I was smarter than all my teachers from at least fourth grade onwards. I reckon 20 to 30 percent of all white men could say the same. The greatest crime committed against youth is forcing the talented into a teenage daycare instead of letting them get on with their lives after middle school. And that's not from me. Those words are very perceptive and sensitive young men named Sentinel of the Grave, getting suspended from Twitter for saying things very much like this I agree with every word do you agree with what I just said it caused mass chimp out that tweet left oids left oid mass chimp out in quote tweets in replies mostly you can imagine the kind school teachers and their toadies who you know the education you know I'm going to educate you you need to be educated to

to the left this religious idol, the old cure, education. I got some education in my bag for you. I have some internets in my briefcase for you. The left accepts these kinds of formulas, education, healthcare for all, what is purpose of education supposed actually to be. They never address beyond some very vague homilies. But any of these things, gay marriage, healthcare for all, never once asked themselves what these things are for, what they're supposed to achieve. Why does state recognize marriage in the first place? What is use of that? And once you answer that question, you can say, does it make sense then to extend to gay or to any other kind? Why healthcare costs so much in first place? What healthcare mean? What is it for? Why you have unhealthy population

where in state New York, 25% of healthcare costs are due to obesity, and that's not the fattest state, and I think that was also from some years ago. It's probably much more now, and maybe upwards of 50% of costs in some other states. You are all acquainted with famous spic-nig cycle. It's one of most famous memes. Captures, I think, meaning of a trap modern world is in. the heroic effort of two thousand years of scientific and technological European development where now the highest pinnacle of it is to extend the life span of a four hundred-pound baboon shiboon by a few months until she gracelessly expires on state-of-the-art hospital equipment after a lifetime of being self force-fed the way geese, you know, you force-fed geese to make foie gras except now America

specialize in self-force fed of the industrial agribusiness and agrochemical system, centralized food production that is inseparable from the general poor health of its underclasses especially. But the left, so far from never questioning one way or another the basis of health or unhealth, it wants actually to promote unhealth even further by designing ever cheaper, more processed foods, the bug powders, the locust processed cricket powders, the insects and so forth that are being proposed as food supply. The purpose of all that is to reinforce its infernal system of food distribution. You find yourself in a weird situation where on the right you sound like a hippie now arguing for normal food production and you have leftoids saying that things like Fritos because they

are highly processed from one cheap ingredient and made to be tasty for kind of, you know, shibun taste, that this is a wonderful technological innovation because, of course, the purpose of technology is bound to maximization worldwide. This they seek to do, universalize or globalize this system of food production to as much of the world as possible, sure. Why not 70 billion from Central African Republic, which is why, I tell you, America pushes as as part of its foreign policy, GNC pushes GMO crops and the associated pesticides, whether it's in places like Argentina, which I talk about in a moment. I go Argentina, this is a variety show. I go on Argentina rent, complete unrelated. But for example, they push GMO all over. They push GMO in Romania, for example.

Unlike neighboring Hungary, which has banned GMOs, Romania gladly accepts them because of its craven corrupt government that is allowing also at the same time foreign logging companies to absolutely tear out ancient virgin forests in Transylvania. It's a scandal, but they care nothing for the land, the corrupt government, Argentina, same thing. Argentina has potential to be one of world bread basket in terms of wheat production and soy production, unfortunately, but wheat production, I think it already is. But it has potential to be one of most pristine agricultural lands in the world. It has unique characteristics, the land itself. Extreme high nitrogen content in the soil, which is why Argentinian beef tastes so good, much better than neighboring Uruguay,

which does not have the same properties. But again, because of its extreme corrupt government, you're right, you have Italian, Spanish, Italian-Spanish post-peronist government, the most corrupt in the world, most corrupt culture in the world. It also has long-standing latifundia, a huge farm system, so ancient, huge tracts of farmland which give itself very well to industrial agribusiness. But because of these things, it becomes placing of GMO and chemical industry, complete with you know, it rains atrazine and then they send thugs to beat up farmers if they complain about, let's say, a cloud of pesticides suffocating their children and so forth. But because of these, how does this happen? Extreme corrupt government get bullied by United States very easily.

So it's just a weird failed country, if I may go on the rant about Argentina. I don't know. Should I do? I'll invite Lady of the Lake to discuss this. It's an unprecedented sum of the things that are happening in Argentina. For example, there's a huge number of men who have simply had to emigrate, not because of economic conditions and not precisely because of political oppression or religious oppression in the way you might think of it, but because it's such an aggressive matriarchy. The insane women there are given unbelievable powers, more than you know of from Anglosphere. There they can denounce, it's called denunciare, same word, but you know denunciare there is It's a daily word. It's a daily threat hanging over the head of any man because all it takes is the word

of a woman, the threat, and your life is totally ruined. There's not even the pretense of a due process. It's just a roasty tyranny. It's a state of male purdah. And so, as in previous generations, you might have had men had to leave their country because, know lack of food they're starving or men had to leave country because religious persecution well here it's because the women in an unprecedented thing I don't think it's been done to this extent in any country before that allowed to totally destroy and crush the men so it leaves a huge gender imbalance and of course although women are left on antidepressants and so you have third and fourth generation Argentines besides all of these problems We have fourth generation European immigrants to Argentina, like Lady herself, who calls

themselves Italian or Irish. And not mind you, Italian, Argentine, which is already quite questionable. As you know, Teddy Roosevelt looked down on hyphenated Americans and said, a Polish American, Irish American will always identify with the first part, not really with the American part. But in Argentina there is not even that pretense. They say, I am Italian, I am Irish, I am Welsh. They fully identify with Italy and for them getting Italian passport or whatever other European passport is the happiest day of their lives. And I think that is basically a country going out of business because of this. The election, the most recent presidential election where the left was put in power was I think a final act.

final act. I think many of the competent white people have already left. This is why you go to Costa Rica, you go to Spain. It's absolute fool of the best Argentines who could afford to leave their country. The lady will maybe disagree with me, but we will see. I think actually she will support much of what I said. But where were we? The left always has these never asks why. Why so-called healthcare system is just part of arrangement when you dig yourself into a hole only then to try to dig yourself out of it and they never manage to and leads to massive costs and instead of dealing with a problem of that where it come from or let's spend more on healthcare and make it free somehow. So education is just the worst of

them because as Sentinel tweets, which I read at the beginning of the segment, say, edumacation is a failure in all directions. It amounts now to trying to lobotomize the best and to try to hold them back as a way to enforce equality. That's almost the only function of education in America in the end. It's not even as conservatives often think about ideological indoctrination. There is that too, but that mostly takes place through Netflix and movies and media, TV before and now it's social media. But what problem exactly is education supposed to solve? You know, they think it is, they think it will help POC not be a permanent underclass. That's what it comes down to if they're half honest and you manage to question them enough.

Which is why for the United States, I think it's the only country that comes close to spending as much as United States and Switzerland. It's United States, Switzerland the second, and then very far everyone behind. All other countries, including those with vastly better performance per capita, spend far less per student. And as statistics, by the way, white American students perform about as well as Chinese or Japanese or Korean. America's average is brought low by you know who. And so tremendous resources are then wasted on that, including hundreds of millions, I think, by Zukerface, or was it Bill Gates, I think it's Zukerface, to no effect. And if you go to a school full of POC in Brooklyn, in Brooklyn public schools, if you go inside,

you know, hipster Brooklyn, but the actual natives of Brooklyn are Moriqua and Black, and it's all state-of-the-art laptops for each student and so on. privileged schools, but state-of-art laptops that used primarily for pornography, I believe. There's no payoff at all, despite all the spending. So what is this all supposed to achieve? And you know what it is. There is also the fact that teachers are some of the most faithful constituents of the left coalition in America. And as Sentinel say in the follow-up tweet, which caused a second chimp out, all of these These teachers have irony-left Reddit accounts which they use to call people like us Nazis and they get into an argument with a 14-year-old Nazi so-called on Twitter and they lose the argument.

That's all that public's cruel teachers are like. I used to make them cry. I loved it. They are so, so stupid. I made this French – she barely spoke any French but she was a French teacher. I made her cry frequently. I got sent to principal office. Often I would be keen to take the approach this from different direction and ask to what end public education for what purpose is so-called enlightenment? Does it actually educate population? Forget for a moment the obvious that in an era of more and more public education, more focus and think tanks on public education, more money is spent on it worldwide actually, but the level of intellectual discourse and literary production is so low that basically, and I say this without any special pride, but basically frog Twitter is it.

My book shouldn't have made such big thing, but you realize how bizarre this is. I and my friends, a handful of accounts online now are basically it in terms of new ideas and intellectual discussion of anything important in the world. People have tuned in from all over the world for the last few years to listen to us because there's just nothing else. And I say this not to praise especially myself and friends, but to point out just how bad situation is. And even in a comparative lull in the past, a lull, a kind of hole in European production of ideas and art, in a lull like Nietzsche talks about, let's say the 1880s in Europe, it seems like a golden age of classical Athens compared to what exists now. It's just a complete bleak nothing now. This is the fruit of worldwide mass education.

It's increased some online chatter and it's increased academic production in quantity, yes, but no one will ever read it. It's of no consequence and not even the people producing that garbage now care about it. No one reads them, no one cares. But let's say, forget these things. Focus on the prosaic, the supposed STEM, the tech. You know, we're going to produce one billion engineers, and let's say you could, but you need one billion. Is that the purpose of an education? How many engineers can a country produce is what I'm saying. How many do you need? Do you really need that, by the way, for a majority of engineering positions, you'd probably not even need a four-year college. Two years would do. And for many others for computing, programming jobs, you would not even need that.

And I suppose many will be automated anyway, But do you think you could automate something like this show, by the way? I don't think so. I think if your job is in media as a journalist or an artist, and if that can be automated, you probably deserve that to happen. Most journalists today do not pass Turing test, for real. No cap, for real. ChatGPT is not AI, by the way. It's a kind of magic eight ball update, no cap. That's all ChatGPT is, it's magic eight ball. but the fact that it can mimic your average public school teacher or journalist or even the prefab shit lib artist, you know, I think it's very revealing both of the biological material today and of value of mass education system. And I'm not talking again of this kind of high thing,

you know, because in general if you want to talk of high thing, I hold to view of Theognis, the ancient Greek Megarian aristocratic poet Theognis, anti-democratic, who has lines like, never by teaching will you make a bad man good. And he goes on to say that it's easier to breed good men than to put the right notions and virtues and wisdom into their heads. And the pretense that you can teach virtue, by contrast, is a hallmark of the deceptive, utilitarian, democratic, Socratic philosophies, as also of their supposed rival, Isocrates. Both of these men, you know, Socrates, Isocrates, or rather the followers of Socrates were cucks in the sense of their whole posture was, oh, we are into philosophy, but we're not like those evil Nazi, Kritia sophist people.

We believe that you can teach men to be good, which is, of course, a lie. But this does not rule out the necessity of training and of sharpening native inborn talent. And so the Greeks, despite believing in the blood-borne nature of good character, they nevertheless had a far more effective education than moderns did. A far greater care and love for the development of youth and the flourishing of the inborn powers of talented youth. But I can't even quote that passage from Nietzsche where he discusses the whys of how this happens because if I do that, people will jump on me worse than I did when I paraphrased Schopenhauer on something else. But as I say, forget this very high stuff. We are nowhere near able to recreate the genius of ancient Athens or of Renaissance Italy

or anything remotely like that, but taking the claims of modern education seriously at their face value in a practical way at, let's say, theoretically achievable levels or conceivably achievable, I say even if you could train competent engineers, how many do you actually need? And see, they never ask this. They never ask what is the limit as such of a mass education system. What is it really supposed to solve when you have populations of 300 million, 200 million? But then I think the answer is, and if you approach it from the direction Sentinel did, which is, after all, the only direction that matters. Because it is these men, like myself and like Sentinel, that really I only care about us. And I repeat that, I don't care. I don't care if you unsubscribe to show,

I don't know, I guess some subscribers are even leftist journalists or such who are curious, maybe. And I suppose it's flattering and nice for my book to have done well and spread and for people to use its phrases as recently there was kid at Oxford political union event last week with in front of Peter Thiel and he used some phrase from that I use and I would urge caution for anyone doing this again because online is one thing but in real life we are seen as Nazis and that can get you into trouble. But anyway I suppose that's flattering but so what I suppose it's good in general too that heartiest Chateau Roissy language and other online frog language that he used in 2009 and 2010 that it's now used in mass media or in television show or

is it good I don't know it's a legitimate question but my point is yes I like my book sell well and so forth it allows me to get more prosties a better prosties better quality cocaine better champagne and oyster and so forth that great but ultimately I didn't expect the book to spread among other than a very few friends and in the end it's only very few people who will get it and I care about them only and I'm telling you now I care about men like Sentinel and my other friends and the nones and the nones I've met and I care about what we will do and in the end seen from this point of view the education system isn't something that's helped us in the least either it's been like a prison I felt like I've been in prison since maybe age nine or 10.

Actually, I felt in prison since I first had to go to a classroom. I couldn't take kindergarten. It was just so depressing. My parents had to pull me out. And then when I went to first grade, I don't remember if I was six or seven years old, but my nickname was the equivalent of head in the clouds. I was looking out the window the whole time. I couldn't stand it. I didn't like it in the East Bloc, but that was actually a bit different, because when I was a small boy there, there was a lot of solidarity against the teachers, against the educational system and the government. People didn't rat you out, for example, if you played a prank on them. I was astounded to see students do this when I arrived in the United States.

It was even more a prison than ever, the moralism, the Reddit conventionalism. It was always there in the United States, even before it blew up on internets. And I can say without exaggeration, I never learned a single thing from school. It was a complete waste of time for me. I probably should have been allowed to graduate high school at 15 or so at most. I would have been glad to graduate at 13, and been allowed to make videos or something like this. I don't know. I never learned a single thing in college either, by the way. I had some good professors, some of them were friends, some liked me. I always polarized people in the same way, I've always been very antagonistic, most hated me, very few loved me, but then the ones who loved me will tell you they never really taught

me anything either, I learned on my own. It was just a way to scam institutions so I didn't have to work a job, which is another way they lobotomize men like us by forcing you to work for somebody, but I felt like Like I was in jail in school, so I had to get away. The worst is the public school system when you're 13, 15, 17, and you have to sit there and listen to a sub-moron teacher who I knew, it's not just that I was smarter in raw intellect brain ability, but I actually just, even at that age, knew more facts. Even at that age, I had a better general education than they did, even at that age. So I have to sit there and really be beat over the head with their moralist lingam. Beat me over the head with your dildo of public education.

That's its purpose, you know, whether intentional or not. I think it is intentional on some level, it's just a way to level, to demoralize, to try to keep down people who have any higher aspirations. Don't mention based minorities to be pleased. Someone should do a cranial study of Bridget Gabriel. All due respect to my Lebanese and Assyrian friends, but a lot of such based minorities are, you know, people should test Bridget Gabriel in particular for sub-Saharan admixture. You know what I mean? Look at those purple lips. Look at that brow. You know, a lot of modern minorities in any case are regime toadies. They're brown-noses and conformists. Some Wignats, these are what I affectionately call white nationalists. They are good people, but they are misled.

I don't know why they are misled on the model minority thing. I mean, the white nationalists focused on the bantoids, which I understand it's the ball and chain of America. Without the bantoids, maybe America would have been able to colonize the solar system by now. But in some way, model minorities by now in day-to-day life, they may be worse. And you should not have emotional reaction to bantoids. You see, white nationalists see a bantoid football player with a blonde cheerleader girlfriend in NFL and they chimp out. But that's a marginal phenomenon. And yes, in some cases it's ostentatiously pushed by Netflix and such, but it's not the bigger problem are the Nikki Haley's, right? And why in the world is neo-reaction, IQ faction so high, they're so much into high IQ, supposedly

high IQ minorities in particular. They make excuses for the Han and the Pajit immigration. But these are the ones who actually compete for jobs with you, not the bantoids. And when such people do get good jobs, generally they tend to be regime enforcers, toadies, prestige mongers and the like. We need to have further study done in any case, even on not just model minorities, cranial studies and physiognomy, but also on the ones who are called based minorities like the Lebanese, the Sikhs and so forth. An old frog hand raped me just two days ago to suggest this, you know, a scrutiny of the Sikhs. I was expecting to move to a Robert Redford WASP country. I really thought this, you know, when I was a small boy.

I didn't think I'd be moving to a Calcutta Shanghai bazaar with Han and Ashken Pajit regime enforcer, ass-kissing middleman, and then a Hutu underclass. I didn't think it would be that. What in the world is mass education supposed to do in such a mess? I thought, actually I had this image, it's going to be a Robert Redford country, I'm moving to Los Angeles, I will join a street gang, I'll have a gun, there will be palm I'll have a gun in my hand, there will be sandwiches, peanut butter, America, you know, but no, there's just a bleak jail of school system, everything so tightly controlled, you know, compared to the way I lived when I was a small boy, when we were allowed to run feral in the city and to do all kinds of pranks, and so I still have fond memories

of that, even though tyrannical government, but I had much more freedom than when I arrived in United States, where all my friends also were in straitjackets, and I see in America It's just this aggressive beating down of any rebelliousness or drive to distinction and it's done through public education system. Please don't lecture me then on mass education. Basically all of the mathematics Olympian winners now are Chinese or Russian or East Bloc people, even now. And very little is spent per student in those places. Even you know, I remember my school day was four hours long, it was not nine hours. That's torture. hours long, and here she come again, some middle-aged fat bitch, smell of cabbage, trotting out the television.

You know, they had a television trade for another watching of Holocaust movie, a Holocaust movie every week. Forgive me, this is unfocused discussion, I know, I have no topic for you this week, it's just variety show as I enjoy it. But it's a lobotomy system, the American public school system in particular, to be 15 years old and lectured to by imbeciles. Yes, the effective purpose of it is to equalize, to take a hammer to the foreheads of spirited and sensitive young men. I don't care about the other side anymore, whether it manages to competently or not educate a mass of people or to produce an engineering squad. This concerns me much more, that hammer to the forehead to men like myself and sentinel of the grave. Let's take them down a notch. That's mass education.

Look, I do not know, I don't know, I think the right could do much better in this situation to go back to a kind of libertarianism and freedom agenda and pass laws that with certain exams you can pass out of high school at 13 or 14 that would allow employers to form apprenticeship programs that would get rid especially of credentialism so that having a job for an employer would not be such a prison straitjacket, getting rid of immigration, mass immigration in particular, would also lower the bargaining position with which employers think they have to, they use it to bully employees and so forth. Even when, even when an employer does not have actually a glut of potential employees they could hire, just the narrative of mass immigration makes them think they do it, makes

them get more arrogant. If that was not the case, having a job would not be such a straitjacket. But you know, get rid of credentialism, of licensing. Allow employers and others to hire and to pay at such ages. Allow kids who are even 14 or 15 to make their own businesses when they are able to if they're smart enough. Allow them not to go to these schools. Get rid of the schools. Because I don't think there's any saving the education system now. respects to Rufo's efforts. It was hellish even before CRT became widely known. It's always been practiced and will continue to be practiced even if Rufo managed to get rid of it. It will still be there, but it's just a total waste, the education system. If you are able to use state power to introduce, for example, a patriotic curriculum, putting

in patriotic curriculum all that will do it will open that up as well to subversion. You'll actually be playing into the left's caricature where they can falsely then again pretend to be the party of freedom and rebellion. You can't win that way. They do not actually indoctrinate through the education system and you will not be able to especially do that. So I say dismantle everything, dismantle the prison schools, dismantle credentialism. an idea yes this meant break the school's an idea whose time has come okay very good I will be right back in the rhythms episode 129 welcome back to show did you enjoy opening monologue rant on the public school education prison system I hated it every moment of it should be made illegal get rid of all

mass education unnecessary you know and after what happens after you graduate is almost as bad, maybe just as bad, where you can't get a job unless you get licenses. You cannot, for example, teach boxing class or tennis or a swimming class without several months training licenses. You cannot open a casino. You are not allowed to resell a cigarette that you smuggle. You're not allowed to do many things. It's prison society, a ginocratic mess. This is not a free society. But I was reading an article today, a very recent bone study, a genetics article out of China. It is a group that mainly produces boring conclusions because the writers don't have any anthropological or historical interest or background. But sometimes, as in this study, the primary, the raw

material that they're working on. It's very interesting. They found the royal grave of an Ashina empress. This is just coming out this week. It's this variety episode, you know, normal variety podcast episode, podcast episode, podcast. They will discuss the week's news that you see Twitter, News Digest, or the latest AOC Bodega wannabe chimp out. I like that too, but I tell you this week's articles, Population Genetics and those on ancient histories that I reread and that interested me. But they discovered Ashina lineage tomb, and I think that is cause to doubt it, but I tell you what studies say, who are the Ashina? This is small obsession of mine. They were a Turkic, not Turkish, but Turkic noble lineage of the steppe who founded Gokturk

Empire, which is the first Turkic-led steppe confederation from maybe 6th to 8th centuries AD. This is so-called ethnogenesis of the Turkic people. So now you have the Yakuts, they speak a Turkic language, they live in northeast Siberia, they look, as you might expect, very, I don't want to say Asian, because it's a different look, it's a more robust step, Asian. But yes, it's Asian, and then of course you have Turkey, but where it's actually Armenians and Greeks and Mediterranean peoples who are speaking a Turkic language, and they're using mostly Indo-European accents to pronounce it. If you want to hear pure Turkic, you listen to Altayk or to Yakut being spoken. You can find online newscast if you want to hear sound.

But so yes, this Gokturk empire from 6th to 8th centuries AD, and it's interesting because this Ashina founding family is a wolf clan. The Genesis myth is exactly the same as Romius and Remus. The Ashina founder was raised and suckled by a she-wolf. this must be some kind of old step theme. And the Gokturk Khanate, really a step confederation as all such large empires were on that area. It was a Turkic horde taking charge, really actually liberating Central Asia from Chinese domination which was widely despised. And the Ashina clan, very interesting because they were not only the leaders of the Gokturk Khanate but after this arrangement broke down, they migrated west toward Europe, became founders

and kings over various other steppe confederations, some of which you may have heard of, for example the Pechenegs, the famous villains of Byzantine lore, and some others too, also the Khazars, who later converted to Judaism. And to the extent that when Genghis Khan conquered the Khazars, despite the fact that their kings were now Jews, but this didn't matter to him, they had still maintained their shamanic status as descendants of the Ashina clan, and he didn't want to kill them by spilling their blood because of an old step taboo about spilling the blood of a wolf. So he wrapped them in carpets and had them trampled instead, a kind of legalistic trick. But they served, some say, as a kind of step aristocracy, providing kings and leaders to

various peoples, similar to how Cumans or Polovotsy actually ended up serving as kings of various other peoples. For example, Sultan Baibars of the Mamelukes was a Cuman slave who rose up through the ranks of that military state and so forth. But the Ashina had a kind of, again, cultic shamanic value to all the Eurasian steppe tribes for a long time, and I think they might still exist. I met once in Zurich, and forgive if I repeat story after so many shows, it's bound to happen and I actually forget what I talk about even on previous show. But I met a man in Zurich who claims descent from Khazar kings. And he was technically a Georgian, but he claimed to be from the family in Georgia that owned the most land before the coming of communism.

And because of his descent from Khazar kings, or at least he claimed this, his family was the only one at the tsar's court, they didn't have to sit up when the tsar entered the room, as being of an older line than the tsars. The history of Russia's birth is very funny, I think, the ethnogenesis of the Russian people. It's very obviously a successor state to the Khazar Khaganate. It's Vikings, it's Norsemen, LARPing, role-playing as Step Khazar Khagan. That's Russia for you. And this man is a flaming homo, by the way, and it's sad that he's going to be the end of his royal line. But he's a very vivid storyteller, saying how after the fall of communism, the Georgian authorities sent envoys to him specifically saying, come back, we want the old Georgia to be friends with the new Georgia.

And he said with great contempt, these peasants are not my countrymen and no, I will not go back until you give back the land. And he says the same about Russia itself, that until they make some restitution to the Tsar and to all of the noble families that they despoil the property, he wants nothing to do with them and they remain an illegitimate criminal state. All the Russians and all the post-Soviet so-called republics, same thing, criminal, until they give back land that's not theirs. When you hear they're giving things back, you should be very skeptical. I don't want to reveal too much about myself, but actually this is not quite identifying information, and I feel quite comfortable saying some things because people who hate me are so incompetent at doing research.

But anyway, I'm not from Noble Line, but one side of my family had many vineyards and such, And supposedly, you know, they supposedly say they give land back that the communists stole, but the truth is, it takes forever. They make you jump through all kind of hoops, and some of it that is now urbanized or deemed of state interest, they refuse to give you back any of it. They keep delaying, and then they try to suggest a fake replacement, you know, so these MySpace angles, return of land and such, and this is story, by the way, this is story of all, not just returning land that Commie stole, but this is story of privatization in Russia as well of, excuse me, as well as most of East Bloc is just very corrupt process. It's all East Bloc monkey business, always.

But I say about this guy I met because he actually had very marked oriental, I mean East Asian features in his eye. He looked like a natural hapa, like you might find in some place in Kazakhstan, not full Asian maybe, but very marked Asian eyes in his case, and epicanthic fold, and yes I know many generations have passed since his supposed Khazar kingship and who knows even if his family's claim is true, but I found it interesting, if you go around the Black Sea, all around that area in the Yalta, Crimea Peninsula and so forth, you will find people with full Asian features because there are several different kinds of Tatars. Most Tatars look like Europeans, but then there are Tatars that look complete Mongolian.

And I don't know if this common feature in Georgia, I've never seen, most Georgians look quite Mediterranean, I've never seen Georgians with epicantic fall, but who knows. There are even villages in Bulgaria outside Sofia, excuse me. I used to find reports of this. Of course, the internet has been wiped clean of all interesting information, but there is an obscure people living in small villages outside Sofia called the Somi, not the Somi, but S-O-M-I. As far as I remember, they have completely East Asian features. I am sure that they exist, but I cannot find reports of them anymore. Anyway, this study, which at least acknowledges difficulties in judging the origins of the Gokturks and of the Turkic peoples in general and of the Ashina because they practiced cremation.

But the way they get around that is this empress, she's the daughter of the Gokturk Khan who married into a Chinese dynasty. So she's half, you know, so they can judge it from that. They can subtract the Chinese half and judge the other half. So you know this because of this mixed ancestry, however, she was not cremated but is apparently entered in the Shaoling Mausoleum, I don't know what that is, that's what the study says. So the Ashina have this northeast Asian ancestry according to this study, similar to other steppe peoples like the Tungusic, the various Mongol orbiting peoples and such, which this conclusion is unsurprising. There were rival theories that the Turkics, despite the fact that the Gokturk Khanate,

this is the first Turkic empire that was founded in the borderlands of China, but there were Rival theory is that the origins of the Ashita were West Asian not East Asian But that sounds very unlikely to begin with and then this study claims a conclusion which again It's completely unsurprising if you look at modern Turkey, but they see that Turkic language spread by cultural diffusion rather than people's migrating Which I don't know actually if they can conclude that or even if these are the only two options I would say it's spread by elite dominance, much like Latin did. Maybe like most ancient Aryan languages spread by elite dominance. So probably you would find a very small East Asian signature in Turkey itself, maybe not in Istanbul but in Ankara and so forth.

But to me, it's surprising that the Ashina would be Northeast Asian. But you know what's surprising, the Avars, the ones who founded the Avar Khanate in Europe who are different from the people called now Avars who live in the Caucasus, who speak a North Caucasian language, I think, similar to, forgive if I'm wrong, but similar to Chechen and English and that type of thing. But the Avar Khanate in Europe, the ones who Charlemagne defeated, they formed the Khanate in the Pannonian Plain, modern day Hungary, that area, and there are theories that they may have had The Tungusic, a northeast Siberian ruling elite, Manchu, close to Manchu, although it wouldn't have been called that at the time. That would be interesting because, you know, something Mongolian like you'd expect Turkic

like you'd expect, but Tungusic is much smaller. That would be surprising and interesting. Another very interesting possibility was that the Huns had a Native American ruling elite. And I mean a Native American tribe who back migrated to Asia. That's a very interesting possibility that's being investigated now by some. There is some evidence. It's almost certain, for example, that the Ket language in Siberia, a Yenisei language, is related to Athabascan Native American languages called the Nadele language theory. That's interesting. So there were probably multiple migrations and back migrations quite late from Asia to America and back and forth. But anyway, it would be more interesting to have more information on Ashina line.

As I said, it's very nice that they found supposedly somebody of this royal line, but completely unsurprising. As I told you, the people doing these studies are boring people. But maybe they will, subsequent studies, will find wolf DNA. This is what I want to know, did they hybridize with a wolf? The study I mentioned is on very interesting matter, but the conclusions and claims are weak tea. I like bold claims. It is a pleasure to see a historian make bold claim and then argue it honestly and clearly. I keep saying this is why Robert Drewes is one of the best historians around. I was rereading some of his old articles, I will mention to you a couple of them. There's an article in which Robert Drewes argues that the Spartans took from the Phoenicians

the institution of the double kingship because Sparta famously had two kings, which is quite unusual institution, and also the Gerousia, or the Senate, that is a kind of council of elders that deliberated, which again, Phoenician cities were unique in having it at the time, I mean in the Near East, if you go to other Near Eastern states, the Egyptian, the Mesopotamian, they had no such deliberative bodies at all. And I don't know if the case that Robert Drew's make is complete convincing, the evidence is sparse, but he does a good job make plausible. In other words, the Spartans established these bodies, I mean the Senate and the double kingship, after contact with Phoenicians, and according to ancient traditions, they imported part

of their institutions from Crete, where again at that time Phoenician influence was become very strong. And the double kingship, or double executive, is a pretty unique institution, there are not many places that have it, and again only the Phoenicians had this in their cities at a time, whether in Tyre or in Carthage, where Aristotle says that old ways were preserved in Carthage and the council, the Senate or in Semitic is called the Moed, I don't know if I'm saying it right, but the Senate in Carthage probably had 30 members, which is the same as its part of 30 in the Senate, including the kings. And similar that Carthage had two sufi, or same word in Hebrew to be Shofet for judge. I think actually the word in Phoenician would be sopet.

But as Livy says, there are two judges at Carthage and I don't know, they didn't just have the judicial power, they were very much like Roman consuls according to Livy. So the timeline adoption of double kingship in Sparta, which was around eighth century BC probably, it matches the dates of the known Phoenician intercourse with Greeks, including in the Peloponnese. It's also true that in Athens, just to prove parallel Phoenician influence and adoption, there were Phoenician families quite late with their own shrines and many such things, and there were also famous Greeks said to be from Phoenician lines, including Thales of Miletus, the first philosopher. These kinds of things should never be studied for nationalistic reasons.

Me saying this would make Nassim Taleb probably very proud, but that's stupid, they should be studied simply for the pleasure of knowing unusual ancient details. But I will read for you the concluding paragraph of Drew's article on this, it is very interesting. At first glance it may seem unlikely that the Greeks could have borrowed, in more or less exact form, something so important as a system of government. In the 8th century, however, the Greeks borrowed frequently and sometimes almost slavishly from the East. The alphabet is a case in point, not just the idea of an alphabet, but the very shapes, sounds, and sequence of Phoenician letters, along with there to the Greeks completely meaningless names. In 8th century art, it has been recently pointed out, the Greeks

copied Eastern motifs which were highly significant in the East, but which had no significance to the Greeks. The motifs were simply seen to be superior to geometric designs, and so so they were adopted. The Greeks' earliest overseas stations at Almena, Pitekousai, and perhaps Sinope and Trapezius can best be explained as inspired by Phoenician emporia and metalworking stations. It is, I think, not improbable that the Greeks at Sparta and perhaps earlier on Crete were emboldened to institute the daring Oenomia, their form of government, because such a system was recommended by the experience of the superb Phoenicians. With the blessings of Apollo, Zeus, and Athena, the new system was instituted, and a new era dawned in Greek political history. Yes, what do you think of this?

Even if it's true, and this mimics almost exactly something Nietzsche said about the Greeks, that they borrowed initially almost everything from the East, but they threw the spear of that which they picked up much farther than anyone else. This is why he calls the Greeks and the French a feminine people in the best sense – excuse Excuse me, the attack, that they borrow and take things from others like germline, think from others. They impregnate themselves with ideas and things from others, but make them much more beautiful, give birth to something new. But on the other hand, there are also great differences between the Spartan system and the Phoenician. So for example, the lifelong tenure of the kings and the hereditary nature of the kings

many other such which was not true of the Phoenician judges and in general there are alternative explanation for this Circumstantial case that Drew's makes for example. Yes, the Spartans did borrow things from Crete But Crete was also unusual because besides its Phoenician influence It was also extremely Dorian outpost and it was likely to have preserved Dorian customs more faithfully than any other other Dorian colonized place. And among the Greeks, the Dorians themselves were a kind of fossil, you can say, in the sense that they preserved very ancient, let's say, Indo-European customs quite faithfully, more so than other Greeks. The Dorians were quite late arrivals during the Greek Dark Ages, the return of the sons of Heracles.

And so it could then be that, well, let me just give you examples. The mess hall, right, the place where citizens ate together, it was a Cretan institution and Sparta imported that from Crete, as was, this is touchy subject, very touchy, but the Dorian Pederasty as an educational institution, which, you know, we cannot discuss here, but that too may have been an Indo-European inheritance that the Dorians preserved more faithfully than other Greeks. And in general, you can emphasize the fact that the Phoenician cities were merchant republics. In the Old Testament, other places too, where they refer to great ones of the Phoenician cities or their elders, these were the merchants. So much like Dutch or Venice republics, whereas Sparta was a military republic, military aristocracy

very much based on the Aryan manner bond formalized into a constitution. So it's possible to find maybe even more plausible route of Spartan constitution and native customs. But it's plausible that even so, they borrowed particular institutions like the double kingship from the Phoenicians. Why not? In any case, it's a bold claim. Quite interesting. You know, when I posted parts of this study on Twitter, people started to talk about Phoenician in power and Phoenician descent, some Lebanese are proud, and that's Nassim Taleb's way of thinking is wrong. I just am interested in unusual historical fact. Nassim Taleb should deal with the fact that he's an Arab. He has an Arabic name, not a Phoenician name. But you have to know, in the Middle East, to be seen as Arab is low status.

It's seen as low class. The Persians use that as an insult. So, Taleb wants desperately to be seen as some type of ethnicity and intercourse with Europe, French or something, certainly not Arab and Phoenician is much better than Arab so he thinks East Europeans have similar, you know, they don't want to be seen as Russian or as Slavs, they have various French delusions, it's very petty but it's funny. But anyway, there's an article from Drew's, another one, much less pleasant to read, written in a denser academic style, but the conclusion, which I'll only talk about, a very striking funny conclusion, and in this case it's probably indisputable, it's a 1975 article, The Babylonian Chronicles and Berosus is the title, from the British Study for the Study

of Iraq, a journal, excuse me, British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Berosus was a high priest at Babylon. He's a priest of the god Marduk and he wrote let's say he was born around 340 330 BC and he wrote the book in question that I will talk about in a moment about let's say about 300 BC or so at the beginning of the 200s. He wrote in Greek. He didn't write in Akkadian or Babylonian He wrote this book Babyloniaca for Greek consumption which is seen somehow now as a history and more on this in a moment but he wrote this book on the patronage of Alexander successor ruler in the area okay so this is typical Hellenistic work product you can say a non-greek writing in Greek he had learned and the Greek colonial government so-called for an

international audience typical Hellenism and if you want a really wild theory regarding this man I'm going to go on a tangent and I'm not endorsing this I what I'm about to tell you now, and nor am I saying it has anything on the order of what I'm discussing from Robert Drewes, who is a legitimate mainstream historian, but you know, they say the Mossad runs me and the Mossad has a phrase I like, let the crazy speak, so that's, I do this, I like crazy ideas. And there's a guy, Russell Gmerkin, who appears to be a very disputatious, crazy Ash, who has a theory that actually this book by Berosus, the Babyloniaca, In other words, a Hellenistic era book written by Babylonian priests for a Hellenistic international Greek audience, right? And it's written around 300 B.C.

So, Merkin's argument is that the beginning of Genesis in the Bible is actually based on this book by Berossus. I haven't read Merkin's book myself. I can't judge the argument and it's not accepted by historians, but his point is that the Bible is copied from this much later book, Babyloniaca. So in other words, the Bible was actually composed after. It composed in Greek at the library of Alexandria. It was not translated, but composed there very late, later than, much later than people think, in the 270s BC. And that it was composed as a deliberate attempt to found the people and the religion on the principles of Platonic philosophy. And he uses Plato's laws in a later book as well to establish Plato's laws as one of the sources of the Bible. It's a wild and crazy theory.

But I don't mean again to put it in the same class of arguments as what I'm discussing now from Robert Drews, who's a mainstream historian, and he just likes bold arguments, but plausible ones. So, you know, he stays within the bounds of the reasonable. But this next point that I will tell you now in the article of his that I'm discussing here, the Babylonian Chronicles and Berosus, again, I don't think this following conclusion is speculative. don't think how he can be wrong on this following. And what does he say? He point out, you have these Babylonian chronicles, which Berosus uses to write his supposed history, so these preexisting Babylonian chronicles appear to untrain modern eye to be, well obviously it's a history, a history of the Babylonian people,

or the city, or some such, similar to any other history which you might find today, a history of France, or Italy that you might read, or the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides and so forth. So, the Babylonian chronicles, the source material by this man Berosus writing his own book in Greek, and which Josephus, he also mentions in his book against Appion, he mentions these Babylonian chronicles when he's trying to, okay, so let me just go. The Greeks around the time of Josephus, which is let's say first century AD, sometime after Jesus very soon or whatever around that time, the Greeks around that time and even before, They were all saying, well Herodotus doesn't mention the Jews, you know, and it's a bit

odd because Herodotus has very high interest in exotic, unusual peoples and customs. You know, he's writing in the 400s BC, he doesn't mention these people with some very singular customs, even though he had visited Egypt and visited the area. And I've actually never heard the convincing argument, by the way, I've never heard the convincing argument to explain this away, why neither Herodotus nor any other Greek historian around that time ever mentioned the Jews. The Jews are only mentioned quite some time later in Greek histories. And Josephus tries to explain this away. He mentions that other peoples have older histories among who, you know, the Assyrians and the Egyptians and the Babylonians, he goes, these people have chronicles much older

than you Greeks, you know, long-standing chronicles. And so even much later, there arose the impression that the Babylonian chronicles must be a national history like any other. In our own time, many scholars, historians say this and so forth. And Robert Drews in this article takes this argument apart. He goes through different pros and cons that I won't discuss here to show you, that actually know the people of that time of whenever the chronicles were composed, which had to be over a very long period. But they didn't have our sense of history, and that it's not a national history. So for example, if you look at what these, the supposed history of Babylon that the Babylonians themselves wrote, how it reads, what it is, it's really just a list of disasters.

It's very precisely recorded, autistically recorded disasters, and normally, in national heroic histories or even non-heroic, a people isn't really keen to record its humiliations and catastrophes. I mean sometimes it does but not in this very precise way and and not really only the disasters And so that's pretty much all the Babylonian chronicles are and I will not take you through all of Drew's Arguments and examples to show that this is not really a history in the way. We understand it at all But what was it? It was a highly autistic Esoteric work product you can say property Not of the Babylonian people or nation as such but of a scribe and priestly class It was not meant for widespread or national dissemination at all. It was private

Secret property of this priestly class and they used it for astrological and prophetic forecasting. Okay, that's basically what it was Okay So it was in the reign of King so-and-so in the fifth year at the time of such-and-such There was an earthquake in province X or in the fifth year of this other King so-and-so the king of Elam Invaded and burned our territory, but then he was point poisoned exactly two months later and the stars were such and such. That's all this book is. It's basically, and they're very interested, the people who recorded it are very interested in repetitions, you know, so it's basically a chart for a priest to make a forecast because they believe that events repeat in similar circumstances. So it is an astrological manual of omens and

Drew shows this in multiple ways including that this is how Berossus, this priest of Babylon I keep mentioning, himself used these chronicles in just this way. He made it now for international consumption in Greek, so you know, he made the native priestly future-telling trade of his class at Babylon, he made it his sub-stack brand, okay, so this is why the Athenians built a statue of him a little later. I mean, they did not build a statue of this Babylonian priest because they were so impressed by his history of the Babylonian people, but because, and this is recorded in various other sources, they respected him because he exemplified the special magic, the special esoteric skill of the Babylonians and the Chaldeans, the skills stereotypically attributed to them at the time of magical

foretelling of the future and such. It's very interesting to see this in multiple ways. I mean, on this, just to go on yet another tangent, the Romans saw the Egyptians and and the Chaldeans and the Hebrews as magical peoples and use their symbols and images and talismans as lucky charms. And I think the story not only of how Christianity was adopted, it's part of a general trend of fascination with Eastern New Age religions, right? That's what they were at the time. But even beyond this, when you see, for example, Babylonian or Chaldean Jewish numerology in a Western writer, which you sometimes see many centuries later, even in Middle Ages. Obviously, it was passed out through some esoteric tradition of writing, but the reference

in that case would not necessarily be to the Bible in the sense that the believer would have it, but rather through this other path. The provenance of, let's say, the medieval European writer using Babylonian or Jewish esoteric numerology might be from this Roman Hellenistic fascination with Eastern magic and numerology that got transcribed into hermetic and alchemical traditions. So then the meaning might be quite the opposite even of what you'd expect. But anyway, this other interesting thing is how something can over time and even in antiquity already it can become so misunderstood, right? So Josephus already is misusing the Babylonian chronicles. He thinks it's a national history when really it's this weird scribely secret property that they used to forecast.

It was used like astrological omens, and even in antiquity, somehow it had been made public and people thought that it was some kind of genuine attempt to record Babylonian history the way that Herodotus records history, you know, how an autistic astrological chart of omens can be misinterpreted as national histories. Something similar happened with the writer, the poet Theognis, who I mentioned earlier. Theognis was a tragic, pessimistic, but really tragic poet, technically he was a lyric poet, but when I say tragic, I mean ancient Greek tragic sensibility, also anti-democratic, the voice of the embattled aristocracy of the 500s BC, eugenic man. So the thing is, he was seen for what he was during his own lifetime, I mean, understood as more or less what I just said now.

But very soon after, his body of work was essentially cut up like a jigsaw puzzle. It was cut up and it was turned into self-help one-liners, basically. And that's how it got transmitted, even in antiquity. I'm exaggerating, but even with antiquity, I mean, his work was distorted, misunderstood. And there was a tradition that preserved him in this really false form as a writer of practical advice about life, and it was Nietzsche, you can say, who resurrected Theognis using methods of philological historical investigation to show that no, he was not just the writer of self-help one-liners, but that he had this entire view of life and this confrontation with nature and existence, and that the way Nietzsche did it was by reorganizing these

fragments of Theognis that had been preserved again by tradition since antiquity in a false form. And this is interesting to see how something can survive over time and how a tradition can preserve something, but even while preserving it can distort it and even parasitize off of it. But I talked too many things at once and now I'm touching on quite serious things. It's supposed to be fun variety show. But yes, I found Robert Drew's punchline in this article on the Babylonian Chronicles quite amusing. They look like a national history, but actually they're not. You misunderstand them. If you see them the way they were, you know, a kind of lottery system of future telling. But now I must take a break. I will come back and discuss one more thing.

Back to show I wanted to add a note on the matter of so-called religious nationalism because these debates keep breaking out from time to time. And on next episode, I will discuss problem Spain and Portugal, which had Catholic conservative governments under Franco and Salazar, and you will be able to consider next episode a love letter to the trads, the real traditionalists, who are actually my first friends on the far right, if you want to call it that, the French monarchists. About 2% of France is monarchist. I mean, they want the king back in Versailles with the church and so on, and true authority, not just as a figurehead. Most of them, however, are sedevacantists, they don't like the pope. They considered the Pope to be a traitor since Vatican II, at least.

And such were my friends and many continue to be. And in my next episode, I will talk this problem Franco and Salazar, which government are very admirable and how the CIA tried to subvert them over and over again because of the filthy communists running that institution since the 1950s, when its leaderships, they outsourced all policies to the second tier in the CIA, the active communists who used to lie in the following sense, oh, we are just helping friendly socialist movements abroad in order to promote our own kind of socialism so that Soviet socialism does not win out, which was a lie and makes no sense in cases where socialism did not have a foothold to begin with or had no prospect of success, and where the CIA was implanting it.

And so I think actually Vietnam fits this model too, by the way. The very particular case of South Vietnam, I mean, but okay, that is debatable. But it's not debatable in the case of Spain and Portugal, which had friendly anti-communist governments with broad popular support, stable established governments, and yet American the CIA continually try to undermine them and to promote socialist uprisings both in their colonies but also within these countries in Europe. And so, you know, in this soon episode I will talk about problem also of sexual restraint because some traditionalists, some of the honest ones in replies to recent disputes, they want my take on that, on what my actual opinions are on matters of sexual restraint and so forth, sexual libertinism and how I see such thing.

And so maybe I will clear up for those who disagree with me in good faith of what I see things stand on that. But that is a big topic. On this segment I want to tell you about religious nationalism and that whatever its advantages may have been in the past and maybe even today certain situations. I think overall it is a lie that embracing could be a disaster because it's at odds with As a big problem faced today by all civilized countries, the problem of the global south, which religious nationalism really does nothing to address, but it can even mask this problem or exacerbate it. And to all of you religious traditionalists, I say, if your solution to mass immigration and mass transfer of global wealth from the global north to the global south, which is

and has been a major program of global Negro communism, let me put it politely, international racial Marxism, not only in the arms of the CIA for decades, but of its ideologues in the form of men like John Rawls and Talcott Parsons and of course, Fennan and many others including the organized ash, let's put it that way, in various countries. But if your solution to stopping this is to demand that the country first convert to your particular religion or denomination or even that it become religious in the abstract to some other denomination, I find this to be convoluted, a useless path that is totally irrelevant. I mean, Japan does just fine now, keeping immigrants out and caring for its own citizens. It's quite a secular country and at least on these matters it does not use religious

justification of any kind. Denmark is another example. They've moved in the same direction of migration restriction and even reversal. And they have done so actually with a social democrat and secular government, simply by virtue of the anti-migration right, which in Denmark, by the way, is also secular as it is in the rest of the Scandinavian countries. But they had become stronger, the anti-migration right, I mean, and they played a disciplined game where they put a professional forward public face, a professional face, and they let themselves be co-opted by the social democrats because they cared more about restricting migration than about their own vanity and so forth. But okay, regarding Denmark, we have to see how that will turn out.

I find it absurd though, I mean, how do you look at the problem of receding belief in the world for the last two centuries and the difficulties that genuinely religious men have had converting others to the religions in which they were born. I mean, religious men have had great problems over at least two centuries getting men to reaffirm the beliefs of their birth and so forth. And you look at all this and conclude, yes, if I only insist hard enough or scream hard and louder or use some circular backward reasoning such as, oh, well, you're not having children because you're not religious. So then, why should I be religious as a girl?" And you say, well, so you can have children, you know? I mean, think about that. Is that going to

convince – you know, you're saying you're not protecting your borders because you lack religion. That's the argument, right? So why should I have religion then? When's this new-found belief and faith in the divine? Where does it come from? And the answer is, no, no, no, no. You see, you have to be religious in order to have borders. And it's always these utilitarian circular arguments, and I can't tell if some of these people saying these things are saying this in good faith because they're delusional, or if they think they're being cynical and manipulative, but it's stupid in both cases, because they expect religion, and in particular they expect Christianity, which was never meant to carry this utilitarian

social, political weight, you're expecting it to make an argument that it can't make, and to be embraced by others for a usefulness that will supposedly bring them something like re-establishing national health, which it won't do at all, by the way, in a modern context anyway. There was just a study released that actually the most religious Americans are the ones least sensitive to race and least sensitive to the problems of mass migration. It should be obvious to anyone who had actually inquired about what modern churches in the United States and Europe are up to it. You have Catholic charities both in America and the United Kingdom, they're the leading institutions of open borders, they're the leading providers of legal services to refugees

with Luther and another similar not far behind. And even actually supposedly conservative evangelical churches, it's all about food drives for Africa, and our brothers in Africa, and so this is what I don't understand. I challenge you, can you find a single case in European world or in the civilized world in general where the case for migration restriction was made on a religious basis, or there was a religious argument, or even an appeal to religious identity of some kind. I can't think of a single case where this was done. The only argument such people have is sociological. By the way, I just gave you two examples where the opposite was the case, where Denmark and Japan, which are secular countries, achieve this based on purely secular, practical arguments.

And I think this is a better path because especially a multi-faith country like America, you are not going to get people to agree on religious doctrine or theological disputes. a useless thing to get into, to say we have to solve this theological dispute and only after can you have real borders, makes no sense. But the only argument such people have who say that you need religion in order to have strong borders, they make a kind of sociological argument, they look around and they say, well, people who are strongly religious believe, tend to believe in migration restriction. And that may be true, but it's not always true, by the way, because I don't think you could say that for black Baptists or for Hispanic conservative religious people and so forth.

And besides, even if it is true for white Americans who are religious Christians, that among this demographic you tend to find people who also believe in migration restriction, Again, that is merely sociological argument and it's not clear what use it has. In other words, what public argument can you make from that for the case for migration restriction? I don't understand how that works. It's similar to how people say, well, Trump supporters were evangelical Christians, which Which is true, they went 80, 90% for Trump, same percentage that blacks go for, Democrats by the way, more or less. And so therefore Trump was a religious phenomenon, and so I will win by making a religious argument in the next election. It makes no sense.

Yes, they did go for that, but that's a sociological fact that you can't draw the kind of lesson you are drawing from it. Because during the 2016 campaign, actually Ted Cruz was running on religious grounds and he was attacking Trump for being a multiple divorcee, a playboy with a degenerate lifestyle, a New York, he used repeatedly, you're a New York, a New York urbanite, you're an urbanite and so forth, you're not a religious man, I'm a religious man. And the evangelicals saw this and rejected Ted Cruz. And I remember what their representatives were saying at the time. They were saying, we are tired of snake oil salesmen who run on religious justifications and with a religious public face and having Paul Ryan carry a Bible and this type of thing

and talk about abortion, which Paul Ryan very much did so, by the way, in the 2012 election. And I think genuinely religious people got sick of that. They saw it as a kind of ineffectual lying Pharisaism and they said, we'll go with this this guy, he's honest, and we care more about this secular matter of immigration restriction. And so, as a sociological matter, it's true that evangelical Christians, for example, went for Trump by a great margin, but that doesn't mean that you can then run on religion and win that same constituency. They didn't vote for religious candidate last time, and it's same, I think, mistake these people saying that you need religious nationalism to have strong borders. I think they make similar mistake because they're not focusing on a public argument

they could make. They're drawing some kind of autistic inference from sociological facts. But in any case, if you're a French rightist, let me put it a different way, if you're a French rightist, in 1794, I completely see this, the nation and the church and the faith are one, they still exist, and they are in opposition to the left of that time, and the same counts for Spain, you know, where the rallying call during the Spanish Civil War was Dios Patria Fueros Rey, in that order, God, Country, Estates, King, with the fueros maybe I mistranslate as estates, but it had to do with the local feudal laws, the local diversity of customs and guilds and estates and such. In other words, it was perfect political formula because you were defending something that

already existed and was clear opposition to what? To the centralizing, homogenizing secular left of the time. And that made sense. That kind of religious nationalism made sense. It also made sense because there was not then an era of global migration and there was not a non-white presence in European countries of any significance. And it might make sense even now if, for example, your big priority was stopping Muslim migration. So I understand Orban in Hungary may be using Catholicism as a symbol, although by the way migration restriction in Hungary is not promoted there either on religious grounds. But if it were, it would make some sense because Hungary faced this problem in 2015 when Merkel invited essentially the Syrian migrants, the Syrian refugees from the Syrian war to come

into Europe and they were Muslim and Hungary said no and so then Hungary can in that case engage in some kind of healthy historical role play where they say where the Christian bulwark of Europe and we're not going to let these Muslims come in. Similarly Spain could do that now where it concerns Moroccan immigration or some type of Muslim immigration of that kind, but they cannot obviously invoke religious, specifically religious Catholic nationalism in Spain, to stop immigration from South America, right? Similar Hungary, if it had African Christian migrants, that pose wouldn't really make sense. And for France, it would make sense not at all, because the number of Muslims in France is whatever, but the number of nominally Christian Africans is also very great, and how do you

stop them with a religious formula? I don't understand. But in any case, you could say in an era when there was not global migration, there was not a non-white presence in European countries, religious nationalism of the kind I mentioned could work, although I wouldn't call, by the way, the French monarchy religious nationalists, the ones who opposed the French Revolution. In fact, it was the French revolutionaries who were nationalist, but whatever, okay. Having Catholic Spanish nationalism in Spain against the left that was driven by revenge against the church specifically because the left in the Spanish Civil War, why did they attack the church? It wasn't just because they hated Christianity as a theology. They considered the church as an institution,

collaborated with the old regime, the landowners and such. This is why Andalusia is the domain of the day worker, this huge farm, Latifundia, same as in South America, existed in the south of Spain in Andalusia. That's why you had these, it was such a breeding ground for the left because the day workers felt disenfranchised and they opposed the church because they considered them to be an ally of the landowners. But that was the conflict then, but it is not now. So in other words, you take the kinds of men that we should be speaking to and that I care about and the problems they face, which is you take a smart, highly competent, sensitive young white man in high school, let's say in the United States, and the problems he

faces are first, who to racial, anti-white racial mobilization, in which again, the religious question does not really come up as much as you may want to insist it does through some convoluted path. But actually I've met many Christian Marxists who are antifa and took the anti-white path. And then of course there are conservative black and Hispanic Christians who are very anti-white and those churches promote anti-white and BLM, George Floyd, mass migration from the third world and many such thing. I mean conservative black churches do. And then there's this other problem that, let's say, intelligent, competent young white men might face in high school, which is related, which is again migration from the global south which threatens to destroy his country, where again, I would understand

the promotion of religion and solution to this problem if a church like the Afrikaner Calvinist Church was anywhere active in America or Europe today with a sense of national chosenness and apartness and such, but that's not the case at all. Such a thing doesn't exist. I mean, if it does, it's as a tiny internet phenomenon. So in a condition not of 1794, but of now, with these problems of racial mobilization and mass migration and migrants and foreign hostiles already present, many of whom are nominally of your same religion and even conservative, at least in their declarations, what sense does it make to promote religion as a solution to these problems? How does it work? Especially when among some of the proponents of this, the religious aspect is so intensified

that look, if a Congolese come in and he say Christ is everything, Christ is king and I am very religious, what basis do you have then not to let him in? And I say this again knowing that actually many of nationalist friends are religious men and they're the most reliable demographic for actually caring about borders. But the question isn't this sociological correlation or regarding your personal belief, but about how your arguments work in public and I say they do not work because you cannot invoke a religious reason specifically now to stop mass migration or to prevent this who to who to ization of the left the racial mobilization in fact the rhetoric here again runs in opposite direction because very often let's say

a religious nationalist populist have a narrative where a working class is hurt now I'm going to say this on top again of the study just released where a Religious Americans are shown to care less about these matters, their churches teach them and their theology, their universalist theology teaches them to care less about matters of migration and race. But quite aside from that, you have this movement of religious nationalist populists, the kind of thing you see somewhat on Alex Jones, he promotes this line and on similar lines and so similar speakers and so forth. But the line is always what, you have a working class that is hurt, that is abused by a transnationalist globalist elite that works through institutions like the IMF or the World Economic Forum or

many similar, as mechanisms of international finance, and that its day-to-day manifestations that you might see in your own town are so-called urbanite, the secular urbanite who is affluent and eats avocado toast and many such things. What some people might call the global homo, or that used to be called on Heart East or Chateau Rossi or other hard right blogs, used to be called the SWPL, the S-W-P-L. What is the SWPL? It was a funny site, stuff white people like. And the problem with focusing on that type of smarmy liberal white person is that they're still white. And so then you have a tendency to try to ally against so-called white liberalism with brown conservatism, and see this is problem when you try to outsource jobs that American rightists won't do, right?

I'm making a bit of fun of them, but they're trying to make an alliance essentially with brown rightists against white swivels, against white liberals, and I think this big mistake, Because the question then comes, why would you not support the Congolese or third world Chavez type who may also talk about the evils of international capital and denounce the IMF like someone like Evo Morales does, who may also, in many cases, invoke your own religious beliefs. Why would you not jump in at the chance to let them into your country to own, just to own those avocado toasting urbanized globalists who you share as enemies with? this Bannon's multiracial working class coalition, isn't this what it's about? I just want to understand what's being fought over here.

I won't repeat myself now in detail, but I've given examples on previous episodes how this same type of coalition in Argentina eventually welcomed migrants with open arms, and it happened in Catalonia and Basque Country and Ireland and everywhere that this so-called anti-elite, anti-colonial labor socialist rhetoric was adopted, the temptation to let in even brown migrants because they share your orientations against the same evil elite, that temptation is irresistible eventually. Why would it not be? Why doesn't then religious nationalism mean plainly that you open the borders to every one of the same religion? I mean regardless of your stated intentions now, if such a policy ever gets put into place, such a program, why would it not come to mean that?

I think it would come to mean that every piece of evidence points to that, that when adapted as a program, that's exactly what it would mean, welcoming in everyone of the same religions, what religious nationalism technically means. And I think one of the spokesmen, even of this position, I don't know if I misrepresent his, but I've seen direct quotes from him to this effect, E. Michael Jones openly says the same, that an African in Poland who embraced Catholicism would be Polish or as European as anyone else. So you see, this is no solution to problems facing sensitive young men now, men to who we should be speaking. Really, you are ultimately allowing yourself to the mortal enemies through such a pose. And you also become thereby the enemy of anything good in life,

because a world with borders busted open to let's say your co-religionists from the third world is a Haiti by another name, Haiti with religious bells and whistles, a global slum with a nice prayer called the Empire of Guadalupe, a global tenement. You've just achieved global Haiti, Haiti to own the avocado toasting urbanites, congratulations. And maybe this is not what religion is supposed to mean, but until you actually reform the churches, you are in very small minority, because for the vast majority of people now, this is what is compatible with their religious belief, and maybe they would even welcome it. So again, the political utility of any of this is, I don't understand it. And I repeat, you know, Bonnie Fache Option, who some of you may know this Twitter account,

and he wrote quite successful book recently called Christian Nationalism, or something like the title, and he is my friend, and we both get attacked by the same type of fake progressive Christian. There are people who write for this magazine meme orthodoxy, or mere orthodoxy. They are the people who congregate around Pharisees like Vermula and other of the ostentatious religion and politics types who are just obsessed with rooting out racism among believing Christians. And so recently these people have doxxed a friend of Bonifacio Option and so forth, and there's a big case recently on Twitter. Excuse me, they've attacked me also repeatedly as an evil Satanist who promotes racialism. And so we share the same enemies, I know, but that's a sociological fact.

I am unclear on how you use actually a religion right now in the circumstances to curb migration, first of all, and to stop racial Hutu mobilization. I am not sure how you do that. Again, it's merely a sociological correlation. Maybe you reform the religion first before trying to offer it as a solution to this problem, Because right now, it seems to be an acceleration of them. Some people would mention Israel in this connection, and I think it's a misunderstanding of what is going on in that country, and not seeing that even there in Israel, religious nationalism really does mean the racial and ethnic confusion, and being very kind, very polite in using these words. The fact that the Israelis themselves are okay with the process of ethnic and racial

fusion and therefore with the disappearance of races or ethnicities that had existed previously, that's another matter altogether, that's their preference. Would you be okay with that, with the particular components being presented and introduced into Europe and America? But in Israel, religious nationalism really is a lie that is leading to disappearance of ethnicities and peoples. The Ashkenazis are not racially related to Yemenite Jews, to the Georgian mountain Jew, to the Persian and other Mizrahi Jews. I'm not even going to mention the Ethiopian Jews, there are only a few of those in Israel and they are actually openly discriminated against in various ways which is fun to troll about. But if you take the varieties I just mentioned and compare say a Yemenite Jew or Persian

Jew to Bibi Netanyahu or any other Ashkenazi, and to be autistic, okay, they do not plot near each other on a genetic distance chart, they are not the same peoples. The Ashk actually, they plot with Italians and such. And the recent disputes over this are very funny, the genetic disputes, I should ask the bureaucrats to elaborate on this, he posted on it and it caused a mass chimp out from Israeli posters, because the Ashkenazi have over 50% European ancestry. It was really a case of scholarly fraud, in my opinion, when this was found out, because the line was pushed that Ashkenazi maternal lines were Near Eastern, where the mtDNA comes from, the maternal haplogroups and so forth, where they come from. They say they were Near Eastern in origin. This was pushed by major journals.

And in fact, they were not Near Eastern. It was more, I think Steve Saylor comment on this also, more recent studies or Cochran certainly did, Gregory Cochran. George Cochran or Gregory Cochran, I forget, but anyway, he comment and Steve Saylor comment on this that actually the maternal lines of the Ashkenazi were North Italian and they were as so-called Near Eastern as many other lineages from Italy or Europe, which could be traced to the Near East only in the very remote human past, but not within any historical known era. You know, much the same way that Thomas Jefferson, I think, has a Near Eastern Y haplogroup or whatever. You know, the famous Near Eastern heritage of the Sardinians, traceable surely then back to Jerusalem as well.

But I mean, anyway, look, these are separate people, they plot differently on genetic maps and the lie of religion, and in this case, the lies of the rabbis, that because of religion, they are all supposedly the same people or nation, this is really resulting in that country in a racial confusion and a racial mixing that will miscegenate the Ashkenazi and the Ashken, the Safards and so on, miscegenate them out of existence. And again, just because in that case the process is mostly peaceful and consensual does not – and I say mostly, there are actually some quite funny cartoons about – I'll try to – some posters were posting them, I'll try to find them, but Ashkenazis were not crazy about Ashkenazi girls being waitresses and laundresses and what do you call the girl

who cleans, cleaning women for apartment of fat Mizrahi Jews, there are some funny cartoons that people were posting. So even there it's not completely liked by all and it's pushed by Netflix, the same type of thing, the same type of image propaganda. But just because, let's say, it's mostly peaceful and consensual does not mean that it isn't happening there by the mechanism that I'm saying, you know. You can actually find many, this is interesting sociological fact, you can find many Ashk who are maybe even happy that it's happening. They don't like the Woody Allen phenotype, the Woody Allen moral type, the Nebish and so on. And they might even think it's good to get rid of that and that their race mixing with with Sephardes and Mizrahi and such.

And many Ashkmen in particular, when I made these posts, they replied that they loved the Mizrahi or the Persian or the Eastern Jewish women and so forth, and they prefer them to annoying Ashkenazi Gloria Steinem types, you know, I understand that. Everyone wants to get away maybe from the annoying Ashk type of woman. I mean, look at the trouble they're causing in the United States, I mean, you know, look, These are just harmless quits in unsequiturs, because the fact is, good or bad, desired or not, the process is happening under the cover of religious nationalism, which in an era of global mobility of peoples and mass migrations, is perhaps a tool of ethnic melding of this kind, but it can't really be a tool for the preservation of peoples, especially

in the case of religions like Islam or Christianity that allow and encourage easy conversion. I mean, Buddhism may not be like this. I can imagine that Buddhism can in Asia still serve as a vehicle for national preservation. In the case of Sri Lanka, the most militant nationalists were the Buddhist monks there. In the case also of Burma, this is the case, the most militant anti-Muslim nationalists in Burma are the Buddhist monks. I also cannot see, for example, Japanese militant national Buddhists if such a type of thing exists that they would be persuaded to let in even Thai Buddhists, or in any case a very different kind of Theravada Buddhism or whatever. But you know, actually let me make an aside because even there this is not completely true. Let me make an aside.

Take for example peculiarity of Japanese Buddhism. You have different Buddhist sects in Japan, right? You have the Shingon sect. This is the only Vajrayana sect that exists outside of Tibet. It's basically Tibetan Buddhism transplanted to Japan, and it became sort of the house sect of the Japanese royal family. It's one of the things that makes Japanese Buddhism unique. But let's say this sect were somehow to gain ascendancy and become militant and extreme. Let's say it were to serve as basis of some kind of Japanese nationalism today. I think they would absolutely let in Tibetan Buddhists, especially if they were refugees from China or such, in the same way that the Mongols in the past, in adopting Tibetan Buddhism

in the Middle Ages, they became protectors of Tibet, you know, is why the Manchus, one of the reasons that the Manchus, the leaders of the Chinese Empire, they had to be so polite to Tibetans during the period of Manchu Empire because their protectors were the Mongols and you needed to keep the Mongols within the empire and on your side. So I think even here you see in small case like this, religion tends actually to forge unions between peoples and tribes, which again may be a good thing under circumstances. It may even, when you want to reach a process of ethnic fusion and new people, you may want that. If you want to forge a French nation out of a motley of ethnicities, you may very well wish for a national church under which, you know, to do.

But I remind you actually that even in this case how hard this was resisted in Middle Ages by southern French barons. They resented Frankish rule from Paris, and therefore the southern, the Provençal barons who came from a different culture and civilization that was Mediterranean, they endorsed Catharism. They wanted local rule, and I believe they endorsed this heretical version of Christianity mostly as a means of securing their local independence from precisely such a process as I'm talking about here. They did not want fusion with Paris, but regardless, I'm asking you, how does this solve problem now? Unless you are looking to welcome in 30 million Congolese or Central African Republic nominal bangugus, why would you try to emphasize this when the looming problem is the mass migration

of the global south and of racial anti-white mobilization within the respective European countries? Why are you trying to, I don't even understand, beginning of mechanism by which religious argumentation or religious messaging is supposed to stop these problems? Maybe you are religious because you care about the religion and not its political utility and that is good but then I ask you to invoke arguments that are relevant in this dispute because everywhere I see the actually existing Christian institutions and not those people online, not those institutions that people online wish to exist but those that are actually around now everywhere, they're pushing global latrine, global south GNC society on the European

nations whether it's Catholic charities in Britain or the United States or the faggot Pope cheating it on, while a Lutheran lesbian BPD pastor and the ghost of Ruth Gader Ginsburg looks on rubbing her hands. And I would ask traditionalists to have some humility even when they want about stopping abortion by the way because, or whatever thing like that, and I ask you to remember, I ask you to remember that I am the one who led to the death of so-called Ruth Justice Ginsburg. I am the one who's my vital essence splattered on the body of that prostein and a holy right of power, and that very night Ruth Ginsburg was gone. Game over. And I did that through sex magics and through invoking the spirit of Asterion. And I am the one who brought

you the end of abortion in America, and I now encourage the right wing bodybuilders to take advantage of the ban, the looming ban on abortion, and to impregnate ceaselessly and without stop. Very good. Until next time, BAP out.