Will Trump win? Everyone asking today. He troll libertarian party, recently goes to speak to libertarian party meeting, call on them to rally and vote for him instead of wasting 3% or whatever they get every election. He calls Marxism an evil doctrine straight from the ashes of hell. Will they do it? He could use a few extra percentage points. I've talked, listen, on this show about Trump's many problems, especially during last election, when he refused to become the lion and take extra steps. But now it's different, his election season, he has symbolic value beyond anything else that he does. Now is exciting summer coming also in Europe. You have Libtards trying to stop amazing songs sung by youths of Germany.

If you look, my friend Drukpa Conkli, Tibetan man, he has on his Twitter account, on X, if you look, he has many documentation of what's going on in Europe now with German youth singing Rauslander, saying they do not want migrants, they don't want their governments to flood them with the trash of the world. And this song of resistance against government enforced flooding of the countries of Europe is spreading and the Libtards are trying to ban a song now, which in all of their movies that was stereotypically the action done by the nurse ratchets of the right wing. And so quite a change. I think anyone trying to stop the Libtards from hanging themselves in this manner, making themselves into authoritarian stuffed shirts, anyone in the opposition who foolishly tries

to say, no, we are the real statists, we are the real authoritarians, such as unfortunately many on the right, both conservative mainstream and so-called new right, dissident right, call it whichever, they in essence are, let's say, assuming sincerity, they are shooting selves in the foot stopping the left from assuming the role of nurse ratchet and That's what going on in Europe with now. It is the left is no longer the 1960s It is the left trying to ban this youth movement song now, so this also Value of Trump I see even my book one man cannot change things He does not have the people or enough of a nation prepare to do what is necessary you know I hope maybe spirit of retribution will drive him to do more things in second term but otherwise they simply won't

follow his orders during first administration orders were not followed it was constant sabotage neither were Bolsonaro's by the way so there's not much that these men can do in that case they would need to be entirely different breed something like LBJ Lyndon Johnson political legislative operator mind which they're not and if they were they would probably be working for quite different aims but the symbols I mean and as what's going on in general excitement in summer in Europe these are very effective men in destabilizing whatever exists now they drive establishment to a frenzy and make like expose themselves. So I like them both as comedic wrenches. And as for policy, I think Trump, despite everything, achieves more than he's given

credit for by right-wing critics in the sense of no new wars. Now a good way to troll would be as my friend Martin does, to say, oh, I cannot believe this genocide that's going on under Joe Biden. Joe genocide Biden is genociding Rafa. He's genociding Gaza. I, as a good Democrat, cannot vote for Joe Biden. That line should be relentlessly pushed. But under Trump, no new wars, especially also achievement he had, especially in the sense of refugee aid societies shutting down, because the flow of meat had been cut off. Immigration was down by much even before COVID with Trump. And people I know then also got good jobs in factories that returned. Some of them did, even though everyone denied he could do that.

And then the whole China thing, he was entirely responsible for turning focus on China as a real foreign adversary, complete with need to focus on protectionism, to some extent tariffs, some extent the end of self-defeating free trade dogma with respect to China. That wasn't really free trade at all. But now that they make case, again very brief for Trump, what are his prospects of actually winning because on one hand I think he won last time and won relative decisively but they were very brazen third world tactics, stopping the vote count, stealing brazenly nobody stopping them, Chantelle stuffing ballots at three in a night on camera and stuffing hand-washed detergent fried chicken down her cavernous gullet, so stuffing ballots into a suitcase. So what's been fixed in that sense?

And I don't see much as having been fixed, although Trump has called on the GOP to get serious on new voting measures, whether that's vote harvesting, to engage in it themselves or something else. But I see no evidence that people are taking very serious action to stop a counter-steal. On the other hand, they had good conditions to steal last time, not only because Covid restrictions and shut-ins and so forth, but also it was the first time you do anything like that, you're not being as watched. They would be much more monitored this time. So, maybe it's unlikely they would try same thing under less good conditions and more scrutiny, but most important of all, it may be that this dissatisfaction with Biden and perhaps some of the left turning on him

because of what's happening in Middle East, That dissatisfaction is so great, the margin would be too big for them to overcome. They will be stealing, of course, but maybe they would have to be so blatant to overcome Trump's possible margins that it make impractical for them. So that would be case for then he can win. And then also, if I may be, I hope I'm not being indiscreet, I talked to friend in security establishment complex the other day who seems positioned to know such things, And he tells me that progressive Jewish billionaires who would have either been for the Dems or sat it out are so upset about not just specifically situation in Middle East, but the campus protests. And it may be that October 7th then ultimately wins Trump the election because they may put funding behind him

or abstain at the very least from funding Biden. As they know, Biden cannot do. His hands are tied on Gaza and the protests by his leftist factions. So you know, it may just be, yes, it's hypocritical, but in this case, who cares? There is this or that CEO, I don't want to name names, but it's public record. They're openly just, they're a meme, they're a cliché, right? They say, I'm a progressive on everything except Israel, that type of guy. And that type will support Trump this time, or sit it out. Whereas the last two times, they did not. They supported the DNC, the Dems, and I think withdrawal of support at least from Biden is going to be important. They're really just moved by the campus protests more than whether Biden helps or does not

help Israel, because in fact, Biden has not stopped helping Israel, I think. In fact, no government, including Middle Eastern Muslim government, has. I talk about this on recent episodes. But same as Olin, some of you may remember the Olin Foundation. It was conservative, kind of conservative, funding many conservative causes over some decades. And I understood from what I heard, they were quite generous. They didn't try to control what the people they funded said. But it was because someone told me again the other day, I didn't know this, but Olin was some billionaire who was so moved by the Cornell protests in the 1960s, I think. And apparently that protest at Cornell at that time was also what turned Allan Bloom so much against leftist academia.

He was at Cornell at the time as junior faculty or something like this. There was all this monkey business with the Black Panthers, something like this, you know, the leftist academia establishment at Cornell giving in to their demands, and this is what led to all its funding. It's these small things like this that animate some people, and I don't myself understand why you care about chimp out on Columbia campus if you're billionaire, but I don't complain if it gets Trump elected. So much then for Trump chances of winning. If he does win, there is other problem which I don't know how he can avoid. The persistent problem of the normal fag conservative, the Ned Flanders, who I covered on a recent episode also, you can't, these are just the fixtures of political movement, barnacles,

intellectual conservatism. And look, I know I've been talking about them from time to time and maybe too much lately, but you'll see why on this episode in multiple ways they are persistent problem. In this case, it's because he's going to be, Trump, I mean, he's going to be at a disadvantage still with regard to staffing. Let's say he wins. You may have heard there's something called Project 2025 from Heritage Foundation, which is building a network to staff Trump's administration in case he should win and also policy agenda under the assumptions that failure in his first term was because of lack of staffing. I disagree with that. I don't know the workings internally of White House, but it's more that his orders were ignored or miscarried and not just because of lack of staffing

but because of bad staffing. And I think what will happen, what will come out of conservative movement is bad. Hostile staffing again, just as it was after 2016. Remember the Reince Priebus GOP faction was hostile to Trump, and there was a chance at the time when he was elected in 2016. There was a Make America Great Again website, something like that, I think. I think it was run through Stephen Miller's office. And I know a few people who applied, who had clean backgrounds, perfect resumes. I'm not talking about myself, but I know others who had very clean, nice backgrounds and resumes, but they would have made loyal, great hires, but competent people. But everyone's application was thrown in the trash Because Bannon, who you know as based and maybe he has his good points, but he sided

with Reince Priebus on all staffing matters. So I hear Roger Stone says that. I don't know. But I hear from other people also. So Trump's administration then was staffed in large part by the same conservative movement types, more or less, I think, as are now doing Project 2025. And it was these types, I mean, the Reins Priebus mainstream conservative faction who sabotaged all of Trump's agenda. They were also the ones spreading rumor about Kushner, by the way, that he's a treacherous court Jew. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, right, they do this. Maybe you don't know, but they do this, the mainstream Republicans. They did this recently during the DeSantis campaign when you had people with these kind

of hokey, out-of-date somewhat DeSantis purple vaporwave avatars trying to pretend they're youthful, right? This is a meme from a few years ago, they're a bit behind the times, but they were pretending this and they were calling Trump a Zionist. DeSantis people, if you can believe it, calling Trump Zionist stooge, like in, let's say, Soviet or Venezuela, his zionist stooge, like, the scientists, one of the biggest Israel lobby toadies that there is, but it was, these are very cynical people is what I'm saying. They did the same thing during the Bush, not the first, excuse me, the Bush W administration in the early 2000s. A lot of the Jewish neo-con Nazi allegations weren't just spread by the left, it was spread

by GOP types in the early 2000s who felt that they were not getting the respect or funding they deserved or attention to their own projects. So they laundered this through all these people are Zionist neo-cons subversives and possibly connected to Carl Schmitt Nazi or and this kind of thing through various cutouts often through the left which isn't to say that the neo-cons in the Bush administration were good, They were a disaster, but their opponents who were spreading this were also bad. They were just advocates for a different kind of government pig trough. That's my point. Sorry to repeat. I've said that before. And it's not, I don't care about Kushner, but GOP conservative movement faggots have been decades of failures.

And they're, they're also bad, but then they use this kind of thing to deflect and nothing in government as far as I can see is about national policy. Everything is about who's friends with who, who can get jobs, can you get your friends or cousin a job, and this kind of nepotism. People who assume dark ends are competently steering the wheel of state in secret are actually idealistic, naive psyche. But in this case of Project 2025, before it even gets to being able to staff the administration, I can tell you what the plan of Biden and the leftists during the campaign this year. They plan on making Project 2025. Again, this is conservative movement, GOP, Heritage Foundation, think tank project. They plan on making this the face of the Trump campaign

even though Trump has nothing to do with it. But it's the designated opposition because it's easy to fight because they turn off a huge part of not only American voters in general, but especially people in so-called elite or so-called anyone with a public voice who considers himself smart or such does not want this program. And why I say, because they are faggots, okay? They want to hijack Trump's common-sense movement, which I briefly outlined in the beginning of this episode, which is, it's a Queens comedian-based kind of no-bullshit movement, you know, a radical centrism. It's what you might expect from a comedian outsider, Rodney Dangerfield, who comes in and calls the bluff on bad priorities in government.

But they want to change the focus from that common sense radical centrism, say not getting flooded with Sudanese rapeoids to grope you in public bathroom, or not sending American guys from Tennessee to get blown up Yemen hills. They want to change that to banning porn, or banning contraception, or the usual neuroses of the conservative lavender faction that these kinds of things carry no weight with Americans at large, smart, stupid, with no one. Including especially all the voters, however, who came out to vote for Trump in 2016 who had never voted before. And they will not vote if it wasn't for him. They wouldn't come out for another candidate. And why? because they like his real estate or he appear reality to g no they did because they say

okay here's a guy who's not running on fairy says them of you know do you have wholesome family life they are tired of that model of politics why is that a political matter it's not a serious country who considers the president to be Ned Flanders role model and votes on him based on whether he does that bad or good. But I mean people who don't want some guy with the face of Rauss Dauseat or Rick Santorum lecturing them on porn or contraception, so they won't come out if that's made the face of Trump campaign. And now if you say this obvious thing I just did, you get accused by the way of pushing porn or degeneracy. But the reality is no, I just think focus on this is stupid. Most people are deeply turned off by this kind of, it's, yes, the correct word for it is Pharisaism.

You know, it's always, you know, I say this, it's always Mike Pence with that evangelical pedal preacher, the evangelical pedal preacher squint, you know, when they get that squint and they look into the distance and then comes on the Reagan pious sing-songy voice about the habits of the heart and they get sentimental like that's always what's on offer for from the Conservatives. Whether he screams now louder about religion than before Trump, I mean. So now their answer to Trump is the same thing, but to scream louder about the Bible. It's always just that. It's deeply repulsive to most Americans. But the left and the media will make these types the face of Trump campaign in 2024, just as in 2012, they had trotted out that Romney was going to ban contraception. He had no such plan.

He was very confused. You could see during one of the debates, he confronted Stephanopoulos, the Greek chicken. Yes, he looks like a Greek plucked chicken and he said, we didn't even know what you guys were talking about, banning contraception. The media started talking about this and I see now you had a plan to contrive as if I had anything to do with such proposals and Romney didn't. But the thing is, there were plenty of these types of conservatives who did have such a plan and even more so now. And the danger is that out of contrarian impulse, people like Tucker and others, instead of just saying this is made up, these people have nothing to do with Trump, it's about fixing messes like foreign wars, closing the borders, but no, they'll double down on this

and say yes, yes, this is what it's about, we must defend this upright pro-family agenda against the demonic degeneracy of the globalist elites. I'm afraid they will do that. I hope not. But that's where it's heading. And then Trump loses unless he shakes off these. Trump, you have to shake off the centorum off your back. I will be back to talk about a related matter, the Jesse Jackson phenomenon on the right in general, maybe on the right in Europe and certainly the mainstream right, where the The conservative right, its leadership, the intellectual movement aspects, it functions much as Jesse Jackson does for the black community. I'll be right back. To see what the decoction of the conservative is, the reduction of conservative to its sorry

essence, you look at this guy in musty blazer, Sohrab Amari, who I've called Adrian Vermula's chaiwala, a supine striver immigrant. I mean, you have to know the way I mean that word, right? It's the same way that a black guy does not need to be a nostril. I will be polite for now because, you know, but this guy is just the purest expression of the insecure immigrant striver and also thereby a perfect image at moment of what a conservacock is. Conservacock is a brown-noser. You may have seen Lómez, an anonymous account on right-wing Twitter, was doxxed last week. So he assumed, I guess, and went on Bannon, he assumed the doxx and went on Bannon. And let me just say quickly, as an aside, Lómez could do that because by the time he

was doxxed, he had already decoupled from the need to rely on others for a job or a salary in America and such things. Otherwise, he would have surely been fired. And as for the people who doxed him, technically it was some Bellingcat employee and Antifa obsessive at the Guardian. You may know this company Bellingcat works with, is well known to work with three-letter companies. And this is what they do. They farm out some of their PR work through NGOs like Bellingcat and they have relationships with the whole Antifa biome. But this is Guide Guardian and as you may have noticed attacks on me from National Review and other conservative faggots often appear in far-left publications like The Daily Beast. There is a regular cooperation between certain

kinds of conservatives and the far-left. The conservative is always the faggot of the left, you know. But this is partly how they launder their attacks and doxies. It's through people at the SPLC like Hannah Geis or through these guys at Guardian. But it's really quite disgusting because there is no journalistic value at all to revealing this non-Lomez identity. If you read the article there's no... The purpose is implicit and it's unsaid. It's to subject target or his family to subject them to antifa or other potential violence or just even the thought the threat thereof and to serve as example especially to others who may not be in a position like Lomaz to have uncoupled themselves but that if you are on the right and you're an anonymous account and you get any

attention and you are not owned unless you have perfect operational security They find out who you are. They will come after your cousin's dog and so on and in this case How did they find how who Lomez is? I can't prove it in almost all cases. It's Done through personal betrayal. It's almost never signals intelligence or whatever this guy in Bellingcat did in He works at Bellingcat. I mean in the Guardian if you read the article it's a good example of parallel construction in other words they already have the information from someone and then they piece together the evidence to make it look like they plausibly did investigative work you know but I can't prove it but Sohrab Amari the publisher of the fake dissident right magazine called compact magazine he was asking about Lome's

real-life identity around last fall. This is well known and confirmed. This I can stand by. And this was, I believe, all triggered by the fact that Lómez wrote an article for a conservative Catholic magazine called First Things where he used in this article one of my coinages, long house. And I know this just drove the conservative lavender group at First Things insane. I know because I have sympathetic people around them and they tell me what's going on. The people at first things went nuts. Robert P. George, who is, I think he's at Princeton University, sort of these conservative Catholics, bears me apparently a grudge, as do they all. So it's these kinds of musty faggots who doxed Lomaz because he dared to put my, I don't think he put my name,

I don't think he said Bronze Age pervert, but an idea from me in a mainstream conservative publication, you have to understand they are terribly insecure, the intellectual movement, Catholics especially, because they have no ideas of any worth. They only have psychological pathologies that express as Pharisaic religiosity. It's mostly a striver's game and this guy, Sohrab Amari, this musty, I don't know if is quite an alcoholic of a name. I am told he drinks nervously and is terribly uncomfortable with who he is. He was a neo-con arguing for the promise of the Arab Spring as late as 2014, I think, which should be disqualifying in terms of judgment. But you see, you don't get ahead in that brown-noser world by judgment or insight, but by how well you suck up. And so then after

After that, he turns into a Catholic. He converts, which this weird thing with Catholic conversion, it used to be standard practice also among Jewish neo-cons. People forgot this now. Not everyone forgot. But it's this kind of showy conversion to traditional mass Catholicism and the like. This was standard among Jewish neo-cons. On the last episode, by the way, just as a quick and not completely related aside, I I was using a passage from Paul Gottfried to demonstrate the state of current debates on the right in America, but I didn't mean to imply that Gottfried is a good guide to Leo Strauss. He's certainly not. I've liked some of Gottfried's other books, like on The Managerial State, it's very clear he continues the work of James Burnham, but his book on Strauss is quite bad, he barely

quotes Strauss himself. Regardless that is a detail for another time. I just meant that even at the highest levels, debate within the face-fag American right is based on empty abstractions, polemical positioning. And in the case of what's going on here with First Things magazine and this guy in cheap blazer, this constipated faggot Amari, they get terribly insecure because their whole lives are being a good boy, spouting the party line, saying approved opinions and they got kind of the rug pulled out from under them with the internet with people who have new ideas and sit with energy and gather an audience by being interesting or entertaining and they have terrible I think terrible feelings for that and so the way someone like Sohrab Amari or Tara Isabella Burton

who is another one of these constipated religious pseudo conservative faggots, she's a woman but women are faggots, and they respond to the internet making their chosen career path obsolete, they respond to that by attacking nones on behalf of the regime and pretending that the real problem in society is Nietzscheanism or Gnosticism or something made up like this and so even though they pretend that they are religious, their religiosity again it's a social climbing tool. Otherwise they would be attacking holocaustianity, they would be attacking the doxies of the regime, which are the real idolatry, they wouldn't be focusing on a few Internet anons and so forth. But look, none of the people I'm saying in question is

able to have an audience. It's all done through grants, through donors, the books such as they write, they have book parties and so on, then you see the book ranks, they don't sell. The only way their books ever sell very briefly and sporadically, they get bought in bulk by foundations, and then they're distributed at conferences and such, and people also attend those conferences, not because they enjoy sitting in, I was going to call it a neon lit room, but fluorescent light room, and listening to some very droning talks, it's because they're there to network for the next job, the next grant, and so on. But yes, these are people completely unable to think for the sake of pleasure in thought, or to conceive of having an organic audience of any kind.

And so this guy, you know, Sohrab does the same thing that Jewish neocon slash striver immigrant thing to do is to convert to Catholicism. In the conservative intellectual publishing world and such, being a Catholic and attending those soirees or trident in mass, I think it's called, or I don't even know, that's a thing that's valued, there's a whole coven of these faggots, Russ Douthat, Bridge Colby and so on, and fundamentally they're not different from actually any of the other generational losers of the Republican intellectual guild, with William F. Buckley being the biggest bungler of them all and their role model. But yes, it was these people freaking out over Lómez, using a word from me. And in this and related cases, it's not even, again, ideological or religious hostility.

Again, the supposed specter of far-right neo-paganism and Nietzscheanism, they like this word, right? But they're not afraid necessarily of that being reborn. That's a contrivance for public rhetoric. They might sense that they have no immune defence for that intellectually because it exposes the whole edifice of conservative lies for the last few decades very quickly. But it's their insecurity rather that drives them, their insecurity that their funding or their donors might be in danger. They see people getting attention and because they cannot conceive of organic engagement they imagine there must be a rival billionaire funding this and when Peter Thiel has on many occasions refused to fund these people, the TradCats, I mean, they naturally assume that,

you know, he must be funding their dreaded enemies, the Nietzschean internet right or something, which, I can tell you, he has never funded FrogTwitter, me or my friends. I can't speak for others, I do know he's funded some people in the HBD world, but that's rather different than what I do. But anyway, this is what I mean, you see, and what I try to explain briefly now, how the entire conservative pathology is based on actually this need for donor, donations, official positions, without which they can't make a living, of course. But yes, can I prove? No, I can't prove. But I'm telling you, it was the staff at First Things and Sohrab Amari who doxxed an anon. And this is a warning to all of you never to trust the conservative catholic movement intellectual the lavender groups in dc

the people around first things or similar magazines or any such they are the worst traitors and faggots and on numerous occasions previously also in a much smaller and more insignificant incarnation of first things called jackabyte mag which i warned people about years ago they were using it as a means entirely of data mining and of gathering anon's identities whether it was for purposes of blackmail or other things. Fundamentally it was to docs to to gather information on people but that's what the lavender uh i don't want to call them a mafia to me that might be a good word but yes the lavender coven does that and i repeat to you that compact magazine is taking donations from Soros Foundation, and I have that from indirectly from open

society foundation people themselves who are bragging about it to people I've known. And it's Lenny Benardo who's going around offering money to people on the right, which it might be quite strange though, but apparently there's not much journalist interest in Soros trying to fund, and in the case of Compact actually, funding the so-called dissident right or dissident populist post-liberal whatever they call themselves in an election year. No curiosity. But as for the pundit thing, you know, the windbag, there's nobody, just to talk about the pundit phenomenon as such, the pundit is a sorry case because there is no one in American government or any modern advanced government for that matter who thinks about the good of the nation.

might in a small nation that's peripheral, but no one in any big developed nation thinks about direction of the country, this is actually quite innocent idealistic view. There is no one, I think, with much over a one-year horizon either. Pundits pretend there is, they write as if they're arguing a case for people who think that way, but nobody in government does, you see. So when it comes to, excuse me, when it comes to it, no one among the pundit class does either ultimately is what I'm saying. They think also about the next grant, whether they and their friends can have a contract next year, where the job or funding for their nephew will come from. These are the wages of turning opinion making into a living for a salary.

then none of these people can generate an audience on their own, you see. So what I say is now this is more an indictment of pundits and intellectuals than it is of people in government, because they're delusional and they give people and themselves too a false feeling of participation in political discourse that actually doesn't exist outside magazines, where again, because actually it's often – let me correct this – not often but usually, almost always, it's in fact disconnected from how government works. The only content is this, just infighting, insecurity over where your next daily bread comes from. And the more disconnected you are, the more this infighting aspect becomes important, which is why the Conservatives especially, they are, I mean to tell you, they're all

about this, because more than the libtard pundits, they're not in fact connected to any decision making, it's all posturing. They adopt intellectual positions to position themselves against other intellectuals in what they imagine are fights over turf, fights over who gets the next grant and so on. When you look at the far right also, the face fags on the far right, and how consumed they are by bitterness and hatred against each other, and it's like ghetto nigger fights and so on, and it's very soap opera, as you know, just constant backbiting and so on. But this is actually like mainstream conservatism too. It's the same kinds of people, maybe little known fact. I knew a couple of people who had been in American conservative movement and the little

secret is they're not so different at all. I mean the neo-cons and the paleo-cons and others before and the other rightist factions, they were just like the hard right is today. It's the same personality type. My friend David Sidorsky told me he was in this conservative movement, so his whole life in so far as he took part in this was just an endless series of betrayals, backstabbing petty catfights, Hobbesian kind of dysfunctional world, always with a look to get also a pat on the head from libtards or a mentioned New York review of books as a token, thoughtful conservative and thereby to get a stamp, you know, a little sticker. hopeless you see none of these people actually think or have anything to gain by thinking politically it's someone say somewhere recently a phenomenon analogy

in high school you go to high school let's say the libtard it highly libtard at high school and you then go to Republican Club because that's the only opposition and you can imagine the kinds of people who would be in a Republican Club in a very libtard high school you can make friends there with the guy in the high school or college republican club, bond with them over shared values, but then you find out he's mentally ill and he was driven right by it's a particular fractious type that's attracted to right-wing thought in a majority left-wing society, someone who can't get along. But this is what a friend said, but I think it's much worse than it appears like this. You'd think it's just the contrarian type, but actually this person understates problem

because it's not just any contrarian type. It can include some genuinely curmudgeons who can be fine people, but the people I'm saying who actually end up competing in the conservative pundit biome are contrarian only in the sense that their ultimate aim is to be the token rightist in a place like New York Times or similar. So now obviously there are exceptions, no not all are like that, but the weight or heft of conservative movement is precisely that. It's always with a tail between the legs apologetic to the left. It's many times it's even generational by the way I'm told. It's kind of like a family business to where the model that you see overtly in Kristol, Bill Kristol and Podkloritz and Jonah Goldberg following in the pundit footsteps of their parents, which is insane right when

When you think about it, that political commentary could be a family business. But that's just the ones you see, apparently in the conservative publishing world that you don't see in the traditional Catholic world, the world that Robert P. George moves in, the people at first things, the book world. It's also multi-generational kind of inherited family business. And they have to walk a fine line to, on one hand to preserve this parochial family shop, On the other hand, to have a token place in the broader Libtardid establishment in which they are a permanent minority. So it's a kind of minority representation. That's the role they play, right? The ultimate example would be someone like Ross Dowsett, whose family weirdly converted to Catholicism when he was 16, I think.

So it becomes this weird, you know, air presumptive to the image of William F. Buckley. Under such lace curtain Irish with pretend aristocratic airs, was a lifelong toady of libtard society, spent most of his time excluding gatekeeping people like the John Birch Society out of the right. You see, as soon as I mention John Birch Society, they send a spike right through my throat. But to be dowset, I mean the token conservative at New York Times, where he's joined by Max boot, I can't keep track if Max Boot is at Washington Post, but basically you are the house pet, the representative of the opposition, the designated minority face. So I mean to say it's a kind of Jesse Jackson role, and that's how I describe, frankly,

not only the conservative establishment as various aspirants for the Jesse Jackson position, but also I describe the face back far right, by the way, they're also a kind of aspiring Jesse Jackson's. And what's wrong with Jesse Jackson? I mean, you know, he's the voice of the black community, but the thing is, he doesn't actually care or have to care how this community fares. It doesn't matter whether or not he cares or if he delivers. He's there to play a kind of minstrel role for libtard establishment. And so the black community now is doing quite bad, actually. It's doing worse than ever, maybe, just as an aside to address this black thing. They have increasing obesity and they might even because of increasing becoming fat and lame they might be in danger of losing

soon the only thing at which you could argue they excelled on their own merits which is you know to to be cool and to be culturally cool and such and they did manage to have some international appeal on that on music and so forth but not only is much of that constructed forgive the tangent because if the Jewish press Actually showed the kind of garbage regular black folk listen to in barber shops and such It's more retarded than Mexican pinata music. It's not pinata. What is it called mariachi bands? I don't know. So a lot of the hip-hop's image is just carefully curated of literally Retarded gay niggers like Tupac and Kanye, you know, this is the girl but quite aside from that that you can give blacks some genuine right they've had worldwide important

music for a long time and a few other things that arguably make them cool but while I don't live in America I'm getting my antennae are feeling that they are on the verge of becoming not cool because of various acquired lamenesses getting fat and boring and I'm saying this is even at their best whereas in all other aspects of life where Jesse Jackson actually pretends to to represent them in economic activity, housing, quality of life, political activity, et cetera, measurable things, they're not improving, they're doing very badly. And it's not just because of their biological heritage, okay, I need to leave to have tea. I have Kyoto style, extreme smokey, it's called iribancha, I need quick smokey tea and snaxing. I will be right back.

the good boy career professional pundit but hurt at internet nones this phenomenon and then make up word nicheonism to explain that look you would be pissed off too you had spent a whole lifetime ass kissing trying to get pat on head ultimately from leftist establishment trying to be a good boy and you notice these other people working entirely in this new thing you don't understand getting audience and or adulation or interest and you say no this my turf and uh actually they are the cause of all their ideologies the cause of all that is evil uh is nietzschean gnosticism or whatever and so even if you're a conservative pundit or traditionalist religious some of them cross over from left to right and so

on but ultimately they are vying for a token position in libtard establishment and so they become the attack dogs of that establishment they are looking for yet more pats on heads from the stuffed shirts running things now so that's about it but as i was saying the jesse jackson phenomenon among the blacks although it's not just the blacks right other Other ethnic faction communities have similar problems with their own fake representatives. But when it concerns the blacks, I think they could actually be doing better than they are in America now. They could improve. They would not have as bad rates of dysfunction or syphilitic fat shiboon extravaganza. But someone like Jesse Jackson or other representatives, they have even more colorful eminences like Reverend Al Sharpton.

They don't actually have to deliver results, they can deliver feelings, they get to maintain their token nigger position as a representative regardless. And so this is how the racial spoils system actually works in the managerial state. It's not the various communities don't actually have to really benefit, it's whether you can get a few loudmouth Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to be pacified with a token position, token status in media, status, the striving of the lower class and the middle class, status-striving. I hate this. But by the way, since we're on Jesse Jackson, there's a book now by Jeremy Karl called Unprotected Class, how anti-white racism is tearing America apart. And Steve Saylor reviews it in Taki on May 8th.

I haven't read the book yet, but I agree with all statements of fact regarding anti-white racism. I've seen them listed in various reviews, and I myself listed in part in one of my rare chances to talk to a general audience when I responded to Mike Anton in Claremont and I listed some really vicious type thing from mainstream media. Washington Post, New York Times, violent language against whites. At times so extreme that I call this the Interahamwe Left after the Hutu militia movement in pre-massacre Rwanda, and I guess they're still around I think in parts of the Congo, not sure, the Interahamwe. Kagame wiped them out mostly. That's real nationalism by the way, Paul Kagame. But anyway, so I agree that's happening, but what I don't agree

is the implied solution in the title of the book, that the solution to all of this anti-white racism is to plead for whites to be given special protection like certain other groups, which Which Steve Saylor explicitly mentions in his review. I mean, that's his own view of things. I don't agree with. Let me read for you. I'm reading from Saylor now. One general problem is that whites have not been allowed to have representatives to offer guidance upon terminology for referring to white concerns. The way that Jesse... Ha! Excuse. I apologize. One general problem is that whites have not been allowed to have representatives to offer guidance upon terminology for referring to white concerns the way that Jesse Jackson

was able in December 1988 to make African-American a respectable synonym for black. Jackson had performed impressively among black voters in the Democratic presidential primaries in both 1984 and 1988. So when he announced that he preferred African-American over black, when that wasn't going to stop me from using black, I was also happy to have a reasonable variant approved by the then rightful leader of the blacks. But whites, of course, must remain leaderless, without spokesmen. For instance, the American establishment was horrified that gentlemanly Jared Taylor volunteered to return phone calls if the press ever wanted a white opinion on racial controversies in the news, the way Jackson and Al Sharpton had long supplied the black perspective.

I stop reading now, unless Mr. Sailor is joking here, I completely disagree with this, it's not a general problem that whites don't have with Jesse Jackson. And leaving aside the fact that just out of practical social reality, whites as a group will not accept someone even like Jared Taylor, who is a very pleasant man, but really anyone else to speak for them as explicit ethnic community block leader. But then the possible exception, right, is Trump, and you see that's the thing, Trump Trump is what Steve Saylor maybe misses in that passage. Whites overall will accept the champion like Trump under plausible pretext that they are making a play for the whole nation. Because I think they have a feeling, an instinct that that's the only possible play, you see.

Quite aside from the fact that Jesse Jackson doesn't help blacks as a whole, renaming them for example, if that is accurate. It's about the kind of symbolic honour bullshit that someone like that could do. But it does nothing for them and in this connection the only reason Jesse Jackson is allowed to exist for blacks is because they're a client, they're a ward actually of the state, a client ward minority. So sovereignty and hegemony doesn't come into it. They don't have prospects of that and then they get only symbolic handouts. And I think the state itself is arranged since at least the New Deal to oppose any major so-called intervening institution. This would be from a, let's say, Rousseau point of view, it's any block of power that can threaten the hegemony of the state.

And whites are such. But blacks and other minorities that are allowed this kind of actually symbolic bullshit representation, they aren't a block that can actually contest sovereignty. That's why they're allowed it. So now I will surely be blamed for being the sole reason that whites are not given the special protections by the state like blacks are. It's after all, this is a position I've marked since my first episode, you know, the kind of thinking that, well, if blacks have BET, black entertainment television, why can't whites have white entertainment television, wet? But it's just, it's such a powerful, powerless, I mean, powerless frame of mind. And it's not me standing in the way, I'm just making a prediction that it would never, ever

be allowed by this state in any case, and in fact, the only condition it would be allowed is one of total loss. In other words, if whites are finally reduced like the blacks to a powerless minority ward of the state, then they might, so in other words, if you lose every battle for the next twenty to thirty years and become a powerless minority, then the state might actually concede minority protection. And to me how different is that mindset from actually successful nationalisms like Kagame who I mentioned or let's say Croatian nationalism in 1991 a very different spirit like the spirit of Calvinist Afrikaners with their sense of shared mission and solidarity you know they weren't begging for state recognition

and a special protections from somebody else because it's a kind of tautology if they got that they would then just own the state anyway and you either own the state or you're reduced begging the state for recognition that won't happen Americans have already chosen Trump I think as their implicit leader. It's unspoken, it's widely recognized that's what he is and it's understood the battle is not for a carve-out but for American identity and for the state itself. I am much opposed to the millet system you know this Turkish Ottoman system of a millet system the Christian millet the Jewish millet the Armenian I I think every minority had its own kind of mini autonomy, this kind of demi-system. Some people seem to be demanding this.

I think that's terrible, allowing that kind of state hegemony over. And this is not, again, a moral exhortation as much as a sociological fact that something like what Steve Saylor, and I assume Jeremy Karl in this book, Unprotected People, whatever it's called. Whatever they're suggesting is, in my opinion, an impossibility to give white people a protected class. The whole notion of protected class is intended by the state to be a weapon against white hegemony. But Jeremy Karl, however, is correct in this book that the aim of anti-white agitation is expropriation. And for all the contrived seething that you are seeing directed at Steve Saylor this week, I assume that some of that That is because of his presumed association with me, although we agree on very little.

But regardless, it's insane the attacks on Saylor, but he in fact thinks a lot like what I've called white nationalism 1.0, which along with Jared Taylor, Jared Taylor a very nice man, but to me that is a very powerless frame. It will not succeed. But what you see on the ethno-nationalist right, the contest among the face fags, and And I don't include actually either Sailor or Jared Taylor under that name, like ethno-nationalist right. But all the face flags of the American far right, they also all aspire to be Jesse Jacksons. And why have I gone on this tangent? Because the same is true already for the conservative movement. It has successfully for decades a Jesse Jackson style of existence, precisely because it's a powerless ward of the state. It has assumed, accepted minority position.

Even when it rules, it's a minority position. It is a token. This is what I've been saying. And Jesse Jackson represents the nigger, and the conservative movement people like William F. Buckley and so on, they represent the conservanigger. And what do I mean by this? It's a question quite separate from the moral hypocrisy of the individuals involved. For example, you can bring up a question, does Jesse Jackson is in fact a real OG nigga or is he just playing this as a minstrel act in the same way that there's a question of whether in Washington DC the guys who staff and run the conservative movement are in fact moral majority types in their actual lives or they're actually fags in some varieties. And it's true that some are this latter and I find the whole very distasteful fags that

affected wasp manor in three pursuits thinking that they're Evelyn Vaux and pretending to represent the salt of the earth Ned Flanders Midwestern family man and moral majority values and traditional America and this it's a kind of cliche that's been a fixture of the conservative movement as much as you have for example articulate mulattos who in the Caribbean or Brazil would not be considered black, they might even pass for white, but they represent in the United States the hood niggas in the NAACP and so on. Yeah, they half-breed. There's a kind of similar, but that's material for like a psychological study or a Tom Wolfe comedy jab on hypocrisy. Beyond that, regardless of what their personal lives are or are not, they may be completely sincere. I mean, however,

however, that the whole model is self-defeating. When Mulbach came on my show last, whenever it was he came last time, and we talk about why this pretense of the conservative movement intellectual, pretending that he's the voice of the moral majority in DC, pretending to be the voice of Hobbit, or pretending, you know, role-playing the Shire, their priorities are all messed up. It leads to, again, whether they are sincere or not, it's always some Mike Pence spouting pious can't and that's what I can't stand the pharisaism of promoting symbolic values or symbolic religion as a form of tokenism as a form of identity affirmation let me give you an example abortion okay trump comes in and they derided him horribly as

a new york urbanite degenerate with whore wives and so on the people who did that were the conservative priggs like ted cruz and that whole bunch did the run on the bible and so on. And he solves abortion for them, the first president in decades. He didn't know you're not supposed to do that. For the rank and file, of course, it's an achievement. But for the conservative Jesse Jacksons, it's a disaster. They've never forgiven him for it. His entire careers, prospective careers of nephews have been taken away. Their entire departments were at these think tanks dedicated just to that. Now they don't have jobs. It's It's not so easy to repurpose, you know. For decades a good chunk of the conservative movement made its living demagoguing about that matter. It's no longer on the table.

I find the model of having a goatee, but this is what I mean, you know. This, excuse me, the attack. But this model of a weirdo, a convert weirdo with a goatee who pretends to be the heir of William F. Buckley, with all the associated affectations of high wasp manor, and pretends to be a representative of a certain image or of a certain lifestyle as a placeholder in libtard establishment. This kind of Jesse Jacksonism is what the intellectual or even the political conservative movement has been. And whatever the qualities of the individuals involved, it's designed to fail, achieves nothing but symbolic bullshit image things, whether it's, as I said, abortion or child tax credits, or gay-faced Josh Hawley berating young men with the Bible for not manning up

and stop video games and marry a whore. What this has to do with his job as senator. But that kind of thing would be seen as reasonable in any serious nation, but it's all about lifestyle approbation. And some of the worst are people talking, it's a small matter, but just to give you more example of what I mean that people now talking about how you shouldn't go to college on the dissident right they're spreading or on the populist uh some people call it populist inc populist incorporated the new populist world do not go to college right leaving aside the fact again that many are college graduates themselves who would never follow their own advice but they're telling young naive guys their only audience you know to install roof and live with Jose and inhale sawdust to learn a trade, right?

But again, leaving aside the question of hypocrisy, it's a small example, a good illustration of what I mean, because of course a serious nationalist or even just conservative movement would be fighting very hard not to have their guys excluded from colleges and thereby from decisive positions in American government, security establishment and media, right? They'd be pleading and bullying donors to put pressure on universities. They'd be encouraging fraternities to organize, they'd be trying to get sympathetic DAs in college towns even who could at least sit it out and let students defend themselves on campuses. They'd raise all kinds of hell over this. But the message is this absurdity removed from all understanding of how politics works.

The message is to advise people to retreat to some provincial corner or learn a trade, parallel institutions. they have this word but it doesn't mean anything. What they really mean is raise a family, pray in a feminized church run by women with a vague promise that in a thousand years the system will collapse and your remote ancestors excuse me descendants your ancestors their remote descendants will inherit everything by means of demographics which breathtaking retarded on so many levels you know that not that this insane advice will be followed by anyone but as such it is advice for how to to become a permanent demi millet, a demi class, let alone the absurdity of assuming that you're able to control what your children choose to do, the way things are arranged today.

I don't know of any parents who have that type of control. What hand do you have? The state has all the hand. Rufo, Chris Rufo, is at least doing something along these lines to fight back, but my opinion is too little, too late, but it's a good start. At least get middle Americans somewhat trained politically, thinking politically and how to organize, but now I will talk book and maybe movie. Maybe I'll talk movie I like if there is time. I will talk Stendhal and maybe talented Mr. Ripley. Maybe I'll leave Mr. Ripley for future episodes, there are many movies on that subject. But I tell you this, when such people win, they lose. Such people as I've described on this episode so far. Let's say this token minority faction wins an election by luck. And I don't mean Trump.

I mean, again, the conservative people. Mulbug is certainly correct about that. They end up losing anyway. You look at Reagan, what he has achieved, Orban now is Reagan of Hungary. There is no future to that. It's because they have no vision of energetic possibilities. They cannot appeal to youth about a new way of life, a new man. They are fundamentally always going to appeal only to wife-man and the continuation of a wife-centered domestic lifestyle with performative priggishness, performative religiosity and morally. And worst of all, when it concerns the political and intellectual leaders, it's all about empty can't. You look up this word can't, homilies, and this what I can't stand. And this actually now good subject to go talk to you Stendhal and book Red and the Black.

You will see why. I will be right back. The fall of Napoleon, any appearance of gallantry has been strictly banned from provincial mores. People are afraid of being deprived of office. Rogues look to the congregation for support, and hypocrisy has made great strides even among the liberal classes. Boredom has become acute. The only pleasures left are reading and agriculture. That's from Red and the Black, the end of chapter 7 by Stendhal. And it's good because it's this spirit of Napoleon that's just under the surface of the whole book. The spirit animating this book is suppressed promise of Napoleon and everything he represented. Its book takes place in the years following the restoration of the monarchy in France

in 1815 after the fall of Napoleon and tells tale of Julien Sorel from a prosperous peasant family in provincial France, a mountain region. Its beauty is described in some detail and of his, not correct to say his rise, but his adventures, his ambitions, story of his move to Paris and kind of entry into high society. And so the structure is similar to this move from countryside to big city Paris, same in Bellamy by Maupassant and his many French novels of such men and possibly it's a reformed version of stories such as Gilles Blas that Nietzsche liked so much. That's from a Spanish novel from 18th century about the man of low origins who survives by his wits and humor and such, gets entry into high court.

But I'm saying many great French stories are just this, smart boy from provinces who wants to become great, escapes provinces, goes to Paris. And as friend recent put it, in French culture the provinces are low, the city is high, and in the provinces you are imprisoned in norms and settled mores, but in Paris you can become your own man through great talent. And what sets this particular tale apart from something like Gilles Blas is precisely the fusion of what I just said, the movement from state provinces to city life and the pursuit of greatness, but the fusion of that type of adventure story with the suppressed spirit of Napoleon, the promise of Napoleon. As this is told, I think it takes place in the 1820s, it was written in the 1820s, and

in some spiritual meaning, all of France had become in a way temporarily a province. As Napoleon, his going away didn't just mean he himself or his government going away, but the going of way of, as paragraph I just read, of gallantry, of pursuit of individual greatness, greatness of spirit, of an outward looking that was replaced by pharisaic conservative hypocrisy and kind of, yes, all of France falling under the sway of this reactionary stolid Ned Flanders type life. By the way, the translation I'm using on this episode is Catherine Slater, which my friend Yama, that's the one he read first, but then he said the Moncrief translations are the most literary and humorous. So that's what I'd recommend. I trust Yama's judgment. I read this book now again with him, why? I told you why.

I want to write a novel and both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer say, you get into your best writing mood, writing ability by first, just before that. You read things that you love that are very well written. So I'm rereading my favorite books as well as some that I never have such as by Tom Wolfe and others. I'm sorry if I repeat myself, I may have mentioned this before. Other friends suggest other books. The Bureaucrats suggest War and Peace saying Tolstoy most of all has the cleanest aristocratic style other friend suggest play it as it lays I don't know this. I've never read its modern novel Joan Didion. I think is this good I don't know, but I'll stick mostly to the ones I like with one big exception two big exception no Dostoevsky because arguably

ugly style despite very moving books, but that's very particular to that man right to be able to write ugly and nevertheless move you and no Joseph Conrad who is my favorite novelist but as bureaucrats say he was killed in his own lifetime by critics someone maybe convoluted style maybe I you know I I no longer remember but it's 15 past midnight excuse if I if I repeating myself but this convoluted story within a story plus heavy heavy style that Conrad uses but whether it's heavy or not it's just too particular too individual it's same as Nietzsche say you can learn to write from the Romans but not really from the Greeks the Greeks too too alien too individual the best stylists were maybe Sallust and Tacitus I at least like that the style

style of surprise, extreme brevity at times, and new words and new coinages. I want to learn this style someday. But anyway, The Red and the Black and Charterhouse of Parma, such moving books from Stendhal about adventure of promising types. And The Red and the Black in particular is the ultimate story of the sensitive young man. You know this phrase? It's used now by very nice new account, the anime use, I don't know, I assume that they came up with this phrase. I don't think I did, but some attribute it to me, or they say that the idea at least is from me, from the second part of Bronze Age mindset, the Iron Prison, where I discuss Iron Prison, and yes, the idea of the longhouse among other things, but in general how modern

society but really let's face it, most societies as such are prisons for powerful spirits. And this story, Red and the Black, is a story of sensitive young men trapped in just such a prison. It's a priggish, hypocritical, parochial world of a town called Verière. And actually, I didn't know this but Leo Cesares, his poster, you can find, he does very nice Translations of Napoleon, he tells me it's based on true story or rather a real news report from 1827 that Stendhal saw in a newspaper and look, I don't want to give it away what happens in the book as a whole, but regarding the style, maybe if you read it now or you go to it later, you do not put it down in the beginning. I know two people who say they

put down this book in the opening chapters because it starts a bit slow and if the scenes don't immediately pull you in for reasons I hinted you may say well this is an image of idyllic and kind of stultifying country life but it's a bit slow it might be boring too much description so I put it away but actually story picks up great spiritual power as main character Julien moves to Paris and so forth but anyway the image of provincial life is not very favorable it's quite negative so let me read for you some telling examples reading to win public esteem in Verriere the main thing while of course building walls in great number is to avoid any design brought over from Italy by the stonemasons who come through the gorges in the Jura in the springtime on their way up to Paris.

An innovation of this kind would earn the foolhardy landowner a lasting reputation for unsound views and discredit him forever in the eyes of the wise and sensible folk who mete out esteem in the French Comte. In actual fact, these wise folk keep everyone there in the grip of the most irksome despotism. This dirty word sums up why it is that life in a small town is unbearable to anyone who who has dwelt in the great republic called Paris. Public opinion, and you can just imagine what it's like, exercises a tyranny that is every bit as mindless in small towns in France as it is in the United States of America. That's how the first chapter ends. So it's the reference to the United States of America, extreme conformity of opinion. I found that interesting. Tocqueville wrote about just that

in his great book, Democracy in America, But that was published in 1835, excuse me. And the Red and the Black, I think, was published in the 1820s. And so even by then, he didn't get it from Tocqueville. There must have been some considerable lore already running in France, in Paris, about the tyranny of small-town democratic public opinion in America. Or otherwise, maybe I'm ignorant about their source for this in previous French literature, I don't know. But I know Schopenhauer has similar remarks a few times, even less flattering things to say, though, about the other democracies in Americas besides the United States. But when it comes to America, this element of the conformity of opinion is emphasized in all these writers. And in Schopenhauer, he grinds also

against the bigotry of Anglican or Anglo religiosity, which he hated ever since he had spent some time in England as he used in boarding school. He liked England and became a lifelong trans, like a trans Anglo, Anglophile, but he despised that particular aspect. He hated his kind of religious tutors in England, and so to him the words Anglican bigotry, he repeated them almost ritually at times through his books. But I mean this was, yes, I'd like to know how such views spread in Europe. I find it funny that when I mentioned this, what I just said now about American tyranny of opinion, when I mentioned this in the past to a conservative-ish academic, he became offended. He said, yes, this was true for America of that time, but American society radically

changed with Lincoln, and that America that existed after Lincoln was different, and the America of FDR still more so, so that this, you know, what I just read for you could no longer be claimed, but that in fact America acquired a cosmopolitan and open-minded learned elite. Is this what you believe? This is of course the Ellis Island fraternity view, the smarter among them refer to Lincoln. It's not what I believe, but okay, I think what I just read from Stendhal regarding the conformity of public opinion in the United States is still true. But I mean, yes, it's not small town in 1810, but arguably the founding fathers at least certainly they had a higher cultural level than almost any American so-called elite today. And yet still there were these rumors at the time.

But anyway, to go back to Stendhal's account of provincial French life in the wake of Napoleon and you get, right, it's the contrast, the contrast between the greatness and freedom