Yes, and we are back. And this is show on the GNC and I do not mean a department supplement store, but to put politely, international racial Marxism, or let's say, global Negro communism, one of my favorite topic, but unfortunately, not something new in America history is not invention of last few year with critical race theory and the burgeoning hootooization of rhetoric among the American left, what I have called the Interhamwe left. But unfortunately, a longstanding pillar of the American establishment and its foreign policy. I will give many examples on this show. I have also in past shows, I think, number 25 episode is just on this. But to start just one example, Max Boot, the neocon, Lick Spittle, the one who froth at

mouth for war, recently wrote book about CIA so-called hero, evil genius mastermind, Edward Lansdale. And Lansdale achieved some apparent success in promoting this, how he began his great career to anti-communist leader in Philippines named Magsaysay. I mean, this was his first great success in so-called psychological operations. This was in 1953 in Philippines. And it was a bad learning experience for CIA in that they confused this politician Magsaysay's an agency, and they confuse the agency of the Philippine people with their own efficacy and ability to do 44-dimensional chess. So what happened is a leader, a native leader who was already popular and would have probably won eventually regardless of their help, but they start to think it was entirely because

of our ability to affect elections, the CIA so-called, to manipulate political events, to promote favored leaders. And this gave a false view of their own abilities. This encouraged the CIA and Lansdale to become then involved in Vietnam in ways that led to the disaster that is well known because they raised up a nobody, Diem, who the Vietnamese did not want, unlike the Filipinos who had already wanted Magsaysay. Diem, a man from Annam, this is the north of South Vietnam, and they put him in power in Saigon in the south of South Vietnam, a Catholic in a 90% non-Catholic or even anti-catholic nation, and a labor leader, a member of international labor networks, this actually how he became known to the CIA because this was a CIA home base, so to speak, the international labor network.

But his only base of support in Vietnam was his brother's small and powerless labor union. And they raised this man up to power in a nation where the culture was traditionalist and anti-socialist, anti-communist, quite aside from the fact that Lansdale and the CIA rigged the referendum to oust the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, which was a totally rigged election that they later brag about if you want to talk about election interference. But late into the 1950s, this same Lansdale, he was saying, and this is not secret or conspiracy, his open record and his own words. But he was saying that there was not any danger to Vietnam from North Vietnam or from communism. He was saying that only the dirty colonialists possibly making a comeback, that this was the danger to Vietnam.

And so this history was rewritten and forgotten. You are made to think that America promoted Diem to fight communism. But at the time, they weren't even pretending that. They were saying Diem is fighting so-called organized crime and the legacy of the evil European colonialists. And this significant fact, again, lost to history, distorted by now by both the mainstream left and the right, each for their own reasons. But people forget this Lansdale, the so-called CIA mastermind, he rallied Vietnamese political life entirely on eradicating so-called colonialist white supremacist influence in Vietnam, which was also the program that FDR agreed with Stalin at Yalta, or in Tehran, excuse me, I forget at which meeting, I think actually at both, they agreed on a war against European colonialism.

And so the fight was not against communism, although it was reinterpreted that way lately, retrofitted, history rewritten. And I will also give you an example later, that CIA invasion and attempted coup in Cambodia, for example, was also motivated by this same impulse and not by anti-communism. In fact, the French had banned Lansdale from entering Indochina from 1950 because he was Ho Chi Minh's man, as were large part of American intelligence and journalist establishment, which I will give many examples. And by the way, Ho Chi Minh, who again American press and establishment sold as a Vietnamese nationalist fighting French colonialism who was only pushed into communism later by necessity is complete bullshite story.

In fact, he had been arrested in Hong Kong in the 1930s, I believe, as an agent of the Comintern. He was a communist agent from early on and this fact was known, widely known, to Western intelligence agencies and journalists, and they systematically hid it from American people to run this war in Vietnam against French civilization, really on behalf of international communism, the uprising of the colored third world masses under the Marxist banner, what I am talking about on the show. If you look at the report from French sources and French intelligence, but also Spanish Portuguese, they all understood America was the world leader in GNC. And working through 1940s, 50s, 60s, and later, it was not really to fight Soviet Union, to

whom America was actually giving large loans, but to destroy white civilization around the world. This is a long plank of American foreign policy, political establishment, an incestuous relationship between progressives, socialists, and outright Marxist communists, which ultimately really only represents the interests of the last. So when you look at, for example, Avril Herriman, who is one of the eminence gris of Democrat Party. He was governor of New York in the 1950s, but he was, let's say, one of main policy nobobs of the left in America, foreign policy especially, accused actually of being a Soviet agent by a Soviet defector at one point. I don't know if it's true, it doesn't need to be, but if you look at his Wikipedia, for

example, they say nothing about the fact that this man, Avril Herriman, as a banker in 1922, it was his funding that saved the Soviet Union at that crucial point from, they were facing certain bankruptcy, and he saved them rallying banking loans for them. Avril Herriman, he was main player and bungler in the tragedy, not only of Vietnam, but all also around the world where America worked hard to destroy so-called supremacist colonialism, often together with the Soviets who provided the muscle. So the practice of GNC is, you can even say, a pillar of American activity around the world, certainly since 1950, but now especially is doing it within its own borders, because it seeks to decolonize America in the same way it tried to and succeeded in decolonizing

third world and for the same reasons and connected to this activity is an ideology of which you only know the end result now in critical race theory and in terahumwe, Negrola tree and so on but which has been decades in the making and which I will discuss on this show referring especially to some wonderful new article by second city bureaucrat he's doing a series on this his substack by the way you should all subscribe to and I mean becoming his These pay pigs become pay pigs to the city bureaucrat. He is one of the most insightful, funniest men writing now. I will talk about him next segment. He is my oldest internet friend, you know, and longest running friend actually I've had period. We are camarading in this fight.

He document real origins of this pseudo-imperial, but really it's a self-defeating ideology, a kind of pretend religion, the so-called civil religion of vicarious ethnic narcissism, which America establishment wishes to promote as the successor to Europe's creeds, which you can call Europe's creeds an uneasy and competing mix in various proportions of Christianity, of Enlightenment rationalism, and of Greco-Roman aristocratic imperialism and republicanism, but America's crazy socialist establishment seek to do away with them all and to replace them with this and really it's a kind of inadequate inclusive ideology based on a rejection or an inversion of Anglo-Saxon Protestant exceptionalism. But I will explain this on next segments because you must see the GNC you experience daily

as many of you for now at best experience it as an inconvenience. It hasn't reached a bloody level yet in the United States but you know it as inconvenience whether it's affirmative action workplace or more likely you are expected to beg and piddle for forms and grants and approval from a shibun 90 IQ bureaucrat in a federal office building. You have to beg them for basic necessities and where you are expected to engage then also in ostentatious displays of piety for Ibram Kendi, for example, or whatever kunta akin to replacements they find. And that's an insult to Kunta, by the way. I mean, I know, for example, Vignettes, white nationalists, for those of you not in the know, I know what the neuroses of white nationalists are and of racist Jews from Upper West Side

who are afraid of blacks. But it's far worse than such people fear. It would be one thing if they were promoting gangster, keeping it real niggers with gold chain and the basketball body, or if Obama was such a type who, you know, looking at drone footage in Afghanistan and he was playing with a joystick and, you know, oh, I killed them, I killed them. But he was not – that would be better if it was what he actually was, and I'm not saying that them promoting gangster basketball body and nigger would be a good thing, by the way. But they're not even doing that. foisting on people pathic pinko dorks like Obama, the librarian, like Ibram Kendi, precious gay tragic mulattos with lilting voices and intellectual spectacles.

And if they have a deformed, a fat or a trune body that's even better, which is what you're seeing in the miscast obese minorities on the Lord Damn Rang's Amazon series, and why And why for the shit lib, the promotion of ugliness, of the misshapen, of the deliberately deformed, this goes along with their promotion of so-called colored global south. It's a war on idea of distinction or superiority as such for the true believers, that is. I will explain, it's in black and white in their founding ideological documents, in the work of so-called Talcott Parsons and Robert Bellah, I will discuss on show. But if I were a black amour, I'd find very dishonorable, right? I mean, these people are promoting me because they believe in raising up inferiority or

deleting the stain of inferiority and lumping me together with deformed fat trunes. It's a big implicit meg in this. But honor has never been big among the Zanj. That's what the Arab merchants call them, right, the Zanj. But Zanj, the bantoite, he's the most useful pawn and prop in the socialist cabal's promotion of global slavery communism, which is why GNC is the right word for the program. I will talk this, but you will see from my brief description of the bureaucrat articles, this is not new thing. It has been a mainstay of faggot, congregationally so-called political thought for many decades. So Mollbug and others like Paglia, with their idea that Protestantism or a form of Calvinism is the root, the ideological or spiritual root of modern leftism, is in a very correct

but not in the way they say. But that's for next segment. Now, what else? How have you been? Are you upset show sometime late? I only have my audience. You understand this? Namely, you, my listener. So I cannot afford to put a bad show or a half-hearted. So I'd rather delay a bit until mood hit right for recording. And the mood was not right for the last two weeks. I can tell you now, for the last few months, I was in Spain, in Madrid. I never reveal my current location anymore while I'm actually there because the range people who have made me and they have not made the authorities or the major writers of regime journalists lackeys, they have not made them their antagonists, you see they've made me their main antagonist.

So five random Nietzscheans on the internet are public enemy, number one to a great swathes of the left and some of the demented fake right right now. And when I told people, for example, that I was in Iceland in 2020, while I was there, it was followed by two months of hissy fit hysteria where they tried to track me down and so forth. So I no longer tell people where I am at the time I'm there. They couldn't find me there because I was hidden in cabin alone, but in a big shitty who know they could rally against me, Antifa or something, this is what they hope to rally violence against you. But I do want to tell you about my travels and to exhibit for you my hatred of mankind and of all people, so I cannot avoid the subject of my comings and goings where I go.

I will go to Spain another time, it's a nice country, very good food. Some say it's the best food in the world right now. The Basques, the Euskades in the north, they have taken over fine dining from the French, or at least this is what is said. The energy has moved from France to Basque country, because you know, it's not just the recipes on paper or culinary traditions that determine where best food in the world is at any one point. It's not like a platonic form. There is also, for example, I agree that French food is potentially the finest. But let's say you went to Portugal in the 2000s, mid-2000s, and you tried food there. Unless you got lucky and you ate in somebody's home who happened to be a good cook, the restaurants in Portugal at that time, through decline

or carelessness, neglect, whatever, they were all serving just crap. You could maybe get A nice grilled sardine with salt on it and they were very proud that they used vinegar and not lemon. Okay, that's fine. Never mind the sound in the background, that's just for color I put that for you. But you could get maybe a good plump sardine and they put olive oil and vinegar and they were very proud to tell you, here we use vinegar, we don't use lemon. But that's about it. Any cook dish, traditional Portuguese dish that you were going to get, even in a good restaurant I think was going to be a half-assed thing, it was not good when in fact Portuguese cuisine in itself is actually quite good. So now after Lisbon has been somewhat revived through Monier coming in or whatever, it used

to be quite a depressing place for a while, but now it's somewhat back to its old self as a vital city, it's a store away for all kind of questionable character exiles. I like a story when Alekhin, the famous chess player, one of world champions. Some people say he was the best, most creative chess player ever. Bobby Fischer thought so too, maybe. And he was exiled from Russia in 1917 from a Russia aristocratic family and the KGB killed him after World War II in a hotel in Estoril that's just outside Lisbon. Because for whatever reason, Sauron or Zog has always allowed Lisbon to be this kind of whole in global system of control where people of all kind can congregate, it's got all kind of spook and criminal and exile.

It gave it a very exciting and free character and in the 2000s it was in decline and because now it's somewhat coming back but 2000s because of this the food was bad whereas now again start to be quite good. So it's not just the recipe on a page, a nation can have a regression if they start to half And this is what I am told is happening in France, especially because they hire immigrant chef and kitchen worker, they are not part of the culinary traditions, they can't be brought in and they don't really care. And it shows in the food, there are also phenomenon resting on laurels and on their past reputation, so they half-ass it. And then it remain overpriced again because of previous reputation. So for much the same reasons, the culinary energy has shifted now to Spain, people say.

And it's not just fine dining, but even average restaurant that are not very expensive, you can eat very good. You go Spanish restaurant, if there's stew on it, anything with peas, for example, always going to be great in a real Spanish restaurant. Furthermore, in Spain, and also part in Portugal, that you can get highest quality, amazing local ingredient to cook at home. And by cook, I mean even something simple, a mushroom omelet. But you're getting unusual mushroom and best egg you can find anywhere. Or even just the tuna salad is not really cooking, but the tuna in a jar is of extreme high quality. And I would make myself amazing tuna salad you put with canned goods. Because again, the basic ingredients you can get whether a roast red pepper or caper or

olive, other such thing, you have available Spain cheap direct access. Whereas any other country, these would be considered a rare premium luxury good and are usually not even available, including in America. I think only maybe Japan, because Tokyo happens to be the biggest luxury exotic market in the world. But they would be carrying high price there if they're imported. So anyway, I would eat at home, make tuna salad with caper, olive, roasted pepper, olive oil and almonds. And when I would eat, I watch something that not takes too much attention. So I start to watch this cooking show, but Iron Chef Japan, which is the original and best cooking show, it just shows normal chef cooking in an exciting atmosphere.

But I ran through them all, and then the American versions are not so good, especially this cooking show, I found a way to watch three so-called top chefs with Padma, Lakshmi, the you call her, the model, she's supermodel, her hand is cut up, I don't know why, she was in a knife fight. But I just hate this show Top Chef, I kept watching it because it fit the requirement for food time, and so it was there. But I can't stand it, I tell you before, the self-importance and preciousness of the contestants. And then later on this show, I was going to talk Star Wars by the way, I watched the new Star Wars, and I wanted to talk these propaganda movies, but this show I think I will leave next show to talk that in detail because this show end up being quite long on just ideology of GNC.

But so anyway, on Top Chef, this what I wanted to tell you is they have gross out sequence and not entertaining. I mean, to give you an example of what would be an entertaining, nice gross out sequence, Gordon Ramsay, Kitchen Nightmare, it's one of best show about restaurant and cooking, maybe best, but it's terrible to watch while you eat because what go on in restaurant kitchens will disgust you, you will never want to eat out again. But Gordon Ramsay, he is very nice explosive personality on televisions, he's best authoritarian, a kind of West hunter-gatherer physiognomy kind of chef, and Bobby Flay is another one. You can see that type of physiognomy, the old European hunter-gatherer, they are very good cooks. They like to put meats on open flame and a cauldron, you can see.

But it's a pleasure to see Gordon Ramsay just bully the owners of these restaurants that he's trying to reform. There's a particular episode, I think it's Sol Cantina or Sol Azteca Cantina, I don't remember, but he bullies a Mexican family who own a restaurant and the food they're serving, it's just hell in the back of the kitchen. I mean, you'll never want to eat out again, but that is a good kind of gross out, even though don't watch while you eat. But okay, so that's unsuitable for while you have lunch. So I always watch Top Chef and I was hoping, oh, it's a pleasant thing too. And what they do, they don't just show you the cooks in Make Nice Foods, like Irish chef Japan. They show you how they get up, you know, because they're living together in this house.

So in the morning, you see, they show you how they get up, they're living together in in bunk beds, and you see them brushing teeth or morning routine, and you see them in bed as they get up. I mean, they're absolutely revolting. What hell is this? This is the fastest way also, by the way, to lose respect and idealism for a friend. Nietzsche says this, forgive to plagiarize Nietzsche, but he says, have you ever seen your friends sleep? Just what the hell have you seen with drool falling on pillow or something? I don't want to get too graphic, but people look pathetic when sleeping. Mammals are disgusting. I imagine married couple lose interest in each other because of this and why in medieval time I hear sometimes Lord of Manor would sleep in different room from wife, maybe not

to lose passion for her. Whereas the peasants, they live in a rat heap if you read Russian attacks on the peasant. I keep telling you this nice Chekhov story, peasants, which many of you on the right who who idealize country life and hate the urban night, you need to read, because you know, urban life is not just Aztec cities with 22 a room and eating off the floor. And country life isn't just English or Greek gentleman who go hunting and leave a state to wife or slaves or whatever. No, country life for peasant is people sleeping on the stoves, one of them sleep on the floor, animal is in room, and that is the rule, okay? And so anyway, what I mean is this, when they show top chef bunk bed life, I'd have to put the food away, get a coffee, it reminds me if you've ever been in hostel,

I hope not, but I hope you're not so foolish to travel in hostels. Some even have like a loop, you're supposed to put your foot in this loop to climb to the upper bunk and clamber over someone else, it's just animal life. And the worst part of hostel is when you sleep of course with other in the room, I've only done this once or twice by the way, but the worst part is the smell of the other people And I don't want to get too graphic and gross. I don't want to gross myself out. But you can imagine this problem you know with poverty is not that by the way hostels are poverty but in general it's other people is what I mean. It's not like Diogenes a hermit living on his own even in a city or Heraclitus or some other hermit living simply in the mountain on herbs.

But that poor people congregate like nests of snakes and rats all over each other. And they are the big cause of what makes poverty intolerable, not the sparse material benefits or whatever. And in a hostel, okay, I know it's not just the poor, actually, there are many who are not poor who travel this way, they want to meet people, but this sleeping together in a room is indubitably repulsive, and I'm saying, you know, smelling other people's socks is just unacceptable unless you're Count Pot or, you know, Taylor Lawrence and this kind of thing is your taste, you know. Regardless, I want to tell some of you who travel, in case you are actually interested in cutting costs, if this is your concern, you don't need to stay in hostels.

I was broke before and I travel even almost broke, there is a much better way around this. First of all, it depends where you are, small hotels or pensions, it's very hard in the United States. In most cities in the world you can find a cheap hotel with room alone, often $20 or $30, which depending on location is usually not much more or it's about same price as a hostel. In many other places you can find for far less. Some of them have shared bathroom that's disgusting in its own, but at least they are not sleep with people in the room. Second of all, okay, yes, I love the hippies that I would meet when I would be traveling and they would be bragging about how they save money traveling hostels. But it's an affectation when they do this, okay, like people who praise rice and beans.

Oh, rice and beans, that's got to be good, right? It's just rice and beans. That's got to be good. It's some dumb shit libs say this to me. And I hear the Netherlands is a country based on this principle, just aggressive promotion of egalitarianism by equalizers who see that anything that tries to elevate itself. Special parking garage for thousands of bikes, colored in green and orange apparently. What? I can't say who tells me this, but bicycles is another thing, right? Actually they cause a lot of accidents in pedestrian areas. Walking on street is good, but bike lanes are hazardous to cars and pedestrians. I believe this. If you have bike lanes in the middle of the street with a car, you might as well allow random people to walk at will in the middle of the street also.

There's no difference. But anyway, so the hippie, shit-lit bicycle nigger affectation, you've got to love rice and beans, right? You've got to love hostels. I'm saying these people like to brag about how they have saved so much money on hostel and it's a pretentious way of talking how much money you're saving and actually it's not correct because the hostel and many other things will end up costing you, let's say, often $20 a day and that's $600 a month, right? And even if you can lower that to $450 or let's say $300 a month, there are other costs you have, like you have to get in between the hostels, the bus or train ticket and many such things. Not to speak of what people who do this, they end up spending on alcohol or weed or such thing.

There's another way I could save much more money than such people. You can't always find this, but this is my advice. You look in country or visiting to see if you can rent a car by the month and it's very Very often, monthly or weekly price in a rental car is very small. In Italy, in off season, you can still sometimes find for $400 a month, but you can find other place, okay? So, now think for a moment. You can often use car to sleep in, okay? You have also mobility of car. You can drive outside town. If you wish, you have a tent, you sleep outside of current tent, but car is okay enough to to sleep in, especially, you can leave window open and use mosquito net to protect. And besides this, the car, by car is where you really see a new country and place.

That's how you actually experience it, by driving places where tourist circuit does not actually go, where expats don't usually go. And to be able to stop along the way on side of road, you can buy forest berry from old woman or pick them yourself, many such thing. And with car, you arrive in small village that, and this is less frequent now, but still exist. many place in world where they had not seen an American really ever. So there are certain privileges that come with being the first. Hello I have come to your city I want your women. Okay so you see but you can't always do this because car rental prices don't allow but even then you can find used cars sometime and you can buy even for hundreds of dollars actually a used car that

if you're lucky it will last you for the trip and if you're not lucky you break down in outskirts of of Cantabrian forest or outside Balkan, North Serbia, and local Spanish or Serbian forest mens, they can go deliverance on you. But some of you may like that. Have you heard of Jim John, the cult master? He say he was only straight man in the world, and he would prove this by sodomizing all other men. How does this make you feel? I've heard this is also a mentality part of Iraq, Iran, and Gulf State. I will be right back. And we are back show. you will forgive if I do not use power voice throughout its long show, but I think ideology woke revolution, or what is called in conservative circle, critical race theory now, or what

I call organization goal of our enemy, which is global Negro communism. This must be look at, I think best discussion of this, you will again find city bureaucrat, second city bureaucrat substack, which I will link again on Telegram and Twitter maybe, But he discussed Talcott Parsons and Robert Bellah, two big name in sociology. You can say the two giant of Anglo-Saxon Protestant civil religion sociology, who whether they forged it or as I think more likely they described an emerging ideological theological consensus among American foreign policy and government establishment, which John Rawls also did this from slightly different legal direction, but in both cases amount to same thing. And in the end it's what you see, global wealth transfer from the global north to the global south.

And global religion of Negroletry and redistribution according to Negroletry, in other words, GNC. And America has, like I say, for a long time done nothing but support the cause of global Marxism, of the uprising of third world against European rule and European civilization. this actually only intention of Marxism, the economic apparatus is kind of ornament to hide this behind. And I stand by this that a ruling ideology of men like Parsons and Bellah, which is description of ruling ideology of occupational class, is meant to justify and encourage such things as I said in previous segment, where American operatives like CIA man Edward Lansdale went so far as to organize massacres of Europeans in Indochina, and other Americans did this also in Africa, in Angola, Mozambique, and Congo.

And I give you some more examples from my favorite chronicler of this global shit revolution, the revolution of the global latrine, that American establishment chose to put itself at this head of global latrine revolution. So from Hilaire du Berriere, I will read now about Cambodia. In February 1959, it was Cambodia's turn. Prince Norodom Sihanouk received his first shove toward Peking in June 1958, when South Vietnamese units pursued survivors of the anti-communist private armies Lansdale had crushed in 1955 over the Cambodian border. Please pay attention to what was just said. private armies in South Vietnam were crushed by Lansdale, American money, working with the fake South Vietnamese puppet Diem, all of power went to crush anti-communism in South Vietnam. I continue reading.

At some points, these militias had moved the border markers inland several miles. In America, the press reported that Cambodia had invaded South Vietnam. When John Foster Dulles refused to ask his proteges to pull out, Peking offered to guarantee Cambodia's territorial integrity, and Cambodia's first step into the Peking orbit was taken. By February 1959, the CIA plot to topple the monarchy in Cambodia was ready to roll. Dop Chuan, the Siem Reap military commander, was killed with the papers implicating CIA on his person. Four hundred pounds of gold flown into the country to bribe the army was captured, along with American communications equipment and South Vietnamese operators. The London Observer of February 22, 1959, explained, the Americans prefer the idea of

internal revolution rather than pressure from the outside. So this is again the pro-communist, anti-monarchist, anti-European American CIA trying to topple the Cambodian monarchy. I continue reading, first to hear of Dopchand's defeat and capture of the papers which led to the confessions by the leading conspirators was the French Embassy. From there a translator working for the Americans rushed to the U.S. Information Office. The Information Office chief appeared stunned for a second, then exclaimed to his assistant everything is lost. Strangely enough the New York Times and the Washington Post, so ready to make an issue of the wildest charges of American plotting against Marxist dictators remain silent.

From Cambodia, let us take a look at Mr. Braden's doctrine of support for the non-communist left in Europe. And Hilaire du Berriere continues to talk there in this case of one Thomas Braden, who is the man who designed the CIA and actually entire foreign policy establishment tactic of support for the so-called non-communist left. Some people may wonder when I talk about how C.A. spread communism, they say, how could you say that men like Dulles and Wild Bill Donovan, how could you say that such men support communism? Well, this is not how American institutions work. These men outsourced and let the decision be made by second in command. In this case, this man, Thomas Braden, and he was a communist and he promoted lower agents and so forth who were communists.

And he's the one who was given this policy of, when you say help the non-communist left, what really amounts to is you want to destroy any seemingly right wing or far right wing thing worldwide. Because communist and non-communist left, socialists of any stripe, will never lie with the right against each other. So this ended up being actually America's communist foreign policy throughout the world. You will notice in just this brief paragraph discussion of how a plot to overthrow the Cambodian monarchy was foiled, but you will notice from this discussion recent happenings also where the left and the American press is very quick to make up stories about how the CIA or whoever is trying to overthrow Evo Morales or this or that leftist dictator,

but they never have anything to say about imperial meddling, to use their words, in places like Burma. They never say, apparently that kind of meddling is okay with them. So anyway, I know also the counter-argument to everything I have just said, that America was trying to offset the influence of Russian socialism or Soviet Marxism and to introduce its own third way, its own third force against both Soviet Marxism and European colonialism or supremacism and that this third force necessarily had to adopt some socialist policies. And this is often the left's excuse when I point out the unambiguous American promotion of colored revolution and communism around the world. They say that they were engaged, the CIA was engaged in 44-dimensional chess to promote

its own fake socialism as a counterforce to Soviet Marxism. And this nonsense, this only makes sense in a case where you already have a burgeoning socialist movement supported by the Soviets, then you arguably, and I say only arguably, then you need to arguably preempt or to counter them. But even in that case, by the way, it's not true because other anti-communist activities would maybe be more appropriate, like promoting native traditionalism or promoting or upholding even European colonialism if it's solid in that place and if anti-communism is actually your aim. Accepting on the other hand the communist argument that European colonialism is inevitably doomed is not necessarily legitimate. Why are you accepting that argument of Marxist historical inevitability unless you yourself

want that to happen and are not so crypto-Marxist? But that's not even what was going on, as I tell you, in many of these cases. The one I just mentioned, there was no Soviet influence or socialist presence before America actually introduced it. And what about then of Spain and Portugal, which are very stable, traditionalist, right-wing anti-communist dictatorships where they had eliminated leftist and Soviet presence. By the left's reasoning, America should have supported them in their own countries now. I'm not saying in the colonies where actually in Angola and Mozambique these are Portuguese colonies but America again introduced black communist agitation where previously it had not existed at all.

I remind you that the leader of the Mozambique communist GNC group, his name was Mondlane, He was a professor from Syracuse University, and likely an American intelligence asset. And before him, there was no socialist movement in Portuguese Mozambique that you would have to counter at all. And it's the same in Angola. But okay, let's say, whatever, I'll grant you that even though it's not true. But then you look at Portugal and Spain themselves. And on future show, I will go in detail on this, because even there I am telling you America during Cold War introduced labor union agitation, funding NGOs, in this case labor unions, to agitate against Franco and Salazar, and then they viciously denounce and attack these governments whenever they try to defend themselves.

They were not countering Soviet anything. They were committed communists in the American establishment, NCIA, seeking to supplant European civilization with murderous GNC, as you see them try to introduce today, and as they inaugurated in America with their tool Obama. This reasoning that you need to implant your own version of socialism to offset Soviet Marxism is probably what genuine communists like Thomas Braden told people like Dulles to justify their own actions. But the communism, the active communism of American intelligence and foreign policy establishment was a matter of casual knowledge in French intelligence services. Before I tell you that, let me give you yet another example of American communist subversion. I just told you about Cambodia.

This is what happened in Tunisia, and I'm reading from Hilar du Berriere again. In Tunisia, as in Morocco, the revolutionary selected to replace the hereditary bay, that's the local monarchy. So the guy that America chose to replace the local monarchy, Tunisia was in Irving Brown's territory. Irving Brown is an American socialist labor organizer working with CIA. Tunisia was in Irving Brown's territory and Habib Bourguiba was the find, this man that the United States chose to replace the monarch, and Habib Bourguiba was the find that he and the CIA wafted to San Francisco to an AFL-CIO convention in September 1951 for the leftist press to sell to America. Labor and CIA having decided that Tunisia was going to have Bourguiba come Tofet or

high water, Irving Brown and Jay Lovestone applied pressure through French unions and on July 30, 1954, Pierre Mendez France, the socialist leader of France, granted Tunisia internal autonomy under American labor union pressure. A few weeks earlier Mendez France had betrayed the Montagnard allies in Vietnam who controlled four-fifths of the area claimed by Ho Chi Minh and left them to be massacred as soon as Ho and Vong Giang Gheap could replace the army they had lost at Dien Bien Phu. Were you, I'm interjecting now, you are told that the French suffered the major defeat and they did but it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Vietnamese. Their army was totally destroyed. One or two American air strikes would have saved Vietnam at that point, but America chose not to. I continue reading now.

In a sense, Tunisia was a precursor of Vietnam. On April 10, 1957, the bay was pressured, this is the Tunisian monarch, the bay was pressured into appointing Bourguiba, the CIA's and Walter Reuther's man, prime minister. When the word was given, Bourguiba deposed the bay. The usual blah followed about Bourguiba introducing democracy. The only opposition leader in the country was Bourguiba's long-time friend, Salah Ben Youssef. He was driven into exile and on August 11, 1961, Bourguiba's private secretary, Zergayum, and a hired killer named Ali Aroukh killed him in room 53 of the Royal Hotel in Frankfurt and then calmly flew home. With never a word about Salah Ben Youssef or the bay, still in prison and prevented

from leaving Bourguiba a one-party country, Victor Rizel wrote on November 1, 1962, Away back in 1951, some AFL-CIO labor leaders brought this chap over. He was a lonely man, wearing a tarboosh, talking to those who would listen. I remember him sighing over tea about how wonderful it would be if his land were as peaceful and prosperous as your country. His name was Habib Bourguiba, the new president of Tunisia, a democratic land, a friend of freedom." End quote. He's quoting a shit-lived journalist justifying the so-called non-communist left who was actually a vicious communist dictator. I continue reading. This of the bloody tyrant who suppressed all opposition and made himself president for life. Some AFL leaders brought him over, as though Rizel did not know who and why. End quote.

There are many examples like this that I will continue to read on this show from time to time of how United States foreign policy establishment, CIA, together with international labor networks have been promoting colored third world revolution worldwide since at least the 1950s, leading not just to local dictatorships, that's predictable, but actually leading massacres against white settlers, white Europeans in these areas. On this show, I try to briefly discuss some of the grand ideological motivations you can say behind this program. But again, what I'm saying now is not really controversial if you look at French intelligence and other European intelligence records from the time they knew that this is what America was doing. Here is another example I'm reading now.

The job of Arthur Goldberg, roving ambassador to the East-West Conference in Belgrade, is to prevent any friction with Russia. He is on French records as having placed dozens of communists in OSS branches in Europe during World War II, OSS precursor to CIA. Goldberg is a member of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations, one of his services to Hanoi with reassurance over national TV broadcasts that military victory was not America's objective in Vietnam." This man, like avowed Marxist Arthur Goldberg, these kind of people who staffed what you are being told are shady neoliberal organizations like the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, the Atlantic Council, their founding members are not so-called reptilian operators for international capital and neoliberalism.

They are committed communist Marxists like this guy, they were put in power and not overseen by senile wasps like Dulles who let men like Thomas Braden appoint this guy Arthur Goldberg who then appointed many, many communist operatives in CIA positions throughout Europe. So anyway, the city bureaucrat, to go back to what no one else traces, the motivating ideology, you can see, even if it's not, I'm reluctant to call it motivating ideology, because it could be just ornamental window dressing for this program. But whatever you want to call it, no one traces the ideology of this, this whole, what I've been talking about, this operation for global Negro communism, ZOG if you want to call it. No one else traces this thought back to what its actual effective origins are better than

the city bureaucrat. I mean the wokeness uprising, what you know as the wokeness uprising. No one does it as well as he. For example, I had disregarded sociology myself. I was never much interested in it. I saw it as just another species of so-called social science. But then a city bureaucrat introduced me to people like John Murray Cudahy or those original sociologists that Kadehi takes inspiration from, like Durkheim. And how to explain it, really all it is, it's a type of Nietzscheanism. It's Nietzscheanism made into the material and language of scholarly investigation. In other words, it's case studies of group narcissism and group resentment is how maybe the bureaucrat would describe the classic sociological literature.

And somebody like Kadehi is really indispensable for understanding Marxism, which, okay, you go ahead and criticize Marxism from a purely philosophical or even economic point of view if you want. But Cudahy's study of Marx as a species of underhanded ethnic resentment turned into a phony historical economic assault on a civilization that Marx had felt slighted his group narcissism. Is really almost unanswerable, I mean the just concrete evidence Cudahy brings for this and so on. And that's just one vivid example of insight in which I mean just consider it maybe high-brow Nietzschean journalism, the sociological classic stretching back to Durkheim that is. And the bureaucrat write political and cultural analysis of such thing, many other thing,

I don't need to introduce him, but you might say as an aside of what is value of attacking ideology of enemy, if it happens to be so feeble ideology, does anyone actually really believe in it? Is it the motivating thing? I kept reluctantly referring to it as the motivating impetus behind GNC, but is it really motivating or is it just window dressing advertising? Do we not live after all in an age after ideology? And I think you have to look at it and attack it even if, as is inevitable, it won't get disproven in the eyes of its supporters by arguments but by events, which is the same with the original iteration of communism, by the way. But second, even if you believe in cynical interpretation of enemy activity, which I

think is generally correct, that's for example when Roger Stone says that now, unlike in Cold War, it's no longer so much about ideology, but it's about corrupt occupational class hankering after money and power. I think this is true, after all, look at one small example. You see how many Democrat Party leaders sounded like Trump on immigration, and I don't mean just Bernie Sanders, that's well known. But the Clintons, many others in the 1990s and even later, sounded like Trump. They were immigration restrictionists. The wall law was passed in the second Bush term, I think, with bipartisan vote. But it was never carried through. So very recent, the same immigration fanatics who are now espousing the opposite.

So whether they switched to this recently or whether they were lying back then, in both cases it was for some immediate political advantage they sensed that they took that public position and not because of any ideological conviction. You can say this is true. Nevertheless, there is value in refuting or at least mocking the squidding they produce as self-justification because if the ideas and propaganda they put out really had no purpose or value, they wouldn't put so much effort into it. There is great value for us in delegitimizing it, even weak and pallid as it is. That was interesting. The bureaucrat, he traces back to Talcott Parsons and Bellah, I'll explain the details of how he traces this in a moment and what arguments they made.

But he's engaging in this sense, also the claim you might have heard from Mollbug or from Camille Paglia, that the origins of wokeness, or formally it was called political correctness, is in Calvinism. You're all familiar, this idea by now is repeated by many anons, it's repeated by many journalists, It has many mimics, many forms, highbrow and vulgar. James Lindsay is another Twitter internet poster or a writer. He stole this idea from Mollbug without attributing it. And on a pop culture level, you can think of how many people refer maybe to leftist puritanism and there's some plausibility maybe as a psychological phenomenon, a psychological analogy if you want to take it that way. the pious Calvinists trying to feel more self-righteous than their neighbor in order to feel more

elect and so on. But beyond this level of pop analogy, I think it fails. It's wrong on a few levels, both strong and weak. For example, N slash A, you might know him, a race, history, culture blog. I don't know if it's still up, but it had a long-running criticism of Mollbug's Calvinist or Protestant hypothesis on the origins of leftism, call it what you will. In other words, again, Molbag was saying it's Protestant in origin, N-slash-A was saying it's not. And much of N-slash-A discussion was based on criticizing Molbag's sources. What are Molbag's sources on this? According to this blog, Race, History, Culture, among these sources are Confederate sympathizer thinkers who attack the leftism of America as supposedly grounded in Northern Yankee

traditions and ultimately, for example, in Puritanism and so forth. And N-slash-A criticizes these source thinkers, I mean the sources of Mulbug's hypothesis, and these include Lew Rockwell, Celtic hypothesis, ethnofantasy, it's for another maybe in-depth show, but I invite Mulbug if you want to debate this with me sometime or with somebody else. But N-slash-A go beyond this and show that actually WASPs were more conservative than they were leftist, both as a voting bloc and as individual intellectuals well into the 1960s. They were not, for example, the voting coalition of leftism in the United States. They were not behind somebody like FDR who creates such revolution American government and society. They opposed FDR. The FDR coalition, it was you-know-who. It was the Ellis Island

Brotherhood and white ethnics and Ashkenazis and so on, but it was not really the WASPs and the Boston Brahmins and so forth who even into the 1960s, even academics, I mean WASP academics were disproportionately conservative, not leftist. Second of all, my own example, not n-slash-a, but you take South Africa, and there is an example of Calvinism turning into an ideology quite different from progressivism or leftism. Okay, so look, I must take a quick smoke break and I come back to discuss city bureaucrat view on this, which are quite a bit different. So we are back to show now and discuss ideology, so-called of GNC, International Socialist mark international race socialism, to put politely. And a second city bureaucrat has a series of articles on just this matter and on America's

so-called civil religion of GNC, of vicarious ethnic narcissism, because this is what it is, of raising up in an obnoxious way the self-regard of ethnic identities, especially ones that are seen as victimized. And in this way, however, the roots of this view may be provisionally called somehow Protestant, but it was by no means a historical inevitability, and the secularization of Protestant theology could just as well have turned into Hitler space program type society, instead of self-abnegating GNC-Spick-Nigg cycle society. So in the work of Talcott Parsons, you have a Protestant genealogy, maybe, of how America America became an inclusive, so-called societal community, and I'm using his words now. And I would like to read for you a passage from a bureaucrat article. I hope he not mind.

I am reading from a bureaucrat now. For Parsons, Talcott Parsons, the protestant respect for denominations coupled with the effects of industry on the division of labor, migration on the demographics of the country, and the enlightenment-derived American Revolution on institutional attitudes toward liberty, diminished the importance of denominational beliefs themselves and created the conditions for the emergence of so-called common values among Protestants, Catholics and Jews. The word common values is another Talcott Parsons designation. Through these various processes and with Protestant inclusivity undergirding common values, individuals are quote-unquote differentiated from their ancestral groups and religions.

Politics and law are differentiated from the Church and the Rabbi, groups are differentiated from specific professions and classes, and so on. Modernity is therefore a process of differentiation within and away from archaic social structures. Although Parsons made efforts to neutralize and systematize his theory, adopting historicist and relativist arguments to use the language of Strausians, he was attacked by neo-Marxists as ethnocentric. Parsons maintained that the society into which groups assimilated in the modern world was not American, but rather a societal community, which he defined as an aspect of the total society as a system which forms a gemeinschaft, which is the focus of solidarity or mutual

loyalty of its members, and which constitutes the consensual base underlying its political integration. If this sounds a bit vague and boring, I think it's by design. I continue reading – and by the way, I'm referring not to the Second City bureaucrat, but he was quoting Talcott Parson, that is who sound vague and preachy and so on. But preachy as it is, I think, must make an effort to at least understand the rudiments of this supposed ideology of GNC. I continue to read for you now from Second City bureaucrat. His, Talcott Parson, evolutionary theory of American history, resembles something like the following. its founding American societal community was comprised of a core of Anglo-Saxons with negligible groups like Jews and Catholics.

The Negro community, though substantial in number, was of course excluded from the societal community. Because of the factors discussed above, the nascent American societal community underwent a series of differentiations eroding the power of parochialism through the empowerment of the federal government and empowering individuals through the Bill of Rights both before and after the Civil War. This meant that America was stranding away from ascriptive identities and roles, that is, roles and identities that you have by virtue of birth, toward achievement-based identities and roles. These developments in turn prepared America for the inclusion of large European immigrant classes that would soon flood its shores."

Okay, so you see roughly way of thinking in how Protestant theological toleration of denominations is secularized to include ethnic outgroups when it becomes political, who are then assimilated into a so-called societal community that it's not clear what the principles of it are, it's vague, it's preachy, it's boring the way Talcott Parsons puts it. What is it other than a loose tolerant inclusivity? Based on what? The two examples Parsons goes on to give are Jews and Catholics, who he thinks have actually fully assimilated, which I as a student of history of actual empires, I can say not so fast. The Irish, Italians and Jews have never really been assimilated by any historical standard definition of that word.

But Parsons himself, leaving that aside, seeing he himself, how assimilation was not really happening after 1950 or so with the new groups and the way that people in early 20th century melting pot or chamber pot idea, they thought assimilation it would happen but it ended up not. So then he go on to say that inclusion, not assimilation, is the ideal, that the societal community includes respect and deference for ethnic identities of a kind that is not reciprocal necessarily. In other words, they don't need to respect the core culture of the Anglo-Saxon. And the really interesting part of this shift to ethnic inclusivity and the raising up of the formerly marginal, marginalized or maligned, this come with Talcott Parsons' elevation of the Negro.

The case of the Negro, I'm using his word, please, you know, do not attack me, I'm using his word now. The Negro as the test case for American social evolution and liberation. And I quote now again from Bureaucrat article, two short sentence, the American Revolution placed America in a leadership position with respect to liberation from European despotism. The inclusion of Catholics and Jews further perfected the American claim to equality and liberty. The Negro is now positioned to complete the historical process by eliminating symbolic inferiority as such." End quote. That big statement. It become in other words ultimate test case for Talcott Parson evolutionary historical view of what America is. the Negro would become the test case, ultimately even of America's role in the world.

Because remember, this all takes place during Cold War, and Parsons himself presents his argument for an American civil religion based on the ascendance of the Negro to full citizenship, as he calls it. He presents this argument in terms of Cold War struggle, where America, to stop Soviet Union leading third world against European supremacist colonialism, to stop this, or rather to take this process over, America must itself become now the leader of anti-colonialism and of the rise of the colored global south masses. Now I read from the Bureaucrat again. While Catholics and Jews began as urban underclasses in America, they rapidly diffused into all aspects of American society and assumed countless of its plural roles.

The Negro situation was similar only to the extent that they comprised an urban underclass. Unlike Jews and Catholics, the Negro had to first secure civil and political rights before seeking social emancipation. Parson notes that even though these rights were recently achieved through the Supreme Court and legislation, the Negro was still caught up in a vicious cycle at the bottom preventing him from developing or accessing the capacities necessary to make full use of the rights. The absence of total social emancipation for the Negro meant that he was denied the opportunity to make valuable contributions to the societal community. Consistent with his evolutionary theory, Negro social emancipation was first sought by Parsons'

father's own social gospel movement through legal efforts to address de facto discrimination and then through the distributive efforts of the New Deal. The third phase, according to Parsons, consists of efforts to develop other capacities for Negroes like mental health, self-esteem, family cohesion and group solidarity, all of which Jews and Catholics already possessed when they arrived according to Parsons. But this situation cannot be remedied merely through the external efforts alone, Parsons contends. The Negro must assert himself by demanding that the contrary adhere to the common values it supposedly espouses because the – and he's quoting Parsons now – ultimate social grounding of the demand for inclusion lies in commitment to the values which legitimize it.

In the context of contemporary American extremism, this means that there is a difference between pointing out unfair treatment for the purpose of achieving egalitarian inclusion and pointing out unfair treatment for the purpose of achieving separation. I continue to read. It's long passage, but I think it's extremely important to understand how an enemy understands himself. I continue to read. Like the Jews and Catholics who dealt with suspicions of clannishness and disloyalty in their quest for inclusion, the Negro is burdened with the symbol of inferiority as such carried by the color of his skin. Given that Jews and Catholics had evolved the American societal community to include disparate religions and white ethnic groups, the Negro was in an extraordinary position

to eliminate symbolic racial inferiority and thereby achieve total inclusiveness for the societal community. But Parsons goes one step further, drawing the astonishing conclusion that the endpoint of Negro emancipation is not just Negro inclusion, but the elimination of status inferiority as such – GNC. He developed what amounts to a waspy, non-economic Marxist theory of history, and positions the Negro as the vanguard of global liberation, whose grandiose role is to carry the world toward the utopian endpoint of Parsons' evolutionary process of modernization, where all groups will enjoy equality of opportunity without the burden of symbolic status inferiority. The Negro for Parsons can become the spokesman for the much broader category of the disadvantaged

and becomes the head of a sort of American-style socialist movement. That's Parsons' own words. We still hear echoes of this position today, though they may originate in non-Parsonian histories, theories, excuse me, in calls, so we still hear the echoes of this position today, in calls for black Americans to ally and lead non-white peoples around the world against American exceptionalism and white supremacy. Parsons gushes about the world's historic importance of the Negro that is all but guaranteed by the inexorable machinations of Parsons' logic of historical, yeah, historical too, historical development, provided that the Negro develops the appropriate kind of group solidarity and self-esteem. And he quotes Parsons now, Talcott Parsons, prophet of GNC, he quotes him,

This seems to me to constitute a crucially important focus for the future of the collective Negro identity. The Negro community has the opportunity to define itself as the spearhead of one of the most important improvements in the quality of American society in its history and to do so not only in the pursuit of its own obvious self-interest but in the fulfilment of a moral imperative." End quote. Yes, Hegelian regime of universal recognition achieved through Negrolatory. So you know, the Bureaucrat adds that you shouldn't just dismiss this as a cynical motivation for America to use the Negro as muscle on the international stage in its struggle with communism, which the Soviet Union was already doing that.

But it's not just that America was employing this cynically as a way to preempt leadership in third-world colored societies, it's very likely that Parsons himself genuinely believed all of this. He and his whole family again come out of so-called social gospel movement. And this ideology, thin and insufferably insubstantial as it is, because to me it reads like a bunch of a list of moral homilies. But along with people like Robert Bellah, who is someone else who a Second City bureaucrat discusses, I get to him in a moment, or Dworkin, you may have heard the name, or John Rawls, These provide a unifying ideology, I think, for the New Left more than, for example, anything to do with the Frankfurt School, which you might have heard from Kevin Macdonald, and

not that I'm trying to say they were good, but if you meet so-called elite bungler academics and people in government who are interested in such thing, when they talk in language to legitimize themselves, they very rarely quote, almost never as far as I know, anything about people like Theodor Adorno. Theodore Adorno was important for those who are interested in art criticism and so forth, but the people who are politically active and most moralist liberal academics, they love John Rawls, they worship Rawls, and they espouse these beliefs of Talcott Parsons and Bellah, which the bureaucrat has another recent article on this, Robert Bellah, he's a student of Parsons, accused by FBI of communism, not just accused but in his case he actually was an open communist, at least in his youth.

But he, Robert Bellah, takes the thought I just read for you much further toward direction of George Floyd collective vicarious ethnic narcissism, Kunta Kinte. I will not read from this article because, you know, show demands I not read too much on air, radio not, maybe not very good for that. But I'll briefly summarize what the bureaucrat says on Bellah because this Robert Bellah, another Protestant mini-pastor or preacher on American civil religion, enormously influential and so on, but he continues Parsons' thought in the following direction. He seems to say that Protestant idea, Puritan specifically, idea of chosenness, of being a new chosen nation in the wild of a new Canaan, that this is foundation for American civil

religion and he traces the way this idea of chosenness evolved or was purified in American texts and history. So Jefferson even makes this comparison and Bella goes through ways in which, for example, Protestant religious fervor toward the end of slavery and the whole drama of the Civil War, which I've always found horribly boring, but Bella goes through ways in which all of these represented the Puritan sense of being chosen to create paradise, free from European forms of misrule, from authoritarianism and exclusion and so on. But even the story of the Civil War, as told by Protestants of the time, is as yet impure for Bella because it cast the Negro, the most suffering creature of God on earth apparently,

it cast the Negro as just a bit player in the drama of the Anglo-Saxon liberator who is the protagonist. And it is here that Bella introduces his so-called innovation of moral thinking which will be familiar to all of you. And I read again, actually I do want to read from the bureaucrat because it's very important, you will recognize these sentiments immediately. I'm reading from Bureaucrat. The original problem with this civil religion, Bella explains, is that America, like Canaan, was not uninhabited when God's new Israel arrived on these shores. End quote from Bella, but still reading from Bureaucrat. America was already populated by peoples with their own origin myths and Anglo-Saxons failed to appreciate that these peoples lived in a different dream and were more than mere

characters in the Anglo-Saxon dream. Just as Anglo-Saxons believed God has chosen them to occupy America, so Native Americans believed the mythical power had chosen them as the eternal inhabitants of America. Failing to see the Indians in their own terms was the cultural side of a denial of humanity that was also expressed in economic and even biological terms. Americans denied Indians the inherent human right to have one's culture understood and respected. Inherent right to have your culture understood and respected. Bella notes that only recently has the vast symbolism of Indian mythology begun to be appreciated, blah, blah, okay. This primal crime was compounded by a second primal crime of African slavery, the importance

of which for Bella uses the typological framework of narcissistic projection. Blacks have suffered more than any other group in American history from the projection of every rejected impulse in the unconscious white mind. have been subjected to an unparalleled history of extreme coercion and violence which did not end with emancipation. Bellah blames Americans turning a blind eye to these primal crimes on the theology of chosenness which he analogizes to the primitive narcissism of a child, attributing the boundless energy that has always characterized the Anglo-Saxons in part to the feeling which is similar to that of a child which has been especially favored by his parents. Thus the group narcissism of Anglo-Saxons inhibited them from acknowledging the truths

of self-image of other groups. Here we begin to hear influences of ethno-methodology and other forms of relativism in social science. Other groups have equally valid ways of knowing. Acknowledging that they're equally valid implies, paradoxically, that Anglo-Saxon chosenness is not equally valid. It is not enough for Bela's civil religion for a superior Anglo-Saxon race to have liberated these peoples from subjugation. Non-Anglo-Saxons must be liberated from the Anglo-Saxon dream which casts non-Anglo-Saxon group narratives as irrelevant or wrong. Their own dreams must be affirmed." So you know, the inherent human right, in other words, to have your own narratives and truth respect, your own truth, your own truth, and respect for your own stories of foundation

and history and so on, all of which implies that you can't really call it an imperial or globalist ideology in my opinion, but some type of blob inclusive therapeutic ideology based on the promotion of the validity of ethnic minority so-called ways of knowing their worldviews and the corresponding devaluation and necessary devaluation then of the central identity that would actually bring all of these together, in this case the Anglo-Saxon Protestant identity or the white identity which is really just how other Europeans who I simulated into the Anglo society, but it must mean that centralizing a simulationist and arguably imperial, though I still think that's the one, but it means this identity must be degraded and seen as invalid because it is based on the denial of the validity

of native indigenous and marginalized oppressed ways of knowing and so on. Does this sound familiar? It is quite a way from my friend Thomas Seven, he believes what you read in Starship Troopers, fantasy of the Anglo leading a group of motley races around the universe destroying fascism. That could be in some way Anglo dream of chosenness, but you see how people like Talcott Parsons and then Bela take this much further into I think a complete depraved or perverted territory. It's very strange. It's kind of a moral perversion of receiving a frisson. So for Bela, the kind of Darwinian, world-conquering sense of Anglo-Saxon, Puritan chosenness that was behind much late 19th century thinking, which was explicitly racial, and was seen

as the Anglo-Saxon progressive raising up other races, improving them, leading and perfecting them. This weirdly changes into another kind of chosenness, a chosenness of denying one's own centrality and even one's sense of central narrative and raising up the so-called dreams and stories of the previously oppressed and ignored to equal or greater standing, as if for example Zionism, as if in Zionism had turned into the Jews, felt that the chosenness of Zionism morally compelled them to raise up Palestinian self-esteem and destroy Jewish self-esteem. Think that analogy through and you understand the kind of, really it's a kind of frisson perverted sense of chosenness promoted by Bella and the ideology of GNC.

Now if all this again sounds to you, I understand if it sounds thin to you, it sounds the same way to me. I have difficulty frankly focusing on these words when Second City Bureaucrats quotes these pile driving old ladies like Bella and Parsons. I have difficulty focusing on their words. My mind becomes fog. I can't take just, it's a random list of moral preferences and statements about how these moral preferences evolved in history, which you can ask, so what? You can ask them, I mean, so what does this mean? I don't much like Alan Bloom, I've criticized him in the past for many of his ideas regarding relativism and so forth, but he's very good at, he has a review of John Rawls' Theory of Justice, and Rawls is very much equivalent to these Parsons and Bellah in his book, just

being insubstantial lists of moral claims. And I mean his idea of veil of ignorance or original position, if you're familiar with Rawls. So, okay, look, again, we have to understand any, but don't make me, please don't make me go into too much in detail in this nonsense. But basically Rawls has a so-called thought experiment to ask you if before being born you did not know what social standing, economic class, physical abilities and race and so on, if you didn't know how you would be born, even with physical qualities or ability and so on, how would you then prefer society to be arranged? I think it's an absurd question and Bloom point out, of course this correspond to no real experience anyone has ever had, whereas the state of nature from Hobbes and Locke,

who Rawls pretends that he's borrowing and improving on, but their state of nature, Nietzsche and criticisms aside, at least the Hobbesian state of nature did plausibly correspond, for example, to experiences of breakdown of social order and of civil war that people do have and did have in his time. But Rolle's so-called thought experiment, as well as his smug and busybody assumptions for how you should choose in that case, that you should be a low risk and so forth, even in that fantasy case, it's all again just a list of moral preferences. There's no correspondence to any real situation. I remember one time, John Rawls come up in a class, I start to attack him, and some Latino-American aspirant to the global human rights priesthood, and if you're aware of the leftist intelligentsia

in South America, they are some of the most Marxified and smarmy and conformist people anywhere. But he got this crunched face and angry, he said, why are you criticizing Rawls? just a set of normative frameworks and so on, so this role of religion for these people, but an insubstantial religion without consolation, without the epiphany of passion and revelation, without greatness or mystery or power, just a series of moral assertions is enough to give them a basis for what we like, so to speak. So that's really the point of this, I think actually Bloom maybe does make a mistake thinking this is even intended to be real philosophy or political thought. It's rhetorical warfare. It's just Madison Avenue PR for the language of public legitimacy.

It's meant to provide catchwords, catchphrases, and vague feelings for the 115 IQ crowd that aspires to positions in what you call global homo, what I prefer to call now GNC. And I'm not sure that destroying the argument, I mean, sure it worked for some people, but okay, so you see, but anyway, I go to break, I'll be right back in a moment. back to the show and the other side of everything I tell you is I finally want, I've wanted to tell you this since beginning of show, maybe to make clear something that for big part of right as it developed after Trump, I think they misunderstand something important because this is not globalism, this ideology I've been describing, it's nothing like that. It's not internationalism, it's not cosmopolitanism or imperialism, anything like that at all.

I will agree with you, if you say in practice and operationally there are trends in a so-called globalist direction, economic, financial and so on, plus a big lobby of people based around so-called global governance, the destruction of national sovereignty, the human rights priesthood and lawyerly apparatus and so on, and of course, ultimately the agitation over the free movement of migrants and so on, that's undeniable. What I deny is that there is a corresponding even remotely plausible globalist or cosmopolitan ideology that go along with it. And I think this is what some commentators, even on the right, miss especially if they're not American or if they did not grow up in America. If you went to America High School, and I went to one of the most shit lib school in

country where they had critical race theory, it was not called that, but they had it long before it came to media attention, but do you ever remember anything like a genuinely cosmopolitan or imperial ideology in school or anywhere in American culture, there is nothing like that. It's not a cosmopolitan ideology and I'm not playing semantics at all here. It's an ideology of promoting fractious ethnonationalisms, but that's not cosmopolitan in any world. It doesn't matter if a leftist calls himself cosmopolitan because he likes the word. The things he believes are not that, not arguably under any scenario. I only ever remember patronizing encouragements to embrace your own ethnic heritage. This is what I remember. I mean, it's everywhere in American pop culture.

If you look, I watch this garbage top chef, and one of the challenges was to cook something from your own heritage. There was no discrimination, by the way, for people who wanted to cook Italian or Polish or whatever, if that's what you're thinking. And I found just a suggestion is extreme patronizing and intrusive. Like if I was a cook, okay, I'm here to cook the food I like, maybe I love French or Spanish or Thai food, maybe that's what I came to like, that's what I learned because of taste or your travels there, and who are you to tell me I have to cook something from my own ethnic heritage, what has to do with it, what's it to you Padma, you curry freak, why do I have to embrace my roots, it's same in, to do a minstrel show for you so you feel authentic

or whatever, and, oh, you are studying this language, this particular language, you are studying Elamite, do you have roots in Iran, it's a very patron. If I were to cook on one of these shows and I got a request like that, I'd say, okay, here I'm cooking for you Hittite cuisine, this is Moher heritage, I will cook Cathar food for you Padma, here is a Cathar plain Genoese navy cracker, crumbly bread for you to eat plain with a glass of water, Padma. But this is a rule actually in American society. There's not even any attempt to have a genuinely cosmopolitan ideology or worldview. It's about the elevation of your own individual ethnic heritage, the all-embracing importance of your ethnic authenticity. And if you disagree with this, that's when you are called a supremacist, a colonialist

or whatever. This is common on all sides of so-called elite, conservative or liberal. If you meet, for example, conservative scholars in classics, it's not in all cases, but very often if one of them happened to be Jewish, for example, they will also be studying Maimonides or Jewish thought just because they're Jewish. And no one steps back to say, why are you doing this? It's a bit parochial. It's a kind of shtetlbili thing. A cosmopolitan culture would be saying that, absolutely, about any of this. I study Armenian mathematics. I study Bulgarian traditional physics. Any genuinely cosmopolitan view is, to the contrary, seen as exclusionary, hierarchical and so on by these people. And it's a very odd situation because in history, an actual imperial elite, and America's not

an empire, but a real imperial elite, generally they see ethnic identity as, again, some kind of parochial superstition for rustics. And you are expected to shed that if you want to join the central outward-looking imperial identity. But the new American inclusive therapeutic civil religion is all based around the elevation of fractious ethnic identities, around the nobility of their validity, raising their self-esteem and so on. So it's true that it is anti-white, but it's anti-white, at least in theory, not because they hate white skin or whites as whites racially. And I know it often becomes that, especially for the lower IQ among them or the ones with genuine ethnic grievance, chip on shoulder, of which there are a lot.

But I mean the public reasoning is because they are against white cosmopolitan identity, which is really the old Anglo one that actually, and I don't even think it was even at its height a terribly competent imperial identity compared to the Roman or the Russian. But at least it was in that vein a species of European Hellenistic universalism, whereas anything like that is seen as terribly oppressive by the dominant ideology now. But again, it's anti-white, even in their own minds, not because they have a hard-on to kill whites biologically, again, some of them, doubtless, that is their motivation. But in general, it's anti-white because they want to end so-called white hegemony. They would be very happy, actually, for you to become like the Amish and put white American

middle class on a reservation or something. They don't care about continued racial existence. I am sympathetic to the white nationalists but a lot of them are fighting a wrong thing because it's about political, social and cultural domination of the state and it's not really about the racial thing. What bothers them is white hegemony and it is racial but in that sense, and this is the essential element of white hegemony as Gobineau, steampunk father of racism, he noticed the The essential element of white so-called identity is its imperial desire for universalism. It has a claim to world rule or sovereignty and to civilizing and improving others. And they, the left, desire instead to replace this with a multiplicity of other identities

that are promoted because of their victimization at the hands of cruel Star Wars imperialists. And among these, I know this isn't everywhere and they're inconsistent about it, but I We haven't actually seen them be too hostile to European ethnic identities as long as they're not explicitly white. And especially, of course, if they're from marginal Europe, for example, Irish or Jews or Polish and so on, and of course the Irish-Jew alliance is what allowed the Ted Kennedy Immigration Act in 1965. But these identities even now are supposedly at least to be given equal consideration, at least culturally and socially, in things like cooking, the cooking competition or what's your head… I've never seen somebody actually be denied or not encouraged to embrace that. Something like Polish or…

But okay, I mean, imagine for media-designated oppressive identities like Anglo-Saxon or Russia now, of course, or the Boers or the original white identity of America, which is, again, Anglo, something else like this, they would not be encouraged. But anyway, I make this aside to tell you, even if they're not consistent ethno-nationalist promoters, that's still mainly what the ruling ideologues and cultural leaders of GNC are. They are not in any sense cosmopolitans or globalists spiritually or culturally, and it's not just that their ruling philosophy is ethno-nationalist or a kind of secularized theology that promotes and nurtures ethno-nationalist grievances, but also in a manner of everyday In life, the new crop of the elite, or rather the occupational class, are for the most,

but parochial people with parochial petty interests and hobbies. They do not, and in fact, I think they can't really sustain any genuinely imperial or cosmopolitan culture in the old sense. They don't have the knowledge, the historical base for it, the textual education for it. They don't have even, I think, the basic biological base of taste capacity to sustain it. Anthony Weiner cosmopolitan, I mean he calls himself that, it's a joke, you know, wasp America at the end of 19th century or beginning of 1900s long before the era of practical enforced operational diversity but it was probably culturally and socially a much more cosmopolitan place than it is now and this is reflected in many small things. If you see old Hollywood movies and you see

people with European or other accents and this was accepted and seen as charming, a part of social life, and they would use Russian classical music in these. That's why old Hollywood movies sound like Rachmaninoff, they either used directly his music or based it on it. Now you would almost never see any of this outside of villain roles and it would be seen as extremely weird, right? For example, in a romantic comedy or something like, imagine movie 500 Days of Beta, excuse me 500 days of summer and you had a normal character, let alone the male lead in a romantic comedy like that, the European accent, and I don't mean my potato accents, but something seen as elegant like Dutch or Danish or even French, though it's just not there, it would

be seen actually as outrageous if you think about it, whereas before it was normal. And now Zog is so dominant that even a diplomat doesn't need to interest himself with foreign languages and cultures. But I've seen this in my own time in America as an immigrant, where I can tell you the ethnic chauvinism of the left, who style themselves cosmopolitans, but who perhaps, not knowing that the founders of the Soviet Union were mostly Jews, and so they have an incredible chauvinism the American communists, when it comes to that, they're dirty, stupid, lying, corrupt Slavs. Of course they didn't do communism right. We will do communism right. This is their attitude. They don't say it that way, but it's very obviously what they believe. Their ethnic chauvinism is very strong.

They're not cosmopolitans. And I remember just a small anecdote example, how these people are inculcated in so-called elite identity, okay? They adopt a certain way of talking and snide thinking. I remember a call one time, I was looking for a place to stay for a few months. I was basically living in my car at the time and I saw this ad for roommates and this girl, she answers the phone, she's totally socialized into the fake elite mindset. And I asked for the room vacancy and okay, look, she knew nothing about me other than my accent. And I tried to be half polite, I didn't say on the phone yes, hello, I act normal. But just the accent, okay, and she immediately, right, this person super socialized into the

ruling supposedly cosmopolitan and globalist mindset that you've been led to maybe believe is xenophilic. And believe me, she was a grad student I think or this, she was not a valley beach girl, she was super socialized into office so-called elite cultures and I could tell by the way the voice. But she immediately bristled when she heard me speak and she said, okay like are you used to living with other people? She wanted to know if I'd be a good cuddly rat in the rat hive. If I had spoken with Long Island accent, she would have acted the same, I'm sure. But this is an insult to rats, but it's an insult to monkey. Of course, she couldn't – she could tell I was not – she just assumed, I think, from the accent, right, because I tell you there's something to assimilate to in America.

The only thing that there is is office culture. There's nothing else to assimilate to. When conservatives today talk about assimilation, they don't understand how anachronistic they are. As an immigrant, there's nothing to assimilate to. I don't mean to pick on Richard Spencer, I don't know if you all know who he is, but he has this voice, the lilting gay voice and intonation. And if you talk like that, that's the beginning of entry into this so-called occupational class type of manners. If you self castrate into office polite faggot, then they know you're good to go. But that's about all that assimilation that exists. It's very thin. And I think what happened is that Trump campaign had some nationalist slogans, which were effective

in circumstance because he was arguing against the globalist practical measure or operational reality of the enemy, primarily against their attempt to erase borders, to have a big cheap labor pool and so on, against the use of migrants as a demographic weapon against the white middle class. And also, but I think less than what people now assume, he was arguing against their trade policies, their international free trade practices, which are not again really free trade because it's just the United States that doesn't have tariffs, other countries do. And finally, maybe more than the free trade matter but less than the immigration, he was arguing against the supposedly globalist foreign policy, which is not really just to take an

aside when you have America acting on behalf of Israel or Ukraine now in a post Cold War context. During the Cold War there was an objective argument to be made to support something like Israel, maybe. But now we all know the reason America support Israel or Ukraine is because there is a large ethnic lobby within American establishments from those respective countries, and in Canada by the way, the Ukrainians are very strong, who are demanding, you need to help more people. What was Obama's holder, the man from Barbados who killed Paul Walker. He shamelessly said in public, I need to help more people, the Black Panthers, I'm not going to prosecute them. This was seen as normal. That's not cosmopolitan, that's not internationalist, that would be seen as outrageous, and not

morally outrageous but just outrageously rustic and superstitious in something like Roman imperial or Hellenistic imperial culture. So Trump attacked the supposedly globalist foreign policy that led to nonsense losing wars in the name of spreading democracy, but which again if you look at effects of what But that American foreign policy actually the effects. It's America always destroying multi-ethnic states that are relatively competent like Saddam's Iraq or Gaddafi Libya and replacing it with clannish local chaos or Assad's Syria. Syria is an imperial ideology. The Ba'ath Party is pan-Arabist and secular and they protect minorities and Christians And they're under attack from, you know, who are they trying to be replaced with?

Ethnic fractionalism, sectarianism promoted by the United States. And of course, always they attack Iran, where the Persians only make up about 50% of population. They've been competent imperialists for a long time. Most of the population of Iran is multi-ethnic. And now, of course, Russia, which is, whatever you may say for it, they embody as far as as is possible in modern world, the old Roman tactics of imperialism, where they have loyal minorities who look to the capital and to the core identity of Russian and want to assimilate to that and so on. But America has now again its old role, not again, it's never left it, its old role of destroying not just European empires, but really any nation that successfully brings together different peoples.

And instead it replaced with ethnic anarchy, genocide, sectarianism, factionalism, and I know some of you think this is 44-dimensional chess to divide and rule, I guarantee you it is not. A lot of people promoting this are stupid, and I think an idiot like Woodrow Wilson really believed the national so-called self-determination, which led to the catastrophe of destruction of empires like the Hobsburg Dominion and so on, which in turn led to communism and and World War II in Europe, but I'm getting carried away here. So Trump ran on this platform, especially based around stopping mass third world immigration, which invoked nationalist slogans for, again, because of the practical operational side of the enemy. So, you know, nationalism, not globalism, and so on, it was a slogan.

But then you had the reaction among the left, in part to spite the right, and then to embrace and double down on the label cosmopolitanism and sometimes even globalism. So they call themselves this, but when in fact they were not. And then you have people from outside America, some are Irish, some are South America or from other countries from Europe, from outside they look in and they conclude, okay, we are seeing a replacement of debate between left versus right with a replacement of globalism versus nationalism. And these people, these outside commentators that took the next step, which was really unwarranted and untrue, the next step of moving Trump's practical discussion, which took place so to speak, at enemy operational activities, but they take that and they move it into some

kind of intellectual political theory realms where they took the left at their word that they actually had a cosmopolitan or globalist outlook, which is not true, and then a lot of nonsense results from this. Complicated criticisms of John Locke, of Anglo commercial civilization as if that's what's behind the left or the establishment's globalism, or criticisms of French universalism based on the rights of men, and many such things which I think are actually valuable discussions in themselves, but they have nothing really to do with what's going on in America right now. Robert Bellah, who I talk on previous shows, was very hostile to America's enlightenment tradition in Lockeanism and so on. He wanted to replace that with a kind of pseudo-religion, secularized theology, communitarianism.

So it's just not, you don't have to love Locke to realize things like John Locke or even French Universalism or French Revolution has nothing to do with the ideology that motivates the left or that they use as ornament. These ideas, whether they're good or bad, and I mean the ideas of Locke and of French Revolution and so on that are attacked by the critics of liberalism today, these ideas have basically no influence on the ideology of the ruling classes. And I repeat to you, they are seen as enemy doctrines, they are seen as supremacists, as imperialists, colonialists, many such things. The ruling ideology is just this very thin gruel, it's a thin reduction, a gastrique of Parsons and Bellah and Rawls with some pseudo-Marxism thrown in, but it's all based

on the opposite, on saying that any centralizing cosmopolitan imperial tendency is evil, and that the good is the raising up of the marginal and the victim over the humbled hegemon. And these people get, again, I think a frisson, a special moral righteousness over what they see as this self-sacrifice on their part, this renunciation. It's not just the cynical method of control, which it doesn't actually, I think, control anything. I think it's actually a very brittle ideology. I mentioned the Habsburgs, right? People say it was a weak empire. But how did it hold some minorities together who didn't especially like each other? The Czechs and, you know, the Hungarians and the Romanians and others, they didn't especially like each other. The Slavs and the Hungarians.

Catholicism was a little bit. Then there was loyalty. There's traditional loyalty to the crown, less so. But very much more it was the Austrian economics, right, this laissez-faire economics that allowed economic liberty and wealth accumulation and so on. That's where Austrian school of economics come from. And of course that was not enough. It broke, this empire broke apart because of nationalism. But the thing gastrique ideology on which the GNC runs, I think it's still less than that. It's just an asserted societal community based on pampering the self-esteem of various ethnicities, hoping that they will not insist on having actual sovereignty, pampering these identities that are perceived to be victimized.

And I think at the first real stress it will just shatter much faster than Austro-Hungarian empire did. And this is why they have to keep ever tightening censorship in the same way late communist Most regimes could not abide or censor their public ideology as cynically as it was held at the time, but they use heavy-handed tactics, I mean the current regime does, but these heavy-handed tactics, if you can provoke them to being heavy-handed, I think is good because a lot of their self-understanding and their claims to public legitimacy are based on the illusion of consent and of them being kind and inclusive and not violent. I think it's good that they be provoked into the opposite. You look at the overreach now of the so-called FBI and so on, you see they didn't expect

that public response. They get desperate. And finally, I should add that all of these ideologies deserve the title global Negro communism thought because they achieve through supposedly liberal language what Marxism intended to achieve. It's for this reason I call Rawls final victory of Marxism over liberalism because it's trying to achieve what Marxism tried, which is global wealth transfer from the global north to the global south, by means of liberal arguments and concepts, which basically describe what many call neoliberalism, but I think is actually neo-Marxism, and is only blamed on things like capital or hypercapitalism. It's blamed on this by leftists who are trying to absolve leftism of responsibility for the trash world to which they've taken us.

And it is in this desert of thought that I am resurrecting a vital prophetic vision of Nietzsche and the great work, the great project of all genuine Nietzscheans who followed him early on. The creation of a new Knights Templar, but now based no longer on theological doctrines, but on doctrines of nature, of the overall biological improvement and cultivation of mankind. But this for another time. Until then, Bap out.