And now it's broken out in Camela, America. They are planning to use Haitians for cat food. I think this major controversy going on right now, it is outrageous. It's most definitely not humanitarian. They say they want to process Haitians to import and use them in the same way that colonial America used to import sugars, molasses from Caribbean. And it was New England who was one of the biggest world rum producers. Now they want to import, this is my information, a source inside the White House and a journalism association, Kamala America. In continuation of Clinton policies, where they trafficked Haitian children, you can listen to Trump UN speech, where Hillary is there. New York UN club speech, I think,

or some other private club, New York, he addressed a tuxedo during the 2016 election. He pointed out Hillary trafficked Haitian children. He said he took whole villages, Clinton, it is said they want to import them now and process them into cat food for the Russian market and Persian market in those countries where cats are so beloved around the world. The mudslime religion tried to ban dogs in Iran because Zoroastrians love the doggy and it's just how Muslims are, they're so obnoxious. They wanted to kill the dogs only because the Zoroastrians love them. I want to watch movie about doggy now, it make me cry, but no really, flooding America with the trash of the world. And of course, Trump campaign should make big thing of this, already it is, but maybe

Maybe they bring up a debate, they should run many ads graphic, the Haitian zombie hordes eating your dog, snacking on cat entrails. This already spreading now all over Facebook is my friend Martin, I'm very proud that he is the one who initiated all this. Martin, Russian cosmist, Vuel the captive dreamer, this man's on Twitter X, he initiate this great act of citizen journalism, but I am glad that Donald Trump Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy, others are picking this up. They should, I think in general, mock Kamala more in just this vein. Friends recommend this, videos of Kamala laughing in her gargoyle cackle and just superimpose her over images of Haitian barbecue cat, barbecue swan in middle America. Camela laughing over gypsy caravans from Central America, drug derangement, images of drug

derangement on poverty, America's city streets, things like fentanyl overdose statistics while Camela dances. Just nonstop flood with a high production video of this kind. I know some friends tried to make this, but they were very quick and I think high production, This right angle of attack and what Martin is doing now, obviously hitting Nerve, Bill Crystal panicking, trying to say, no Haitians, voodoo is white magic, they pet cats, they don't kill cats, but it just has to be done right, the videos of Camilla dancing. I told you on social, now they do, if you heard something just now, they try to interrupt my microphone. I told you on this show long ago that Camilla Bulldog battalions would be formed. I think this is imminent.

They will, imagine elephantine-footed black lesbians, security guards, cocky green pants, paramilitary demon crap. This is the paramilitary of the demon craps, the Basiji rug-muncher liquidation squadrons. These are the sticks. This is why Trump must win, or this come a reality. Maybe it is already. Meanwhile, the new right, or the outlight, call it whatever you want, the dissident right, it continues to self-immolate in just the stupidest ways. There was this completely stupid debate before this, thankfully, Haitian news cycle was initiated by my friend Martin, there was complete stupid debate about World War II and Churchill, which I don't understand the point of that. It would be a non-issue and could be ignored, but Vance was apparently just asked about

this by journalists on CNN and such, what he think about Tucker interview. I think Vance mostly answered okay, he deflected, he talks about free speech, but the question itself doesn't help him or campaign. And let me ask you, who does that help? The problems in this election are the thing going now about Haitian basically being used to demographically destroy Trump's stronghold towns in Ohio, whether it's done out of a desire to mess up this election or future elections, or more likely, I think it's simply done out of spite, not out of Machiavellian calculation, but you don't think people in government act out of spite? Obama already put many, I think it was Haitian, but also Somali refugees in Maine and Minnesota, and this was done out of racial spite, okay? Putting

gutter third-world zombies in small white towns, right? Because otherwise it's blacks getting ethnically cleansed by cholos in Los Angeles. I don't know if that's what was bothering Mr. Obama, or I don't know, but it's either way pure emotionalism from many people in government and their cheerleaders in media doing this, and now, you know, it's a picture-perfect moment. My friend World's Greatest Dad pointed this out, because Kamel only real and her last constituency was the cat ladies. In fact, if you look at the fake supposed surge in polls that she had in August, if If you look at the cross-stabs, it was simply just middle-aged, crazed, libtard women. They were just answering polls more zealously than other demographics, that's all it was.

And then the fake face-fag far-right and some of the other fake conservatives that never trumped people, they got activated to try to doom and gloom about that fake Kamala surge. Oh, look, Trump is failing Kamala. She got that Brett energy, bro. Trump has to fire his campaign staff and hire the people who are paying me and this kind of thing. You know, so who cares really what Trump campaign staff is? I have no doubt that some of them are bad. Some may be good, but maybe the alternatives are also bad. I don't know. It's all Trump. It's all Trump. It's always been all Trump now as in 2016. He wins or loses by his own powers and he's responsible ultimately by the way for his own decisions during the first and now what will hopefully be second administration.

I don't understand the point of being enlisted by basically rat fuckers like Reince Priebus or other people whose job it is to scold fuck in, rat fuck in Washington, D.C., that I should be involved in taking sides. Who gets hired in the White House? Who's responsible for what leaks or this? I don't know this. It's all Trump. It's not his campaign or staff. He won by his own powers in 2016. No one gave him that win. Bannon was not giving him that win. But other people have other priorities, you know, jobs for their friends or whatnot. But anyway, so yes, it was all the cat lady bounds for Kamel Harris in August but then and as that is tapering out anyway because they are on oceans of wine and Xanax or whatever and just you

know here she is she's feeding the cat lady's cats to Haitian zombies that she brought in it's a perfect poetic image of what the fuck up she is and the last the four years of Biden and her have been but as this is going on Tucker choose to have this collar on to talk about Churchill and how Churchill was not a hero but a terrorist and he was a big meanie he did not respect you know if Churchill was around now he would not have respected George Floyd or I'm exaggerating a bit and thankfully this story has now petered out but let me just say if you listen to my show I will address it briefly now but if you listen to my show. I've attacked Churchill for many years. I've attacked the cult of Churchill among American conservatives and neo-cons especially, which has been used I think quite

inappropriate to support wars, stupid interventions in our own times. That's why it should be attacked besides the just general matter of historical rectitude. But I'm very familiar with the argument I've made similar such myself, I've written about it too. It's not just Churchill, it's the cult of Munich. It's always Munich 1938, every year is Munich 1938. The message being that you should never negotiate or the word they use is appease, tyrants, and of course tyrant is anyone they designate this. Every few years Hitler gets reincarnated into another world leader, first it was Saddam, now this is why I find the word Putler funny, you know, Putler and other reincarnation, they have some bizarre cyclical reincarnation type view of time.

It's a kind of superstition of principally in this case conservative type, neo-con type that should be made fun of. And Churchill himself, it is only a moralistic, I think, kind of hysterical moralistic sentiment that considers people like Churchill good leaders for standing up to tyranny. But he didn't help his own nation by doing that. The British Empire's demise was accelerated by Churchill's decisions to give war guarantee to Poland and drag Europe into another war. I don't know if there would have been another war in Europe. That is true without Churchill pushing for this, FDR I think was pushing for it behind scene. I think maybe Hitler could have been induced to attack only Stalin. I don't know. Look, these are theories, who knows.

On the other hand, there is other side to this because Hitler also wanted revenge on specifically France for World War I and to gain territories, Alsace-Lorraine and to punish perhaps England and France. I think that was also part of Hitler's intention that can't be denied and it is somewhat at odds with his intention of uniting Europe to fight Soviet Bolshevism. So anyway, look, these disputations can go both ways, but certainly Churchill, he could have maybe compromised, I don't know, but whatever he did did not help England. England, France, and Israel actually tried to do a colonialism during the Suez Crisis in the 1950s, and America stopped them, showing that the United Kingdom had now an entirely subservient role in the world.

And who knows, maybe English first power status could have been maintained another ten, twenty years or more, who knows? But as for FDR, who I also dislike, at least you can say, well, America came out undisputed world leader after 1950, but for England you can't make this argument. So what exactly is Churchill value, stand up to tyranny, some kind of moral posturing by people who say so. But anyway, these things are disputable. I love disputation. But Tucker platform is not actually platform for disputation. It's not merely to consider abstract truths or interesting historical matters to dispute. It's a gigantic media, mass media platform. And I have to question the value of bringing up this debate now, right before this election,

To frame matters in terms of World War II and inevitably the Holocaust, the cholo hoax, right that's what the leftists and libtards want to do. That's always what they do. In fact, Haitian refugees not wanting to turn your town into a cat hunting ground where a vodou mammy is barbecuing parakeet entrail on communal fire right inside project apartments. Actually you know not one thing that has nothing to do with your views one way or another on World War II or Churchill, even in Europe where this matter has been very aggressively used to push migration. I remember talking, it must have been 12, 13, maybe even 15 years ago, I think it was something like this, at least 10 to 12 years ago, I remember talking to a very young Austrian,

he must have been in his early 20s, very smart mathematician, he had like many alt-rightish people, he had a Thai girlfriend and so on, that doesn't matter, I don't know why I say that. But he was very much for the migration restriction populist parties in Austria, you know, this was Heide's legacy in Austria and so forth. And unprompted, he told me, you know, there are many people, perhaps most young people in Austria now are for migration restriction, and they always then try to clobber us over the head with what happened in World War II and the Holocaust. And his answer was very simple, and I have to do that, I have what to do that with, I have nothing to do with that, it has nothing to do with us today. It's a very simple argument, you don't need much more than that.

Most people are receptive to just that. It's got absolutely nothing to do with what goes on now. The people who say it does, the people who want to frame and bring back these debates, that is the left and the libtards. The left and the pro-migrant neo-con want to say it does. That this question, if you are bigoted against Haitians, as they would put it, that you must have some unusual views also about World War II, so let's talk about that. So why take the bait and get into it? remember, not on a forum, not on an online small account like I did in the past or such, but to make part of this election campaign where Vance gets questioned about why do this. Furthermore, the arguments you make matter. The context and angle of argument matter because

in fact it's also a feature of the academic left to attack Churchill. They just do it for different reasons than I do. So to call him a terrorist, a war criminal, and also colonialist, an oppressor of browns or racist or whatever, that's a leftist frame that doesn't have the effects, the present day political effects you'd hope for, right? Because I thought Tucker, at least this is maybe what is even sincerely in Tucker's mind, I thought he was disputing Churchill now because staying out of stupid foreign wars is part of Trump promise. It's a promise that he actually delivered on during his first administration, uniquely so among decades of retired presidents who gave America actually, since Gulf War I, mostly

maybe only losing engagements, and staying then also out of a potential World War III with Russia, although I don't think that's really likely. But staying out of World War III with Russia, or maybe an escalation over Ukraine, that's a good thing, whereas using the myth of Churchill's uncompromising attitude toward Hitler as a dogmatic image to refuse to negotiate with Russia, this is a bad thing, of course. I thought this is supposedly the reason Tucker brings these things up right now. But politically, actually, just the matter of Churchill doesn't make sense, because, for example, Obama did not use the image of Churchill. Obama didn't worship him, quite the opposite. Obama, if you remember, I guess nobody does, Obama went so far as to give the bust of Churchill

that was at the White House, he had it returned to England. To me that feels so gratuitous, but it's a big symbolic move. Obviously, he was spiteful, he was emotional about that, enough to go that far. He was mad about some also happenings in Kenya and that England was supposedly responsible for putting down the rebellion there or such. But a spiteful man did this gratuitous thing, returned bust of Churchill, and yet what happened? Obama still continued America's foreign wars and losing foreign interventions, and he also started nuance. And maybe people forget the Crimea crisis in 2014 happened during Obama. Russia was, I think, forced to take Crimea at the time. It should have actually solved its Ukraine problem at the time.

If it had invaded Ukraine in 2014, probably much of the country would have welcomed Russia as they wrongly expected to in this go-around. Because when that happened in 2014, there were cities in Ukraine such as Kharkov and Odessa where people came out in force for Russia. There were massive pro-Russia demonstrations at the time, you know, and that got changed in the intervening years. So I was in Crimea, you know, I was there in 2007, it's complete Russian ethnically and actually it was super pro-Russian in sentiment. The people there are very friendly to me but they, without my prompting, brought up pro-Russian sentiments when I was in Crimea then. The reason Russia had to act to do that in 2014 was because Obama interference very heavily

in Ukraine, yes, through people like Newland and so on, but it was his administration. That's when the turn in Ukraine happened, right, and that's from a guy who returned Churchill bus to England. So what all this reasoning and, oh, 44-dimensional chess going on here about, I'm going to challenge how much better would it have been for Tucker to have Martin on? I don't think Martin wants to go on. I think he wants his privacy and so forth. But Martin or someone like him, this is not the only story. Martin discovered this story with the Haitian thing, the Haitian cat eating and such, basically bringing 20,000 Haitians into a city of 40,000 or 60,000 people. It's insane regardless what happens, it's an act of demographic aggression, it's insane.

But there are many other such stories of abuses that happened during Kamala administration, ongoing abuses that Tucker could have had on instead of this pointless thing about Churchill that we wasted on this, so obviously the example of Obama shows you it has no real effect on American foreign policy, the Churchill fact, what I'm saying, in isolation, unless you are ready to make many more other arguments about World War II within General America and Europe that were not made on Tucker interview and that would not be made because the caller he interviewed does not know these arguments. He is repeating something he recently learned, basic bitch thing from old forum posts that I think he doesn't understand very well, but the Churchill argument alone doesn't do it.

And I'm not sure, by the way, any historical argument as such would on its own, again, in this very public forum of an interview where it's a mass media thing before the election. What I wanted to add is that Churchill in particular is not even a founding mythological figure of the American establishment as a whole as such. It's really only for conservatives, for neocons, and some centrist or center-right libtards that either worship or admire Churchill. But the people I just named now are a junior partner at best in the ruling coalition of America. A junior faction and the dominant libtard and leftist faction is either mostly indifferent or in some case actually actively hostile to Churchill, but they still pursue these

wars and stupid interventions, you know, so the reason Tucker is actually talking about this now, I'm sorry to say, and especially the Kohler that he interviewed, but even Tucker is out of ire, rivalry, anger, and rivalry against other conservative factions, and not against the American establishment as such, which has some value, because there are stupid conservatives too, you know. By the way, not every conservative who like Churchill is stupid. I know some very smart ones who do. But yes, that has some value, but what is the value of doing it now before the election? Hey, I'm going to pick a fight with this other conservative, but please don't talk to me about the truth. Truth cannot be pursued on a mass media interview. That's not what the purpose of this was.

The purpose was more of, oh, I'll stick it to other conservatives. And since then, it's a situation where, in fact, some of the worst people have ended up attacking Tucker, you know. So now what do you do? Because Sohrab Ahmari, who has actually long had an obsession with me, I'm not being self-involved, but you can look it up. This week I hear Sohrab Ahmari came out with his, it must be his eighth article against me, I don't know, the Barbarian Rite or something. It changes every time. First I was a Karpokratian, Frank is Gnostic, I was ready to sacrifice children to Moloch, but now it's the barbarian right. I think it must be eight articles against me by now, from Soros-funded compact magazine, Sohra Maamari. That's right, funded by Soros. Sue me if that's not true, compact magazine.

I know this from Open Society Foundation, people who are bragging about this all over New York, that they fund compact. And somehow, no journalist is interested to pursue this oddity that a dissident right, supposedly Catholic, integralist, conservative magazine, is funded by George Soros. But anyway, before Sohrab, there were other obsessives against me. I don't know that. Sohrab Amari is up to the 14 articles written against me by C. Bradley Thompson, Kemsex Bradley Thompson, as I like to call him, of the Koch Center from Clemson University. And I'm not saying, by the way, that these Kolars are funded by Koch or Soros, approach, and that makes them change their views. I'm sure it's opportunistic, they are themselves quite sincere about their retarded views.

But yes, what I'm saying is the worst people like Sohrab, Sohrab Amari, a social climbing striver who has appointed himself, actually along with Hillel center Barry Weiss, as the judges of what is and isn't right wing, you know, they want to be so-called gatekeepers. Same thing conservatives have always done, pointed in the media, no, see that guy to my right, he's a heretic, he's a bad Nazi, you know. These are some of the worst people now attacking Tucker, so just because of that you have to defend Tucker, you know, but even though I think what he's doing is pointless at moments, so it's like lose-lose, you know, but this is what I mean, this is a distraction as long As long as you're talking about these people and this internecine kind of niche quarrel

about Churchill, which really is only an inner right thing, inner conservative intra-fight, you are not attacking Kamala. You're not talking about the Haiti story and the many other abuses that could be talked about. the target should be on the left and on the presidency as such as it is of Gamal Nasser Harris. But when Barry Weiss, explain to me by the way why this creature Barry Weiss, who is forthrightly and openly a mere ethno-nationalist on the level of Farrakhan, I think, you know, more people, right? Like she doesn't even have enough self-reflection reflection to try to address why anyone who is not her people should care about her people any more than one cares about the Irish or Armenians or the Tibetans or the Igbo, right?

But it's community Farrakhan-type ethnocentrist mentality and then she couches in a completely disingenuous pseudo-liberalism and kind of a hawkish neo-con-type thing and then American and conservatives, I don't know, they buy this. I don't even know if they read what she writes. I don't actually know that she has a real audience. So why we have to end up talk about these people and Tucker puts a target, you know. You see her on Twitter and such, but beyond that, I don't think anybody reads Barry Weiss. I've never read anything by her. I assume it's the same bot-type networks or meat bots. They hire, you know, meat bot are actually people in, let's say, social media farms in Bangalore or something. But I think she's pushed by that type of network

that also are pushing her foils like Lucas Gage and Fuentes and Jake Shields and Candace Owens and all these other retards that have sprouted up over the last year or two to serve as distractions. So more on those in a moment. But yes, when you have people like this attack Tucker for supposedly mainstream Nazism or whatever nonsense that are claimed, you are then almost forced to defend Tucker, but again I don't see value of this debate at this point. And like I tell you, the framing of the attacks on Churchill on this Tucker show, the framing was itself leftist in a way that will not lead to very hope, because it's very possible to reject Churchill but still support foreign interventions and also mass migration and so forth.

By the way, it's also possible, since it is matter, to question the mainstream Holocaust narrative and also be wrong on these other questions of mass migration and foreign interventions. Let me give you two examples. Arno Meyer or this guy Finkelstein, is it Norman, that people are promoting. These are far leftists. They are sometimes called Holocaust deniers, I think quite wrongly. But Arno Meyer is a Marxist and a child of Holocaust survivors. He has written at length kind of Holocaust skepticism, you can call it. It's not really that, but he has an interpretation of it where it wasn't intentional in the way that is claimed now. And so some historians call him a denier or this or that. But the guy is still a leftoid Marxist. You know, he supports, I'm sure, mass migration and such.

Much of the far left, you know, again, rejects Churchill but supports all these things. So I mentioned these retard Candace Owen, Jake Shields, et cetera. You may have seen them off Twitter if you are on the site. I actually don't know if you can see this or not. I don't know if general audience has had access to this insanity. not all of my audience look Twitter X, right? Okay, so it's a species of the same thing I just mentioned now though, what I mean. Let me ask you, if you see a post about how the Jews invented the bikini to subvert European society, right, and 40,000 retweets, and so what is, when you see that, what is the pretense of that 40,000 retweet or whatever, of that mass media exposure of this. And it's not the only one. I'm not cherry-pick, you know.

It's typical of what is on X today. And the pretense, you know, is that this is the red-blooded American opinion of the heartland, right, when you see 40,000 retweets. You know, the kind of opinion that was supposedly suppressed during the years of censorship on Twitter. You know, or a post about Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, how Kemal Ataturk was the founder of modern secular Turkey was really a Jew, 50,000 retweets or something like that. And these are red-blooded American concerns, right? It sounds accurate. They really care to prove that Ataturk was a Jew, you know, and Ataturk, bikinis, you know. Or like, again, thousands of thousands of retweets over World War II revisionism of the most weepy, sentimental, bizarre manner like an old image of an old soldier crying

or some having a conversation with the skull with a German helmet and let me ask you that's supposed to represent That's the pretense that that represents like previously suppressed mainstream Silent majority opinion. I mean the really because I was on Twitter since 2013 and in 2015 there was actually far less censorship in Twitter than there is right now under Elon I'm not attacking Elon. I'm happy that he got rid of the censorship that came after 2016 and that you know, I'm grateful to have my account back and some of other friends accounts backs but actually many of my anime young friends are getting banned sometimes every day and Back then before 2016 2015 you could say anything you could do death threats. You could do rape threats. You could say any word whatsoever

There was no censorship before 2016 or so far less than there is now and I have to tell you I don't remember this kind of slop supposedly, you know, 40,000 retweet or regular even ever or even 4,000 or anything like that not even during Trump campaign in the beginning when the frog thing was really taking off in the first you know first part of the campaign at the end of 2015 and we were getting international attention and the algorithms were were natural or organic, in other words, they picked up whatever was actually trending, they were helping us. This is before they changed the algorithm and the clamp down right. So whatever is going on now is very different. It doesn't feel the same at all. It's completely

made up and artificial. That's how it feels to me. And I'm not saying Elon himself is doing it, but someone high up at Twitter, quite aside from bots or whatever, I think on high up at Twitter have finger on algorithm scale to push this kind of trash now and so right now sorry actually American happen to love bikinis. So that for example is a great illustration of what I call a predetermined debate. Bikinis which are loved and Jews which actually in America there is no anti-semitism. Jews are widely liked in America as far as as I can tell, obsession with that matter is, for this reason, a political loser both in America and in France, as the French right found after the Sorrel-Dudonné affair. I may discuss this on future episodes, but pretty much the only people who want to talk

about the Jews and profit from anti-Semitism paranoia is the ADL and the SPLC. If you look at a documentary about the ADL that, I forget the name, it was made some years ago, some Israeli guy make a documentary critical of the ADL, and their secretaries and workers are just desperately looking for any example of antisemitism to complain about. Without that, they don't have living. They don't get any funding from, you know, they can call some hysterical neurotic Jewish woman and give her an example and she sends them money or something and there's almost nothing they can find American society organically because it doesn't exist actually anti-semitism in American society now so they have to focus if you look at this

documentary on a reasonable tiny thing like somebody was told that they have to come to work when it was actually some obscure Jewish holiday, they were not allowed a day off and that's an example of something they would attack. I mean, it's nothing, but now there is this supposed surge where they can point to supposed metrics, oh look, 40,000 retweets, but in my opinion it's complete fake. And you can see the form it takes. If you were the ADL and the SPLC, or if you were Barry Weiss or Ben Shapiro, wouldn't you want your foil to be the types of people who claim that Jews invented the bikini to, you know, I mean, you know, that Ataturk was a Jew, you know, like, by the way, that's a Qatari line, you know, Ataturk was a Jew, you inject the secular Turkish Republic. I mean, it's freakishly

bizarre from an American point of view, 40,000 retweets, a real heartland, silent majority American concern, depressed by the globalist elite, right? Bikinis in Ataturk, what the hell is this?" And people then take this seriously. Lucas Gage, major anti-semitic, excuse me, they use the word anti-Zionist, or Jew critical voice of our time, Lucas Gage. They must be really afraid of Lucas Gage. He came out with this video the other day. Listen, to make my point, everything I've been saying now, let me just play you this clip because I couldn't stop laughing this is supposed to be like what I at the show today this is your brief humor interlude for now listen to this this is supposed to be major Semitic critical minds what they call it anti-zionist thinker of our time

listen to this I was out I come home and I heard some noises upstairs you know like intimate noises I said someone is with my wife and I opened the door and I I saw a very thin, pale Jewish man completely naked. The only thing he was wearing as he plowed my wife was a yarmulke and his socks. And it just blew my... I was traumatized. So that's why I made the video yesterday and I answered the question that my wife, it's over, it's maybe not over, maybe I'm lying, maybe I'm telling the truth, maybe she ran away with a rabbi. but the true story is it wasn't rabbi schmooly but it was someone related to him so that's what happened that's the truth okay you like now let me ask you who is this supposed to uh who is this

supposed to make them quiver in fear or or is candace owens right uh uh retard candace owen listen uh she's showing up not just on twitter but now on pierce morgan right why what is this distraction. See, even if it's easy to laugh at them, as long as you're talking about Candace Owens, Fuentes, Jake Shield, Lucas Gage, you're not talking about Kamala. You're not talking, you don't have your targets on Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or the actual leaders of the, you know, the responsible leaders of the Republic or whatever. This is mass media kayfabe wrestling match with Rabbi Shmueli on Piers Morgan, right? Alex Jones does the same debate, Rabbi Shmueli versus, I don't remember if it was Fuentes or Candace Owens, I don't remember. It's interchangeable Piers Morgan versus Rabbi Shmueli.

The issue of 2024 is apparently the Jews, right? I mean, you're supposed to believe this. Well, given that it's obviously fake, I ask, whose benefit? I mean, my gosh, my gosh, Candace Owen got so bad that mixing in, she was mixing in flat earth and denying moon landing and such, because, you know, the evil Nazi Jew, the Nazi Jew, Werner von Braun, went to the moon while the communauté, the Niebau communauté was starving. So obviously, he's a Jew exploiter and so on and so on. They had not quite achieved liftoff demographic obesity yet at that time, the community. The moon landing funding stopped them from doing so, but since then, they, you know. But okay, so she brings up the Frankists, right? So this very funny, I mention Jacob Frank in my book, it's just a Jewish version of

the Klysti sect in Russia, I mention them too. was a Rasputin sect, or the ancient Carpokratians, salvation through sin. It's very interesting doctrine to me, and it's funny because Orthodox Jews have actually been attacking me for years as a supposed Frankist subversive. I want to lead the world into redeeming darkness. Now it comes from Candace Owen, I don't know where she read this, the Frankist conspiracy. I mean look she may be right the Frank right the hot dog in America. It's called Frank Why I mean put two into together your Hebrew national Franks when they tell you what they mean believe it serving the meat of Christian children to baseball stadiums nationwide for decades a Humiliation ritual right Jacob Frank's it all fits together No, but look seriously

Actually, I ask you who is this insanity and it is boosted as if it represents a major opinion in American society. Who is this insanity supposed to benefit? This whole circle of retards, Owens, Fuentes, Jake Shields, Nico, whoever that, you know, some spent rapper, he's suddenly, you know, Stu Peters. People who you'd never heard of, who they were invisible for years, now they're on, you're supposed to believe there's an audience for this kind of trash and it's being pushed by people at the Daily Wire, oh, haha, look at them, they're so dangerous, you know, Drudge Report now, Piers Morgan, she's showing up, many such, I cannot sort it out who is doing this and why. Now there are indictments to say, indictments came out this week to say the Russians were pushing precisely this.

This other retard, Lauren Chen, and Tenet Media, who were pushing this garbage, apparently were funded by the Russians big time, but I don't know if that's true or if it's a Deflection, but it's not real is what I'm saying and I cannot sort out who is behind it But it's the kind of fakery I'm talking about the kind, you know, the fight the fake face fag, right? Right, so same thing fundamentally also with the abortion and contraception nonsense another Distraction and deflection. I ask you given that Trump has long been a liberal on sexual and such matters You know, maybe disingenuous people forget this, but he was the first Republican nominee to support gay marriage in 2016, that is. Many of us didn't like that, but you look the other way and nobody really had a problem

with it at the time, and he was never for banning abortion, by the way. He gave the conservative movement what it supposedly had sought for decades, a repeal of Roe versus Wade, following which they had the chance to go to the states and make their case to the people of the various states to restrict or repeal it locally, but since they are getting destroyed in every election when abortion came up locally, even in the reddest of states, and maybe to move to Kansas and make the case for abortion a restriction in Kansas or such is not the lifestyle they had in mind when, you know, they wanted to live in Washington, D.C., and have access to the premium rent boys while they talk about abortion. So they are not grateful to Trump then for ending Roe vs. Wade as an issue.

He actually became a mortal enemy to them because he took away the basis for their funding and their careers. He showed them up. So I think to get back at him, the purity spiral over how the man who got Roe vs. Wade repealed is really a baby murder advocate or such. And I see this as one piece with the Project 2025 hysteria, which again was, for whatever reason, trying to reframe this election around things like banning pornography, restricting access to abortion and contraceptives even, which are not Trump's low priorities. I don't think he ever thought of doing such things. These are the priorities of the Ned Flanders cuck-servative movement, most of whom endorsed dissent is in primaries, by the way, and have been, many of them, never Trumped or

before that. I'm sorry to repeat myself if I say on episode recently, but this everything I've talked now is of one piece with the retardation over the Churchill debate. In other words, it's a reframing of terms of argument that potentially hurts Trump right before the election. It helps no one. The only thing it helps the public media profile of the influencers saying these things or So they think they think it helps them. It gives them clicks or such. You know, I can't speak for Tucker, but the color he had on his show I don't think it's necessarily that he was rubbing his hands trying to figure out how to hurt Trump But it's this mentality of well, it's a highly charged election environment

Let me see what I can say that would draw maximum controversy and you know run numbers in my favor It's the curse of the face fag this guy by the way previously some very questionable views had been going around saying that you should forget about migration restriction as a major cause he was very emotionally invested in promoting George Floyd and I mean the the BLM cause for that and even recently with police who defended themselves against some schizophrenic black woman who was showing excuse me throwing boiling water at them and he's like crucify these motherfuckers you know like attack this is the guy who was you know questioning Churchill on Tucker repeated pro BLM type rhetoric so at the very least he's some kind of anti-woke leftist but it's a very bizarre thing

he comes on and now it's become big news story oh look mr. Trump mr. Vance what you think about this, World War II, what you have to say about Churchill, let's talk this. But look, I don't know if it's some kind, it's about get attention at the very least. And how you do that, you make hysterical, stupid claims because the shyster is basically, if they had the looks for it, they would be doing pornography on OnlyFans or TikToks. But since they don't, they do political version of that. There is an account, he's my friend, he was obviously posting things like this. I think it was about the Balenciaga thing, I don't remember. By the way, that's another good example. That came out of Daily Wire. The Daily Wire was saying Balenciaga meant Baal, like the ancient Canaanite god, Baal

Moloch or something. Baal is king. They are saying that's what Balenciaga means in ancient Canaanite. It's, again, major thing of a hundred thousand retweets. Wow, the silent majority catches on to Balenciaga. Why were they doing this? Because the fashion house Balenciaga had some kind of child porn adjacent marketing that was distasteful, a campaign of that sort, and they were themselves doing this probably to outrage and to get controversy attention, and they got exactly what they want. And in this case, conservative operators at the Daily Wire They make up that this name, you know, means Bali's King Balenciaga. So I told this guy, look, this is daily wire coal, Balenciaga is a common Basque name, you can go to San Sebastian, you can drive up on Balenciaga Road into the mountains over

the Luc Ocean, there is a nice hotel there, a quelare, ooh, it means witch coven, right? Okay, it all fits together! But this guy, Cristobal Balenciaga, was a great fashion designer, he make wedding and and high society robe for Madrid aristocracy, it's actually a great story of innate talent, right? He grew up a poor boy in Basque country, and through sheer talent, became maybe greatest fashion designer of his generation. And it's got nothing to do with any of this, right? So why I tell you? Because I tell this, please delete. This is daily wire agitation called Alex Jones stupidity. So he deletes. He's a good guy. But I suspect, I don't know, I suspect at them, and it's not so much that he has this, but maybe he has shyster friend who

told him, well Bap is obviously part of the Frankish conspiracy globalist, no they're not doing this, you know, he's covering for the child-eating demon who rule over us. I don't think this was being told to him, but someone say, perhaps, well he got you to delete a post that would have made mad numbers, you know, he's not your friend because That would have done mad numbers, bro. Gonna bring in that bread, bro, but that stopped you from bringing in that bread by telling you to delete the Balenciaga thing, so I think maybe this friend, he's smart and you see that long-term, whatever short-term action it gets you, that kind of agitation discredits you. But regardless, why do I go on this tangent? This is just one example among thousands of what ex-Twitter and mass media become now

TV too since 2017 and even well before. Why do I care about this? For two reasons. First of all, if I was a leftist or if I was an conservative normie type looking to discredit these new ideas, this is what I would do. I would agree and amplify, Balenciaga, iPhone demons, bro the Jews killed JFK and then faked the moon landing bro, you know it clowns this, it's actually an old East Bloc tactic, an old communist tactic where they, and this is historically known now, the intelligence services in the East Bloc did this, they would inject false dissidents, it was their own guys, they would say things like, oh yeah, well it's not just that the communist regime is malicious and corrupt and stupid, venal or tyrannical like you dissidents say. They are also Satanists.

They're doing the black mass, they're eating child, they're child-eating demon. They have telepathy or whatever, they commune with aliens. You see what I mean? It's an agent, it's a provocateur tactic. Except in the West, maybe they don't need to have operatives do that. They don't need to hire anyone because Alex Jones will say this of his own free will, of his own initiative because maybe he senses that this kind of agitation gets him attention and money. It will do mad numbers, bro, Alex Jones, bro. Don't let that stop you from posting it. And my concern is, why did I come on X, on Twitter, as a mass communication platform in 2013 in the first place? I wanted to reach friends and a few intelligent youths later on when my account became a little bigger.

I thought now I can reach a few intelligent young people. And I fear that one such intelligent use coming online now for the first time, if what he sees is this kind of slop, then he tune out. He will not want to look at it again, because it's all just so stupid and hysterical. So I don't care otherwise about corruption of the masses or what the masses think. That's always been retarded, always will be. But again, you forgive if I repeat some things now that I've said in the past, but the truth must be repeated. I want, in any case, not to have anything to do with this retardation and to let people know that there is no sphere, there is no movement, it is just different people saying different things, judge each by what they say.

I do not run movement, others do not, anyway, it couldn't be me, you know, my god, it couldn't be me, the curse of the face fag, right, to say the curse of the face fag, but it's really the curse of the careerist shyster, right? Where you either don't really have anything to say, so you're always looking for the next trend, like a TikTok ass-dancing influencer, or you have one or two things that you can say, but it's really one or two things, and then you have to scrounge whatever for new ideas or such. But this show isn't like this, this entertainment-humored Caribbean Beat show. I've never run out of things to say that have genuinely interested me for a long time, that I've studied on my own for my own pleasure.

And for that purpose, I've never min-maxed this or anything else, you know, I always talk only what bring me, what spark joy. I do what I like, and so I get small, smart audience that likes it when I like it. I like to be cozy. So anyway, so much for this. I hope you don't mind this rant. Now for next segment I will talk some historical matter that interests me regarding the stupid and trite point, the opposition that is claimed to exist between liberalism and nationalism. Not because actually I support either of these things, but as further example of simplistic retardation that's always existed in academia actually and among journalists, but has now become talking point also among dissidents who are actually not that different, the new supposedly heretical right as well.

So I will discuss that, I'll be right back. So there is a line spread for some years now that nationalism and liberalism are as such opposed to each other, that you must choose then which camp you are in, nationalist, politic in economics, versus liberal globalism, and I think just false framing of the date. You can tell it's false because of excessive focus on abstractism, ideologies. This is always very useful to systematizers, wannabe explainers. But overall it's quite boring, vulgar matter even. I'm only addressing because the extent to which such ideas have spread. The line goes somewhat like this if I can make the argument for them. Liberalism, by which really they mean not as in normal discourse in America today, leftism,

but more broadly they mean classical liberalism or even what could be called conservatism today. They mean economic liberalism, free trade. In particular, then they have in mind non-state or transnational actors like multinational corporations. They seek free trade and labour pool advantages and then have a power to override matters of national sovereignty. So the interests of liberalism, it is claimed, are then to delete boundaries between nations because Because on one hand, because of the transnational interests I just named, they just want to act in their own benefit. On the other, from objective, let's say, liberal theory of what's good for a nation, because these good, or for people in general, because boundaries to trade could interfere with market

forces that allocate, right, because one country better at making butter, another at making microchip or whatever. So they each should focus on what they're better, rather than try to have local industries that are redundant, or will do it worse than another country may. So to this extent, they say that tariffs, for example, are bad and so on, you know the argument. Then to this is added claim about free movement of labor, because labor is a cost of production, and then so boundaries to the free movement of labor should be eliminated as a matter of economic liberalism, and in practice you see sometimes that migrants are allowed in for cheap labor, so the story goes, arranged to everything from, it might even be justifiable

to a nationalist, some of these arguments, say you are a young country without engineers, and you have companies that need expertise now, they cannot get this locally, you want to develop today, not in 30 years, so they have to hire foreign experts. So obviously if you put serious boundaries to that, it can in some cases have bad economic effects. Anybody can recognize that. So you know, everything from that, let's say legitimate case, to maybe less legitimate, you can say less legitimate needs. You want a lower price of lettuce, and your lettuce pickers apparently are asking for too much money, I guess, so you need to bring in 20,000 Haitians to eat the cat and pick the lettuce. something like this. Yes, I make fun. I actually think people are in general wrong to blame

mass migration in Europe and America on this because that type of economic migration looks really like the Gulf States. You know, they build barracks, they bring only the workers who are actually guest workers. No reason to bring their families. Then you tell them to kindly leave. But also labor isn't especially cheap in the West. You know, I see the migrants, But I don't see the cheap labor, whereas in East Asia, in Japan, not really any mass migration, but cheap labor, yes, much more so than in the West. But let me not get carried away on that tangent. There is also serious argument here, you can think that liberalism is opposed to nationalism for these reasons I just said. Then to this also added argument about global governance.

come then closer to normie-accepted meaning of the word liberal as, you know, the kind of sanctimonious leftist who's an internationalist, but global governments either understood cynically or semi-cynically then as consequence of the economic liberalization aspect, as in a vehicle merely for economic interests, which I think is obviously false, but otherwise it's understood as grafted on from Kantian human rights theory. I think at least in speech, that's where most of global governance and international institutions advocates like Michael Ignatieff claim dissent from Kantian internationalism, which doesn't as such come from just the economic argument, but from a different and moral direction. This also melds in somewhat with later Marxified

liberalism in the form of John Rawls, which seeks redistribution from the global north to the global south, whether under the reasoning that the global north got its wealth by past exploitation or colonialism or whatever, or otherwise, even under the reasoning that the global north has greater wealth by an accident of nature, or that that kind of accident is not to this way of thinking, it's not morally justified, you know, this, this by the way is why HPD or you can say IQ arguments against wokeness or DEI, they will on their own they do not work in the end because even if you can prove to people who believe in this kind of thing that some groups are innately better than others at economic activity that generates

wealth, they will only say that is all the more reason to redistribute, to right an unfair natural wrong, you know, but for historical and other reasons, the regime of international human rights, the free movement of refugees, the right of refugees, but also more broadly international governing. They like to use the word governance, these kinds of international institutions, not just the UN but many other bodies. This come out of Kantian type thinking and the human rights doctrines that you can say are Kantian, so they like to claim dissent from this sometimes. So then from this point of view, the claim that liberalism, you know, if you define it this way, that it's opposed to nationalism, that liberalism and globalism are on one side

nationalism, defined in part as economic protectionism, and then in part as migration restriction, whether it's for economic reasons or for, let's say, folkish nationalism varieties, culturally or biologically defined or both, that would be an opposed camp to liberalism. When you frame things this way, it sounds like it has some truth to it. And if it had no truth, such an understanding wouldn't have spread. But I think it has actually very circumstantial truth, maybe not even half a truth, more like a quarter or a third truth. Actually talk about circumstances of how such a frame came about, it's a bit funny because Because this opposition view, this view of these two opposed camps, it was helped in its spread by events that people today like to forget.

For example, the debates in the 2000s over the Iraq War and John Bolton even, for example. Why did Trump appoint Bolton to the United Nations? Is it because, as people say now, Bolton was a known neocon and Trump didn't know that or he loves neocons? That was not it at all. I think people forget. Bolton, I think, is wrongly called a neocon. He comes out of a somewhat different, still misguided, but different direction. Bolton always tried to justify American hawkishness on American national interest grounds, not on grounds of moral crusading abroad in favor of democracy and such things. That's the neocon view. In a circuitous way, actually, this also how the Iraq war was sold to men like Cheney and Rumsfeld. They were neo-cons in the run-up to the Iraq War.

It was the internationalists who were against the war. You can say the neo-cons are a species of internationalists. They were for the war for other reasons. But men like Cheney and Rumsfeld were not neo-cons. They were persuaded on other grounds. But the internationalists were against the war. And France, for example, and others, they tried to stop the United States from attacking, they used arguments from internationalism, sometimes from multilateralism ideas, sometimes from international law. This was also a matter involved in a fair whether American soldiers would be subject to court in the Hague when they were in breach of supposed international law. Whereas in the United States after 9-11, when people wanted blood in exchange for that,

I think understandably so, the voices like Bolton in the run-up to the war and especially after it started, they were very proud to oppose internationalism and international law to promote what they saw as American national interest. This was supposed to override a non-existent or hypocritical international order where you could, for example, sometimes get Saudi Arabia or Mauritania heading the International Human Rights Committee or such. So this is not quite the discourse people have in mind now when they talk such things, but these were very big issues at the time. I think maybe people today, advocates of nationalism, they like to forget this. Often they have cynical interpretations of, for example, Bolton motivation.

But I think the ground for this conception of a fundamental opposition between nationalism and liberal internationalism was like I'm saying the ground for it was set in that kind of vibe and mood from the 2000s and to some extent in intellectual flavor and content you can say such as it has, but mostly it was about vibe or mood. It came out of these debates and the more general opposition I sketched out before about economic liberalization versus national sovereignty interest and such. That's of course a much older and bigger debate, but I'm saying in our time right now, this is the immediate and actual precursor, what I've just said about the debates around the Iraq war and so on. And so Trump actually appointed Bolton in part because of these debates from the 2000s,

not in part, I think completely. Trump was, now you see what I do to my microphone. That was on the kind of common sense nationalist side in the 2000s. He was opposed to the Iraq war, I think on good nationalist grounds, but then he was against international law, this kind of preachy, annoying international law people. And Bolton was your guy if you were against that. Bolton was in fact actually hated by the Republican establishment enough that Bush could not appoint him, I think, even with the Republican Senate. I think Bush appointed him off-season to the UN, I don't remember, and Trump had him for some national security role. I can't remember these positions and these creatures. It's like Condi Rice and Susan Rice, you know, I confuse them, they're two dull-eyed mulattas

with look of farm animal in the face, and they proved that Secretary of State and National Security Council positions don't need to exist. They did nothing in their role, so they proved that that's their achievement. But I confuse the two of them. As friends say, Rice may not be a personal name, Susan Rice, Condi Rice. It may come in the future, historians may think it's a hereditary title of the high high yellow mulatto faction of technocratic nobility, but anyway, so regarding the supposed opposition between nationalism and liberalism, although everything I've said sounds like it has some truth, this supposed opposition between the two, it has only a hint of truth, and this opposition between nationalism and liberalism, I think ultimately has no leg

to stand. Theoretically, it's wrong, and especially historically, which is what matters, meaning in practice, it's just wrong. The two are very much historically allied, a united phenomenon, and 19th century nationalism is actually inseparable from liberalism. I give you two big examples, Germany and Italy. Both Germany and Italy were united as nations essentially by parties that were openly, aggressively liberal. National liberalism is very much 19th century reality. In Germany, unification was led by Prussia, as everyone knows, and the dominant party during that time, aggressively nationalist, was the National Liberal Party. They eventually had some disagreements. After unification, later on with Bismarck, they had some disagreements

over economic policy, but they weren't really disagreements at all in terms of foreign policy or national sovereignty, and the National Liberal Party was aggressively nationalist to the point where its major figures, even up and into World War I, they supported German national causes, unity, expansionism, where this was the case. It's funny, one of its leaders was Lasker, a Jew, and of course there was anti-Semitic reaction to the Jews in Germany, especially starting in the 1870s, picking up in late 1870s after unification. But Treitschke, for example, one of the leading German nationalist historians, extreme nationalist thinker, who was an anti-Semite, for example, and he too was, however, from this national liberal party. And many such, to the point where I think

you could call Bismarck himself also a nationalist liberal despite some concessions that he made to co-opt socialism. And I think he did that not for genuine ideological conviction but for pragmatic reasons. He wanted to defang the socialist agitation of the time. But regardless, whatever economic disagreements they may have had even in principle, by modern standards both he and the national liberals would be classified as both nationalists, they would be that today. So the idea that national unity and national interest would for some reason be opposed to liberalism in the sense of guarantee of certain rights, the famous one being known to Americans as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of property,

but you can enumerate freedom of the press, freedom of speech, minimal government interference in economic life, more on this in a moment, but the idea that such things somehow represented a fundamental challenge to national unity or sovereignty would have been seen as strange even in the debates such as they developed between Bismarck and the National Liberal Party later, you know. I'm sorry about the sound, but they keep attacking my microphone. I need to do something, I'm sorry, there's a pigeon coming to the room, I don't understand what's going on. But national liberalism was the dominant ideology, is what I'm telling you, where you can also classify Napoleon III, Bismarck enemy from France. He probably was also nationalist and liberal by many definitions, as well as the famous

British prime ministers, Gladstone and Disraeli. The latter was, you know, you could say conservative, okay, but Gladstone was a liberal, his party. But again, by modern definitions, I think both would be classified as liberal and nationalist as well. Gladstone, as the liberal, was opposed to imperialism or wanted to compare to the Israeli to limit British imperialism, supported, for example, Irish Home Rule, but he was very much for economic freedom and for free trade. It was against, you could say, British imperialism in general, which was an attitude that culminated to his, it didn't help him, his failure to send aid in time to General Gordon in Sudan, cartoon General Gordon, and with disaster massacres there.

It was very embarrassing for the name of Gladstone, Prime Minister, Liberal Prime Minister of England, embarrassing for his cause. But again, what I'm telling you now about both Gladstone and Israeli doesn't actually fit into neat separation dissidents make today, where liberalism, globalism, imperialism, and colonialism are on one side, and then nationalism is on the other. It's a kind of nonsense distinction, actually. You take other nations that were formed at the time, take small country Romania, before it had been three principalities, then it was united into one nation in the 19th century. Is that nationalist enough for you, the creation of the very nation? By the liberals of the time in that country, by the way, the people who were responsible for unity.

More interesting case of Italy, more important case in the sense of Italy in some ways is still not a united country you can claim now. I had friend, she was girl, okay, not girlfriend, is this okay, but she was nice girl from Verona. She's very proud of her city, less proud of Italy as a thing, but very proud of Verona. She had contempt like many North Italians do for the south of Italy. There is a frog now, some of you may have seen, he come into my mentions, he thinks the Nepalese, I'm sorry, I'm tired, I mean the Neapolitans are worse than Africans and he's North Italian. But this aside, Italy as a nation was created, is that again nationalist enough for you? The creation, unity of the actual state, it was done by nationalist liberals, in particular

by the nationalist liberal monarchist Cavour, the minister from the state of Savoy, or rather it was the kingdom of Sardinia, you know, it ruled Piedmont at the time, that region, northwest region of Italy, but the house was Savoy, the royal house, you know, Turin and Piedmont and so on. And he was very much a proponent, Cavour was, of authoritarian economic development, built railways as a businessman as well as politician. So a liberal in the full sense, I think, believed in free trade, economic liberty, freedom of thought and press. He was against clerical rule. By the way, just as an aside, I myself, as you know, I am anti-religious. My religious friends know, they do not care. But although this kind of 19th century liberalism is not for clerical rule but for secular authority,

but they're not really, on the whole, they're not anti-religious. They support a kind of robust, confident Christianity, muscular Christianity, you can say. In all the examples I've talked about, they just oppose priestly rule. They oppose the involvement of clerical authorities in politics, which in Italy especially was huge thing. why it's quite interesting case because the primary reason why Italy had long remained disunited since the Roman Empire and especially the prime obstacle in 19th century which what we're talking now it was the papacy Machiavelli one of early champions of Italian unity say papacy was a problem because it was never strong enough to unite Italy on its own but always too weak to unite. It was never weak enough to let others do it. Yes, you see,

they try to tongue my tongue now. Oh my God, I should cut my own tongue out. But one funny exception to this would have been in Renaissance, if Cesare Borgia had become pope, if he had united Italy. Maybe then the world would have seen a sublime, a funny overcoming of Judea by Rome from the inside out. Nietzsche makes this joke, Cesare Borgia as Pope and eventual ruler of all Italy. But that never happened. The papacy could never unite Italy. It was always just strong enough to stop others from doing so. An interesting aside of what could have been from history, Pope Cesare Borgia. But yes, Cavour had all these qualities, I mean, Cavour, the minister of the kingdom of Sardinia, ruled by the House of Savoy, he was the minister of that kingdom.

He believed economic progress, liberty, free trade, sympathy, freedom of thought and speech, this kind of thing, secular rule. In other words, all the qualities of a liberal, you can say a classical liberal. But like all the nationalist statements from 19th century, who in some cases, like this one, united their nations, liberals, united nations, nationalists. You may have heard of Garibaldi also. He was nationalist adventurer, general, very exciting life. And in distinction to Cavour, he was a republican, he was not a monarchist, republican revolutionary, took over the south of Italy during this time, 19th century, maybe I do future episode on Garibaldi, but he would represent a faction somewhat even more hostile to the church authority

than Cavour's liberal monarchist nationalist faction. Garibaldi lay very colorful. He had to go in exile at one point in South America. He ended up playing important part in history of nations there, led the revolts in Brazil and Uruguay, and there was even after his Eventually, you know, he he was supplanted by the monarchist faction in Italy But after his let's say the end of his political career in Italy some of his especially Republican followers They did not want to live in a monarchist Italy. So they took permanent refuge in South America These are Italians, right? So you see a character like this in my favorite novel Nostromo at the beginning There is an old Garibaldino, a follower of Garibaldi, and you can see opinions on the church and on the religions that this old Italian has.

Religion is for women and real men don't pay attention to that kind of thing. That's actually, I think, an attitude that many Mediterranean men in Catholic countries have traditionally had for a long time, Republican Garibaldinos or not. But anyway, the relationship between Cavour and Garibaldi, very interesting. Both of them were nationalists trying to unite Italy. One was a monarchist, one was a republican. Garibaldi, essentially, he overthrew the kingdom of the two Sicilies in the south, was a great adventurer general, took over that area. Cavour and Victor Emanuele, the king that Cavour served from the house of Savoy, the kingdom of Sardinia, they ended up ruling the north. And there is famous anecdote you may have heard already about how Cavour once met Garibaldi,

somehow convinced Garibaldi to just give up, to give all of what he had gained in south of Italy, to just give it to the north. And that's how Italy ended up basically being united, even though he, Cavour, and Garibaldi were temperamentally very different, and no one knows maybe what was said or done in this meeting where Cavour convinced Garibaldi to do this. You took over all of south Italy, now give it up and let the king rule it. Garibaldi obviously wanted a united republic in Italy, not a monarchic. It's a very dramatic moment in history. But anyway, yes, so the two of them banded to basically BTFO, the united forces of reaction represented by the papacy, the papal ownership of some of Italy that was preventing its unification,

as well as the local traditional dynasties like the Kingdom of the Two Caesareans in the south. It was a nationalist liberal monarchist Cavour and a secular republican revolutionary Garibaldi. Is that nationalist enough for you, the creation of the Italian national state, done by ultimately a liberal? And it's interesting actually to see how this opposition between nationalist-monarchist liberalism of Cavour in Italy, which was opposed to Catholic clericalism, or you can call it ultramontanism in other countries, how this was, in the United States it's called integralism, but you can see how this was reflected in later scholarly debates on all kinds of things. For example, you may remember the great Renaissance, a Resurrector of Plato in Italy, Ficino, on

whose work solely I think I still owe you an episode, but I discussed him briefly in my episodes on Burkhart's book on the Italian Renaissance. Okay, so Ficino was said to have founded or refounded the Platonic Academy in Florence during the Renaissance. This is a major feature of the Renaissance, the rebirth of classical antiquity. Well, he refounds Plato's Academy in Florence. And since that time, there had been debates about what this Academy of Ficino, the Platonic Academy he'd actually been. Some scholars were saying it was a myth, that it never happened. One such scholar is Gustavo Uzzieli, he's a scholar of Toscanelli, who's another Renaissance polymath and thinker, and this Gustavo Uzzieli said toward the end of the 19th century that

Marsimio Ficino's Platonic Academy had never existed, he debunked it, like a fable. And then he was refuted by another scholar, de la Torre, who made the case that although the Academy may not have been a formal institution, like a university with degrees or whatever, it very much existed. And look, actually I'll read for you a paragraph about this, because this is from an article by Hankins. Why not read you this? This is a nice variety show. This gives you some local color and so on from what's going on on multiple levels. I'm reading now. This period of historiography, excuse me, this period of historiographical flux, he means disputes over what the Platonic Academy in Florence really had been, but this period

was effectively brought to a close with the publication in 1902 of Arnoldo de la Torre's classic study, Storia dell'Academia, excuse me, Scoria, they are doing something to my tongue and I cannot pronounce words in Italian. I apologize to you, I shouldn't have drunk milk before this show. Let me re-read that. Storia della Cadenia Platonica di Firenze. Della Torre's work was intended as a crushing reply to the skepticism of Uzzieli with whom Della Torre had political as well as scholarly differences. The key to Della Torre's refutation was a successful defense of the authenticity of Ficino's letters which Uzzieli had declared to be forgeries. Using the letters, as well as a vast body of manuscript and archival sources, de la

Torre then proceeded to reconstruct the history of learned gatherings in Florence generally and the history of Ficino's Academy in particular. The Academy that emerged from his account was essentially a compromise between the versions of Bandini and Rossi. De la Torre admitted that the Platonic Academy had never had formal statutes or a membership role, but he also rejected Rossi's view as reducing the Academy as a qualche cosa di veramente vago di quasi impalpabile anzi, a kind of vague thing, almost something impalpable actually. For him, the Academy had been founded by Cosimo de' Medici in 1462, and Ficino was appointed as its head. It shared a philosophical outlook and style derived from Ficino's teaching of Platonic

philosophy. It had regular activities such as lectures, disputations, and on Plato's birthday it had banquets. It had its meeting places in the Medici Villa or in Ficino's house both at Careggi. In addition to its Medici patrons, it numbered among its membership over a hundred prominent statesmen, poets, orators, doctors, lawyers, and ecclesiastics of the later 15th century, including most of the leading intellectuals of the Laurentian period, such as Cristoforo Landino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Angelo Poliziano, Demetrius Chalcondilas, Alessandro Bracchesi, and Lorenzo the Great himself. Okay, so this is the setting and why I read this, because it's a very interesting footnote in what I just read, where he refers to the political differences these two scholars had.

Since yearly, former Garibaldino, who became a populist Catholic, was hostile to Ficino as a libertine patronized by the corrupt and tyrannical Medici, while de la Torre, a liberal royalist in the tradition of Cavour, saw Ficino as a forerunner of the Enlightenment. And in that one footnote, I don't know, there is so much that come to light. This man appeared to be disagreeing on purely historical matter, was Ficino's academy real or not? But part of what motivates them, at least, is this opposition where, you know, Uzzieli is a former Republican revolutionary, he becomes a wholesome, chungus Catholic populist, and he's trying to paint this Renaissance, Platonist, Ficino, as you know, he's a gay cabal, aristocratic

oppressor, effete, aristocratic oppressor of the people, in league with effete corrupt tyrants, promoting, you know, demons or whatever, yes, preparing the flesh of children, cannibal pedophile black mask. I mean, look, sorry, I took it too far, I cannot help the urge to clown, but it's always the same thing, you know, but yes, it's, you know, liberal royalist partisan of the enlightenment and nationalist creator of a new state. Is this okay? Does this blow away with supernatural might the draws of current talking points entertained by dissidents. I mean, look, why I go on such tangents? Because yes, establishment is moribund, but we should fight, as I am trying to do a little in this episode, to not let the lame stupidity of the establishment be taken over by other

wrong stupidities, other rigid petty doctrines. And it's not just that I support actually either 19th century style liberalism or nationalism or that I like either of these things myself. I would actually recommend to moderates that they do not say, oh, I'm a classical liberal. They should maybe say I'm center right, you know, that's what. But I just don't like a kind of confused, hysterical, talking point orthodoxy to develop. You know, liberalism and nationalism I can do without, but must be combated kind of rigid orthodoxy. Now, Carl Schmitt said that liberal democracy was born in a kind of historical circumstance where it made sense, although according to Carl Schmitt, liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms.

But he said it made sense historically because it was born as an opposition to absolute monarchy. It still existed at the French Revolution, is what he has in mind. But he claims that as time went on and this enemy disappeared, the inner contradictions of this coalition came to the fore because what the liberals opposed, they opposed the absolute in the absolute monarchy, whereas the Democrats opposed the monarchy part. So then actually there is such a thing as absolute democracy, illiberal democracy, very much a possibility, and in fact, maybe that is pure democracy, tyrannical democracy even, so that liberals ended up having to either oppose or find various ways to channel or moderate democratic aspirations so they could get to some version of their ideal of divided

government or limited government power so that you don't get absolutism. So much for that. I think Schmitt made a convincing case. But what about then for liberal nationalism? I'm not so sure that there is any opposition to this, somehow necessarily, or that any essential opposition had to ever develop between these two orientations. I think actually they are quite compatible. Locke, for example, if you want to look at Anglo-American liberal tradition, Locke is founder of Anglo-liberalism, you can say, more so than Hobbes, but he's very strong on national sovereignty. And I don't buy the idea that there is some inner logic by which Lockean liberalism necessarily has to turn into anti-nationalist or trans-nationalist liberalism, allowing for the free flow of

refugees or such, let alone for the other things that people call liberalism now, like trannies or whatever. kind of historical inevitability arguments. I think they're usually made by people with transparent, dishonest motives. You say, well, they're good motives. I think they're dishonest motives. In other words, most often by religious reactionaries who very soon they – you can always tell that what they'll say next. They follow up by telling you that it's not even Locke, you know, that the problem is Luther, that the Reformation was the problem of all the troubles, the rejection of the authority of the church in Rome. And even before that, that nominalism from medieval times, this idea of nominalism is

a wrong-headed doctrine that once it was adopted inevitably led to international ruling bodies or transgenderism or demon globalism, whatever else they want to blame that day. It's a transparently, I don't know, to me that's dishonest, and aside from this, this is also the motivation of the nerdoid, the intellectualoid, the kind of person who thinks humans are robots controlled by ideas that you program from a book or rather by words since believe me actually most people including intellectuals go through life without any ideas in their heads, only words. But ruled by words which of course the intellectual sees as his turf, his trade is to define and dispute words he thinks so then you know he's he's framed as the arbiter of

actually all life and all existence this is very flattering if things run by ideas in books he gets to be you know the bureaucrat has called this the rabbinic model you know it's what right everything is traceable to some intellectual thought leader he has a retinue around him he direct he has his school, you know, so there's the Rabbi Rousseau, there's the Rabbi this, you know, there's the Rabbi Voltaire, there's the Rabbi Machiavelli, they direct affairs based on some text, you know, and then you can just go back to the first principles and to the text. So, you know, there's never any need actually to address real-world problems as they exist or to locate, you can do your analysis of Locke or whatever

because you've brought things back. Oh, it's a matter of liberalism. I bring it back to Locke. I refute Locke. I've solved the problem. You see this attitude everywhere now in genealogical and historical annoying tendency of so many dissident thought leaders who think that if you find the intellectual error made in some text long ago, you've then solved the problem. You see it also, though, they didn't invent this. Academics, of course, have always been this way. journalists who are themselves intellectuals of this kind, whether they're conservative or leftist. When they try to see the eminence grease, they all have this tendency, they try to see the eminence grease behind, for example, the Putin administration.

So it couldn't be just that Putler has his own experiences and ideas and is responding to conditions that are difficult of the moment in his government, is maybe leading a difficult, fundamentally incoherent coalition as almost all actually maybe all states are no no it must be that he's a centrally directed by a rabbi Dugan and so you know you then you all you need to do is talk about Dugan or go to the books that Dugan read and they do this with Trump too you know it can't be Trump no Trump Trump is just he's a jock he doesn't no no it's a it's a brain it has to be Ben and Ben is the brain the rabbi brains behind the Trump, you know, and he, and Bannon mentioned Evola one time, so, so this all goes back

to Evola, you know, let us debunk Evola, or, you know, other such nonsense, right, in some way, I'm now supposed to be the thought leader of the vitalist faction, oh, I can't wait for this, that's great, that's what I really want to be, right, journalists consider me the rabbi of the vitalist faction, you know, in the way that Dugin is the rabbi of Putin, You know, nobody knows what vitalism means anyway, but I'm supposed to be the thought leader of the vitalist faction and working off Nietzsche, so then they can, you know, admittedly I do mention Nietzsche a lot, but between you and me I do that in part to cover for myself. I do think there are actually many differences between what Nietzsche says and what I say,

but yes, so this is why you get 20 thought pieces from various dwarves trying to then dispute Nietzsche, but not really because they've never read him either. That you at least get this neat opposition, again, are you on Team Nietzsche or are you on Team Christ? It's very simple to frame things in opposition between this, liberalism versus nationalism, are you for essentialism versus, you know, it's all incredibly stupid to me. One man who is in part responsible for this tendency among especially conservative intellectuals is Leo Strauss, although I'd say he himself is not like this, and I think maybe I've been too harsh on him. I think Strauss, actually great thinker, he does not make this mistake. For example, Strauss, or so the story goes, right? Strauss traces the modern crisis in

some way back to Machiavelli, but he does not make the mistake I just mentioned now. Bosey and Harvey Mansfield, who writes many good books on Machiavelli, they're careful to point out that the modern world actually bears very little resemblance to the world imagined or intended by Machiavelli, with his love of glory and so on, and so therefore there might not be, I think, any kind of necessary historical or inner inevitability for Machiavelli's thoughts to have taken the course they eventually did in the hands of other thinkers. But many intellectuals do make this kind of mistake. They try to historically trace problems to something back in the text, you know. So this might be topic for another time.

But anyway, I do this episode again not because I like either nationalism or liberalism very much. In fact, I opposed both just like Nietzsche did. Is this okay? It's very interesting that he opposed both. They were and I think probably are related. But because I did this show, or read this segment on this, I find the lies and obfuscations and rigid stupidities repulsive, that's why I argue against them. If you oppose either, just do it right. And as for liberalism, although I love freedom and liberty, I think it's true that once liberal regimes are established, they actually destroy freedom. They make people oversocial, they make them into gregarious mannequins, little monkeys of Benares into pleasure-loving cowardly faggots, and as Nietzsche says in plain English, liberalism

or the transformation of mankind into cattle. Liberalism is only a force for the opposite of this, for true freedom. It's only so when it's still being fought for. But this does not mean, though, that the alternative to liberalism, you know, is an even more aggressive or, you know, a militant way of being cattle, you know, because that's what socialism, I think, is and even other many forms of modern illiberalism. It doesn't reject liberalism for the same reasons I just said now. It's just, again, it's probably saying, well, liberalism is not cattle enough. We want to be even more cattle, like cattle on steroids, you know. So the alternative was plainly given by some of the best French authors of the 19th century

on just this matter, I mean the alternative to the kind of weak, slavish, stay-at-home liberalism that develops after the success of liberalism. The alternative to that is the story of Julien Sorel from The Red and the Black by Stendhal, I've talked about recently, and it's also the story of the hero of Maupassant Bellamy. You read this book Bellamy about a soldier become a journalist in the 1880s France, again a time of the victory of liberalism in France, but the victory of this kind of liberalism of cattle, right? And this journalist George de Roy rises through unscrupulous means in Parisian high society. He comes from the provinces, just like Julian Sorrell does in The Red and the Black, and he rides through Parisian society by seducing the mistresses of corrupt rich men and so forth.

But these are in some way the same story, The Red and the Black and Bellamy. It's the story of the adventurous, great-spirited Napoleonic man in a time of petty cattle being and corruption, the latter being in part the story of again the French Third Republic, I'm talking about Bellamy, it's debased effeminate liberalism and du Roi as the Napoleonic pickup artist fucking liberalism, you know, do you like this? I'm sorry to, you know, this is the story of freedom. This is kind of pickup artist I support, I support this. Anyway, very good. Look, they do something throughout this episode to my tongue and to the microphone. I think there is invisible bird, it was let into the room. It constantly pecks at microphone, it pecks at my mind, it pecks at my frontal lobe brain. Excuse, I must go.

Next time perhaps we do music episodes. Do you enjoy? Until very soon, Dab out.