Welcome. This is Caribbean riddance episode 130 this is special long show on Iberia Spain and Portugal and the subdivision of Europe in the 20th century During the Cold War by the American security state not just the Soviets but primarily by the American security state But I can't resist I saw this story new story a few days ago on a woman called show business And this real name apparently show business where this name from I will read for you Shabistice allegedly decapitated Therion, that's also a real name, T-H-Y, I don't know is this Game of Thrones, like the prince from Game of, his name Therion during sex, decapitated him, continued to perform sexual acts on his lifeless body and mutilated his corpse with a serrated bread knife. This is what the text says, okay, I continue.

She then stuffed his severed head and penis in a bucket, other body part in a crock pot, leaving them for his mother to find prosecutor's claim. What does this mean? Is this traditional? Is this Game of Thrones medieval? You know, I thought about changing my legal name upon hearing this. Her name's Shabistus. I thought, I need to change something nice because I am considered going to live in United States, maybe Southwest region, and I want a Native American inspired name to gain title to the land, Iroquois or this. I am told the Iroquois came up with the Atlantic Charter. No, there are theories about it. It's serious. It's getting serious I am thinking to change legal name to Usted Susan taking care of the business, you know

Iroquois style like Johnny to gun Usted Susan taking care of the business Do you think a judge would approve this? I would like I mean think of the possibilities this kind of name in official situations and the discussions to to witness What a pleasure, but why not? You laugh at gypsies when they change their name. Actually, they don't change them They name their kids a magnum adidas and they do they change They do this or they name them after a popular sitcom Rambo MacGyver this kind of thing So you laugh at that, but you do not laugh at ancient Mitanni King would name like Tushratta Vehement chariot, that's what mean Mitanni language, you know, so it sounds romantic to you know, it's chariot

But it's like naming yourself mega cool armored attack helicopter today, you know general butt-naked Do you like do you know this man's general butt-naked and an inspiration the African warlord your behavior is outlandish You know friend says he can get me in touch with Neil Ellis. Should I have him Neil Ellis? Should I have him on the show? Should I try this, you know, I try to I find it a mind explosion mind explosion that Neil Ellis a mercenary who flew an attack helicopter and he single-handed stopped eight freaking armies in places like Sierra Leone. One man in a chopper, a Russian hind, he's one of the few men in book I named who embodies something like Bronze Age spirit in our own time. And actually this hardly ever get mentioned by people who comment on the book.

Instead they like to distort and to say it's a youth movement and about lifting and many such thing when, you know, they never say it's about finally raising the Jolly Roger only this time not over a ship but over a territory and nation and being free of the suffocating prying eyes and fingers of this so-called liberal world order and that's what stifles life the gynocracy of GNC but they are panicking now I think because of some of these ideas they try to distort them to give the silent silent treatment they try to attack my throat on this radio show but if I may mention attacks on me if you would am I allowed to continue on this tangent. I don't really want to talk too much about attacks on me but they've been doing this for years you know and then this latest round seems quite

curious the timing and almost every day this week there was new article against me and some bizarre hit piece after another all coming from conservative Inc the principled conservative camp which they really went mask off even the normie conservatives could see this they're just going mask off now I mean And consider just as this one fact, a National Review editor writing a hit piece on me in the Daily Beast, which if you're aware of what the Daily Beast is, it's not just some normal left-wing publication, they're editors. If you know the social milieu they move in, it's really the public face of Antifa in New York City. These kinds of publications like the Daily Beast and certain media research, excuse me,

media so-called think tanks their ways to legitimize Antifa with jobs, media connections and pipeline them into American public life. And I've warned you for some time now that conservatives of this type work with Antifa. They use Antifa to launder attacks and smears on us on so-called racists and so by the way I cannot use power voice for this show, it's much too long and I'm also under attack. I don't mean by these nobodies, but by probably their employers. They poison my food with something. But look, I've told you this. That's all there is to say. It's as plain as can be that a coordinated attack between multiple outlets of conservative ink, working in Antifa publications, as clear as can be what's going on. But why do you think they chose this time to do this? I do not know.

see, I do know that it is the Koch network is at least behind some of this. They've had a hard one for me for quite some time. And this isn't a matter of me doing six degrees of separation, conspiracy, research, lines graph. But the particular operator, for example, mentioned in this article in the Daily Beast is the Koch back boy, C. Bradley Thompson. I do not know what C stands for. Or does it stand for Kim Sex? But he's a man who runs the Koch Center at Clemson University, cited favorably, again in an Antifa publication, a far-left publication, as, you know, it's a principled conservative attacking the evil BAP. Isn't that interesting? I thought that for the far left, the Kochs were embodiment of evil billionaire donors,

but here they are gladly giving platform to the Koch network to attack me. He runs the Koch Center again at Clemson University, he's basically my stalker. C. Bradley Thompson wrote something like 15 articles, something like this, about me, calling me a fascist. And as the head of this center at this university, what it really means is that he's a funneler of Koch money in academia, which is why, for example, he got another professor to declare a fatwa on me to his students. I greatly embarrassed him because I found, well I don't know if he was embarrassed, maybe he was proud, but I found this email and I posted it and I showed people where this buffoonish man who imagines himself a scholar is telling his students, don't you dare read that evil destinedly satanic bronze H. Poivat.

This diabolical man, I mean he uses these words, don't you dare read him. And that's just one that I happen to know of, because this man C. Bradley Thompson has done multiple things like this, including, from my understanding, he attempted to blackmail or extort young scholars who he knew were interested in me, told them, again, this is just what I hear, he told them, do this, delete your blog, or I will dox you, which by the way, that is illegal to do. You are allowed to dox people, but you're not allowed to threaten them like that. extortion and if anyone ever does it to you I encourage you to get a record of it get clear confirmation that they did this and then maybe go to police with it I mean talk to a lawyer first calculate your risks and situation but talk to a

lawyer and you can take that to police they're not that is illegal still to do in the United States you know but this stuffed shirt priest or excuse me a scholar oh what a scholar this scholar I think it was a Baylor University this other professor wrote a fatwa against me to his students because, you know, this other guy, C. Bradley Thompson, who controls the Coke money spigot for a large section of academia, told him, I hear your students are reading this book. If you want me to keep giving you money, you better make them stop. You see, all these supposed scholars are rent boys. You know, I know they're kind very well. It's a rent boy profession. It's called being an intellectual whore. But so anyway, C. Bradley Thompson himself was just one of a long string of coke operators

who chimped out against me. He was just the most prominent and clearest employee of theirs. And I will list them maybe sometime soon, but it's not only money though. I think at the psychological individual level, what motivates these frequent attacks on me, really it's lies and smears against me is envy. And as the second city bureaucrat said in a tweet, I quote now, here's why an online personality who is more successful than me is worse than me, because I could have been just as successful, but I took the high road. And that captures the spirit of these obsessions with me, you know, I'm told by people in universities, by people otherwise in a political world who are either in Washington, D.C., or go National

conservative conference who may like me, a few of them probably like me, but they tell me that these people who attend, and in this world they cannot stop talking about me. So that level of attention, which I never sought in that world, I don't seek it, and I didn't write the book for them, I mean, just as I didn't write it for Silicon Valley. But in both places apparently I have many admirers, and so this drives some people who Who did intend these as their audiences, it drives them wild with envious reach. To which you have to understand the function of the modern conservative in general, with a rather low type of man who seeks a pat on the head from reigning leftist intelligentsia like any aspiring yokel does. Let me be your token, you know, this kind of...

They're so easily bought off, not just with some piddling pay, but especially with the whiff of prestige, prestige, and the hope that one day they will be referred to as thoughtful in a New York review of books and such. That's just the psychology of this type. And they need something to posture against. But since they cannot do it really against globalism or negro- Negro- Negro- Negro- Negro- or international racial Marxism. So then they come against me and the frogs, you know, the birchers, right? I'm the birchers of our time. So maybe I'm a boon to these people. This is their favorite posture where they condescend about extremism on the hard right. This is what they've always done in the 1950s and 60s as well.

But I think in my case, they are finding out I may be too much for them to chew on. They may find out they do not like the taste. A friend told me this. I think he was right. All it took, ladies and gentlemen, was one little group of anonymous frogs, frog Twitter, using humor on the internets. We're the only game in town when all it takes is one Nietzschean humor book to make your whole network of pious lies and delusions crumble. I think then you are in some trouble. And the book I published is, I think my friend Loki said, flattered me by saying it is a a suede trap because it appears to be a nice humor book, but then if people try to argue against the ideas expressed therein, their lack of training in philosophical matters can be exposed very fast.

But this is an unfortunate state of the world now that I and a few of my few frog friends in a small corner of Internat are the only source of new ideas in the world, which is a testament not especially to our genius, but rather to existence of general stupidity, cowardice, brown-nosing venality, and nothing will save you in this. You know, you can invoke dead slogans of dead philosophies and you can invoke religious language all you want, but above all, I think it's not the cowardice or the venality, I think above all it's the stupidity. It's thick-headed time servers, similar maybe to doctors you may have known you have a serious problem you visit cannot help you in any way because they clock in the time, they phone in their profession.

But no amount of outsourcing a text like these and smears on me to Antifa, or maybe through even sorrier gutter snipes, no level of this will make any difference for you when you see conservative ink. Because the contrast between the quality of my ideas and language and yours is just so stark. So it is like shooting a bullet at a hill. If you had your own ideas, you could write your own books, but what would you say? This is a bit harder now. And so they will continue, I suppose, with this patrician posturing of philosophical reflection and small-R republican moderation, this kind of posturing. It's another one of their favorite costumes, you see. This posturing of philosophical reflection fits, for example, Mr. Crystal and these others

about as well as a tuxedo does a chimpanzee at party, cocktail party chimpanzee. The function of this faction is in their manner or in their learned effect and their practiced hesitations to posture as Evelyn Vaux types and in their ideological pose to embody similar kinds of conceited role play, pretending to the language of sobriety and moderation while they allow the vilest excesses and even murderous rhetoric from the left, which they never really dare oppose this, the left. So the talk of moderation and institutions, yes, while you're accepting racial riots, racial mobilization in your cities and schools, racial discrimination against your own students, not to speak of the scandal of being forced by fear to accept the mutilation of language

for the sake of race and gender, so-called identity, all really just names for primitive reassertions of group control. And in the face of this, you roleplay as Raymond Aaron, bravely facing off both right and left, when actually your subjection to authority and force of the mob is just so obvious for all to see. So such types along then now also with a rising tide of religion fag phenomenon, the religion fags, who are people who try to put various ornaments and high-flown pious language on what is really in the end Hutu redistribution politics of a modern American state society. And this is what I talk now on this first part of the show on American security state in its promotion of GNC, which for such a polite show, okay, I will say it's International

Racial Marxism, basically the same program of racial despoiling and redistribution that is being now forced on white America since the second term of the Obongo administration and which culminated in the 2020 George Floyd color revolution attempt. And I will repeat so that maybe new listeners can remember that in May 2020, the White House was stormed by a large group of leftist anti-far-right protesters in an attempt to overthrow the president in a color revolution. Hardly anyone ever talks about this. But this was just a temporary local peak of the Floyd hysteria. And that Floyd hysteria itself, everything you saw in 2020 and so on, it was just a reiteration of the racial redistribution reparations program that had been promoted in America already for decades.

And now you're seeing some pushback at an hour that is too late, a few American patriots I suppose are desperately trying to get, really let's just call it what it is, they're trying to get white property owners to oppose all of this under the form of stopping so-called critical race theory or taking over your school board and many such thing which is nice I suppose it's I support it it's a good way to train middle America in some level of political organization that they will need so it's a great good but in terms of actually stopping problem is too little too late which you know is so same goes for almost everything now whether you elect this one guy or in America or a European country it's like throwing knife at back of stampeding wildebeest.

Too little too late in terms of how far along the left's program of, I've called it the first time, I've called it the Interahamwe left. You know, in responding to Mike Anton review of my book in late 2019, which I knew was probably my only chance to speak to a normal FAG audience, and I introduced this phrase the Interahamwe left with quite a few examples from mainstream media, including the New York Times, Legacy Media are using a lurid language of violence, trying to foment racial violence against white people. Does that phrase make you uncomfortable? If you are a classical liberal even, and you are genuinely liberal in your convictions, that should not make you uncomfortable. You should feel very comfortable speaking out against racial discrimination and racial

targeting with violence of any kind. But you cannot, which is why especially to the weak conservative so-called professors in universities who have allowed really, if you look at undergraduate composition of undergraduate classes in, let's say, top universities in America, there has been a process of ethnic cleansing. Where do I need to go into this now? But the predictable consequences of that ethnic cleansing of having a mass of unqualified brown people in university are the Red Guard racial riots that you see and the reason that you will all live in fear until you are inevitably dismissed. But let me go back to talking about, yes, the mass attacks on white people in media, legacy media using racial violent language against white people.

I was able to call it out for a normal FAG audience in my response to Mike Anton in Claremont in 2019, and including in National Review, by the way, where they had the yokel Kevin Williamson publish essays that he didn't even use very vague language, in which he was calling for the ethnic cleansing of the white working class in certain communities in America. And I encourage you to look at these articles. I am not exaggerating in the slightest if he had used similar language about any other ethnic group or such you would recognize it as eliminationist ethnic cleansing language, which was also used by Jonah Goldberg where he talks about whiteness and such. I mean, imagine editor of National Review using this language already a few years ago

and that many of conservative circuit are brown-nosers that some of you promote now, but at the time when I wrote this simple piece, they jumped at my throat. No, Bapie's crazy, he exaggerates. No, Michelle Goldberg at the New York Times isn't saying that even though it's written right there in black and white, they're not really saying that. None of these people are. It's, you know, if you or I as frogs make an obvious joke about initiating earthquakes, DESCON protocol initiate earthquakes under fault line, under Africa continent. Put nuclear weapons on fault lines. They want that taken 100% seriously and they want to send an FBI rug muncher after us. They sent FBI to arrest, FBI rug munchers to arrest my friend Ricky Vaughn for a patent obvious joke.

So, you know, they will send one after me. You know, do I in fact have an earthquake machine? Am I carrying a nuclear weapon earthquake machine in my briefcase? Am I carrying the internet in my briefcase? Was I responsible for the spread of AIDS in the Congo in the 1950s? Ladies and gentlemen, I hear an interesting theory that it was Mengele himself who designed the HIV virus for weaponization. No, it's an interesting theory. I'm not just making it up for humor because HIV does not infect a small percentage of Scandinavians and Northwest Russians. They are the only ones in world with a genetic protection against it. But given the actually difficulty with which this pathogen spreads, HIV, even a small percentage of your population being immune essentially stops it cold epidemiologically.

It cannot then spread. And there's some other, of course, very circumstantial but interesting evidence, such as that Mengele was trying to isolate, bioweapon, some type of pathogen collected from cancer sores that only developed on certain Ashkenazi patients in his camp and so forth. There's some interesting evidence that was apparently even reprinted by New York Times, of all places, where they were talking about some ex-Nazi going into the Congo in the 1950s on some mysterious mission, some ex-Nazi doctor. Look, I don't know. In any case, I like crazy theories like that, but it is indisputable that the Scandinavians and the Northwest Russians are for all purposes immune to this disease, which is why the Chinese are absolutely obsessed with studying that

gene and replicating it, and in fact it looks like their research over Wuhan Covid was initially carried out in relation to this obsession of theirs. But again, who knows, who knows this? So anyway, if I joke about such matters, they will send FBI after me and call for all kinds of things against frogs for minor jokes that are obvious jokes. But if the United Red and Liberal media calls for violence in black and white in BuzzFeed and New York Times, and they get the gimp Kevin Williamson to do the same in National Review to audiences of millions, well not the National Review, there's maybe an audience of 50 people, 50 rent boys on a cruise ship, I don't know what Jay Nordlinger gets into, but New York Times arguably has a large audience.

And if these audiences of millions of cretins then follow it up with burning down cities and killing people, as happened in 2020 but not so much reported, they shot people in the head in Seattle and many other places and so forth, burned entire blocks of Minneapolis, and so forth, but so if these audiences of Cretans follow up on this language of racist violence against whites, you see that's just irony, you know, they were being metaphorical. Oh, what an aporia, can we resolve this aporia, gentlemen? It's just, they were being irony in New York Times, you see, but so, look, that was 2019 and they're not saying the same thing now. And I only wish that patriots would see this, how they are putting the pieces in place for

a red terror through racial violence, and that the main and really the only matters that they should be focusing on is stopping this, stopping the related phenomena of mass migration and the racial interahamwe mobilization, the Hutu-ization of American politics. I have nothing otherwise to say to intellectual conservative circuit, they are irrelevant, but I would hope to be able to awaken some patriots in America and Europe to what will come your way because in fact it's been for decades in development. They did it to whites in the colonies, and now they are coming for you, and it doesn't even need to be a coordinated, decades-long plan. It's simply the moral operating principle of this regime after World War II, which I call global Negro communism.

Wealth transfer from the global north to the global south, which was Marx's program, and which was only restated in liberal language with pious dolts like John Rawls. And now they've even dropped this dainty fig leaf, a dainty fig leaf that was never really effective for covering a festering massive black neovagina. They have a black neovagina, that's all they'll ever be. And this, what much of this show is about, I will show you a very notable example, that of Iberia, of Spain and Portugal, how the CIA together with much of American government tried to undermine and destroy anti-communist governments in these two countries. And let me end this segment by reading for you of one event from the process I am describing, this time from the overseas provinces of Portugal, from the colonies.

Let me read for you just this one paragraph. Shortly after 7am on March 15, 1961, in Kitesh, Angola, a colored employee in a store pushed his employer toward the rear door, exclaiming, Go quickly, they have come to kill you. The massacre had been carefully planned. What appeared to be a mourning crowd of shoppers suddenly became a screaming mob, cutting throats and slitting the stomachs of women, children and men. In neighboring villages, the scene was repeated. The Bailandu tribe signed its own death sentence by trying to alert the settlements. Crying babies betrayed the women and children hidden in Madimba. Savages drugged and aroused to a frenzy by sorcerers wiped out the village of Navola. Behind the primitive brutality, it was expert direction.

Congo trained forces armed with automatic weapons left a 300-mile path of bodies and desolation through a country where racial discrimination was non-existent. The first objective had been attained, hatred between blacks and whites. There was no UN outcry about the massacre of innocent women and children. Yes, what do you think, do you like this? And as I will show you in the following segments, this action was instigated and in this case probably planned by American government agents, which they verifiably also did the same things in Vietnam. That is to say CIA activity under the lie that they were fighting communism in fact used American money to instigate racial riots and massacres of European settler women and

children and so that you can put an image on what this process we're talking about means. This why I read for you at the end of this segment when they say they want eliminate whiteness and Jonah Goldberg repeat this in National Review. But when the United Left says it in all the big organs of media in America and New York Times, when they say this and to expropriate you, they mean it. The greatest ethnic cleansing of the last century, whether it was at least 15 million Germans expelled from territories they had lived in for centuries by means of the alliance of Bolshevism with FDR's international socialism, or whether it was Europeans who had lived centuries in places like Angola and Mozambique and Algeria, in some of which, by the way,

there was as Hilaire du Berriere, who's from who I just read, there was no racial tensions there as there rarely ever is in Portuguese settled places. But all of this was done under the cooperation of the Soviet Union with the CIA. And it does not stop at the third world, but the current carriers of this process of GNC tend to extend extend the same to Europe and to America, where it will arrive in your suburbs and excerpts no matter how secure you think you are. I will be right back. We are back and I read for you for a moment now. So you understand a massacre I just mentioned in Kitesh, Angola, where white settlers were targeted, which was by no means unique event during time of Cold War. But I want to begin to show you that it is in fact instigated

and in particular case, probably planned by American government agents. And let me read for a moment now, I think, a very interesting historical fact. On June 20, 1960, Generalissimo Franco met President Salazar at Parador de Merida to discuss the Iberian Peninsula's relationship with NATO and American-directed subversion in Africa. I repeat, American-directed subversion in Africa. Salazar reported that the American Committee on Africa had sent Frank Montero and William Scheinman to Angola in March 1960 to contact subversives and propose an Algeria-type revolt. Powerful people loaned their names to the American Committee on Africa. Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator Hubert Humphrey, Jackie Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of California, John Gunter, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., to name just a few.

Adlai Stevenson, the enemy of patriotism and friend of all leftist causes, was for it. A union of the Angola People Organization was set up in Leopoldville to form leaders for an underground movement. By September it was publishing a paper, Voice of the Angola Nation, in four languages and planning a radio station to be financed by Nkrumah of Ghana and Sekou Toure of Guinea, tyrants whose methods of killing suspected opponents faced Irving Brown and his ilk not at all. by the way, was an American labor organizer who United States CIA in particular used to organize these anti-colonial so-called revolutions abroad really they were Massacres of extermination. I'm sorry to be so crude, but you have to understand what means

Decolonization in any case I keep reading for you just briefly from Iler de Berriere archive very interesting historical facts in my opinion from March 3 to 17, 1961, the Executive Committee of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, ICFTU was the front through which America fomented these attacks on European colonials. ICFTU met in Brussels under Belgian transport leader Omer Beku, the man who told Mexicans on April 15, 1962 that the ICFTU serves no particular ideology or military bloc. At the Brussels meeting, an AFL-CIO action for Milan was approved. In some cases, it is possible, and even preferable, that affiliated unions pursue their activities independently in the international field, on condition that the ICFTU be fully consulted.

He was quoting and he interprets it in the following way, individual nations will act for the, excuse me, individual unions will act for the AFL-CIO in supporting African revolts against Portugal, but the ICFTU and the AFL-CIO are not to be mentioned. That agreed upon, the AFL-CIO advanced $3,250,000, remember this is 1960 to 61, that's an enormous sum especially for Africa, advanced more than $3 million for the international activity for the second trimester of 1961 and $220,000 to clear up the preceding trimester's backlog. So whether these were union dues or CAA funds, these are enormous sums for such a short period of time. In Africa, we remember there was no industry, there were no actually native labor movements.

It's an excuse, really, a million dollars a month for subversion of black Africa, from which only the West's enemies would profit. And Hilaire du Berriere continues giving some quite precise examples of other types of subversion. Foundation financed a Mozambique institute to extend the revolt. Eduardo Mondlane, leader of FRELIMO, the Mozambique liberation movement, it's a red terror movement, was hired, let me add, a red anti-white racist terror movement, same as, okay, it was hired, this man was hired as a professor at Syracuse University, not Moscow University, Syracuse University, and began indoctrinating students. The African American Institute opened its doors at 345 East 46th Street, New York City, with CFR, that's Council on Foreign Relations. What is this?

I thought they were a neoliberal fascist organization, according to the left, but with CFR leftist Valdemar Nielsen as president. Nielsen, a veteran of State Department and Ford Foundation, hired Brazilian so-called teachers, militants formed in Apolonia de Carvalho's old cells, to train selected Students from Angola and Mozambique, it was a terrorist training center. On January 2nd, 1962, a drive was opened for specialists from the Peace Corps. Associate Director William Moyers announced they would be drawn from labor and that Peace Corps strength would be doubled. Anyway, he kept going. All of these things are very interesting to me. Month after month, news release of the ICFTU, this umbrella of unions that the CIA used

to foment massacres against white settlers in Africa, reported transfers of funds to the oppressed unions of Portugal and Spain, followed by appeals to workers in the 109 countries with labor movements in the ICFTU, to pressure their governments into putting pressure on Lisbon and Madrid. Denmark, Sweden, UN, Russia, Red China through a Chinese-African Solidarity Committee. I've told you for a long time that China was part of spearhead of global Negro communism and continues to be. At this time, China is fomenting massacres of white, you know, I call them settlers, but really, they were there before the blacks were in South Africa. And China, who some of you idiot cinephiles are celebrating a supposedly based China that

is not your enemy, is right now encouraging and planning massacres and ethnic cleansing of the white population of South Africa, because they have a little glint in the eye for the Resources in that nation I continue reading the liberation committee of the organization of African unity the World Council of Churches Were funding the same thing the socialist international and the ICFT you poured out contributions and propaganda for revolutions against against the West though Egypt and the Arabs were running a simultaneous drive to make all of Africa Muslim for the holy war against Israel the media of the Western world joined the pro-black black revolution crusade. He's doing here a little jab and joke at you know who, because when he talks about media

of the Western world, he means of course the Jewish media. Willing to promote colored violence, third world revolution against white settlers, even though these same nations were anti-Israel, you see, it didn't matter to them. They put a certain thing before all others. I continue. On September 2, 1964, the Chinese freighter Heping was unloading arms in Dar es Salaam for Mondlane while three Russian freighters bearing anti-aircraft guns and field artillery for guerrillas trained at Dar es Salaam's Colito barracks were standing by. Twenty thousand terrorists, fresh from secret camps in Algiers, the two Congos, Tanzania and Zambia, were about to start massacring natives who wanted Portuguese rule. missionaries, Methodist missionaries, religious people, Christ cocks, toured America, whipping

up sympathy and collecting funds. Plains carried young Africans to Moscow, Peking, Havana, and Algiers for training. Despite its formidable numbers, this guerrilla movement served only for the softening up. Yes, you see, do you like this? A lot of interesting information, I should think. Salazar and Franco meeting 1960 in Merida, which, by the way, Merida, very interesting place in Spain. It is located right outside, or maybe it's even within the so-called dejesa region, savanna-like, very pleasant region with widely spaced oak trees, which you may know as where the Iberico porks are raised, and they go around eating the acorns of these trees, but not just the acorns. the herbs and fresh grasses that grow by streams there and such a very Tasty meat that also extreme healthy

In fact, if you eat pure Iberico real Iberico fat the night before let's say an athletic doping test It produces false positive on the doping test. It is that powerful as its meat increases testosterone by that much I am not joking, please, you study this for yourself, it's not internet bro-science exaggeration. And Merida itself, if you ever have a chance to go, I'm not going to pretend to you it's an unknown place, of course it's a tourist destination, but this is a very well-preserved Roman ruins in Merida, beautiful theatre built, I believe, by Octavian Caesar, just beautiful preserved ruins, and I was there, actually I'll post photographs, why not? But I was there last summer and it was relatively empty, almost no tourist at all.

Maybe you'd not go somewhere, the heat in that part of Spain is just incredible. But I love this place, Spain, Portugal, I love Iberia, I love the Iberian people. I think over the last two or three years I spent almost my entire time entirely in Iberian or Iberian derived places, lately I am hiding in cold location, I will not say where, but I like very much the Iberian culture, the city of Madrid is the prime city I believe right now in Europe and it make me sad to see that even though Franco managed to save the country from communism and to preserve somewhat at least within the social sphere there, you can find many right-wing people there of various kinds, some traditionalists, some secular. But it makes me very sad to see relentless American subversion of their own allies.

You see, this is what this show is about. It makes no sense, actually, no rational sense for why this had to happen, aside from the fact that so many people in American government had leftist red sympathies. But it's actually much worse than that, I will explain to you why. But look, Salazar and Franco meet Merida as early as 1960 to discuss this problem of American subversion of their nations and of their colonies, American assault on their nation. What is this about? Were they just being paranoid? I think you heard some evidence that they weren't. But was the defense minister of South Africa in late 1970s being paranoid when he said in private communique that South Africa has much more to fear from the United States than from the Soviet Union. Because – why do I ask this?

Because to a modern red commie in the United States, to a modern libtard even, these kinds of things I'm saying now are incomprehensible. Let me just talk about this on this segment before I get to some of the other particulars, how libtard CIA subverted, again, not only Spain and Portugal colonies, which I've talked before, but attempted actually to overthrow their governments in Europe as well. So you know, every time I talk about how CIA and American State Department and other organs of global Negro communism, whenever I talk about how throughout Cold War, they in fact helped the cause of communism worldwide and promoted communism, these are things that get me the most hatred from leftists. It's a major part of their identity to believe the CIA was in fact this anti-communist fascist

corporate power force, and many go even farther. You may have heard the quite amusing, bizarre conspiracy theories that after Operation Paperclip, which is when United States hired some German scientists and specialists, that the Soviet Union would not hire them after World War II. And you know, what happened, some of this have happened to American space program, right? So no, please, let's have another movie about sassy shiboons, filled out the paperwork for the Apollo program and so you know, hidden, the hidden figures, but the hidden figures are my friend, Wernher von Braun, who now lives on the moon. But the hidden figure is Eric Traub working on, you know, having mojito cocktail on Plum Island. Island rhythms with Eric Traub, Plum Island, am I allowed to mention that name?

Look up Plum Island and look up on a map what is right across, is that Long Island sound what is right across from it? Look up Erich Traub. I'm sorry to have to say this, maybe the leftists are right after all. We live in a Nazi-occupied government, Lyme disease, AIDS, transsexualism are pushed on you by the Nazi deep state as revenge for Stalingrad. I'm sorry, I just observe, I don't make the rules. But look seriously now, some leftists do believe this, that the American deep state became Nazi after World War II and they believe that Dulles, the Dulles brothers, led to the Nazification of American life. Communists and progressive in American public life have actually been saying variations to varying levels of intensity.

They've been saying varieties of this argument I just made since the 1940s. Henry Wallace, FDR vice president and like many in that administration, unabashed communist sympathizer. He gave a speech, I think, in 1948, the city bureaucrat is going to talk about this soon or already has, but Henry Wallis' speech about the fascist menace, the Nazi takeover of America through men like Dulles and Marshall, and since then this has become a major part of the red faith, of the faith of the reds in the United States. It's a major part of their mythology, repeated again in variations by the fossil Chomsky and those like him. So then when I say that the CIA was communist organization spreading communism, they blow

up because you know it should be, if it should be the case that American government is actually an embodiment of leftist ideas, even soft leftist ideas, then they have to take responsibility for the sorry state of things and they can't no longer imagine themselves crappy fighters against the hegemonic power of capital or whatever other names for Satan they come up with neoliberalism, whatever. So I will show you exactly what neoliberalism is and does in a moment. I will show you exactly what things like Council on Foreign Relations, supposedly the instrument of fascism and the white supremacy, I will show you what they were actually up to. Let me read, American labor leaders organized unions in industryless Africa, that's an Africa

Africa without factories, you know, a little bit suspicious that you're organizing factory workers in Africa without factories, what is the organization for? Well, it's to spearhead revolutions. On February 14th, 1960, the executive council of the AFL-CIO proclaimed, for years American workers have insisted that their government, its democratic allies and all other forces dedicated to liberty devote their efforts and their resources to helping the people of Africa win their independence." The Council on Foreign Relations, which dictates and implements American policies, was determined to hasten the bloodbath in Africa. CFR member Lawrence McQuade accompanied Irving Brown, Labour's travelling speaker of revolts,

to Ghana in December 1959 and told the cruelest people on Earth, unite, you have a continent to gain and nothing to lose but your chains. How many hundreds of thousands were murdered by native tyrants in the years that followed was of no concern to Mr. Quaid. Millions of dollars were wrung out of American workmen through Union dues or provided by CIA to be handed over to African revolutionaries by Irving Brown. He was communism's angel. Victor Rizel wrote of him on November 1, 1962 in a column-headed, labor's often lonely fight. Irving Brown is one of the few Americans trusted by the Algerians and virtually every other African land's anti-communists. It is Brown whom all Europe considers the free Algerians' closest Western friend.

The truth was, although billed as an anti-communist agent, Brown was Russia's ground-clearer. Less than a month later, Algeria offered 200,000 men for the holy war against Israel and communism's Algerian base for world terrorism was in the making. The moment it became clear that Algeria was in the bag, those who had used UN labor unions, student organizations and CIA fronts with high sounding names to give the Algerian terrorists victory turned their attention to Portugal's overseas provinces. And yes, Algeria provided fighters for that as well. So I've been reading for you again, and even before, by the way, even before the events just depicted in McQuaid's speech, okay, even before that, I'm reading again now about events in Africa.

Some 115,000 Europeans had brought order and prosperity to a Congo as large as the Indian subcontinent and populated by 13 million blacks. The American government, labor unions, and pressure groups joined forces with the most anti-white racist UN to export this order. In 1956, the State Department sent Assistant Secretary of State George Allen to the Congo to sound out the will to independence of the native population, a strong, free and friendly Africa being important to the security of the United States. It was like asking if they wanted to loot. House boys had been told they would get the masters house, wife and car. Naturally, they wanted independence. only a fool or a traitor would have pretended that a free, incited Congo would be friendly to whites.

A year before George Allen's fool's mission, George Meany went to Ghana to deliver an incendiary speech that went through Africa like brush fire. Speaking for America's 50 million free workers, men forced to join a union, he compared France's African territories with Budapest and called for support for liberation movements. He describes the Algerians as patriots, deprived of liberty, now locked in final and I am sure victorious struggle for independence from the clutches of French colonialism, the most degrading expression of an outworn and declining imperialism. Lenin or Stalin might have written it. It was incitement to massacre addressed to the most violent racists on earth, and Mr. Meany has never faced up to the tyranny it brought." End quote, yes.

All subsequent events, by the way, the massacres, the return of savagery and barbarism, it was done with not just this incitement to rhetoric, but again, as Berriere shows, with massive funding funneled through American so-called labor unions and through red CIA agents on the ground literally organizing massacres of European settlers, as also happened in Vietnam, by the way. So do you like this? How do you reconcile then obvious events like what I've just said with the left's conviction that CIA, well you know the story, white supremacy, United Fruit Company, fascist CIA on behalf of white supremacy and capital and whatever else. And it's the psychological need of the left to believe that such thing is there. You can speculate about why they have this psychological need.

Again I believe it's they cannot conceive that their ideology is responsible for the degradation of life that even many of them recognize by now, that this and the Africa that resulted is what incipient communism actually looks like. In the same convoluted way many of them call Soviet Union state capitalism or whatever trying to protect their fragile ideology. It's a cover actually in the end for race and wealth resentment and envy but they cannot never admit that. So if you want to continue on what the leftist psychology might be for needing to believe in an all-powerful demonic CIA, it's also, you know, if you're an orthodox Marxist or a classical Marxist and you cannot get a sinecure in a leftist-dominated environment such as

exists now, and some of them can, by the way, having been briefly in the official world, I can tell you there are tons of open orthodox Marxists both in academia and in American bureaucracy. about open reds, some of them with busts of Stalin or Lenin on the table, with murderous fantasies that they're relatively open about, even to someone who is not, you know, they didn't know if I was a friend or not and they were relative, you know. It's running on, this is happening at least 10, 15 years ago, I assume it's always happened, but okay, if you're a leftist who cannot get such a sinecure, I suppose then it also helps your ego to conceive that the leftists who do get these sinecures are actually not pure

enough leftists, you know, that they are part of some sinister conspiracy where in the wood panel rooms they're actually being sodomized by Matt Damon playing a wasp in tweed. And you have to understand that the leftoid, the online red, I mean the antifa, this type, this psychology, this is probably one of the things that I disagree most with Mollbug on. completely delusional on this is when he goes around saying that the average Bernie supporters or these Antifa types are of better human quality maybe than the toothless MAGA pros or whatever you know and it's just molebug have you seen the left the dirtbag left the online left the irony left the people who glom on for example to me and my friends would snide commentary about racism and

so forth and every time one of these guys is doxxed it's always one of them is a bald, giant human baby who looks like a hard-cone and bio-engineering dwarf experiment gone wrong. They're all regularly revealed as getting beaten by their girlfriends, but they beat up their girlfriends. They report, and I do not make this up, they report that they are admitted to mental hospital after meltdowns, you can see they have on Twitter, and the next day they said they were admitted to mental ward. They have family that is shot by blacks in carjackings, which you know, why am I saying this? Do I hold against them what happens to their family? What I mean is they are miserable people. They're unfortunate people with miserable lives, you know, the far left influencers,

unfortunate people, and if you want so-called white trash, I don't like that phrase, but that's it for you. It's the left, the online left, the antifa left and their hangers on, and we're going to expose them as unfortunate, so perhaps people learn to stay away from them, but leaving aside the question of what motivates the left to engage in these gruesome conspiracy theories about all-powerful demonic Nazi billionaire CIA directing satanic world events for decades, and the use of such imaginings is obvious if you're an obese, red, gay married to another human blob with gashing neo-vagina, you should see them. Just chimping at me when I say that it's a good thing that Evo Morales got overthrown in Bolivia because he is a filthy red who engaged in vile anti-white rhetoric.

And he said he would despoil the European settlers in Bolivia and of their property. He said he would erase all traces of Spanish colonialism. But because he invoked their magic words against the IMF or against some of those who pretend to be on the right, you know, Evo Morales attacked Zionism and such things as world capital and neoliberalism and the other formulas of the left and the fake new dissident right And then so they try to repackage him for you as a based nationalist against globalism Celebrate please then the based brown nationalist welcome them in your countries I told you this is entry point for the brown and the stupid and the Anti-white ultimately into the right when you made these overtures to the Reds and thought there was some common ground with them

You don't need Evo Morales to oppose Zionism But they insist on that or to oppose the IMF or the World Economic Forum forum. When I said it's good that Evo Morales got deposed because he is an anti-Spanish red who said he would dis-propriate the white population of Bolivia, which is the only productive population, they chimped. They said, I am a CIA front, I'm defending the CIA and so forth. As if only the CIA would do that, you know, the whites in South America and other places are just completely inert, they have no agency to defend themselves. The regular overthrow of red-collar populists by middle-class military coups in Latin America, it's something done with regularity for some time now, something so regular you could maybe predict it with some kind of equation.

Conrad, Joseph Conrad, describes this process in Nostromo, written I think around 1900. Was that also done by the CIA? Yes, it was. CIA has always existed. Saint Paul was a CIA agent. This I am told by somebody online. Anyway, look, I get carried away. Please do not let these people's misfortune, unfortunate status wash on you. There is no need for so-called rapprochement with Marxoids. But look, I get carried away. How can all these things be true at the same time? I mean the reality of what the CIA and American politicians and the Council on Foreign Relations and such were actually doing the Cold War and the red, and then to be fair it's also the mainline libtards who hold the same false image of the CIA as an evil right-wing schemer on behalf of capitalism or whatever.

How can they have come to that false image? I will explain it. There is counterargument to everything I'm saying, right, and it's that the CIA deviously promoted the non-communist left, the international labor left, as its own version of the left or at least as a non-Soviet left in order to counter Soviet influence. And this was Irving Brown, for example, the labor organizer that United States CIA always used in these circumstances, that was his public justification for what he was doing. Of course, it never worked out that way. But right, the thinking goes, if you go into a country and you see workers and peasants and they're being mobilized by Soviet agents or Stasi agents, and you see a burgeoning Marxist movement whose victory maybe is not assured but maybe it's very likely, then you

need to get in ahead of that and you need to use your own local socialist movement so that at least the country will not fall into the Soviet sphere. And this is fair argument, this is fair tactic, I mean why wouldn't you do this? It's just you're accepting the situation, you're doing the best thing possible, it's practical and so on, I agree with that. And if this had been done in a few cases where it had been applicable, I would have no objection. And you know, the story I tell you about global Negro communism would, at least in such cases, it would be either not applicable or it would have this other relatively if not innocent and it's a less sinister explanation. And closely related to this is Arthur Schlesinger's famous idea of around the same time of something

called the vital center, right, this is a phrase that they used. The way I use moderate centrism as an ironic slogan except in this case maybe Mr. Schlesinger was even foolish enough to believe it. Basically saying that while America had to oppose communism it should not support right-wing authoritarianism or fascism but should instead support the vital center wherever possible. Of course the center for the left out of which Mr. Schlesinger came is always not quite the true center. It's a very left-shifted center, but whatever. Maybe in some cases where it didn't exist, such people would say America should try to create a vital center, a centrist position that avoids the danger both of far-left communism

and of a far-right or authoritarian right, and presented in this way, this very attractive to the libtard, the person who imagines himself a moderate. But both views are wrong, they are lies or distortions or in the case where they're presented genuinely they're just very naive. In almost all cases in third world where this approach was attempted it ended in communist victory because okay, think of it from point of view of Soviets who had much more competent intelligence systems than the West. You can just tell your local communists to pose as a non-communist left, as non-communist socialists. It's not even very hard for them to do this. It might be hard for a socialist to pose as alt-right or for you to pose as a socialist,

but it's not that hard for a socialist to pose as a communist and vice versa, right? Just tell the local commies, pose as a non-communist left, take American money, use that money to destroy the local anti-communist elements, the right wing, present them as far-right reactionary or monarchist elements to the Americans so that they can sell your activities to their people, you know, because the Republican Anglo, to be fair, he hates kings and aristocrats after all, right? So just do this, and after you've used American money to destroy the local anti-communist institutions and factions, you can just feel free to go full red, and it happened over and over again throughout third world, what I'm describing now, where America tried this

tactic and backfired on it, with Vietnam being the most obvious example, where America tried to push Diem, a labor leader from the labor international left, although you never hear that today. Today he is sold to you as a hardcore reactionary anti-communist, but his government was labor international left and it was absolutely taken over, especially the security services of South Vietnam. They were taken over by North Vietnamese reds who had made only a nominal effort to pretend they were defectors and they used vast sums of American money to destroy local anti-communist factions, the Vietnamese monarchy, and to engage also in vile anti-white, anti-European rhetoric and finally massacres, action massacres, in some cases organized massacres with assistance

of Edward Lansdale, who was the local CIA goon on the ground there. Which brings up a second point in all this, that in many cases this tactic was not honestly or genuinely applied even by the CIA agents, many of whom were in fact Reds themselves, who, for example, promoted Ho Chi Minh in full knowledge that he had been a communist since attending the Third Communist International. But again, Vietnam is only the most egregious, obvious example. The same process was carried out throughout the world by committed communist men who had joined the precursors to the OSS in the 1940s as part of a crusade to fight fascism and Hitler. I mean, I like to ask some of these Reds online today, these Leftoids online, what do you think someone like you in the United States would have done in the 1940s?

I mean, assuming you were capable of it, they joined the OSS to fight Hitler, to fight fascism. And so Bill Donovan and the Dulles brothers aside, they may not have been communists. The men at the top, however, did not form the ranks and did not actually end up running policy. And Hilaire du Berriere, whose archives I'm relying for this show, who is an American of French Huguenot extraction, who ended up being very closely tied to French intelligence, so what, he has deep knowledge of all of these events, but he explains this false image of CIA versus the reality of it very clearly in this following passage I will read for you now. Yes, I'm reading now, the success of the plan to dismantle the FBI and the House Internal

Security Committee, by first inciting the mob against the CIA, was contingent on putting over the idea that CIA is an anti-communist arm of the right. Considering that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies and Rand Corporation were set up by CIA to provide berths for men whose records were so blatantly read they never could have had security clearance for a job in CIA itself, This may have been seen next to impossible, but the media to date have been successful. Richard Beeston, the Washington correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph, quoted former CIA director James Schlesinger on January 9 as complaining that the agency was run like an Englishman's club. Schlesinger and the man who quoted him were playing on the popular American conception

of an English gentleman's club. Lewis Heron carried this hypocrisy a step further in the London Times of January 13. "'Given that the United States is the hope of the world, which most Americans believe, it is seen to be necessary to so order the world that the land of the free and the home of the brave continues to flourish,' he wrote. This is what motivates those decent chaps with their pipes and twees at the CIA." And he's quoting this guy. I find very funny that this absurd image of CIA, which, you know, is a bunch of soccer mom now, lactation room, and basically polite liberal with communist sympathies. They would not use the word communist, but that's what they are. But it's basically lactation room, suburban mom center, and I find very funny that the

leftist delusions you see from movies still like Good Shepherd, not to speak of the online left and Noam Chomsky, this idea it's wood-penaled rooms, cigars, and English gentlemen's club, that it was a very old idea, it was promoted even back then. I continue reading. Thus, the press charges CIA with compiling files on Americans guilty only of dissent, though it is only empowered to operate abroad. It is accused of meddling in Chile, Iran and Cuba, and of being an unscrupulous enemy of the left. A different picture is provided by former CIA analyst R. Harry Smith in his book, OSS, The Secret History of America's First CIA. Smith boasts of how CIA men flock to join Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 campaign.

The agency, wrote Smith, has been a repository for anti-war sentiment in Washington throughout the Vietnam buildup of the Johnson administration. CA reports challenged the myth that the Viet Cong movement was controlled and sustained by the North Vietnam leadership in Hanoi. In October 1969, during the Vietnam moratorium, a few of the younger and braver CA analysts strolled through agency headquarters wearing black armbands, a symbol of protest against the war, end quote. Accusing, excuse me, accused of amassing files on Americans guilty only of dissent, but permitting its analysts to demonstrate sympathy for the enemy in the middle of a war. To say the least, this is all contradictory. Even Kim Philby, he's talking about the English intelligence agent who was a traitor to Moscow,

but even Kim Philby would never have dared maintain that Hanoi control and support of the Viet Cong was a so-called myth. He continues quoting this book, the great victory of the CIA liberal faction, Mr. Smith wrote on page 368, was the operational brainchild of another Dulles recruit, 32-year-old Thomas Braden, an OSS veteran who accepted Dulles' offer to join the CIA in 1951 as assistant director. At Braden's suggestion and with support of Allen Dulles and Frank Weisner, the CIA began its covert support of the non-communist political left around the world, trade unions, political parties and international organizations of students and journalists." What Mr. Smith is saying is that from the early 1950s on, CIA recruited at home and

worked abroad only with leftist men and organizations who said they were not communist. This is a non-communist left which, when it has no voice, clamors for the light of all factions to be heard. It is a left whose ideological terrain merges constantly with that of the enemy whose strength is about to surpass America's. Yet the leftists who established a monopoly on the agency which was supposed to provide intelligence on which America's policy decisions would be based, closed the door at home and abroad to any reports from the sector of the political spectrum, whose interests never merge with the enemy's. The agency's declarations were anti-communist, there is no denying the fact that world domination under the red flag is Moscow's aim, and that America is the prime target.

The catch was that socialism was the only alternative offered as a solution, and the CIA was as anti-anyone to the right of what leftists consider center as it was anti-red. So I will repeat this so you understand what he say. The CIA was as anti-anyone to the right of what leftists consider center as it was anti-red. And Thomas Braden, Mr. Smith Bost, was the architect of this policy. Now to investigate charges that the CIA compiled files on 10,000 Americans who were against the war in Vietnam and conducted covert actions against so-called liberal, read communist, governments and leaders, a panel headed by Vice President Rockefeller and described by every left-wing writer on the press as blue-ribbon, quote-unquote, has been set up.

Yet the head of that true blue-ribbon panel, he's quoting Newsweek, Vice President Rockefeller, has testified that in 1954 he gave the same Thomas Braden $125,000 to buy a newspaper. This very interesting factoids, I think, but look, the biggest evidence that CIA promotion of the Red Cause, under whatever name. That it was not done out of Machiavellian or practical calculations. Best evidence I think is fact that in many cases throughout the world they introduced leftist and anti-white agitation where previously there had been none. So then the possible counterargument I made before, in other words that it was being done to counter Soviet influence, it just collapses when you see that in many cases there was no left-wing or socialist movement before CIA introduced it.

And furthermore, the CIA often cooperated locally with the Soviets to introduce the left. Most notably, I think, in the case of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. But even in Vietnam, actually, the South Vietnamese traditional institutions were quite effective at keeping the communists out. But look, if you don't believe the examples from the third world, and there are many, there's Vietnam, Mozambique, Angola, Tunisia, again, no communist or Soviet prospects to begin with whatsoever. The Portuguese and local tribes in Mozambique and Angola were actually very good at keeping out Soviets. And furthermore, hardly any racism in the Portuguese side on either side, by the way. I know maybe my racist friends are upset at my saying so. It is said I am a racist of sort myself.

But the Portuguese world was just in general very good at eliminating racial tensions in their colony. Please see my second show, Angola, Angola, episode two for explanation of how and why. Even to this day in many Portuguese places around the world, racism, although it exists, doesn't quite feel the same crazy way it does in the United States. But in the United States it's the worst of the worst. I knew a South African girl who told me she thinks anti-white racism in America is far worse than it is in South Africa. I don't know if you believe that, but I heard this. But look, you cannot have the easy-going Portuguese attitude and lack of racial tension once kept out of bag, as it is now in Americans' feet of the world, and they're slowly trying to reduce it to Portuguese world.

But when you have that racial mobilization, you can't really come back from that. So once you start that, it only has one path. So anyway, yes, you can ignore, if you want, for sake of argument, what I'm telling you about the third world and if you want to make up stories in which you show that you agree with communism about decolonization, in other words you believe that it was a historical process and that Sovietization and decolonization was inevitable and the CIA had to, just had to introduce its own version of decolonization and socialism to prevent the Soviets from having a local base. But then this becomes a nonsense case when you look over and over again, Vietnam, Congo, Portuguese, Africa, it was the CIA itself and bodies of American government that introduced

a red agitation where there had been none. If you remember, I read for you the funniest example was Mondlani, the head of Mozambique terrorist red anti-void movement who had been professor at Syracuse University and who America Africa sent so-called Peace Corps to help him train anti-white terror cells in the borderlands with Malawi. This so-called Peace Corps were up to in parts of Africa, this non-communist left, so the kinds of reds you see online now who are frothing at mouth for your blood, at that time they were sent to Africa to train black red terror cells to actually try to wipe out white villages. And also by the way, native tribes, they tried to wipe out native tribes who didn't want to go along with it or who preferred Portuguese rule or preferred white rule later like the

Matabele in Rhodesia were wiped out by Mugabe, if that matters to you at all. Just more fruits of the nation-building soft left decolonization by the brain trust at CIA and State Department. But listen, okay, you deny everything I tell you about third world and you let's grant it for sake of argument, but then what about Portugal and Spain? Here you had very stable anti-communist governments. They successfully had eliminated the Reds in their countries. There was no Soviet threat. They had sustained prosperity, economic growth, high birth rates in the case of Spain, this very much so. Portugal was one of the founding members also of NATO. It provided invaluable basis to United States, for example Cape Verde base. Hopefully some of our friends can seize this in the future.

It was founding member of NATO, stable government, prosperous, no racism in its colonies, maybe you can make argument, but not really any kind of racist ideology, quite the opposite. Friendly to religion without being religious or doctrinal government, very moderate, not populist. I see the name Leo Strauss back in the news now, the beating drum of Leo Strauss and so forth. There are a lot of conservatives with patrician heirs and such who like to invoke Leo Strauss Are they aware, Leo Strauss agreed, I think in a letter to Kosev, that government of Salazar in Portugal was very good government. So anyway, what sense does counter-argument, so-called, I mentioned before, what sense it make here? Here, there was no risk of Soviet takeover, stable anti-communist governments, and the

United States did everything it could to undermine it, not just in colonies, but especially even Madrid and Lisbon. I will now go break and I come back to discuss in some detail how it attacks them in the home countries. Iberia, Spain, Europe, Western fortress, Gothic kingdoms, do you like this? I like North Spain, he has more biodiversity I think than Beatles and such for example than almost anywhere in the United States, I think all of continental United States. North Spain, I don't know, I think the land itself is special in Spain. I feel emanations. You can feel an aperture, emanations from the land. I believe in this. It has good vibes. But look, one big forgotten peculiarity of Cold War media scene in America was the nonstop hysteria over Franco.

And this also further support of what I said last segment that there was probably more insane hysteria, hatred of Franco in American media than there was of Stalin or Russia or of the Soviet Union. And this kind of passion is not explained by, let's say, a practical objection, such as we believe Franco regime is not a good long-term bulwark against communism because he does not try to co-opt the left as we do, or even Schlesinger's somewhat hypocritical posture about the vital center doesn't explain this. None of this would explain this relative much greater hysteria and rage over Franco in American media at the time. That is explained by the fact that they all likely felt a vicarious humiliation at his absolute defeat of the Reds in Spain. His having given Marxism a bloody nose.

In other words, it's only explained by the fact that the American media, but also much of CIA, as I will show in a moment, constantly conspired to overthrow him. It is explained that he was not motivated by the public reasonings that you hear, which were only presented for public consumption by morons, pious moderate idiots, I mean again the mythology that they would only support the non-communist left for practical reason and that, oh oops, sorry, the Reds took over another country, we didn't mean it, we didn't foresee it. But at the very least it shows that hatred of the real right is much more intense than their hatred of the left. So who was Franco? When Spain's Popular Front government, composed of communists and socialists, came into power

in February 1936, and I'm reading again from the Hilaire du Berriere archive, when Spain's Popular Front communist socialist government came in 1936, one of its first moves was to exile a major general who had crushed the revolt of the Asturian miners two years before. They did not cashier him. He had been too cautious for that. They made him commander of the little garrison at Tenerife, a post in the Canary Islands without ships, cash, airplanes, or a press. His army friends begged him to throw in with them and help restore law and order as the assassination of right-wing candidates became accepted political practice. Francisco Franco Bahamonde, born December 4, 1892, in the small naval town of El Ferrol

in northwestern Spain, had no sympathy with what the new government was doing, but as a soldier he remained obedient. Not until the first days of July 1936 did he send word to General Jose Sanjurjo and General Emilio Mola that he would join them. On July 11, one of their friends in London left Croydon Airport in a Dragon Rapide piloted by Captain Beb on a flight to Spirit Franco out of the Canaries and into Morocco. Beb thought it was a pleasure trip. The revolt that was to carry Franco to power and give Spain another 40 years of grace was on. Moreover, when the balance sheets were drawn, the much-praised ideologies turned out to be as prone to looting as anyone. Rosenberg, the Russian ambassador, and José Diaz, the secretary-general of the Spanish

Communist Party, talked Dr. Juan Negrin, the finance minister, into letting them spirit Spain's national gold reserves to Russia, for safekeeping, so-called, early in the war. The gold never came back. After the crack-up, communist militiamen got their hands on two truckloads of gold in Lérida, which they had passed on to French communist leader Maurice Thorez. The whole was never heard of again. Six truckloads of gold bars and jewels left Catalonia, headed for France, but only four reached Thorez's headquarters. Look he gives very interesting detail about what happened to the Spanish gold that was spirited out and taken to Moscow and who knows where else. But much of the hatred of Franco was excused with the lie that he helped Hitler during the war.

This is how much of American media justified hysteria over Franco in the 1950s and 60s and so forth. But in fact, the very opposite is true. And now I may upset some Nazi friends in saying this, but the truth is the truth. And for example, a hard rightist like Hillel du Berriere, who supported monarchists like Franco and Baudai of Vietnam, he didn't like very much Hitler at all, you know. So even in the old reactionary right, there's quite a bit of hostility to Hitler from some of them. And as for Franco, it's true that he sent the so-called Blue Division to fight on the Eastern Front against Russia. But you have to remember that it was Stalin who started communist, let's say, campaigns abroad. He had funded and armed the Spanish left during the Civil War.

And so this is justifiable payback on the part of Franco. And Franco specified that this division could only fight the Red Army on the East Front. Furthermore, it was also in part, I think, cynical ploy of Franco to get rid of his own, you know, people like me, his own crazies, the secular hard right and the Falange and such. And he fulfilled in part his debt to Hitler. He got payback on Stalin and he got rid of his own crazies in one move. But aside from that, he was also in fact of great aid to the Allies and arguably offered the crucial service to America to win the war. In particular, he met Hitler and Göring in 1940 and Hendaye in Basque country in Hitler's train car, and he refused German help to retake Gibraltar.

He said, if we ever take Gibraltar, it will be done by Spanish soldiers alone. And two years later, he was exasperated at Franco's continued refusal to take Gibraltar, so Hitler actually had plans to invade Spain. But Franco not only refused Hitler passage across Spain, again to shut down Gibraltar, but he built fortification on the Pyrenees to stop any such invasion. So this kept the Mediterranean open and this allowed American invasion of North Africa soon after than Italy, which, you know, Beria claims this saved Europe. But look, this is arguable, but what's not arguable is that Franco played crucial role in Allied victory by his refusal to give Gibraltar to Hitler. So you know, all the attacks on him, supposed aid to Hitler, are wrong just on this point.

It was a fig leaf, as Berriere said, hatred of Franco was just public, respectable face of expressing your solidarity with the Red Cause. And I continue to read to you from Berriere, the irrational hatred of Franco, which a biased press has kept alive in theoretically anti-communist countries, was best described by Peregrine Wars Thorne in the London Sunday Telegraph of November 23, 1975. I think this was after Franco had died. It was a hatred of emotional intensity which precluded rational discussion, he wrote. He observed that nothing will ever convince leftists that Franco compared to Stalin was a decent man and that Spain under his rule compared to Stalin was a free society. Wars Thorne tried to explain the irrational stance of leftists and the press. He's quoting now.

Hating Franco in the paranoid way they hate Franco is only explicable as a form of covert communist love. Heaping curses on the head of Franco, who beat the communists, is the only respectable manner of demonstrating a continuing faith in that cause. Praise for Stalin is no longer politic or prudent, but contempt for Franco is, and should be understood as being, a reflection of the same state of mind. Mr. Warstone did not charge that those guilty of the… anyway, he continues to explain I think it's a kind of vicarious humiliation again because he gave, when you see someone give communists that kind of bloody nose and then you feel humiliated yourself, that says a lot about you. So if hatred of Franco was their proxy for their crypto-communism at the time, what you

think might be the proxy today? But I continue to read, two years after the war Collier's editor in New York was still He also bent on destroying Franco that he ordered an expensive illustration from Covarrubias for an editorial showing Franco as two-faced. Time and the mass media had no word vile enough for him, and CIA sent a Vietnamese Red named Le Chuan to Spain with a Bangkok press card as a cover to work against Franco. What Le Chuan did in his nine years as a Red CIA agent in Spain and Switzerland, and the The motives of the Middletown Connecticut professor who hired him are matters that Senator Frank Church is unlikely ever to look into. He's saying that the Church Committee, so-called, to look into CIA wrongdoing would never investigate

CIA activity against America's anti-communist allies, which I think much more significant than anything the CIA did ever against the Reds. The intensity that you see displayed by media against Franco is equaled by any red CIA agent and so forth. Anyway, a London Sunday Times story of April 28, 1968 stated that, and he's quoting, the research and analysis branch of the US State Department Intelligence, end quote, in which the late Scott McLeod found over 35 security risks, was handling American intelligence in Paris in 1947, and much of the more hectic work was actually done by an American Federation of Labor boss named Jay Lovestone. Now, isn't that interesting? U.S. State Department intelligence work was being done by an AFL-CIO, I believe, a boss,

a labor boss, Jay Lovestone, and Berriere continues to say that hectic is a curious word to use in connection with Lovestone's activities during the years when he and Irving William Brown and Arthur Goldberg enjoyed such incredible power with the American people being none the wiser. Life magazine ran the same story on April 29, 1968, but omitted the paragraph naming Jay Lovestone as America's intelligence chief in France. The omission was not accidental. Practically no one in England knew who or what Jay Lovestone was, so the Sunday Times could name him as our intelligence boss in Paris without destroying the leftist case. Both magazines told how the CIA fought bitterly against France's decision in 1951 to establish

an intelligence office in Washington and only gave in when Monsieur Bursicotte, I refuse to pronounce French so-called correctly, Monsieur Bursicotte, the head of French intelligence, at a climactic luncheon in one of the great restaurants in Paris told them that either Either a Frenchman went to Washington or every CIA man would be expelled from France. Life dared not print the whole story that Mr. Bursicot was sending an agent to America because Washington had made the former head of the Communist Party USA its intelligence chief in Paris at a time when French Marxists were reaching for power. If they had, thousands of indignant Americans would have snorted toxins. This sort of censorship is never denounced.

In other words, this Mr. Jay Lovestone was the former head of the Communist Party USA, a labor boss that America made its intelligence chief in Paris and he worked also to undermine the governments of Portugal and Spain, as I'm about to show you soon. By concealing the fact that Jay Lovestone – I'm reading from Berriere – by concealing the fact that Jay Lovestone was our man in Paris, new slanders in the Time Life building were able to picture American agents as good and all others as not to be trusted. So I ask you then, how did these CIA functionaries posing as labor leaders or rather Communist Party functionaries posing as CIA or State Department intelligence leaders, how did they help destabilize Franco and also by the way Salazar of Portugal because it was by the

same means that agitation against both governments was fomented? I will read for you again from Hilar de Berriere so you understand how exactly America attacked so-called allied governments in Europe. And they did it through labor unions and agitation of workers against management. That was the fig leaf of American color revolutions at the time, or attempted color revolutions. I'm reading from Berriere now. Labor unions are loyal to unions, not a country, and the power in their hands is directed to to toppling management and governments deemed anti-labor. CIA's labor union agents used it for the furtherance of leftists and revolts in colonies where labor leaders would be helped to power. As an arm for meddling in France's internal affairs and advancing socialists who would in time

be outpaced by communists, a labor union called Force Ouvriere, Workers' Force, was formed. Its name was a battle cry in the struggle of workers versus management. Force Ouvriere was born in 1947. A CIA leftist named Thomas Braden used the code name Walter G. Haskins started by giving $15,000 to Irving Brown to hire strong-arm men on the docks of Marseille. The Saturday Evening Post of May 8, 1967 touched on Braden's hiring of thugs, but neglected to add that according to French anti-narcotic officials, when the gangsters he and Brown backed were firmly in control, they turned to smuggling rings. Pierre Ferri Pisani, a socialist but also the Secretary General of the Communist Sailors Union, was middleman between Braden CIA and France's rising drug kings.

In Paris, the Communist Confederation of General Workers, the CGT, was paralyzing the country with political strikes. Dave Dubinsky and CIA gave Loewe Stone, again the ex-head of the Communist Party USA, now Now impersonating or acting as America's intelligence chief in France and soon actually all of West Europe, he and Brown and Goldberg were running essentially all American policy for Europe to promote the Reds in Europe. But Dave Dubinsky and CIA gave Lovestone and Brown funds to form a labor union to back candidates they would choose. By the usual play on words, for Souvriere, the union American workers and taxpayers were financing was ballyhooed as a rampart against communism. In reality it was a force to advance socialism which is the first stage of Marxist subversion.

Instead of backing anti-communists, money and propaganda organs went to self-proclaimed non-communists pursuing communism's aims. CIA funds kept the French Socialist Party's newspaper Le Populaire afloat. Revolts were incited in Europe's colonies and demonstrations organized when governments tried to put them down. Money and calls to topple their governments by workers' force went to unions in Portugal and Spain. Then fury was unleashed if either government moved to defend itself. So you see how it worked. These countries, like Portugal and Spain, which you are told were totalitarian but in fact were relatively open, mild traditional dictatorships with considerable personal and economic freedom, including the rights of workers to organize

It's through this that America found entryway to fund a red subversion, very similar to way it longer subversion of allied governments now through NGOs and so-called civil society groups which are CIA and State Department funded organized red fronts. But it continues, it continues. I want to read for you some more example of subversion of Spain by CIA. The propaganda offensive is maintained by the West's leftist press, but labor unions still provide the action arm. On February 4, 1963, the Wall Street Journal headed a front-page story. U.S. unions give cash support to organizing and strikes overseas. The proceeds from AFL-CIO's $40 million war chest would be spent to support strikes and and propaganda is pro-union legislation. He's quoting from Wall Street Journal.

With the war in Algeria over, the new battlefields for unions using the just the vindications of workers as a cover for political action were to be Spain and Portugal. Britain's slide to the brink of the abyss propelled by labor had already started. Spanish and Portuguese unions were the principal ones to which funds were being channeled through the international confederation of free trade unions in Brussels to foment unrest. It is impossible to tell where CIA action stopped and labor initiative began in the drive that followed to boost inflation by boosting wages and to use inflation as a justification for revolution. A study of ICFTU, this is the umbrella of labor unions run by indirectly by the CIA,

a study of ICFTU daily press communiques of that period, show constant flow of funds from the Labour Confederation in Brussels to communist-directed unions posing as non-communist leftists in Spain and Portugal. That the ICFTU got its money from the AFL-CIO and that the CIA was using the AFL-CIO as a channel for political agitation through labor abroad was never a secret. Lieutenant General Francisco Salgado Araujo in his book My Private Conversations with Franco tells of the Generalissimo's conviction that the CIA was trying to overthrow his regime. They want to implant an American-style democracy the day I disappear, Franco told the General. But they are mistaken. It will only contribute to disorder and subversion, and only Russia will profit by it.

Action in Spain followed a pattern made classic by the destruction of the monarchy in Italy, CIA's undermining of the throne in Vietnam, plots against the monarchy in Cambodia, replacement of the Bay in Tunis by Habib Bourguiba, one-party system, and presidency for life." End quote, you know, I stopped reading, but you see how it works. So it's very possible that men like Goldberg, Brown and Lovestone, who were Communist Party hardcore Reds, that they sold to gullible CIA men the idea that by promoting a non-communist left they were in fact promoting an anti-Soviet alternative, but that first of all is never true to begin with, and second of all in the end, let me ask, why does it matter if you are promoting the same thing, GNC by another management?

Please go to immediate questions some of you might have, which, okay, I will discuss what happened starting in 1974 through 1976 in a moment. This is when the Iberian governments fell. Both Salazar and Franco, they had died sometime before, while Franco died 1975, but the whole succession was a mess in which the Reds almost got the upper hand. But here you may question, you may ask, Bap, why does it matter? After all, America did win in the Cold War, Portugal and Spain did not end up going communist eventually. So why does it matter? I think it matters because it's not really true, I think, that America won the Cold War. The Soviet Union lost it. And it's quite a different situation from, say, World War II where there was military victory over an opponent.

The Soviet Union, in other words, collapsed of its own internal contradictions because an economics based on Marxism is a part of anti-nature, it is retarded, it is mental retardation. But it did not collapse because of any of these activities that America was doing against it. In fact, it was actually doing quite well at taking over the third world and subverting the governments both of Europe and of America. In some cases like that of Italy, Moscow could have made Italy turn communist at any number of points in the 1970s especially. It did not want to do that in the early 1970s because it did not want to spook places like Portugal and Spain or to go mask off too soon you know it's a thing you you're not supposed to put headstrong first charge into one small area where the

enemy can see what you're doing and inoculate itself against future attacks some of you some of you who want action in streets now when we on the right are very small and very weak must consider this of course you say well Moscow should have done that. Well, if it had fomented communist takeover, communist coup in Italy, I don't know that it would have won any better. In fact, it might have united the West against it more resolutely, you see. But again, Russia was doing actually quite well. It's just Soviet Union running on fumes of a retard political economic system could not last. But even with its considerable problems, it managed to best America in almost every one of these conflicts. And the fruits that are partly there to see today, which is that much of the third world

is still given over to Afro-Marxism in its varieties, and much of Europe governments are populated by Reds who are simply continuing Marxist revolution by different means now, by a racial means of importing racial replacement for class warfare, which much the same happening in the United States actually on bigger scale. And ultimately the question of operational direct subversion is a little bit irrelevant because I ask you, taking all these arguments at face value, but if in order to defeat such an enemy you had legitimately or not, for good reasons or bad, but if you had to become mirror copy of them, what use is it to anyone in the end if white property owners get disappropriated and finally massacred by orders of a red commissar in the Kremlin or a red beige lesbian commissar

or tranny commissar in Washington Kremlin, the end result is the same. And counter to the neo-con argument that the Soviet Union and the Cold War was good for America because, let's say in the same way that Carthage kept Rome on war footing, it kept it sharp and virtuous whereas peace made it distended and weak and, you know, lecherous with luxury. This may be a little bit true, but I doubt, this is sometimes a repeated argument you hear, but I would say even the opposite, it was good for America because in order to oppose the Soviet Union, United States had out of necessity to curb its very own much red inherent leanings. It had at least in a few cases to tolerate men like Franco, or at least not so viciously to attack them.

But now that they don't even have to put on an anti-communist face anymore, they can let all that tranny weirdo anti-white redness gush out of their neo-vagina, where even a mild liberal, and yes, I insist a liberal man like Orban becomes a demon enemy, has to be crushed, where they can try then to hunt the rest of us down to the corner of the world, corners of the world if they are able to. So this is why I say it doesn't matter when you say supposedly America won the Cold War because my argument here is not that the Soviet Union won or is about to win or that it was going to, but to show you instead the inherent red genetics, or rather how deep the red virus goes within the American government and let's say media society itself.

And so when I tell you about these things from Hilaire du Berriere and what happened in Portugal and Spain, it's to explain to you what you are seeing now and where things will head. It's not so much to talk about the vicissitudes of Cold War and the Soviet Union. Although the events I am describing, the attempted American subversion of Spain and Portugal did have very bad deleterious long-term effects for those countries, I will explain more when I come back. No, it's a very long episode. Maybe in the future I go back to shorter, more frequent episodes, more pleasant for me and for you, I think. But yes, I keep intending to do that, but then I get these ideas for a longer episode they take me, but I'm not responsible for anything you see, they put a shadow cloud

over my head, a haze over my head was put by goblin or this, I never respond, it's not my fault, I'm not responsible for anything, it's put a cloud. But look, I have not discussed this succession to Franco and Salazar regimes and I may leave full talk of it for future episode when I invite Iberian friend, it's quite complicated matter because the present constitutions of these nations are written by the left with no public consultation, no democratic process or consent, pushed a nation full of socialist clichés because during the transition process, and this is what I mean, what America did in Iberia with pushing global Negro communism in Iberia is important not only because of what it show about American government, its tendencies, American public morality for quite

some decades now and also what they intend to push on you. But they had actually very deleterious long-term effect on these nations because on Iberia, I mean, on Portugal and Spain, I mean, because the right was purged from the government. In Portugal, where the government changed in 1974 in a coup, this was done very overtly. Salazar was not the leader at that time. He stopped being the leader, I think, in 1968, if I remember right, and he died sometime before the regime changed. I don't remember how many years, maybe 70 or 72, 1972, he died. And his successor in the corporatista, Stadonovo, the new state in 1968. That's what this state was called by Salazar, form of government since 1930s. That was when Salazar formed this new regime, rising from economics professor, I think,

at University Coimbra, and he pushed a civilian, very professional intellectual type, to administration of the country and of the government. It was not your typical, you know, military dictatorship with the pump and the medals and cape and so on. That maybe looks nicer, but he did a very tight professional regime. But at time that Salazar had come, Portuguese houses in Lisbon had steel outer walls because non-stop violence, vicious bombings from reds and so on, there is a deep kind of resentful, petty, malicious, envy-based socialist politics in these Iberian nations. This why the rapprochement with socialism on new dissident right is so stupid. I mean, these people don't – my friends from Spain and Portugal are astounded when

they see American dissidents that I talk about left populism and rapprochement with Marxist socialism and worker state, they have no idea what they're talking about. You need to go to some of these nations to see what that means. These nations are not unified things. There is a large, or there was large peasant worker underclass that want blood, you know, and these people don't know what a worker's peasants revolution or even party political campaign means. It's not pleasant. It's based, it is the politics of hatred, envy, and resentment. Go to Alentejo, region of Portugal. It's totally run by socialists, and really I tell you the word is starting to be overused But really, I mean, the longhouse word is starting to be overused, but it is there applicable

as a kind of bleak community, communal longhouse feel. It's filthy. You go there and there's a local socialist party boss, this weird guy with a big honcho and the people all look like they would kill you or eat you alive if they could. And the socialist party boss comes around, you know, they have these communal lunches and he comes, you know, the socialist soup, they ladle some soup into your body, he likes this community, online trades and online, we need to have socialism on the right. This is what you are pining for, but yes, both Franco and Salazar came to leadership of their countries on way of just of this kind, incredible red peasant violence against the middle class, against the property owners and against the church, all done with Soviet aid.

So Salazar died in 1970, but he had to step down from ruling, I think, again in 1968. He was succeeded. In 1974, there was a coup. It was at the time this guy Gaetano was head of the corporate state, corporatist state, and he had already made plans to liberalize. But what happened was the reason the subversion of Portugal overseas provinces is so significant in the attack on Lisbon itself is because these overseas provinces, Angola, Mozambique, were not just outposts or positions, they really were integral part of Portuguese life, social economic life. I repeat to you, many men who could not find good jobs in Portugal, for example, would seek their fortunes in the colonies. You could even live well as a waiter in San Lorenzo or in these places.

And as they were at the time fighting Soviet and American back subversion in the colonies, The military involvement there, it was the military you see eventually that brought down the corporatist Salazar State, finally in 1974, in something called Carnation Revolution, which was called Carnation Revolution because the people, I think, came out in the streets with carnation. It was very swift and bloodless. And the leader of this revolution was one General Spinola, who had a very kind of image, you know, with the monocle and the beautiful uniform and everything very patrician, military, aristocratic type man look, and he overthrew the government with, it was some years in the planning, he did it with full NATO backing, and Spanish, the Spanish were not entirely

happy it was happening but they would not interfere, and he overthrew government with intentions of turning Portugal into a more Western so-called type democracy of liberalizing. And that isn't exactly what happened, not in the short run anyway. of the Portuguese military through the armed forces movement, so-called, and many other such things, and again the labor unions and peasantry, much of these institutions had been, or factions of society, had been radicalized with Marxism, again funded and promoted by CIA and State Department and other American bodies, and it accelerated after America kicked the French out of Algeria to set up a kind of new base of permanent anti-colonial, anti-white revolution and the revolution itself happened with a very communist flair in the beginning even.

The fat faggot Ted Kennedy went to Lisbon to sing in public, you know like you see these politician and actor sing some hoary wretched socialist dirge in public, it's so embarrassing but this fat disgusting man went to Lisbon to sing in public a communist liberation anthem I think at this time during 1974 coup. And as events developed, and it was a communist song, an openly communist song, and as events developed over the next year or two, it was nearing, it was looking very much like typical pattern where the old respectable liberal general type had been, the aristocratic liberal patrician type had been used as a vehicle for a raid takeover. That's what it was starting to look like. A year into 1975 or so, America became actually alarmed.

It was looking very much like Portugal was about to experience a communist takeover. In some limited ways, it already had by that time, from which it never fully recovered. For example, the Alentejo region that I mentioned, it used to be large farms, large landowners, but property was seized and collectivized in that place. So many peasant workers and squatters encouraged simply to seize the large farms that they worked on. This region remains to this day a stronghold of the Reds and it's just a very bleak, it has a very bleak post-Soviet or incipient Soviet type feel that it never got rid of. And there were waves of political assassinations by Red terrorists with help of the radicalized military elements and more important than this, much of the real right wing was purged.

So yes, Portugal did not end up turning red in the end because the middle class, which had been built up by Salazar and many years of very good economic prosperity promoted by him, but the middle class ended up resisting and had vote in large margin for non-communist parties and they still, I believe to this day, Salazar is their favorite Portuguese man from history, much to the anger of the leftist political and media establishment. But the middle class, which I just mentioned, in large part voted anti-communist because the steel walls that I mentioned were becoming necessary again. There was a return of red terror, political assassination, as happened in much of the world in 1970s. But in the rungs of government and media and so on, much of the right had been purged,

still purge with consequences that you see remain to this day. And in Spain, the process took place after the death of Franco, something similar to what I've just talked about, although not as extreme. And in that case, the process of possible communist direction and purging of the right took place not through a dummy general, but instead there was a dispute over the succession. So in other words, after his critical dictatorship, Franco wanted to return the government to the monarchy, but he bypassed the father of the man who ended up becoming king. So Juan Carlos became king and lasted many decades. By the way, what do you think of Juan Carlos? Because he essentially abdicate his power that Franco left him.

I think that was extremely irresponsible, but maybe he just wanted a life of king in name only and to bank prosties and such, you know. My friend rogue scholar, he make very nice Hitler video about my show, you know, complaining that I'm late. Many of you found his video quite amusing, you know, but he talked about me smoking cigar, he tried to attack me, he tried to attack my proletarian honor. Rogue scholar, hey, I am coming for you. But anyway, so Juan Carlo became king, but his father Don Juan, at the time the Count of Barcelona was actually the next in succession technically, but Franco chose to bypass him and this man never accepted being bypassed, so he and then also another Royalist pretender, there was the Carlist candidate, the Carlist was another traditionalist faction in Spain

even of the 1930s when the war against the Communists happened, there were the Carlist candidate for royal house was Hugh Burban Parma House and he, this man and the father of the man who would become king, they became a lie to the left. They abandoned traditionalism and they sought to use American backed leftist agitation as a wedge against again the guy Franco named king. And helping them a great deal in these matters was the Spanish church that even under Franco He was not able to stop the church from having been subverted by socialist doctrine, I suppose because of Vatican II. This is why my French monarchist friends absolutely reject the church after Vatican II. They say it became a treasonous vehicle of modernist liberalism.

But anyway, so that Spanish church together with American and Soviet-backed labor unions in Spain. Was this what really prevented the re-establishment of Spanish monarchy, by the way? I am told by Spanish traditionalist friends that Opus Dei isn't what they appear to be. For example, they are people who seek power at any price, and he would make an alliance with anyone, and this is why actually they represent in the modern church the liberal faction. It's just that they seem right-wing by contrast to the socialist communist faction that was their rival, for example, in Spain of this time. And Opus Dei judges in Spain right now, those who are appointed by the Partido Popular, which is the so-called center-right party, but these Opus Dei judges, who you think must

be hard-core medievalist, Catholic, traditionalist, they actually support abortion. So that's right, Opus Dei, that's, you see, these are rather abstruse matters and details current-day Spanish and Vatican politics that I'm not fully informed on details and I will invite guests to talk this, but look at this very interesting history. I will read for you how it worked, how succession problem in both Portugal and now as you see in Spain, it was used to destroy the right wing and to infect body politic in these nations with a dormant red strain. It infects these societies, it drives them to doom. It promotes migration through the vehicle even in Basque Country or Catalonia. These are the prime locus of migrant entry into Spain and they are not coincidentally

the most leftist regimes, the most leftist local governments in Spain. So anyway, let me read for you from Hilar du Berriere again regarding the succession problem. It's a very illuminating passage regarding succession problem to Franco and the fate of Spain after Franco. The pawn in the struggle against King Juan Carlos, this is the man who ended up becoming king actually, is Prince Carlos Hugo de Bourbon Parma, the Carlist pretender. Hugo is married to Princess Irene of the Netherlands, who learned politics from her father Prince Bernhard, who by the way was a Bilderberger, I believe, the founder of the Bilderberg thing. So I continue reading. At the time of Franco's death, Prince Hugo told the press in Paris,

Juan Carlos wants to succeed Franco, I and my followers want to make the revolution. In his bid to use Spain's violent left, Hugo promised worker participation in management and government. Unions were promised the same consultative status as parties, and Catalonia was promised nationhood within a federal state. His radical socialist ideas, Prince Hugo declared, were strengthened by his marriage in 1964 to Prince Bernhard's daughter. For an indication of how revolutionary the Carlists are, a terrorist shoot-up took place in Montehura on May 9, 1976. Ten days later, Prince Hugo held another press conference in Paris calling for a democratic pact between all opposition parties, read, Socialists and Communists against the King.

A communique distributed to the journalists stated that Hugues' brother, Prince Sixto Enriquez, was responsible for the Montejura shooting. But Sixto Enriquez could only have been acting for his brother. The new name given to Hugues by Paris pressmen is the Spanish Sihanouk. Sihanouk is believed to have been killed by the Khmer Rouge which used him. Only Hugues seems oblivious to the fact that the moment Juan Carlos is out of the way the Spanish left he is courting will have no need of him. Just let me interject here. What a pathetic man. You must have seen many such and of course you see displays of this among current so-called royals, Prince Harry with his Kamala wife and so forth. Let me give up my royalty to be a man of the people and promote.

But you see incipient within the struggles for succession after Franco, how yet another Another in this case aristocrat with patrician heirs was in his case justified because he came from royal blood but nevertheless ultimately a pathetic man and you see where these type of overtures made to the socialist factions, to the labor unions, to Catalonia's drive for independence ultimately doomed society like Spain and Portugal unless they can turn it around. It is migration that threatens these nations now, but this migration happened through the purging of the right from government and through the empowerment of the left. For example, again, the Catalonian drive to some type of autonomy or independence where

I remind you and I repeat populist leftist rhetoric and measures and even economic protectionist measures in places like Basque Country or Catalonia or Argentina for that matter have done nothing at all to stop mass migration because mass migration is not happening as people are telling you because of capital C capital or such things. It's happening because of the left as it always has. It's happening as a way to further and to intensify class conflict in these ways. But anyway, the reasons, by the way, for class conflict itself are ultimately racial, but I don't want to get into that. That is also the reason for the French Revolution, by the way, but look, I want to read for you some more. It's a very interesting Cold War history that nobody remembers.

Spain's underground labor unions, which American labors international troubles over Irving Brown and the CIA, provided money for years through the ICFTU in Brussels, are calling for a general strike to immobilize the country on November 12, that is to help bring down the king and bring in the cardlist pretender who they would then soon after discard. On October 18, a former priest, two civil rights leaders and the Communist Party held a mass meeting at Madrid University to bring the students into their game. Wheels are in motion for a showdown in Spain this winter. British unions, having bankrupted England and brought the pound sterling to a point where foreign nations are keeping it afloat only because a crash will topple their own

currencies, are working to make Spain's socialist labour union, the UGT, an arm for revolution. Taking the lead are Britain's transport workers and miners. Since January 1, 1976, European labour unions, including British, have sent over $700,000 to the UGT for political action. In November, Mr. Len Murray, Secretary-General of Britain's Trade Union Congress, and Jack Jones of the Transport Workers, will go to Madrid to pledge international support. The explanation given for the interfering in Spanish labour politics by men who have ruined Britain is that they are trying to fend off a powerful challenge from Spain's Communist dominated workers commission and other red union groups the truth is when the UGT has completed its work It will no longer be socialist

This is the situation in Europe's Western fortress as America approaches elections and the old and the stock market Slides yes, you see this is very interesting how friend tells me that Carl ism Which was originally one of the most traditionalist monarchist religious movements in Spain was infiltrated through its doctrine of co-operativism Cooperativism, is this a form of distributism? I don't know. But cooperativism, the cooperatives in Spain, there was a movement for this and the Carlists embraced it. And through its embrace of this doctrine of cooperativism, Carlism was infiltrated by Reds and by ETA, which is the Basque red nationalist, socialist nationalist, not nationalist, sorry, but socialist nationalist organization that was also, as is well known, a terror group.

But Carlism, the supposedly traditionalist monarchist faction was infiltrated by them and they managed to make Carlism by this direction or a major branch of Carlism is now synonymous simply with anti-capitalism and it's shed actually its other right-wing and traditionalist characters. It's just become pure anti-capitalism theorizing. And I took this aside to make this segment on rather abstruse political details to show you just this. First, to show you how America continued and continues to push red subversion even after Franco and Salazar attempting to entrench into power factions and doctrines that are allied to international labor movement, same out of which Obama comes, by the way. And second, to emphasize the extent to which both Portugal and Spain, traditional figures

like a monocled old school general, General Spinola in the case of Portugal, with impeccable image, or in the case of Spain, it was the churches, factions of the monarchy itself, royal pretenders, and even so-called hardcore traditionalist factions like the car lists, or those that are perceived that way in any case by normal facts such as Opus Dei, are in effect all vehicles for red subversion, which means in effect war on white property owners, promotion of socialism, promotion of decolonization, and finally and inevitably promotion of mass migration from the third world, which is the final vehicle for wealth transfer from global north to global south. Again, Marx's original plan. As well, of course, as the stuffing out of European civilization in the continent itself.

And whether this is done with religious bells and whistles, I keep saying, who care? Religion of this cuck type, like the Carlists now in Spain, not the old Carlists, but this dominant faction I'm talking about. But religion there or in United States or anywhere else, it cannot be a path to salvation in our circumstances, as you can see. I will be right back to make some final remarks on this. Tutions, all religions, all nations and states have become corrupted, degenerate to a point where they are just vehicles for the same thing, the perpetuation of human biomass. That is just more vivid way of saying that in age of mass democracy, everything becomes this democracy in some other guise. This happened, for example, American system of government, where initially separation

of power, the three branches were sovereign each, and under principle of balance of power they are supposed to represent different estates, different social spheres within a country or territory, let's say. So for example, the Senate in Rome was of the patricians, but then the plebs also had their institutions, and you take Greek republics, they had a knight class, they have different institutions, and theoretically, supposedly these would exist under American system too, but all three branches in United States today is just mass democracy in different forms, so they despond to the same master. They become just procedures for how to do government, nothing more, and in effort to to become of the people. I say also all religions, all institutions like marriage and family even.

But also religion and theological doctrine, I repeat, become the same. So I've become convinced they are nothing to conserve, but I want rather to destroy and dissolve everything. And there may be among you those who think this is a project of the left, but that outdated view at least by a few decades, in fact it was never the left goal. They've successfully impersonated most things that mattered by our time, and now the left is a conservative mode, or at least it's friendly to it. They seek to preserve its gains, with a smaller faction among them only seeking to gain or rather to extend the domain of the fight, which is to always level and equalize. But the right in modern context almost always acts like a sucker, a dummy, always steps

in to preserve things and save the left from the consequences of its own actions. So the periodic rule of the right in its absurd mission to preserve order only serves to institutionalize and trench the rule of the left, which means in the long run the biological degradation of human material. And the caretaker function then is not only fruitless but ends up working in enemy hands in the same way that liberals and even monarchists attempting before to engage with socialism ends up promoting the dissolution of their own cause and adds to the weight of approaching train wreck. So I don't see my purpose online to come and to pretend that I live well and that I'm a good man and to have others emulate me or to present to you a morality for how you should

live or to tell others to be good men in their private lives. But to think how to create the nutcase, I mean the new seed, the seed of a new type of common term, although it obviously cannot be exactly in action and practice like, I I don't even mean ideology, but it cannot be in structure and even public tactics like the first commentary. Why I make this segment? I asked my friend the bureaucrat, should I discuss this on show because a lot of traditionalists have asked me for my opinion on sexual morality and such matters. So this is what I briefly want to talk on this segment. I've told you many times that insofar as I have any political hopes and I'm just humorist, but insofar as there is that I would counsel the formation of mafias, and this

is my restatement of Nietzsche in our time, whereas in the last iteration of Nietzsche he was interpreted according to the statism of the early 20th century. But I believe in a Nietzschean right that is no longer state-based, and another reason all the attacks on me calling me supposedly totalitarian are just, I think they're not offensive to me than dumb slurs that people who have no idea what I'm even talking about to begin with. They're not applicable. I've never advocated totalitarianism and even if I had, there is no path to things that way. How would I do it? I'm a guy with a radio show. I wanted initially to make a show or segment now to respond, I tell you, to the trades. The genuine traditionalists, the Christians who want my views, I say, on sexual morality problem.

They are curious to hear what I have to say on this. It's a question of much concern for them. But now I realize, and this is the end of the show, most people who might want an answer to this are not subscribers. So maybe I will make other episode on it or write something for new readers to see. When you write something it remains for them to see more easily. But I try to respond anyway now in this segment briefly. So I'll answer you with my personal opinions, but I think it's a misunderstanding of what I do and what is needful in our time for you to ask me that in the first place. Now I'll give you an example, it's just such a stupid example, it's so obvious, it's easy to demonstrate because it's so stupid, so that's why I tell you this.

Now I do not want to boost this creature I'm about to mention, but there is a Swedish Antifa, they've got a Swedish Nigerian, whatever he is, but an Antifa who has been recently hired by compact magazine or conservative rag and City Journal magazine to do hit pieces on me and my friends. No one ever stops to ask why or how this happened. None of you with wild conspiracies theories about how a Mossad agent or Peter Thiel funds the frogs, none of you bothers to look into this guy who's actually working for these major conservative magazines. Nobody bothers to look at his writings in Swedish or to ask how what he used to write, which is an anti-white Marxist Antifa, ends up hired by American right-wing media to attack

right-wing so-called racists and so on, and to speculate, you know, serious business, right? So, City Journal question, it's serious business, does Bronze Age pervert suck cock or whatever, national news, let's get conservative media on such questions. I mean, the bizarre situation where you have this kind of attention and attempts to smear Rather small online anonymous accounts, it's not just me, there are other so-called racists. I am simply the, let's say, lightning rod, because most prominent, in their minds, most prominent vowel of Nietzschean secularism that is right-wing. But anyway, one of the nonsense, this dummy that I mentioned, this Swedish-Nigerian antifa a dummy repeated is that I tell people not to have families. Again this calculated PR smear. Quite stupid.

These people think themselves as ASK public relations operators from 50 years ago. The difference is you're a little lower in IQ than those men who are a little bit too showy. You show your hand too easily. And even if you're ASK by the way, the American ASK today have degraded quite a bit. They're hand-handed. And you have, unlike those people back then, you have right now the problem of the internet where people can counter your lies. But this is what they do. Let's see what we can make up to drive a wedge between him and what we imagine is his audience and so forth. Now regarding this particular allegation, he tells people, he said this somewhere, he tells people not to have families. Now if you listen to the show, you know this is not true, I tell people it's not a political

act or solution. I said it in the book in black and white, you should do it if you want family, actually, for itself, or if you are very much in love with woman, and I see that as a sign that perhaps nature intended a child in particular to come between that type of affair, the intensity of it speaks to a child's wanting to emerge. I believe in this Schopenhauer reading, but you should not do it as part of demographic warfare or as a political act. One of the most absurd lines I've seen online recently is some fool in dissident new right saying, form family units to send against the state. Now think how level of retardation telephone game that must have gone in for people to throw around that phrase now, nonsense phrase. But you will not attack the state but you will form a family unit

and of course your children will do 100% what you plan for them and you're going to send them against the state but not yourself right now. How does this work? So I've always countered this stupidity of people on the right saying that having a family is some kind of political act, you know. But even so, it's funny, there are Swedish frogs in particular who I know who met and married girls now have families now because of me. But that being said, listen to this formulation. He tells people not to have families, people, right, like random people, as in our purpose is just to randomly shout out my opinion into the void, policy preferences, I come with a list of preferences, of moral assertions, and you know, I see what sticks, right, and

we intend to talk to people and to change the world, right, and any day now, pieces of legislation and government and courts will be set up based on the, you know, things you or I say. It's just so incredible, stupid to me. If that's what you come online to do, good luck, but don't ever imagine I talk to people. I'm talking to a very small group of what I consider friends. These are high IQ, young men mostly, but they're not all young. I don't like this youth movement thing. I'm trying to convince them to find ways to form, as I tell you, a new genyousha, a new dark ocean society, a new mobilized mafia or secret society in the effective sense, a series of such decentralized mafias, for the purposes of destroying this zombified excuse for a civilization.

And it's not my purpose to come online and tell you how to live the life of a good man and still less to message somehow people or masses or nations in general how they should behave or what to do. of no concern to me whatsoever and it's also very bizarre to think you could do that on, you know, whether you do it online or in whatever other form of communication. Now as regards sexual morality, I will point the example of Roush, an unfortunate, and he had a decent blog and a forum for men to discuss practical fun matters, fun matters of where to find girls and so forth and he had some considerable experience himself with travel and with various kinds of women and such, and a considerable network of friends worldwide.

And his experience and connections would have suited him well to become a pimp of some kind and to use the power of the underworld as far as was possible at his fingertips to undermine the so-called democracies, or if he was too high profile to do this because you cannot run mafia when you are high profile. For example, I'm not high profile, objectively speaking, in media environment in the United States of the world, but I'm still, I think, too visible to become head of mafia myself. This was the problem with so-called Andrew Tate. Did he want to be a mafioso or did he want to be a media celebrity? You cannot do both. But in the case of Roush, he would have been well placed, if not as mafia leader, but then

as a media node to promote ideas and behaviors and notions that again could chip away or somehow dissolve the doxies and delusions of moderns, right? He could write book, he could do many kind messaging in that direction that he knows well, but for whatever reason he chose to give up the knowledge that he had and the experience he had and instead to tell people that he found religion and that he is now a good man, he has been saved from his former kumar existence and he will display his religion. And I find this absurd. What does it have to do with anything? It's of no use at all anymore in destroying what exists. You know, I think it's just a political nullity. They, and I say they quotation mark, but let's say NWO if you want to personalize it, the New

New World Order, Zog, GNC, whatever you think we are fighting, it's happy or indifferent to you producing children. From one point of view, for them it's more meat for their machine, it's paying tax, it's being a good citizen or so forth, whatever you may have heard, they don't really care about that. They don't care about actually religion. You saw how well the churches, for example, during Wuhan, they just gave in, nothing happened. They give in also entirely on matters of migration or of race. And you are mistaken if you think they care that you live a moral life yourself or go to church or have a family. It's of no political import at all. Where Roush could have been useful, and I say this in the best way, but as a maggot chipping away at them in various ways.

But now he's just a political nullity and even worse, as I will explain in a moment, he's inspired these people. So on the other hand, you yourself being a leech, a lecher, having sex with many women or whatever, this doesn't have any political significance either. So it's not that I'm advocating that or anything else. If you want actually my opinion on these things, I will tell you, although I think already I have during the course of this Caribbean Rhythms show since the beginning in my book and elsewhere, I think people are disgusting. The thought of the average human having sex sores makes me sick. It shouldn't, maybe in principle, be banned for most people, you know, I mean, I had actually on the Rouge Forum a post where I'd say, should women be reduced to breeding stock, you may

still be able to find this online. It's one of the most amazing public policy proposals anybody is there to give. It's possibly in the last three decades, I think. So what do I care for this? Sexual morality. Insofar as your own personal life is concerned, sexual access and similar type things like doing drugs is a waste of time. But so is gluttony. You know, these things should be avoided. But it's very hard for me to give advice, abstract advice to an abstract person in general. You see, I refuse to do that. I always like this story about the value of giving advice. It's from Diogenes Laertius. I don't know if it's in the life of Aristippus or which philosopher it is, I forget, but someone asked, maybe it's Antistides, what is the easiest thing in the world?

And he say, to give advice, to give advice to others. I told the girl this once and she completely missed the point. She said, yeah, yeah, that's good, that's why you should do it. No, he's saying it's the easiest thing in the world because it's the most worthless, you know, just useless. You can't give someone advice without knowing their nature, their wants, their needs, what they want in life, and so forth, what they're capable of. So I almost never do that for any kind of general audience, but I'm happy to try individually when people contact me. But you have to get to know someone well over time, their needs, their aims, the condition of life they are in, the situation they're in, to give them any useful advice.

I can imagine situations where telling somebody avoid sexual excess might even be harmful. There could be certain autistic girls or such, for example, that would, they might even take that as a reinforcement of a kind of asexuality that wouldn't make them personally happy, it wouldn't give them a family or anything else. Where a baby come from? It doesn't come from asexuality, you know, I don't give general advice, but since I've been asked, yes, for myself and those like me, I would say stoicism of a certain kind, even neo-stoicism of the kind Dominik Wenner, I understand he recommends this, but it's quite different from ancient stoicism or what gets peddled about now under that name. This deserves investigation, what Dominic Venner mean by neo-stoicism.

But yes, the modern world distracts you with sexual diddling and titillation, it's a waste of time and energy, and again in general for whatever that's worth, aristocrats in similar historically have wasted a lot of time with things like this also because of boredom and wealth and so forth. In times when they could not put their native energy into better things, then they end up putting it into this, which is why in Japan, a master race country, they have vending machines that sell women's used panties, and why grown men on subways have extremely violent sex or hentai magazines. You like this? But just because that's funny to talk about doesn't mean recommended. So why people should need to ask me this at all is strange.

It's in my book and it's in the passage where I talk about a chimp in state of nature, that whole point of that passage. The preservation of vital essence is in my opinion especially important to execution of any great task and as such, however, it doesn't matter if you're a coomer with your hand or your wife by the way, except I would say being a coomer with your hand is the worst because there is no limiting principle whereas with a wife or even with a prostitute it's It's not as bad, which is even why the Dalai Lama says it's masturbation far worse than seeing a prostitute. But in all these cases, you're still a Kumar, right? In the essay I recently discussed of Nietzsche, the third essay of Genealogy of Morals, he

explains that for certain kind of men, asceticism, the keeping away from sexual relations in particular is of great importance. It's important for their freedom of life and their focus of power of mind. And I believe in this, I disagree that you need especially religion for that. Many ancient philosophical systems, both East and West, they offer this same advice on entirely secular, natural, practical grounds. And in general I think we should stick to that kind of secular messaging because we don't actually live in a religious society, no matter how much some of you may stomp your feet wishing that it was religious, it's not, and church attendance statistics and statements of avowed belief even to a pollster are largely irrelevant and misleading.

We live in secular, unfortunately, multi-faith society. So for example, recently during monkey pox outbreak, the entire right threw an absurd hissy fit, talking about demons and god and satan and churchy and things like this. I exaggerate, not the whole right, but a large enough portion of it when in fact it would have been an excellent situation to make the secular case in general against allowing the the unregulated practice of public homosexuality and other kinds of promiscuity because its public hygiene consequences were so obvious and that's a case you could have made to normal fags who are secular and to normal fags who are of other religions and so forth and even if you cannot advocate for laws based on that argument from public hygiene yet, you can

still make the case to people individually and show them, you know, this is why it's It's bad for these natural reasons. This is what happens and so forth. It's funny when they had hearings to decriminalize sodomy or to allow gay marriage, I forget which hearings, and they invited the scholar, oh what a scholar, Martha Nussbaum, to congressional hearings and she testified that for condemnation of homosexuality is exclusively the preserve of one particular religious tradition from the Bible and claimed based on her status as an expert on the classics that the ancient Greeks or Romans for example did not condemn homosexuality at all. Of course she lied, she knowingly I think perjured herself because even in the passage

she discussed during the hearings or maybe it was elsewhere in her writings, she talks of a moment in Plato's Gorgias in particular where a condemnation exists of homosexuality, the word is kinaidos I think, but it's based actually not just in Greek religious tradition or even – it's based in natural reasoning. But you see that whole point is to make it look like the only possible objection to their programs is religious, right? Then they can discredit it. It appears that many on the right are eager to walk into that trap. And now the recent – and by the way, discredit it not because it's religious, but you know the arguments they will then make. We have – you can't legislate religious – just one particular religion, you know, what do you do then about other – I don't know.

But now the recent outbreak of rage against me on these matters of so-called sexual morality. And they started initially over something that had nothing to do with sexual morality, which was that I paraphrased Schopenhauer on whether women's bodies are aesthetic. And his point, to restate it crudely, is that, oh, well, women's bodies make him want to have sex, so therefore they're not aesthetic, because aesthetic contemplation, according to him is something that releases you from the weight of sexual pressure and desire. And that may be debatable whether that's the true definition of the aesthetic and the beautiful, I've debated against that myself, but in what sense does it have to do with sexual libertinism?

You can understand the initial chimp out against me was because I introduced the value of women and we live in a genocratic society with the religious man and the conservative, social Social conservative men, they are often the most ginocratic kind of simps. Or otherwise, they're often repressed homos who dream of becoming accusers. That's very common on the modern social conservative rights, you know. And then the next chimp happened when I pointed out that if your wife or girlfriend does not give you blowjobs, you are a retarded cock, a cuckold for all purposes. Now some of men may not like receiving blowjobs. They may not want it and it's not my business. I don't care whether you want it or not or you get that service or not. That wasn't the point of the tweet. It's very obvious.

Here, I'll read it. If your wife or girlfriend does not give you blowjobs, you're essentially a cuckold. Some of you mamzers need to be told this. Social conservatives leading you to accept a 20-plus-year-old roasty with complicated past refusing to do this for you because she found religion? You cuck. That's the text. That's what it says. Okay, some, most people got it, I think, but the point was not whether you get blowjobs or not, it was to make a statement about the condition of modern women and modern marriage and the fact that this institution is a joke now. It is something that very cynically wears the language and the skin of traditionalism when it's anything but. It's simply a legal vehicle for the woman despoiling the men of his property. It's a very bad deal for most men.

And many men read Hardist and his source material and F. Roger Devlin making these arguments and they chose anyway to get married and to take that risk and in some cases their marriages turned good, in some cases no. But they took that action knowingly. And again, that's not even advice not to get married. It is advice, I suppose, not to get scammed or taken advantage of by the coalition of ex-whores, trannies, and repressed homos in priest's dress, and the dopey, cuckold social conservatives. Very soon after I said this, it became obvious there's this whole contingent of so-called traditional girls who are really ex-whores, and they're looking for a sucker to redeem them from their life of being a whore.

So she sucked a hundred dicks, but then she found Jesus, so, you know, she will not do it for you. If that is something that your religion excuses and supports, you are being misled. I cannot believe that any traditional religion actually supports such a thing. That's insane that you're being scammed. But that's a very common type of girl that I described. In general, the Jeremiah Wright church, for example, the insane black pastor whose church Obama attended, and it was well known to pair off closeted gay black men with difficult Michels, Difficult Shabbud Women. That was the function of that so-called church. If you ask people in the know, that's what that place is for. And that coalition that I just

named that formed the social basis of that church, that is the same coalition that forms also the social basis of this whole purity spiraling online traditionalist, traditionally so-called religious Pharisee, that are extremely concerned to warn young men about the evils of mouth sodomy, okay? I mean, it's a joke, right? You know, I do not tell men, young or old, whatever age, what to do or not to do, but I feel my duty to inform them on the scam of the alliance of feminism with social conservatism for the purposes of forwarding genocracy. And in general, traditional language means nothing to a woman. She will use it on you if she thinks she can profit by you. And I find this outrageous, this kind of scamming.

So this is why I give sometimes advice like that, and the image of the cuckold in history, you know, the butt of jokes cuckold is not in general the fetishist you think of who likes to watch, who is usually a latent homosexual. That may be worth laughing at, but that's a rarity. The far more common phenomenon is the pious idiot whose wife uses pious homilies and traditionalist language to hoodooing him. You know, you have to accept my baby by another man and so on, it's your duty as a Christian father and this other kind of thing. And if your religion makes excuses for that, in my opinion, it's not a real religion. It's some bizarre modernist fake shit-libery that inhabits the language of traditionalism. And this chimp out over a tweet, forget my tweets,

but this chimp out over the mild thing or actually my religious friends, even my real traditionalist Catholic friends, whether online or off, fully supported message of that tweet to advice to men not to get scammed. But the Chimpas show something else. It does not matter how much bluster or edgy language you think you use, there is no way to make the blowjobs are mouth sodomy, you're going to hell for looking at the woman in the bikini and this kind of thing. There's no way to make that position so-called not to be a caricature, at least not today and such, no way. And this way, despite the fact that I may, as I have just told you, agree with some of you traditionalists on the matter of sexual morality in public, excuse me, in practice.

In public, on the other hand, I refrain from talking what I just said now and in general from public messaging on that flavor becomes any talk about sexual morality along those lines usually comes pre-caricature, almost always, you make a joke of yourself. You can have all the bluster you want, but you can't actually repackage that social conservatism in general, you know, you cannot have cool school marm, you know, furthermore you invite closet cases whose purity spiral into your sphere when you focus on these issues. If this is your concern, you have to think of ways to outflank the matter somehow so so that you do not fit into the pre-made caricatures of you, but unfortunately many on the right do this and they embarrass themselves and us in that process.

So this brings me to the most important point I wanted to make on this segment, on the matter of sexual morality in the abstract. Again, I may even agree in practice with a religious traditionalist. In fact, I'd even say it's the most important part of the political and social legislation of a people because it concerns the composition of the next generation, the matter of eugenics is not really fully distinguishable from that of sexual morality. But I disagree with you, not only on the matter of moralistic messaging and of being a moral fag, and of making a fool out of yourself in this way, but also on this more important thing that again, I'm not in a position to be a social and political legislator and neither are you.

I am some guy with small humor account on internets. I have a book people enjoy, great, I want to try to write a second book to entertain you, hopefully come in the next few months. But even if I were to persuade, let's say, 10% of extreme, energetic, intelligent men today everywhere, if I was 10%, which is a huge number, if I was going to persuade them with my book or message or show, even in that insane dream scenario, I wouldn't be able to affect political or social legislation meaningfully because we live, as I say, in utterly corrupted time. We do not live in a time where legislation of this type in the highest sense is possible to begin with. Merely introducing, for example, one contextless measure piecemeal into an already male-volant

structure of the modern state and of mass societies would... I don't even know what kinds of unforeseen and unintended effects that would have. That's not how true legislation works. You need to have the whole thing. I am not interested in being another lobby group at the pig troughs of modern prestige economy and the conditions and material for legislation, the human material for a new morality and new state are not present at this moment. This is my view. So I am interested rather in undermining the states as they exist, not introducing some minor reform within them. So consider the very controversial matter of porn lately. become part of moral hysteria on the right to invade against porn and to believe that banning porn would solve a great many problems.

Well I disagree but it's not because I love porn as such or because I think it's good or think it can be good. I think porn is psychological warfare and the right's religious schoolmarm approach is to basically allow only the other side to use this weapon. In other words it's unilateral surrender because you in fact cannot ban it but you You would only make it a more valuable and taboo if, let's say, you allied with some other... Because there are other factions, including feminists, who would ally with you on banning porn or most kinds of porn, but you're just going to end up making it more valuable and taboo because you, in fact, will not have dictatorial powers. When I've made this argument, I've been confronted by uncomprehending repetitions that I supposedly

want to make based porn or positive porn or whatever and other stupid arguments I hear that you can indeed somehow ban it and these arguments will gain control of the centralized internet and will put them in jail, will hang them and it will install a theocratic regime essentially which okay you can keep fantasizing. Unlike you, I realize I'm not going to be in power. My friends are not, believe me you're not going to either. You're not going to be in power likely ever and you will never have the kind of dictatory power you imagine and it's useless to come online or in a magazine or whatever book and to write as if you will have this power with a list of policy preferences and theories about what you do if you are dictator. This useless

engagement in fantasy. You know porn will continue to be produced, people will continue to watch it, it will continue to have bad effects and you either use this psychological weapon or only the other side it's that simple and so you see They were part of my disagreement with someone such matter come from. I am interested in attack posture and they are not. And so we are not even speaking the same language. Some of you already imagine yourselves emperors of the dominion of Guadalupe or whatever. But acting on that, you will achieve only very petty ends and contrary effects. All your moral legislation, for example, will do is to give ammunition to a strange-faced men like Josh Hawley to ban anonymous users on the internet and many such things in the

name of protecting children from pornography. It comes, I think, from misunderstanding your situation and to think you are defending an order and a morality that in fact no longer exists, that have been in fact impersonated actually and impregnated already by your enemies. And I believe so they're in a different path. I've been talking on this show about Soviet subversion, so then let me read for you a very interesting passage, also from Ilair du Berriere archives. Network 11 was the elite ring of the Inastrani Atel, a separate section of the Kremlin's secret service controlled by the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party. IO reaches into the United States, Great Britain, West Germany, and every country in the West.

Many of its agents are made respectable by fake exclusions from the party. This is called giving them a false beard. Eastern Bloc embassies and consulates provide diplomatic immunity for IO offices abroad. Friendship organizations, political and cultural bodies, student movements, youth clubs, civil rights groups, legal defense teams which aid only leftists, and educational associations are its arms. When an I.O. agent is caught, the leftist media erase cries of McCarthyism and witch hunt if it is in America or another Dreyfus if it is in France. I.O.'s search for agents never stops. Those motivated by ideology are preferred. Men like Ellsberg. Top priority is given to students, civil servants, army, intelligence and police officers, parliamentarians,

journalists, professors and diplomats. Apartments are maintained in principal cities of the West for agents passing through or needing a hideout. When Regis Debray, who is now seeking entry into the United States, was serving a 30-year term in Bolivia, rent was paid regularly on his apartment at 4 Avenue de la Porte-Briençon in Paris. Andreas Bader of the Bader-Meinhof German terrorist gang was hidden there in 1969 when German police were looking for him. Putting the jigsaw puzzle of IO operations together, French services noted that 1962 leaks from Network 11 disclosed a new operation bearing the codename Raslegenia, literally rotting. Raslegenia, literally rotting. Its first British victim was Sir John Profumo, the defense

minister implicated with Christine Keeler, a call girl connected with the Soviet naval attaché in London. Raslegenia operations to rot countries from within, had a common denominator. Men connected with the Atlantic Pact were top targets. The wealthy and titled were smeared in the furtherance of class warfare and dirt amassed for the destruction of politicians who could not be defeated at the polls. The Gaul's hatred of those who opposed these policies provided an unhoped-for opportunity in France. Patriotic officers who were purged from the military by the Gulf for other reasons. I'm interjecting a bit here. Police and intelligence services and other places, I guess, were replaced by Reds or gangsters from, you know.

To those who concealed their feelings and clung to their jobs, a pattern was apparent. Yes. Do you like this? Rotting. Raslegenia. Yes. Rotting. And this I feel very strong on, insofar as we have any political function. A side that is from non-political functions like produce books or movies or art that should by the way be good as art and not because it is right-wing art, which would be just preaching of a different kind. But yes, I am not a political organizer. I am writing an entertaining book now. I hope you will maybe enjoy a novel. I do for you. We will be out in the next few months I hope for this year. But in so far, you see they try to attack me now, but in so far as there is political activity. This what I recommend, rotting, rotting, rotting, my purpose in part then

is to convince men like myself no longer to be caretakers of societies, but in so far as they must act politically to be destabilizers and sores of so much chaos and insanity, that above all what must happen is this state system, otherwise called Pax Americana, that suffocates the world, that it becomes at least weak enough that certain, certain holes emerge geographically appear which can offer opportunities for action and for foundation to start anew in other parts of the world. Then Jolly Roger can be raised proudly over Equatorial Guinea or Cape Verde or many such places and where we can gather strength from the choke-holds on world's resources. The Jolly Roger raised up high!