fast, but I had thought of it for a long time before then. The problem with thinking for a long time about something is, yes, it can develop in your mind, it can become good, but then it can start to bore you after a while. And so when then time come to write it, it ends up not being so good. And the best example of this is someone like Kant, who thought about problems for a very long time but then wrote it very fast and very badly.

And he encouraged maybe a century or more of very bad German philosophy writing because of this vice of his. Of course with novel it's slightly different, but the way I got around it is, okay, you've thought about these things a long time, now if you put them to paper they become a little a bit rude because you become used to them in your mind. So then, at moment of writing, you find ways to maybe make yourself chuckle and surprise yourself. I don't know if such process would work. I mean, you as a fan of Borges must know that this is great pleasure, writing sentences with jarring juxtapositions of illogical. But I don't know if it would work so well with a novel as with short essays, you know? I think it does. You know, it's very famous that Kafka would actually wake his neighbors.

He'd stay up late into the night writing his stories to make himself laugh. And that his laughter was so loud that the neighbors would complain and say, you know, you can't be doing that late at night. People are trying to sleep. And I always make myself laugh when I write. when I write, I think that's very important. You have to surprise yourself. So I completely agree with that. Yes, yeah, I hope I'll be done with a novel in the next few months. I like very much Bulgakov, you know this writer? He, any Russian you meet in the West will tell you their favorite novel is Master and Margarita. And this tells story of Satan who come to Moscow in 1930s during Stalinist purges. It is often called something like magic realism, but I don't like this category,

bring to mind the Latin American writing about the barrio and so on. But it's very attractive book because on the one hand, there is this plot with Satan come to Stalinist show trial, 1930s Moscow. And on the other hand, it tells the story of Christ, but it retells it in a very non-religious, naive way. Pontius Pilate refers to Christ as a philosopher, and it's told in this very naive, historical, epic way, but without assuming that the reader shares Bulgakov's religious orientations. I like this double-plot format. I don't know what you think about this. Yes, so I actually think from a purely technical perspective, this structure is much better because it gives you the writer and the reader some relief. It allows you to kind of, when you shift between two scenes,

you create a little bit of a time skip and you can create interest for yourself and for the reader. You can bounce back and forth without being too monotonous. So even aside from, you know, there's artfulness, people drop parallels or this, but just from a strictly technical perspective, it's easier to write, and it's also easier to read when you layer these stories. So, the guy who brought technique a lot. Whatever may be said about Paglia's words on electricity and so on, certainly television and internet have broken up people's attention spans. This is not good necessarily, But, you know, art is, you have to make it entertaining. So you have to cater to that. And you have, you know, maybe not such ponderous scenes and maybe mimic the swift changes in imagery on electronic media.

I don't know if you agree with this. Yeah, more than ever before. So in the first major story I published, God shape, sorry, the gig economy, I noticed that it's very, very tempting when you're reading something to scroll away and check a tweet or check Instagram. So I made a bunch of tweets, some of them were fake, some of them were real, I have screen caps and I put them right in the flow of the text deliberately with no real rhythm except to interrupt the reader in exactly the way that checking their phone would interrupt them. And I did this partly as a way to inject, you know, interest, but also partly just to keep them from getting bored and keep them from clicking away. It's like, oh, you wanna check Twitter? Here you go, here's a tweet, now get back to the story.

And Ngochi told me I did something a little less dramatic, but I inserted ads, fake ads, all throughout the text. Yes, it was very funny. Oh, thank you, thank you. Yes, a similar narrative device is you, I don't know if you like Conrad, he's my favorite novelist. And he has nested stories within stories. So someone starts to tell story and then there's a remembering within it of another character in another story and so on and so forth. And it become nested within within. I don't know if you like that. I wouldn't call Conrad in any sense, immogistic, excuse me, electronic age writer, because some people say he's very ponderous and so on, but perhaps with a swifter change of stories, it could be done. It provokes a different kind of dreamy feel

when you have a story within a story within a story, you know? I think so, and I think most of all of the Arabian Nights, which were, of course, one of Borja's favorite stories influences. I think he was sort of, if you look at kind of the overarching idea of his work, he was attempting to recreate the Arabian Nights, but in his own, according to his own case. And I've sometimes done the same thing. I thought that the Arabian Nights could be rewritten kind of in Silicon Valley in a way. I don't dwell too much on this idea, But it's something that sort of entertained me. Yes. Ziro, before we close this segment, I hope you have time for another one, because I want to ask some of your thoughts on artificial intelligence and Nickland and philosophy of the future and so forth.

But before we close, I just want to ask you again, a state of so-called arts in America, and not to speak of Europe. Europe has absolutely no state of the arts at all. Excuse me, aside from a few people like Willa Beck, if there's anybody even besides him, you talk to any European intellectual, they read American media, they wait for the next American book. Europe is mostly, unfortunately, has become wasteland, and I wonder if it's become wasteland for the same reason America is a press, a media that's so tightly controlled, it crush everything. Again, I want to say, your book, the NFT, did very well, yes, and so any normal publisher who would want to make money and a profit would say, oh, look, this guy self-published this and outsold all of our books. We should get in touch with him.

We should offer him contracts. with me I've my book maybe one of best-selling non-fiction independent publish and it's four years later and it's still sell very well I regularly outsell all the normal conservatives the stink tank people all these guy and nobody get in touch with me to say oh yeah we we are interest publish your next book by the way it's not sour grapes when I say I'm not interested because Amazon gives you much better terms than any publisher and you have many other freedoms and so forth. But it can't just be, I think, the political message that we have, so-called far-right political message. I think we're just right-wing, but it can't just be that. They have something against fun. They never want, especially novels, books,

they don't publish anything that's fun to read, you know? I don't know it. Yeah, some people say it's strictly economics, but I think that the fact that your book sells so well, mine does well, proves that it can't be that, like these sort of narratives about capitalism. You know, they have to be false. Personally, I would never, I would never want to accept a publishing deal, and if I were offered one from a legacy house, I would turn it down in a heartbeat. Because I don't want to cast my pearls before swine, and I don't want to think, oh, I'll take money from, like, I'm not doing it for money, and I don't think the best art is ever done for money. Though, I mean, some artists obviously have to support themselves.

I'll always respect that and never tell them not to, but I think it should be done, as as corny as it sounds, it should be done for love. Yes. But yeah, they don't want to do anything fun. They want their stuffy little pretensions affirmed in these stories. 10,000 stories about growing up as a second generation immigrant and all the kids made fun of my smelly one. And like, you know, and then I found myself by going to New York City and doing ecstasy or something like this, I don't care. This is not a good story, but it seems to be the only story that any of these people know. Maybe that's why it's the only one they publish. Yes, I only brought up question of money to prove that that's not their motivation. No, not at all. It's not people like the narrative

of consumerism and commodification that these are the reasons that art today or books are bad. And let's not even start with what good or bad. It's that something's bad if it's not fun. art has to be entertaining, right? But they leave, forget us, they leave money on the table with someone like Mel Gibson. I think, sorry if I repeat, but his, the passion international do very well, and he's blacklisted, you know, supposedly because he say something at the party, but I really think they want bad, dull art. I don't know if you think it's the political correctness. I think political correctness is much worse than a political doctrine. It's a kind of office atmosphere, you know? Yes, it's the office atmosphere everywhere. It's this fake positivity.

You have to be sort of positive about everything. I think you look at the moderation on any sites like Facebook or Twitter or Reddit, it's the same. They simply don't want you to say anything negative ever to anyone. Yes. You can't hurt someone's feelings. but how can you possibly make good art that doesn't hurt anyone's feelings? It's an absurdity to even suggest it. And I think maybe the best art hurts everyone's feelings. You know, art, real, excuse me, I don't mean real art, but real entertaining art that, excuse me, that attack your passion in some way, I think almost always hurt your feeling. I was not in such good mood a few years ago, and I start read Shintaro Ishihara's season of the sun, and I couldn't finish past a few pages into that the first time, because, you know,

something that shows vital life throws it in your face. You know, if you're not living that way, it can make you feel very bad. It doesn't need to have any message. It's simply showing images of vital life will be an insult to many people, I think. You know, the first time I read Nietzsche, any of his books, it hurt my feelings quite a bit. I think it hurt it more than anything else. Yes. And that was one of the most profound things I've ever read. So, of course, if you cut off hurting people's feelings, then you also cut off the possibility of profundity, of passion. Really, you were saying of being moved. It cuts off the possibility of being moved. Yes. Well, yeah, they want you to be perpetually zombified I think but Zero

I've been keeping you for quite a while. Why don't we take a quick milks break? I must put more coffee milks and we come back to talk some Artificial intelligence and philosophy things. Would you like this? Yes, very good. Very good We will be right back. We are back from coffee milks break here with Zero HP Lovecraft we are talking novels and the future of so-called art, which is really high-class entertainment, maybe, and we are talk future of artificial intelligence, which is persistent concern of zero-HP Lovecraft in your fiction, your science fiction, horror fiction. And I agree that artificial intelligence, very good for book and futuristic book and so on. I have doubts whether anything like artificial intelligence can exist.

Do you want to give your opinions on this, artificial intelligence, its future? And I know you are very interested, as am I, in Nick Land, philosopher of futuristic accelerationism. If I don't misunderstand him, he believes that artificial intelligence will replace humanity. It's a kind of horror story of his own told in format of philosophy, and he has disappeared for the last few months. I believe that the Chinese have eaten him. Do you have any opinions on that? I think he was cannibalized by Shanghai police. I don't know. Yes, I heard a recent message only maybe two weeks ago that he was alive and he is cultivating accelerationist energy and he will return to us and he will be extremely powerful, more powerful than ever before. So I think, I'm not too worried about it,

it's more likely he will eat the Chinese. But we should talk a little bit about artificial intelligence. So I do think I share your skepticism that we will ever build an artificial I think even if we do, the singularitarians, Ray Kurzweil and people like this, Eliezer Yudkowsky, very stupid, they have this mythological idea that an intelligent AI will suddenly figure out how to do magic, and it will solve every problem, and nanotech, it will reshape physics and conquer the world instantly, and this is bullshit, this is obvious bullshit. It's just one more failed eschatology, and really I think it comes from the same sort of place. You know, in early 2000s there was this popular rapture novel series about God takes away all the good people and only the bad people were left on Earth.

This is the secular Jewish version of this theory. So no, it's nonsense, but I do think that AIs will get very, very smart, specifically talking to people and persuading them of things. So I think you will start to see, some people think that the Internet's already overrun by text written by AI. I don't think that is the case at all, but I think it could become the case, or you probably notice. Maybe you ever do customer support, phone call or chatbot or something like this. Right now you're talking to an Indian man and they say AI stands for anonymous Indians. This is true. But it won't be true much longer because it will at some point it will be cheaper to put a smart AI into those situations than an Indian person that calls. When that happens,

of course it will happen and most people won't even notice and to be perfectly honest it might even do a better job than the Indians in the call center so I think it will be a very slow and kind of quiet creeping where most of the people in your life that you talk to online most of the people like you know we already use computer kiosks to order fast food but that's a lot farther as well and product managers, all of these email jobs. You see these women, they go to daycare in their little Silicon Valley office. Those people are irrelevant, and their job could easily be done by an AI, I think, within five years, we will start to see that. Yes. But you believe Nick Land idea about techno capitalism techno capitalism and the future of the world

as artificial intelligence, something like this. I'm not too familiar with intricacies of his work, but you believe in something like this? I believe in the pessimistic version of it, which is that it is something that possibly could happen, but that it would take more bio capital, more human intelligence than we actually have. So, Nick Land identifies this idea, I don't know if he actually came up with the idea, but the idea that as our technology develops more and more, our human capital becomes less and less, and we biologically deteriorate, we get dumber, we get fatter and slower and just worse, we become worse people. So the idea is that this force of human decay is at odds with this force of technological ascension.

And so his good scenario, you could say, is that we build technology which can automate everything and ultimately carry out humanity's legacy once we've decayed back into nothing. And the bad or the pessimistic scenario, I mean, Len is definitely a pessimist, the pessimistic scenario is that we don't have enough fuel essentially in the human gas tank to achieve liftoff. I think that's much more likely. If it's possible at all, I don't see it happening. Yes, there is not much evidence of technological innovation. Elon Musk notwithstanding, the only innovation aware of recent is the new library of Alexandria, the Chadnet Archive. You know this? Yes, the Chadnet Archive is very important. I highly suggest that you, well you all already

know it, but to all of your readers or listeners I think they should go to Chadnet. There's some many wonderful things there. John Smith was kind enough to host my video game experiment, ban to maximizer, which actually ties into this very well. So you know the Bay Area rationalists, they have this idea of a paperclip maximizer, and what they think is that an AI could become super powerful, but its original objective was something really mundane, like make as many paperclips as you can. And so there's a theory, which I do think is true, created by a man named Bobo Kundro and he identifies this idea called convergent instrumental goals and he says that any intelligent being no matter what its ultimate objective is has to

converge on sort of the ability to maintain concurrency with itself in the future in the past, the ability to defend itself from attacks and I forget all the others I've written about it before let's go. The theory is you make an AI whose goal is to make paper clips and in order to do that it wants to convert all matter in the world into paper clips which means it has to take over the world, develop martial force, find, you know, discover new things in physics so that it can break down matter into paper clips. So some rationals made this game to demonstrate this concept and it's fun. He made a very fun game, it's interesting to play. Now I liked the idea but I thought it'd be much more realistic if we change the subject to be about what progressive

sort of civilization and politics really wants to do, which is convert all matter in the universe into Bantus. I made a game using a lot of quotes from Hakan and using other lore that I've learned in my time here where you convert everything into Bantus and so not only full body pubic but full universe pubic. No this is interesting but this is just the ideology of Hilary Clinton and Norman Borlaug and the entire leftist progressive establishment for a hundred years. Yes and they would literally burn down everything in the world if they could make one more African, that is their goal. Yes, I am not a big fan of such accelerationist science fiction theories about what's going on now because, well on matter we just discussed, the elite so-called

is being accused by people like Alex Jones of having a eugenic depopulation program and also of being in charge of governments for hundreds if not thousands of years, And I like to ask such people, what exactly is the plan? Was the plan to have a wild population overgrowth in the third world by promoting foreign aid and giving them the equivalent of Marshall Plan many time over and having things like Norman Borlaug design varieties of wheat, I think, and other crops that could feed at the subsistence level and ever increasing a population of Bantu. And so was that their project only then to depopulate, to want to depopulate it two decades later? What is the 44 dimensional chess they had in mind there? So I think rather than a Babylonian thousands year old

eugenic elite of pedophile vampires, you get pretty much what you see. Hillary Clinton and Peter Stroke and Huma Abedin and her gimp husband, whatever, Anthony Viner, are pretty much, you know, the elite that you have, so-called elite. And similar in technology, I think artificial intelligence as it exists now is complete make-believe. In other words, you were talking about the call center and, but I think all artificial intelligence is like that. I think the Boston Dynamic Robot, Is that what that company is called? I assume those are CGI or that they are remote controlled. You know, I think they're remote controlled actually. So I've never seen one. Well, I'm just saying this because I think the what you call pessimistic prospect much more likely

I think Blade Runner is already a utopia compared to what we have now. Much more likely we are degenerating to some kind of Haiti village level with community organizer, meddlesome, virgos running things. I don't know if you agree with that. But, well, I will ask you more in a second. I know that you mentioned Baudrillard and Bataille on last segment, and I know Deleuze is very important for people like Nick Land. I attacked the post-modernists on my last show, especially when it come to so-called post-modernist art. But I noticed that many people on the right, or the new right, whatever you want to call, are interested in people like Deleuze and Baudrillard and so on. So I am open to what means. Do you care to comment on this? How can it be that these thinkers,

often considered cultural Marxist so-called, they can be helpful for people on the right? You think so? Some of them can, certainly. I mean, I've told people in the past they should possibly understand someone like Foucault, but that's really only to know your enemy. I don't think there's anything that's really too valuable for us in Foucault, whether we can get it better from other places. I tell people to read Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd, that's a much better book that sort of encompasses, I think, the lesson that we could learn from Foucault. But I think Baudrillard deserves better. better. I don't think he should be lumped in with a lot of other people because, you know, in his books

there's really very little of a Marxist line in it at all. Almost none, I would say. In fact, many people would call him a post-Marxist, not in the sense that he's trying to still carry the torch, but quite the opposite. He seems to think, I don't know that he's said this, but the sense I get from of his work is that he thinks Marxism is totally irrelevant now. He thinks that everything it was going to do is basically done and he will need to move on. Yes. I quite enjoy his work. I think he's very insightful when it comes to discussing the ways that television and radio and media all kind of change the way that we think or the that we see. So I see him as being someone in line with maybe Marshall McLuhan. And then I read Bataille,

who's not really a postmodernist at all, but because he was an influence on Babriard, and he has many interesting things to say about anthropology, which is probably all made up, I think left us to make up most of their anthropology to justify their sexual narratives. But it's still a fun, and mostly the reason I read all these people, even more than the philosophy, is really just for their melodism, for their one-liners. And same with Deleuze. I don't think Deleuze said much that I find insightful or inspiring, but he's great, or he was great, I guess, at a turn of phrase. And he'd come up with these very interesting formulations, which, even if they're wrong, are very thought-provoking and with pleasing arrangements of letters.

I just love words when they're a bit divorced from their meaning. Yes. My problem with these men is they talk much. They may have occasional insight on matters like you just said, media analysis and how people perceive this and that. But, of course, that all comes with the French forgetfulness of nature, which can be very done in a refined way, but when it gets translated into the rest of the world, it goes very much along with the Bantu Maximizer project you just mentioned. I want the basis of the right to be racist, And I want, I would like to ask you, because I know you address this in your own commentary, how can we enhance our racism? It's a very important question. I actually believe that the future of the right must be racist and sexist and all of these other sorts of things.

I don't like any of these words that end in phobia because we're not afraid that's the wrong emotion. Yes. How do we increase racism? How can we increase the racism rate? This question affects me. One thing for me personally is that I had heard many of these racist doctrines or human biodiversity when I was younger, and I rejected it all. I didn't think any of it was true. And what it took for me was to actually sort of go out into the world and see it with my own eyes and see these squamous masses undulating in the city, these squat creatures. And I think that is actually one of the best ways to increase racism, is to just see, to behold other races. and if you don't turn out a racist, if you can let go of the programming in your mind that tells you everyone is the same,

you immediately realize they're not. And Lovecraft famously had this experience on the streets of New York. I think everyone should, maybe not New York per se, but this experience. Yes, many frogs have come out of medical profession in the United States because when you have to work in an internship in hospital, you end up seeing horror, Lovecraftian horrors, the shiboons giving birth. And I'm wondering if we can't have maybe ironic or actually presented as completely unironic community service project to have young, let's say high school, high school, you know, high school boys, white or Asian or whatever, work as at least one or two week per year as orderlies to help out in a gynecology department of major inner city United States hospitals. And they would come out SS guards, I think,

from that experience. Just sell it as community service for underprivileged minority and just send a 17-year-old guy to help out in the gynecology department of major, what you think. I think this will end leftism, it will end Reddit, you know. It could very quickly, because these people live in an isolated world. I see it all the time. You know, I work at a company. Everyone is very smart, conscientious, able to work. They hire, you know, the talented tenth. And these people are real, they exist. And then they think, they generalise, they think, well, why aren't all people the same as, why aren't all black people the same as the Taliban tech? They don't know and they just turn a blind eye because they're too rich and they're too cold

and they don't have to think about these things up close. But if you want to be racist really, really fast, not that you need any help, I was in a Uber car the other day. Yeah, Uber driver, yeah, Uber driver. lolly driver and he made a conversation and I said oh do you uh he said he was talking about his family he said since I come to America I have seven children and my wife is pregnant again and I have worst this was a terrible uber ride I thought I asked him to pull over and let me out yes he was contemplating this horror yes I want to ask you about the future of the right wing and and its current condition. I think its condition right now, discourse on the right is very bad because a lot of us were banned in 2017 and we were replaced by so-called face lords and face fags

who tried to take conversation away from matters of race and national identity and to turn it into safer topic like economic or to say it's a religious movement and so on. And of course the face fag isn't just someone who uses face, Steve Saylor uses face, but he not a face fag because he's not parasitizing of frogs or trying to replace them. He has his own opinions from before. But I wanted to ask your opinion, how maybe what you think of current discourse on right, is it possible to return to that assuming you agree with it because it sound like you and me and I would say also Moldbug and Nick Land and quite a few others, we came along with the frogs, but I think the core of the frogs should remain scientific racism and satire, human biodiversity discourse that punctures totally

the doctrines of the left when it come to human nature. And so I think Steve Saylor actually is a best journalist in America now and the core, in some way, core of the ideas of frogs, Hartiste being the elder where he deal with womanly nature. I don't know if you agree with this. I would like to see the right return to that, but I'm not sure how with the Bannings and so on. Yeah, I mean, there's no denying it. If it weren't for Steve Saylor, I don't think many of us would be here. And the thing about him that's wonderful is he's vicious, but he's never rude. And it's, you know, it can be very funny. We see people like, quote, tweet, stupid blue checko and die nigger, whatever. Very funny, I like this. It can be very funny. But Twitter will not allow it anymore

and none of these sites will. And so one of the problems is that they've created this algorithm that bends us back and forces us to attack each other. So it's like you're in this hall of mirrors. You want to go after the real target, but you can't if you do instantly get banned. And if you do, they also deboost it and no one sees it anymore. So they closed the loophole that allowed us to do what we did in 2016 and thereabouts. So maybe some people will hang on to this idea of like maybe there will be a new social network. I am very skeptical of that. The network effect that people thought they could overcome with cryptocurrency and similar just haven't panned out. Six years ago, seven years ago, People were saying, oh, Metcalfe's law, we can beat it

if we, it's this idea that network effects can be overcome by getting people to stay, it doesn't work. It doesn't work because the critical mass of conversation is not going to move from Twitter. The whole reason we're there is because it's a hunting ground we're going where there's prey and we want to attack the prey. We want to eat them, devour them, and they make that harder to do. So I wish we could just say, oh, stop infighting. We can't, because that's what we see. But I think that our best bet, and what I try to do personally, is spend as little time as possible fretting about the state of the community, or whatever, the discourse. I don't care. I draw from the people who are smart and who keep their eyes on the horizon, and I try to build things and write things

that are going to last for more than a day, an hour, a month, whatever. If you do a space, maybe someone records it or not and usually people just ramble. Even if someone good comes in, it's like writing in the sand. So I think I can still go back and find important writings. You mentioned Roger Devlin. Yes. Roger Devlin earlier. Yes. His essays or or Hatice's blog much more permanent than something on Twitter. People archive it, and that's what we need to do. We need to write for the ages, not for the moment. Yes, the bureaucrats say something similar. We need, because of these measures they've taken with censorship, we need to return to forum-style writing and argument the way Steve Saylor does. And I think a bureaucrat himself does this well.

I think we need to, yes, follow the forum's model that you just say, but on what platform do you think it can be done on Twitter in engaging leftist journalists or leftists still on Twitter, or just the longer form, you mean, you know? Yeah, I think we have to use something like Twitter as a funnel to make people aware of the better work the more permanent work. Nothing could be better, I think, than writing a book like Draws Age Mindset, which people can actually hold in their hands, which isn't going to just get wiped away. That's very important. But you know, the other thing is, if you take a screenshot of a blue check and you dunk on the screenshot instead of the actual address, you will draw much less heat from the sensors. But if it goes big, which it easily can,

They may not acknowledge it, they may pretend it doesn't exist, but it still gets around. And I've been shocked to see something that one of our friends said on iFunny with, you know, a quarter of a million upvotes or something like this. So on Reddit, all these ecosystems cannibalize each other, and you know, you can break out in these types of ways. You just have You have to be funny. You have to be funny and smarter than your comment. Yes, and there are polite ways to address racial questions, not crazy like we just said on this show. You can do it in terms of criticisms of ethno-narcissism. You can do it in terms of human biodiversity commentary. But that's a bit iffy because I like Steve Saylor and Charles Murray.

But again, I don't want to name names. Others are not doing it so well. Yeah, it's very hard to do it with grace and with skill, and people, they lose their temper or they, you have to be very measured, actually, you have to be very calm. If you lose your temper, you'll say something stupid and then no one will see it. And that's the real problem. It's not that, oh, people are afraid to say something edgy or to say the forbidden words or whatever. It's not that. You actually have much more reach and people will see what you've said, unfortunately, because of the rules, if you can maintain this level head. And also, people will take you more seriously, for the most part. You can be very uncompromising in everything you say. You can hide it from the jannies.

You can hide it a little bit so you don't get the bad. I do think it's very important to transgress these speech taboos and so on. I don't trust anyone who is unwilling to do that, in private at least. Because if you're not willing to say faggot in your own home to someone, then it means they're in your head, it means they control you. Yes, no, yes, we must say such word, we must say nigger, but that is the password code, I think. Yeah, exactly. It doesn't mean that you have to just spray it like you have Tourette's in your mouth. Yes. There is an account, Bronze Age Nigger, I hope he come back, and might write a complete theory of black futurist separatism through artificial intelligence, but I don't know

if you if you agree with that. Zero, I've been keeping you for a while. I don't, I know you, you must commune with the, with the artificial intelligence gods. I don't want to keep you much longer, but yes. Do you care to pronounce on this matter, though, of some type of black Wakanda-style futurist separatist state in the United States? In the United States would not be my preference, but you know, we must be realistic about it. I absolutely support a black separatist movement, giving them some land to create their black utopia. I think that's a great idea. We should absolutely do that, and we should give them free transportation, and they can all go. It's a wonderful idea. I just want to save the African megafauna from the Bantu-Han Alliance.

I'm afraid that they'll just eat every single animal in Africa, you know? Yes, yes, a very real risk. I want you to remove these special preserves. Well, that is the reality of artificial intelligence today, Zero, if you know what I mean. The complete cannibalism of all wildlife in Africa by the Han, Bantu, United Artificial Intelligence. But look, I've been keeping you for a while, Zero. Thank you so much for coming on show. I hope you come again. And, you know, we talk soon. And, you know, Heil Puckler, you know, I know if you want to say that. Yes, absolutely. So just very quickly before I go, you know, when people find out I was coming on your show, Some of them asked me to just mention their name and sort of give them a blessing.

So I want to give a brief endorsement to a very strange man, His Majesty, the trustworthy Ling Sang Gyurma anime accountant. So if you see this person out in the wild, he has very unusual and intriguing things to say. Yes, some people say he is an artificial intelligence because of how he talks. I've met many Internet schizophrenics, but none of them talk in the words he makes are sometimes 200 letters long. That's a commitment beyond what the schizophrenic I've seen do. But yeah, he happens to be Tibetan, by the way. He's a Tibetan lama, and I'm not making that up, by the way. Yeah, I believe he might be an artificial intelligence, and he asked me to paraphrase essence and isotropical rest. I'm sorry it's a long soup of letters but something like that.

He's posting from Dharamsala. I know this but I cannot say more but very good zero. It's been an absolute honor to be on your show. Thank you so much. Yes honor to you and I sent power for your next book and yes. Yes, goodbye. Until next time, back out!