Welcome this Caribbean Rhythms, I have again special guest return, no introduction necessary, one of most dangerous men in world, Molbag, welcome back, welcome back to Caribbean Rhythms, pleasure to have you back on, how are you? I'm good, I'm good, I'm good, thank you so much BAP. All is proceeding, can I say, all is proceeding as I have foreseen? Nah, nothing ever happens, nothing ever happens. But these things, these two things, here's the thing, you know, all is proceeding as I have foreseen, and nothing ever happens or both. It's the quantum wave duality. It's Niels Bohr wrote of this, like nothing ever happens and everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. It's a remarkable juxtaposition. Yes. Moldberg and I were just talking before show about Einstein theory, relativity, because

Where I am is Sunday morning, and it is night, his time, and this, I think, Einstein famous theory. It blow my mind. It blow my mind. Einstein. Einstein. It blow my mind, yes. Einstein, yes. Yes, Einstein. You know, that's a good opportunity, Bap, to switch to a discussion of the presidential transition, the remarkable and shocking events in Mar-a-Lago. And have you heard, you know, and this is one thing, it's good that you mention Einstein because my view, there's this fellow Boris Epstein, but it's not Epstein, it's Epstein. And you've seen, for example, the name Stern, as in the Stern Gang, but Stern, the Soviet spelling is Stern with an H. And I've long, you know, I instinctively trust people who whose names end with the same last two letters as mine, but you can never trust a Jew

who spells his name the Russian way. Well, they are, have you ever been to Brighton Beach, Little Odessa, New York? Look, I have some thoughts on this area, but I wanted to ask you just straight away, everyone talking now about Marc Andreessen. He appeared, Joe Rogan recently. I had now idea that de-banking basically American government through proxies, but especially apparently Elizabeth Warren, she say some type of Bernie Sanders, a far leftist alternative to Bernie Sanders, someone like AOC, everyone knows Elizabeth Warren, but through her commissions and through other thing, US government essentially pressuring banks to de-bank 30 tech founders apparently, people working in cryptocurrency, but also other parts of this new tech.

I wanted to ask you, because in context of some of your writings, you've talked about this tech elite, Silicon Valley tech elite, as a potential replacement elite for, let's A regime of West, I would see as existed since at least FDR, a managerial, a bureaucratic welfare regime of West, at least since that time, what people see as the left-liberal consensus. And they seem to have had a hand that was both too heavy and too light from their point of view. As Machiavelli says, as Machiavelli says, you must caress your enemy or destroy him, but don't go in the middle. It just seemed like such a petty, vindictive move to try to de-bank such and to get them angry and it looks like they went for Trump reluctantly because maybe they don't agree

with everything he say anyway, but they see him, maybe instrumentally, this charming demagogue as something to break the rule of people who are trying to suffocate them. I wanted to ask you, do you—I know you say nothing ever happened and so on, and maybe nothing will happen in the next few years or this, but do you see this as confirming some of your prediction that a new tech elite is coming into its own, maybe politically or maybe not coming into its own, but getting a glimmer of a horizon that they can have political powers, they can challenge these people who, now that they feel danger of suffocation, they finally wake a little bit. Do you see this, or am I wrong about this? That's a very interesting question, Bap. First of all, yes, I have actually been de-banked.

It was not recently, it was about seven years ago, but I have I have tasted I've tasted the whip of Liz Warren she-wolf of the FDIC you know or something like that and and I refer of course to the classic classic film classic of the silver screen Ilsa she was the SS you know and we can see that but with Liz Warren and AOC and the Banks of course. All right, all right, with that picture in your mind. I continue with my quantum, we have to have the Copenhagen interpretation here. Because nothing ever happens and everything, first of all, there's an exact duality because the phrase nothing ever happens indeed reminds you of another phrase which I think is forgotten a little bit, but which we owe to Mr. Ron Paul, who I believe was the one who said, it's happening. Yes.

And the statement that nothing ever happens and the statement that it's happening are both exactly true, in my opinion, with respect to the effect that you are describing. Because the problem with Washington, you know, or the problem with this, You know, there are many, many generations of Mr. Smith has gone to Washington and, you know, wind up. I mean, do you know who is the original Mr. Smith that went to Washington? No, who is this based on? Oh, he is. Joe McCarthy. Well, I mean, no, there's a million of them. There's a million of these populisms, and Joe McCarthy ends up, you know, there's a theory that he was actually, you know, his death due to cirrhosis was suspicious, but... Yes. And of course, Joe McCarthy,

Friend and lawyer Roy Cohn is Trump mentor. Sorry to interrupt. Yes. Go on Yes, we have this interesting, you know interconnection between it's almost like a Tom Stoppard play You've got Roy Cohn. You've got Donald Trump. You've got RF You've got Joe McCarthy and of course, you've got RFK senior who was on McCarthy's staff as you miss I didn't know so it's very interesting. You did not know that before He basically shows you know the side of the blob Joe McCarthy RFK senior actually worked as a young lawyer on Joe McCarthy's staff yes very interesting in any case the question of like do they realize do they know it's just like they you know I I hope this analogy BAP is not too too coarse for my course nerds of Caribbean

rhythm that's good that's good that's good we're not we're definitely not your grandfather's conservative here in fact you know I don't think we're uh we're conservatives at all and and you know and one of the things that that of course you know being familiar with you know Greek legend myth yes we we know the story of the incubus yes right you know the incubus who comes and you know a cloud-like creature who comes, he rapes you in your sleep. You're dominated. Let's call this incubus, let's give him a name. Let's call him, let's call him Doug, right? And you're dominated by Doug in your sleep, right? This is a, you know, this is a cut. You know, there was a wonderful, there was an ad for Merrill Lynch, you know, Merrill Lynch that I saw and I clipped it out and sent it to my wife

because I thought it was very funny. And it showed a woman, she's ascending a staircase. And behind her on the staircase is her shadow, but the shadow somehow forms the shape of the Merrill Lynch mascot. And then the- Yes, the rape therapy. Rape therapy, and instead of rape therapy, the caption, the caption back, you'll find this delicious. The caption was, go through life with the bull at your back. Indeed, indeed, it's wonderful, it's wonderful, it's wonderful. One of the things, speaking of Substonk, one of the things about, if the founders of Substonk are listening, I have a long, long running complaint, which is that I should be able on Substonk to just upload some art and have a merch store. I want to sell merch.

My first merch item, and I copyright this, no one else can sell this, is I want to sell a shirt, just a t-shirt, a simple t-shirt, and in the same font as, you know the horrid keep calm and carry on queen shirt, but instead of keep calm and carry on, same font, same everything, it should say, be your own bull. Yes. Be your own bull. Yes. Is this a reference? In any case, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. doing the weave here in honor of our president I'm doing the weave what I wanted to say essentially was that it's this legend of the incubus like the incubus is coming to you at night you know but you're asleep and so rather than sort of feeling the full intensity of his desire you wake up and you know it's like you feel there's a little bit of like like pressure like down there

or like when you go to the bathroom like in the morning you know always shit before you shower like it doesn't it doesn't come out right it's something's wrong like maybe there's a little bit of blood right but you're still like you know from going from that just sleeping peacefully like a little lamb like letting Washington be what it is assuming that it does it's all for the best and it's like the best thing and then you just you start to suspect that something isn't right here because it's that feeling of pressure yes you know But the thing is, the anesthesia that you're under, the anesthesia that this incubus puts you on, is that even just because you're feeling this pressure, which is wrong, you should not be

feeling it, but you're still 98% anesthetized. You're being ravaged, you're being ravaged deeply, deeply by this spiritual creature. And so the thing is, you wake up and there's a kind of have awakening that says that something is wrong, and then you have this feeling of wrongness and you're like, I can fix that. I'll just get a little more hemorrhoid cream because I'm getting – it's not a matter of that. So I think in some ways there's a real realization that things are wrong, but I still feel like to a certain extent they're reaching for the hemorrhoid cream. Yes, I see. You think they not wake up enough. This may be, on one hand, my suspicion also that they are not ready yet for what take to be true replacement elite. I would agree with you on this.

On the other hand, from other channels, I hear that among this, some Silicon Valley big shot people, that they are feeling great elation after Trump win, which is on part just excitement, you know, the guy you wanted to win won, and that normal manly excitement. Normal manly sports team excitement. But I do think that there is elation, as I have also now three weeks basically after election, I still feel elation mold bug, not only because Trump my guy won, but because of what was avoided, I felt knife boot on my throat, I have not been in the United States for the last four years. Maybe you say I'm paranoid, but I did not want to take chances. And they are idiot prosecutors, can come up with anything, as you know. And I still feel elation now. So who knows?

Maybe, yes, you are right that, and I think, for example, Trump and Bolsonaro, I've said this before. They are too patriotic and too boomer on one hand to maybe ever do what is necessary to, let's say, replace Elit. Let me put it politely, but who knows? Well, I wanted to ask you something else. Wait, wait, wait. Let me share, if that analogy wasn't strong enough, let me share another analogy for regime change in a way, which is that basically regime change you know I would be very surprised if the right person listened to this but you never know regime change is sort of like going to space in a way it's like you know and and you know what is space anyway well you know there's a couple of things about space one is that the sky is very black and you have a

really good view of the stars yes and so if you're just like if the sky is black and it's not nighttime and I can see the stars I'm in space how do I get to space while you're walking around on the ground it seems pretty hard and then you have an idea I'm gonna build a balloon well a balloon a really good balloon will take you up to like you know you know the Red Bull guy jumps out of a balloon hundred thousand feet you know the sky is black up there there's no air there's no air at all also care very characteristic of space this lack of air and and yet there seems like there's something different about getting to 100,000 feet in a balloon and in a rocket and the thing is that actually the actual characteristic of space is not that the sky is black but actually

that you're going very very fast yes and the sort of the failure to realize that so for example when you're like we are gonna make American great again by cutting the budget yes by making the government more you know it's saying all these useless things they're doing let's let's get rid of these useless things let's be efficient right mm-hmm it is true that a new regime would be more efficient it would actually be much much more efficient it's like saying it's true that this guy would be black but the thing is actually if you're not thinking about space in terms of I have to get up to Mach 20 you're you're just kind of cargo culting space and my worry is that there's still there's so much of the mindset of the boomer libertarian let me give you a concrete example just

to pick on Vivek because you know of his name which is Vivek and and Vivek which I believe I'm pronouncing that correctly, Vivek. And Vivek goes around and he's clearly been, you know, infected by this old school Claremont, the new school of Claremont is actually kind of okay. I mean the old school Harry Jaffa Claremont, and the go around questioning things like Chevron deference, if you know Chevron deference. Yes, explain for a moment for maybe audience not Chevron deference. So the idea of the deep state according to the administrative state, to give it its correct legal name, according to some legal critics, is that it's a violation of a principle, this is perfectly true as far as it goes, is that it's a violation of a principle which used to be

considered a cardinal principle of constitutional law up until, guess what, the 1930s, which is the non-delegation principle. And the idea is that Congress the Congress. Try and say the Congress if you're NTC people. They'll respond with approval and respect. But don't say the CIA. Don't say the CIA. Say CIA. And you're never in the CIA. You're at CIA. You're at CIA. In any case, the Congress, according to this ancient doctrine of non-delegation, is not permitted to delegate its power to anyone else, including the entire process which runs the government now, which is what's called the rule-making process, the process of making regulations. And so the idea goes around that actually it's Congress's power that has been usurped

and Congress has to take its power back from the deep state, which is sort of like the Brexit idea that Britain's power has been usurped and Whitehall gets to take its power back from Brussels. I'm like, well, Whitehall gave its power to Brussels because first of all, Whitehall doesn't lose his job when it does that. And secondly, the one thing that Whitehall, like any deep state anywhere, doesn't want to have is accountability or responsibility. If you try to give this power to Congress, Congress isn't going to use it to have debates like a bunch of statesmen. What do you think Congress is? And so the thing is, all of these people, they have not read their James Burnham. And they're basically operating largely in this symbolic world.

And in this symbolic world, the president is the chief executive of the administrative branch. And the purpose of Congress is to make laws. And we need to get Congress back to making laws. And we need to get the president back to being the CEO of the executive branch, which is fine as it goes, in a way, except that it's like there's a failure to acknowledge that, first of all, these are not those things. If you want the president to be the chief executive of the executive branch, that's a different situation from the current situation. It's actually a change in not our Constitution with a capital C, which is this formal document, But the Constitution with a small c, the unwritten Constitution, as they say in England, which

is how the system actually works, and how the system actually works. The President is a sort of glorified oracle that agencies consult when they can't, two agencies conflict, and not the chief executive of anything. And actually, it's Congress, who is the collective chief executive through various committee and bureaucratic structures of the so-called executive branch. And the thing is, basically, what happens when something is so different from what it pretends to be is, first of all, it spends a lot of time pretending. It puts a lot of effort into pretending the president is in charge. It gives us a lot of language that pretends that he's in charge. And then when you say, well, he's not really in charge, what it turns into is, let's pretend

harder. Let's do more pretending. And actually, when your reality has been abused to that level, actually, no. If you want to start fixing the system, you have to start by stopping pretending. And you have to actually come out and admit and be like, hey, actually... Yeah, small bugs. Sorry to interrupt. I just want to give my own historical example. I'm ranting. I'm ranting. Well, it's come to mind as you're talking, but I give you a historical example, a slight, maybe my favorite image from Machiavelli, when he talked about how Pope Julius II, when a tyrant, I think of Bologna, was resisting the papal forces, and there was going to be siege, and the Pope simply came with his bailiff or sheriff alone, entered the city alone,

put the tyrant under arrest, with everybody watching, with the tyrant's army there, put him under arrest, and ended that siege like that. Now, you say, well, this would not work against someone like Stalin. He would just order his soldiers to kill the Pope. But it worked against this, and Machiavelli points something out about how the example of the rule of priests and how they got used to this type of power, and there was something change in mind and spirit necessary to break this rule of priests as such, and in the United States right now, and although, yes, you have these kind of tech elites maybe waking up to a glimmer of something wrong, a glimmer of their own power, they don't have full understanding of what means rule of priests of our time and what is necessary to break

this. They want to kind of reform the Roman Curia to be a little bit better, you know, to be a little bit more efficient. They are not fully awakened to what means full replacement of the principle of rule principle of principle of rule they you know you they would be shocked you know they would be shocked if you told them that they they should seek power let alone that they should seek absolute power you know they're constantly accused of that and of course they deny it like my gosh why would we want to take power away from priests we're actually against power you have to understand we're against power this is you know the james allah forgive me for uttering his name James Lindsay. You know, he's against power. He's against power itself.

His enemies love power, but he's better than them because he's against power. It's just like, ah, I despair of this, right? And so, but the thing is, let's steal me in this case. You know, if I can use this outrageous nerd word, steal me, let's steal me in this case because, you know, here's the thing. Maybe I'm the one I consider the possibility. Maybe I'm the one who's missing things here because these people are all very excited. And it's possible that I am the one who's LARPing and I remember, you know, this system I know, I think of the deep state as kind of younger and healthier than it is. And it's possible, I don't think so. I think I'm wrong. But it's possible that, you know, a sort of Julius II

maneuver could work where you just simply, you know, mock. You just simply mock the powers that be and you say, I am not afraid of you. And I will do what I'm going to do. And they just, their tail sinks down between their legs they just they just fear and this the system just falls apart and i don't know that i think in order to do that to make it do that i think if you had the pretensions of julius ii it would work let me phrase this in terms of the king of england because as yes i'm not an englishman except in a very rarefied sense uh you know i i feel uh I feel safer talking this way. I fully believe, first of all, in English law, the king has sufficient reserve powers to solve the whole problem of England instantly. Yes. He could raise his scepter. And when I ask Englishmen of this,

there are two kinds of Englishmen that I ask about this purely hypothetical question of the kind of English Meiji restoration of this late date, setting aside the improbability of that action ever being taken by these feckless royals who have thoroughly been bamboozled into believing that their way of being a king is the best and most modern way. Elizabeth I would go. Henry VIII would laugh like a long card at these people. But I still believe that if Charles III could somehow be and be believed to say Englishman to me he could take command of the security forces tomorrow and just you know you know well you know the the greatest the greatest passage maybe someday after we take control we can do this properly I thought I did Peter Jackson will never do a film of the scouring of the Shire

yes you know that episode the scouring of the Shire but could Charles the third scour Britain. When I talk to people associated with the civilian government usually like there's no way and when I talk to people associated with the security forces they're like of course we would all follow him. Well Charles apparently, sorry my mind wanders, but he has interests in Transylvania because he simply loves the perfectly preserved some Saxon villages there and the forests and such. I think it's purely an aesthetic appreciation he has for that region, but because he likes going for summers there sometimes, Alex Jones has come with theories that the English royal family are actually descended from vampires, and they're part of a blood-sucking ancient Babylonian

cult, and they're still controlling the world from behind-the-scenes mold bugs, so I'm sure Lyndon LaRouche had something to say about that. It's like my feeling is about if I had to choose between Alex Jones and the New York Times, fortunately I don't have to choose. But if I had to choose, it's just like one of them is almost always right in fact and the other is always right in spirit. And, you know, it's the spirit of the understanding that, like, you know, for me, there's something, you know, if I compare, if I may compare, you know, the exquisitely honed mind of Marc Andressen to the wild, chaotic genius of Alec Jones, you know, does one of these cut more finely, a thousand times more finely than the other?

Yes, but like, is one of them more attuned to the sheer craziness of the universe than the other could possibly be? Also, yes. And so this vampire theory, it may be wrong in detail. All the facts may be wrong, but like, the truth of it is overwhelmingly and obvious. Well, look, I wanted to ask you, if you don't mind, we changed slide. But this new tech elite, you can say is not quite so new. It's been around for a while. they're now kind of starting to feel their power. We both hope, I mean my hopes were always for a military elite to, but in West in America that may be difficult and you may need some kind of commercial industrial kind of what you say. I've told people maybe you're right in America that

where Caesarism of some type will come from. But look, that's not what I want to ask. They have some, I think, misunderstandings of Trump program and appeal, and you can see Elon make, I think, some contradictory statement that he not thought through, and he is joined in this by other tech elite so-called, like, he's not tech elite, but financial elite, Bill Ackman or Ackerman, whatever it is, and others. Ackman, yes. They say that legal immigration should be made easier and even increased, and by this they mean skilled immigration and maybe even some H-1B increase and such. I want to remind audience that despite Trump's conciliatory statements about stapling green card to college degrees for immigrants and such. He made similar statements in 2016 campaign.

However, during his first term, actually, legal immigration decreased. And Stephen Miller and I think Vance, who I am told is—follows your doctrine, Muhlbach, but certainly Stephen Miller and such, who I think is very serious, intelligent man in in this administration, I think he wants rightly to decrease legal immigration. But look, what I'm getting at is Elon often promotes people, say, increase legal immigration, increase. On the other hand, Elon also every other day alarmist posts about birth crisis, birth rates collapsing, population collapse, and so on. And I've asked people, what is Elon talking about? Because if you look at world graphs, of course, in the third world, there is still population increase, especially in Africa.

But even in first world nations, there is above replacement rate fertility. It correlates with obesity, low IQ, drug use, mental disease, and so on. Such categories of people have, of course, being on public assistance, such categories of people actually still have above replacement rate. So I am hoping, when I hear Elon say this, that he is aware of this, and what he really means is population decrease crisis for smart and intelligent people, or at least competent tax-paying people, and that is a problem. And yet he is saying increase legal immigration, which would raise their housing prices and lower their wages. Correct me if I'm wrong, moldbug, but I think this is what economics say. And yet, that makes it harder for them to have families, to plan for having children.

They are under financial pressure, would be increased. I don't know. To me, this seemed a kind of contradiction showing me that Elon, maybe not serious, he is still in the role of spectator, of opinions curator. As far as I know, although he agitates about the birth rate, he's never funded studies to find out why the birth rate is so low among, let's say, middle class, upper middle class, and so on. He just assumes he knows the answer because some people said so in an op-ed or whatever. And I find this lack of seriousness and this contradictory, pursue contradictory policies if he's not even in a position to pursue policies. But you see what I'm saying? What's going on with these people? Why are they saying this? Do you have comment on what I just

said? Well, you know, I would say a big part of the question of something never happens is that, you know, for something to never happen, for history to resume, you have to stop living in the bubble of the present. And so, for example, for, you know, Elon to be told that the Emperor Augustus, as you know, as I'm sure you you know, struggled with the same issue of the fertility of Rome's great families. And as recently confirmed, I believe, by DNA research was the theory of, I believe it was, juvenile and, you know, was it juvenile who said that the waters of the Urantes are flowing into the Tiber? I do not know, but it's been known for a while Yeah, that there was almost no one of patrician stock left in Rome by the time of its actual foreign 400s ADs, that was all I've heard.

Oh, there was almost no one of Roman stock, they were all, I mean... Yes, I've heard 6,000 is the number I've heard even before genetic studies, 6,000 of original Roman stock and maybe none of the patrician stock, which were of course a different race actually than, let's not get into that, but go on. Indeed, indeed, indeed, and therein lies the rub. The rub, really, is that in order, there was a, you know, there's a fellow, do you know Greg Cochran? A very disagreeable person, Greg Cochran. Extremely disagreeable. I do not think he's very smart or knowledgeable in history, but go on, I guess. No, his history is terrible. His history is terrible, and he obeys Rothbard's law that all polymaths put most of their attention

into the things that they're worst at you know he's a really he's a physicist he's a geneticist in and he had this nice line where he said that the average medieval peasant knew more about human genomics than the average modern anthropologist yes and had a better understanding of it and so do you even return so so when we think about the sort of the barriers between this kind of standard let's not you know mention names but this kind of standard 1990s tech elite view of the world. Okay, I think that there are, you know, why is this sort of, you know, do these people in a way sense the truth? They sense the truth, but they can't actually use their considerable logical faculties in favor of the truth, simply because I believe they're sort of,

not only are they unaware, I believe that there is There's actually no way they could process the two basic truths in your, the political and the biological truth in your own great book slash PhD thesis, Selective Reading of the Birth of Philosophy. And so the thing is that until you, first of all, when you try to understand humanity without understanding the question of selective breeding. You're just, what are you even doing? It's like you're computing the rocket equation in an alternate world where rockets are like the cube instead of the square. Like you're just, your math is hopelessly wrong. You can't even think clearly if you believe that all men are created equal. Although sometimes I'll admit, you know, people will all be like,

well, you know, I'm like, you know, I'm like, well, would it help you? Would it, would it, would it make me feel less bad if I said, okay, maybe all, uh, all, uh, all identical twins are created equal, but, uh, not sure about the fraternal twins, but, uh, you know, in any case, you know, that's a huge realization and it's, it's difficult for anyone in the world, not to have some inkling of that realization. But okay, they get a little past that, and they come up with this thing of, people who have that realization, maybe in a slightly covert way, come up with this thing that you've spoken about in a recent post, BAP, this IQ nationalism thing. And they're basically just like, well, our selectively bred class is not breeding at all,

breeding at all. So we're going to import the selective breeders from all these other countries including like the Tamil Brahmins or the Parsis from India. Of course, the Parsis have a like positively South Korean level of fertility going on. Yes, it's very sad. Sorry to interject. Just hold that thought for a second. I want to tell audience that I think there are studies that do show the Parsis, the Zoroastrians, the highest IQ in the world, maybe slightly higher than Ashkenazi IQ. And they're very competent people, but there are only a few hundred thousand left in the world. And just to remind the audience of what Molbag talking here is a view of, let's say, increase using knowledge, acknowledgement of human group differences, so there are differences in IQ between... We're going to...

Let me just cut to the chase map. We're going to breed enormous farms of Parsis. We're going to be farming Parsis. We're going to breed millions and millions of Parsis to fight the Jews. And when we have enough Parsis, the great conflict between the Parsis and the Jews will... And the Parsi, of course, Parsi is a cognate for Farsi. I want to just remind audience. Yes, sorry to interject, because audience may not know exactly what we're talking about right now. right now, not everyone read my article and so on. But Molbag is referring here to people, many in tech or tech-adjacent world, who say, yes, there are group differences. For example, in IQ, even if, let's say, Elon does not publicly acknowledge it, I think maybe he understands there are.

Therefore, we will stop low IQ mass migration from, let's say, illegal unskilled laborers. But because high IQ is good and high IQ people in the United States, West Europe, are not having enough children, we will import, let's say, high IQ classes of people from around the world. And won't this be a wonderful thing? I think this will be a terrible thing and actually lead – I made argument briefly in this article that such a so-called IQ elite unity will not exist and will lead to a kind of cruel tyrannical society. Sorry to interject more, but go on, you were saying, yes, this view of these people. view is, you know, this idea or this view that, you know, you'll have JavaScript certificate from, you know, Oxford University, Kharagpur, you know, you must come to America, you know,

do JavaScript, right? You know, and we have homeless people that could be doing JavaScript, right? Probably should be doing JavaScript, you know, and so once you've gotten past, Once you have this sort of forbidden thought of eugenics, of race science, as I prefer to call it. Did I tell my race science? Can I tell my race science story? Did we talk about race science and Caribbean rhythm? We talk. We talk, but we don't do. Maybe we do. You know, and so I had, I was a subject of, I was under attack. I was attacked by a journalist, one of these, you know, of the young and pretty variety. And I could tell that it was a hit piece. And so obviously I did not contact this female. And then, you know, a day before the article comes out, she sends, they send you this kind of ritual denunciation,

like, you know, is it true that you've done this? You've done that, you know? And you know, this girl is incredibly thorough. She pulls my family court records, like, you know, all sorts of nonsense, unbelievable. And then in one of these things, she accuses me of promoting, and she calls it scientific racism. Scientific racism. Can you imagine being accused? It's 2024, it's almost 2025, and I'm being accused of scientific racism. And I didn't reply to all of these things. You know, just don't reply unless, but you know, unless you have a, there's something you're trying to do. But I was like, yeah. You know, your publication, as I understand it, this is a straight news publication. And this is a work of journalism.

And as you know, one of the things that is not part of any professional practice in journalism is the use of loaded language. This is not propaganda. This is not just Stormer here. No, we're writing about a serious phenomenon, which happens to be me. And I feel that this word, scientific racism, is totally inappropriate and I feel that it's loaded language. And I would suggest, if you would like to use neutral terminology, the terms that I prefer are, number one, I believe the proper term instead of scientific racism, we should be saying human genomics. And if you can't quite study that one, come up with that one, could you at least say race science? Then as an illustration of race science, I gave her a link to Dervassola 2020, which

is some research that came out of Stanford in early 2020, just classic race science. Those who know Dervassola 2020 will know what I mean. Because the great thing about that paper, it's like really all the best papers in human genomics, and there have been some doozies, right? But if you're really leading a really good human genomics paper, you read the abstract, and in your mind, you basically take every sentence in the abstract, every period that ends the sentence, and you replace that period with the phrase, confirming the remarkable early insights of my uncle Roy. And you could do that one to that abstract. Anyway, it's a great paper. Dravosla 2020, Stanford, ignore the ethnic origin of the researchers, it's a very serious paper. Friends assure me that it's very solid,

its conclusions are shocking. In any case, much to my surprise, when this scurrilous piece of pseudo journalism appears, the phrase that it uses to describe what I've been promoting is race science. And moreover, a week later, and a much more August piece of journalism are the Atlantic Monthly Weekly, founded in, or Monthly's Monthly, it was founded in 1876, and they come out with an article. And the article says- The Atlantic? The Atlantic. And the Atlantic says, why are all these people in Silicon Valley suddenly believing in race science? Yes. And I was just like, seems like that's the correct professional journalistic term these days boys and so in any case our race science so the thing is yes all right so so so this legal immigration when people

talk about legal immigration we've established that what they really mean by a lake legal immigration is that they're basically saying I understand race science you know it's like like Keanu in the matrix you know Keanu is like I know kung-fu you know it's like when you know race science is like that it's just it's sudden you know it's like understanding you know there was one day early in your youth when you under did not understand calculus and then you understood it like race science can be like that right but the problem is when you understand you know sort of the the sad reality of like what selective breeding and evolution have done to our highly variable human species you have a second problem which is that you're still a liberal and because you're still

a liberal you basically fail to understand the kind of you know what's sad is that Silicon Valley is is based on the principle of monarchy in so many ways every CEO is a little king and yet their ability to model the state as if it was a firm is very very weak because if you model the state as a firm if you say well actually what if a country really is like a startup yes you start thinking about something that's very important in the corporate context which is your balance sheet because the question in the mind of anyone who runs a company is what is this worth and what do I own and the fundamental problem with all of this skilled immigration stuff is that you're basically, you know, when you're in a liberal society, you know, your economics is based on the

economics of Adam Smith. It's not vitalist economics. It's not Nietzschean economics. It's utilitarian economics. And you're basically trying to produce as much pleasure as possible for this vast herd of human cattle. And so, So, you know, it's fairly easy to go from that to say, well, when we bring in, you know, Rajeev with his certificate in JavaScript, you know, which allows us to, like, cut the wages of JavaScript code monkeys, then we can serve, charge 5% less on our monthly subscription fee for our SaaS JavaScript product. And therefore, we've created economic efficiency. We've created productivity. And I'm just like, what if the mission of productivity is not actually your mission? What if the mission of, I'm a government, I'm a state, I'm a king, and I'm responsible,

I'm the patra patria, I'm responsible for all these people. And instead, I'm taking my responsibility for them to be such that I'm going to bring in Bregive to, you know, live nine to a single, you know, pod cubicle in Silicon Valley and charge 50,000 for his JavaScript, you know, and I am basically going to ruthlessly undercut the, like, labor market that basically keeps my people alive and human and off the dole and off the streets and all of And it's just like very, you know, sort of Adam Smith taught us that it was right to do this. And I'm just like, you know, you're heading straight for like Wally world. You're heading straight for this totally dehumanized society. And because your metrics are wrong, your metrics are just leading you to disaster.

And, you know, it's funny if there's one way in which I'm critical of kind of the Silicon Valley way of doing things. doing things. And this extends even a little bit to business, as well as, you know, further afield in the world of power, is that metrics are very important. But when you measure, when you basically say, and this is kind of the fundamental error of liberalism, even, you're just like, oh, we can measure GDP. And because we can measure GDP, it's how we have to measure the performance of an economy. And you can just like a hollow out this country and create this sort of empty country with like agriculture and paper shuffling and basically nothing else going on in this country and you go and look at the streets of San Francisco

and they're like they're like the middle of the day in a work day and Market Street in San Francisco is like it's there's a few people scurrying along it's it's empty it's like yes and and you if you showed people from San Francisco that you know from a hundred years ago when that street was bustling and full of life and full of humanity and they They were all very well-dressed, even the workmen. And you'd basically say, well, the economy is doing much better now. Look at how much economic growth we've had. And they've just been like, you've turned this country into a zombie country. What have you done? And so whether you're basically, when you're exporting labor demand to other countries through imports, or when you're saying, well, Rajiv, for some obscure reason,

has to be in San Mateo in order to do his JavaScript, I don't know why that would be, you're spitting on everything that like 5,000 years of rulers that Faro Khufu knew that somehow you don't know. And I'm just like, what? So you're still in this bubble. You're still in the bubble of modernity. You haven't realized that actually you think it's the past that's imaginary and the present that's real. No, the present is imaginary and only the past is real. And until you've realized that, you have no right to rule. Yes, no, very good, Mollbag. And on that note, I have been keeping you on this first segment for a while. I want to go to break in a moment. I need a egg yolk kind of breakfast. But on that note, it's very funny. People assume because GDP is a number

and if you are in, let's say constipated nerd, iceberg style, as many people think is fashionable. It's not even being an actual nerd, it's just a nerd style, right? You put thick glasses on and therefore you're smart. Oh, GDP is a number, it must be correct. Someone recent was having this argument that Puerto Rico is richer than Japan and South Korea because of GDP number. Okay, garbage island, go please take walk down capital Puerto Rico versus downtown Tokyo. Sure, GDP, thank you, but it goes to what you say. Look, we take short break, and actually I won't come back. We talk this tech. You are known as tech guy also in your previous or other life, and we talk this when we come back. What do you say? Yes, yes, we cross the streams. Very good, we cross the streams. We will be right back.

We are back, I just had breakfast egg yolks. I am here with Moldbog, who in his other life is himself a tech founder among a group targeted unwisely by the Biden regime of vindictive resentment, but some of only class of people who have innovated actual technology in modern America, who make real progress. Molbak, on that note, I have attacked Elon, but I should say I never thought America could have its own engines to take ships into space. America was using engines made by the Russians because they were ahead in propulsion technology. It was said it's an incremental technology. It's something entire slow built, built over knowledge accumulated over decades, and Russia had a head start over America. So I think if you read DOD and Pentagon press releases, they never thought America could

catch up in propulsion technology. And here come Elon in a few years. He does it better than the Russians by changing entire, I think, whatever you want to call I'm not technologist, but just, I guess, the frame of how he pursued this technology. I am a rambling moldbug. You are yourself founder of an entirely new technology, and I want to ask you about this on this segment. It's okay. You are founder Urbit, yes? Yes. Urbit. And, you know, it's funny, you are a BIT, and, you know, it's funny having these two lives because some people think of me really entirely as a computer scientist who has this strange you know crankish these strange political ideas and then right you know and then from the perspective of political philosophy it's

like you know what's this he also writes code but but in fact my training my training you know I went to you know very very progressive college that allows you no no core requirements you can take whatever you like and so I use this to take entirely I took a couple of classes but it was mostly engineering classes I was like I will take all engineering and and when I say engineering I mean computer science and then later I studied that in graduate school and you know the trade of building things and really as a computer scientist I'm into systems I'm kind of the you know the Ayn Rand architect mindset people you know always wind up in systems every field of computer science is different but systems operating systems compilers browsers

networks you know it's all it's all system software to me you know this is of like endless beauty it's the pulsing heart that runs the world right and and and I believed in this very strongly as a young man growing up in the 80s and 90s when I got into system software and you know when I became even even as this whole technological world was just coming into existence. I remember the first time I saw the internet mentioned in the New York Times, and I remember it very, very clearly. It was the fall of 1988. There was a story about the Morris internet worm, very early virus in the New York Times. It was like the Times was writing about your cousin or something. Unbelievable, right? Now you and I are in the Times on a weekly basis or whatever. We

take this for granted but it was like my god my cousin in the New York Times the internet they had to explain it what it was you know and and and as I sort of came you know to maturity as a computer scientist I started to realize that my just world theory was actually a just world fallacy and the way the world worked you know maybe didn't always result in like this constant state of of improvement and kind of reaching the right thing. In fact, I felt that, you know, there's a kind of sterility that happens. And of course, we see this in the humanities all the time, these worthless English professors. But it could be true in the sciences. The sciences too can become sterile in various ways. And so you can get, there's a kind of sterility

where Kuhn, you know, talks about stamp collecting science, like normal science. Yes. You know, there's a kind of, And in systems, it's really essential to have this kind of application to reality. It's like when you write an operating system, it's entirely useless until unless someone uses your code, right? You're just playing in this fantasy land until someone uses your code. And then it becomes beautiful. And what I realized was that, you know, these sort of systems of the early 1970s that were becoming, you know, that are today like the operating system of everything we do. Let's say you have an iPhone. you have an iPhone even if you have an Android phone you can admit you have an Android phone or is it an iPhone I actually use I have four phones I use my

Android for various things and I use my iPotato general yeah yeah that is good that is good it's good to spread the spread the risk because you never know what your phone is doing but the thing is both of those phones both the iPhone and the you know Allah forgive me for for uttering the word the Android phone are both running an operating system that was written in the 1970s. They are both running Unix. The whole world is based on this platform of 1970s software. For the 70s it was very good, it was brilliant. It was just, it's an inspiration, the aesthetic genius of the 70s that is left in those things that could create something so great, so perfect, that 50 years later this handheld computer would be running this software. and yet there's something crazy in the way

that your iPhone is actually deep down on the inside pretending to be a 1970s mainframe. For example, one of the things that an iPhone really tries to do different from a regular computer is to convince you that there's only one kind of memory. That you open an app and it's there when you come back to it and it has the same data in it and it never goes away. except of course it does go away when you reboot your phone, and actually, in order to save memory, it will turn off apps sometimes, so you sort of notice that there's a state, you're like, oh, it had to turn that back on again, but it tried to save the state. You know, the whole structure of this comes, the reason there's two kinds of memory, there's fast RAM and there's slow flash memory in your phone

is that it's pretending to be a VAX from the 1970s, it's pretending to be a digital equipment, VAX from the 1970s, which had a hard disk that saved state permanently and RAM that was fast. Even though you could build a system now, if you were designing a system from scratch, you might have that distinction, but I don't really think you would. And if you did, you would hide it very, very quickly in the structure. That distinction is kind of deeply there and it gets all the way up to the user. This is just an illustration. It's like the thing that, I don't know if this is true, but it's a famous Just So story, that the difference between the railroad gauge of like a railroad in the Western world today comes from the distance between wheel ruts in a wagon in a Roman road, right?

Because these standards, they stick around, they're very, very difficult to change. And so I felt very, like in a way, I felt two things. One is that I felt my vital creativity, and that of many others, was really stymied by working within this constraint of we're doing things in the 70s way. And I also felt that it would cause problems in actually the way we relate to computers. So something felt wrong. I dropped out of graduate school, I went to work in the salt mines, I made a little bit of money. And then at the start of 2002, everything was collapsing. It was the dot-com bust. And I had a little bit of money. And I was like, OK, if we built all this entire network, the internet, Unix, all this stuff, let's say we had to imagine not starting from 1970s hardware,

but we had to imagine the question of how would we do this if we were starting from scratch, if we were actually thinking about this based on nothing? And I came up with, it took me basically, I was like, OK, I'm just going to write my own PhD thesis. Nobody's watching me. Nobody's supervising. I'm going to do that. And by the time I ran out of money and had to show this to the public, it was 11 years later. And I had this sort of alternate reality, full stack, where if you looked at Urbit as it was, and still as it is now, if you looked at it, of it as it was in 2013, the only way that you could tell that it came from Earth and was not actually an alien operating system from an alien spaceship was that it used ASCII. I couldn't not use ASCII, but like, would the

aliens use ASCII? Probably not. Or maybe they invented ASCII and the A in ASCII actually stands for for alien. Alien standard code for information interchange. But in any case, you know, such was the ambition of this system and then I had to explain... No, it sounds like wild ambition to re-change all computing. It's beyond actually like my ambitions in terms of political science, economics. You know them, they're vast, but they're small compared to my technical ambitions. And so this is very ambitious system and so what is the purpose of this though? Is Is this just mathematical masturbation? Because I think as mathematical masturbation, it's rather good mathematical masturbation. It's very impressive. I am excited about masturbation healing this. To think of it only as just onanism,

it's like I have great distaste for this onanism. It's not vital. It's not, you know, you're not, you know. System software for me is the equivalent in code of sun and steel. Like when you write an operating system, you're truly testing yourself against the machine because the thing is, when you write an operative system, when you write any fundamental piece of code, normally when you're writing code, there's a great essay by someone named James Mickens called The Night Watch, if you want to go in and search for it. Normally when you're writing code, you're just like, oh, what if my code doesn't work? Oh, I start the debugger. But when you're writing a new operating system, you don't have a debugger, because you're the debugger. You're like, okay, I'll print something on the screen,

but what if the print routine is broken, right? You actually, you can't debug the system because you need the system to debug itself. It's almost impossible. It's a high wire act, really. But the fundamental question is, do we need this? It's a question that anything has to answer. And if you avoid the question of, do we need this, you just, you know, there's a great line that I've always applied to any fruitless activity. It's a great line of Dr. Hunter Thompson, where he described, and I forget what he was talking about, but he described some activity as like hunting wild boar with a can of spray paint from the back of a pickup truck. And so until you're actually, until your system gets out there and people use your code and they use it, maybe they use it to develop itself,

maybe they use it in anger, they use it to do something. So what does this do and why do we need it today? Well, one of the things that happened in the 90s, We were talking earlier about the dreams of the 90s, the libertarian dreams. We had these technical dreams too. And the technical dream of the 90s was the idea, and it was a dream of the 80s, and it was realized really at that time. It was remarkable. People had their own computers. They had personal computers, and they stored their data on it, and they owned all of their data, and they were like totally independent, and they had a PC. And then the internet came along, and a couple of things happened. One of the things that happened was that if you tried to have your own node on the internet,

and this is what we all assumed in the 1990s, everybody has their own computer, eventually it's running Linux, and they have their own website, and maybe they have their own even like social media, and the way their social media works is that they wanna post a thing, they say, hey, I did this thing today, here's this photograph, and it's on their desktop, and then somebody wants to see their social media, and they connect to your desktop computer over the internet and they get that picture. And that's how it was all supposed to work. And somebody named Mark Zuckerberg at a certain point realized that, and this was social networking when it was actually a network. And someone named Mark Zuckerberg realized at a certain point that actually most people didn't want to run their own computers

and they didn't want to run a server and they didn't want to be a Linux system administrator, which is a job for nerds and neckbeards. So what if we just faked it? And instead of everyone having their own computer, they would all have their own row in Mark Zuckerberg's database. And it would be like, they would still call it a social network, but it's not a network. Facebook is not a network, it's a database. TikTok is not a network, it's a database. And so we basically, you know, and then people thought, oh, it doesn't really make any difference if it's not real. It doesn't really make any difference if it's not real. And let's put all the data in one place And we're still just going to go and pretend that it's the 1990s. And it's like when I started out blogging.

And this was late in the late 1990s, which is to say 2007. I was blogging in the late blogging era. And at the time, all of these back end systems, nobody realized that when you basically put everybody's data on the same thing in the same place, Somebody was going to look at all that data in one place and want to step on it with a big. And I remember the web, the early web, the web of web blogs. Remember web blogs? Blogs stood for web blog. And I had my blog on qualified reservations. And it was 2007. It was 2008. People like to read it. They like to link to it. And when people link to your blog from other blogs, Google watched that. And it saw that your blog had many links And your page ranking went up. And I had a PR sex in my blog, which was a very high-ranking page.

And it was very clear that this new world of internet authorities, just like Elon Musk is saying today, 20 years later, we would become the new media. And we would become the reliable people. And of course, you could blog whatever you wanted. And then we lived through it. We survived. Somehow we survived. but are we the same people that we were in 2005? I don't think so. I think that that experience changed us. It certainly changed me. And so, you know, fast forward into the present. We have this system that basically, you know, the future never happened. And the future never happened because we basically went back to this way of doing computing of 1960, where all your data is in one big mainframe and you connect to it using, Do you remember an acoustic coupler?

My father had, it was like a modem before modems. You actually, the sound was connected to your landline phone. It was crazy, it made this strange noise. There were these weird suction cups that looked like a sex toy, like something meant to be applied to the perineum, but it was actually a data processing device. All very strange, right? And so we've gone backward to that world. OK, so let's look at what Urbit actually is in today's world. Yes. OK. What Urbit is in today's world is it's two things. It's two very, very simple things. One is it's a system of digital identities. And so we all have the blockchain now. We know what the blockchain is. So when you have the name, for example, Bronze Age Pervert, that name is completely owned and controlled

by the proprietors of Twitter, now X, they can ban you. They've done it before, they may do it again. God forbid. And that's not a sovereign name in any way. That doesn't belong to you in any sense. So my urbate name is Sorignamtive, and it belongs to me. No one can take it away from me ever unless they hit me with sticks and make me give up the password, which I suppose they could always do. Otherwise, that's a blockchain name. it's what they call an NFT, it will always be mine. The way those names work is very, very simple. There's four billion of them. Four billion names is two to the 32nd. It is four bytes of information. You map each one of those bytes to a syllable, like SOR, REG, NAM, TIVE. You have 256 standard syllables, I'm simplifying slightly. And you basically have a name,

have a space of these names that's the same size as the space of internet addresses, four billion, and you make them property. You make them digital property so you own this name and what can you do with it? Why, you know, many different things but it's a name that you own. Connected to that is a private server and it's a personal server and the purpose of this personal server, the way, cause you know, you out there listening to Caribbean rhythms, you're laughing. You're like, I would never use this. This sounds crazy. In 10 years, you'll think nothing of it. You'll have an orbit. You'll have a name like certain empire. It'll, you know, and what that name will be connected to is right now when you use the internet, when you use the cloud, you have all of these apps.

And these apps keep all of this different data on various people's private servers. Your app is on Facebook. You're a row in Facebook's database. You have this app, you have that app, and they're all connected to these servers. You'll be using very similar apps in the Urbit world, except number one, your identity in this app will be the same identity everywhere. It will be a sovereign identity that you use. Second, the back end of this app that stores the data, instead of having your data in 30 different places on 30 different servers of 30 different apps you use, the back end of the app data will actually be on your server, which you'll control. Moreover, this server is gonna run in what's called a secure enclave, which means actually, of course, it's a cloud server,

it has to be in the cloud, it has to be somewhere, but it's gonna run on, and this technology already exists, it's gonna run on a computer where even the hosting service, it's like, imagine if Twitter couldn't read your tweets. Even the hosting service cannot tell what you're doing with that personal server of yours. And so you have in this sort of new world, you have this like complete sovereignty. No one can take your identity away. No one can look at your data. No one can stop you from computing. And moreover, because this system, for example, it doesn't have two kinds of memory, it only has one. Because it has this kind of technical simplicity where I don't want to get too technical, But essentially, this whole system of orbit is defined in a very abstruse, almost

Kabbalistic way, such that the whole definition of the system is a single formula. It's a single function whose definition fits on a t-shirt in a normal font. I wear this t-shirt often. It's a strange and magical thing. And because the system is re-engineered to do what it does now. In order to have your own server in orbit, you are not actually forced to be the pilot of some 1970s mainframe. You are not a system administrator. It should be as easy to use as your iPhone. The final question to ask with this technology is where is it? What does it do today? Should you go out and use it? You should go out and use it only if you wanna play with it and do interesting things with it. It is not quite ready for, I mean, we use it every day, we use it to develop it, we use it to talk.

Is it ready for you to say, okay, I'm gonna throw away my Twitter, I'm gonna throw away my Unix, I'm gonna throw away my iPhone? Absolutely not, because, you know, developing this, developing this infrastructure is, it's a generational problem, building a new system software infrastructure. But what I can tell you is that there is absolutely nothing close, and also... But this, it doesn't matter if it's close, you're talking about revolutionizing computing and internet, this, to me as laymen, this very exciting and not being beholden to, as Zukerface himself ended up being beholden to people he hired. But the most important question, the most important question, Bap, really, since we're on this, how many listeners does Caribbean Rhythms have?

I mean, overall, listeners, including to the free portion, I'm not sure. It's a lot, but at the moment, my subscribers are about 7,500, yes. Very powerful, very powerful. Well, the most important question when one comes on a podcast, really, to say is, can I buy it? And the answer is yes, although it's not as easy as it should be. But the answer is yes. And should you buy it? There are exciting new things happening now a little bit, no? Should you buy it? And should you buy it? There are exciting new things happening now a little bit, no? And should you buy it? There are exciting new things happening now a little bit, no? And should you buy it? There are exciting new things happening now a little bit, no? There are exciting new things happening now a little bit, no?

Should you buy it? There are, there are, because I've returned to the project. And you can go and if you want to delve into Urbit, you can see my speeches on the subject and get my assessment of where it is. Exciting things are happening and I have indeed come back to work on this thing that I found. It's exciting, it's fun, it's crazy. I love it. It was very good. And what you described about Zuckerface, you know, everyone know what happened. Some of these were techno-libertarians, they were well-intentioned. But as you say, they have this centralized, really, website. Then the people they hired took over in some way and held the CEOs in some way hostage. This may be a way around that. Am I wrong? Yes, it is. It is. It is. Because it doesn't have that same point of pressure.

And if I can connect the sort of the two parts of our conversation, it's like these people, these 90s libertarians who were creating something very powerful did not understand that they were creating something very powerful. They were sort of the innocent nerds who forged the atomic weapon. Actually, the nerds of Los Alamos were like this. They really thought that having built the nuclear bomb, they would be enabled to decide when and where to drop it. And then, you know, the real men of power who employed them were like, thank you nerds, we'll take it from here. And this is what always happens to, and this is why, you know, in a way, if we are truly in the age of nerd power, you know, the nerd must become comfortable with, you know, I,

one of the things we learn, I mean, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, you know, they all tell us this is like, you know, when people talk about the right to rule, people imagine, you know, the right to rule as if it's some kind of like lucky charm that you were given. The right to rule is actually is inseparable from the duty to rule. If you have the right to rule you also have the duty to rule and that is a very heavy burden. And you know the thing is by essentially creating these these instruments these rings of power these infernal devices you might even say because Facebook is in a sense an infernal device in that it lets so many such a small number of people control such a large number of people really control their minds in an amazing way. You know having created these infernal

devices in a way it was their kind of their responsibility to take up the human burden and like realize the power of these tools and you know there's a line you know when people are naive there's a line I mean one of the things about 20th century history is that basically all historical phenomena have happened in an exaggerated way in Russia. Russia contains an example of everything. And there's a line from a great Solzhenitsyn essay. I think this is my very obscure essay. It's my favorite Solzhenitsyn. It's in the anthology called From Under the Rubble, and it's called As Breathing and Consciousness Return. And it's maybe the best essay ever written about 20th history and there's a line about the Russian Revolution in it which refers to

the rise of Lenin and Stalin and it says power like a ball of fire flew from hand-to-hand until it fell into hands hard enough to hold it and and and and that's the thing is that basically it's not that you know like like Zuckerberg you know has to become some kind of musk has to become some kind of Stalinist killer, you know, some kind of, you know, ought of the death of a, you know, a million men is just a statistic, you know, that's 20th century nonsense, that's not for them, but to understand the responsibility of leadership that they have been given and the responsibility of leadership leading a people is, you know, the job of cutting two trillion dollars or whatever it's supposed to be from the US budget is immense, but the job of leading America

is so much more immense than that that none of these people can even contemplate it. They can contemplate going to Mars perfectly. They can see terraforming Mars. But the idea of leading America, you know, talk to Elon about terraforming Mars and you'll be there for hours. Talk to him about how do we take America's 50 DMVs and turn them into one National Motor Vehicle Administration and he'll be just like, like, ah, we might as well go to Pluto, you know? What you're talking about is as impossible as terraforming Pluto. And the thing is, I obviously, I've never met Mr. Musk. I don't know what I would have to say to him, but maybe, wait, wait, no, I have an idea. I know what I might say to him. I might say, there's a thought that, what I can't work out

is whether he's had this thought or not. Because if he's had it, how is he acting in the way he is? but how has he not had this thought? And my thought is, listen to this idea. Okay, this is gonna break your brain. This is a really radical idea. And it's about Mars. And again, since we're in an orbit setting, orbit is often referred to as like computing for Mars. It's like computing for a different planet. And in this case, it's better. For example, you know, orbit is a truly deterministic computer, unlike your stupid desktops that you're running today. It's an amazing thing. But it's Martian, it's different. It's different. But it's better. But the actual planet of Mars, if Mars was next door to Camden, New Jersey, you'd much rather live in Camden, New Jersey.

I don't know if you've been to Camden, New Jersey. But I have not. I don't like this. I would not recommend it. So the idea, wait, wait, you have to hear my visionary idea. Yes, I hear vision, yes. The vision is, instead of going to Mars get away from the libs what if what if we stay here and send the libs to mars yes yes yes well my slave colony uh mining mining mining mining they're creating gdp with mining the the valuable natural resources what um um what national resources about a lot of natural resources they have rocks they have mar rocks on mars they're red rocks there's a lot of coal for them to mine on Mars. There's a lot of coal, and FD&C read number three, and you know, yes, exactly. But on that note, on that note, Malbach, because I won't talk to you about some esoteric idea,

unusual wild idea I've had, but I'm coming up on hard commercial break. Hard commercial break. Yeah, what you say, I have proton shake during this break, and we come back for a brief segment on unusual biblical history but unusual biblical history energized just a quick note to audience this very exciting what moldbach talk on this uh segment and if you are interested on this last point you made about leadership and misunderstanding among some of take a look on what means political power uh a french magazine called uh rage uh i will link it again wrote a French article, a neo-reaction article, talking about similarities between, I mean, you and I have disagreements, but he talked about similarities between our views addressing,

in particular, this matter of the tech elite maybe understanding what they, what means political power. But I will link for audience. On that note, yes, on that note, Mollbach, let us go, quick break, and we will be right back. We will return. Shake Break. I'm here with Moldbag. We are having a pleasant conversation as we talk. Kash Patel has been nominated by Trump to head FBI. I'm a big fan of this man, Kash Patel. I like many people from that nation, Moldbag, and I love addicted to their spice food. So I just want to make clear, I'm not an attack, and someone like Kash Patel his possibility great reform to American government are you excited by this news? I am excited by this news and and and it forces me to think I mean you know first

of all the food is delicious like delicious spicy food. Kamil Paglia said makes her trip to eat the soups. Do we know the history did they find the spicy food you know when Lord Indra across the Ganges you know did he bring with him the spicy food or did he find it there perhaps he found it there perhaps you know that that is what created the you know the amazing you know melange of nation of nations of races of even even of species you know that that created the Indian because you know we were discussing all earlier the question of all all men are created equal all identical twins are created equal can we can we say can we say I don't think that we can say that all the Indians are created equal well I don't think they would say that and I don't I didn't think they would say that at all.

And so the thing is, for example, when we hear the name Kash Patel, first of all, the first name of Kash, that's very powerful. Now, Indian names aren't always powerful when translated into English. We've all met the Indian who's unfortunate enough to be named Dickshit, and we've all met a Dickshit or two, or I had a coworker once, an Indian fellow, and his name was, I guess it's no harm in me saying it, his name was Anand Mahalingam. And I looked at this name and I said, Mahalingam, what does that mean? And I knew what it meant, you know, because Maha is of course a cognate for mega. Yes. It's the Indian mega, right? You know, and so these names, Kash Patel, Kash is very powerful. And Patel, Patel, what does the name Patel make you think of, Bap? That's right, motels.

Because, you know, actually, if you stay at a Quality Inn, you know, a Days Inn, a Howard Johnson, you know, any of these chains, what you'll find is that they are not actually operated by these companies. Yes. The companies own them, they own the brand names, they check up sometimes. But really, when you look at who operates your Days Inn, it's a Patel. Yes. Are you familiar with the Patel phenomenon? Yes. Well, it's because I wanted to talk for you something unusual on this episode that's actually slightly related to Indian history and prehistory because although people don't realize in Nietzsche published works Twilight of Idols and the Antichrist, he actually has some very shocking theories about the Indian origins of the Bible, meaning not just Schopenhauer saying that

Jesus, for example, was an Indian yogi, but Nietzsche saying something else quite shocking regarding the Old Testament, which I will get to in a moment. But yes, in the wild country of great variety, including the Vedas, not like the name of the scripture, but I think with two D's, referring to these. Yeah, yeah, yeah, with two D's, two D's, yeah. Australoid Aboriginals people don't know about. Barely human living in the jungle. Hunting with spears, you know. But hunting is very interesting to me. But look, I won't tell you this theory and get what you think about it. I've long wanted to ask you this. There is this man, Russell Gmerkin, just to address possible objections, people always question motives.

What I'm about to say, you should know, Russell Gmerkin is just a pleasant, scholarly, probably diagnosable with Asperger's very disputatious Ashkenazi. Well, his name ends in the same two letters as mine, which I've always regarded as a symbol of great trustworthiness. It's a good guide. I just want to say, in what I'm about to say, this theory is not motivated by, okay, whatever anti-Semitism or cannot be dismissed like this. But he's saying the Bible, which everyone acknowledges was, quote-unquote, translated the Septuagint in Library of Alexandria sometime maybe 270 B.C. or so. Nobody disputes this. People maybe forget that there is no record of a compiled Bible as a national scripture of a national monotheistic religion. There is nothing recorded before this date.

It's accepted that such thing exists, but only by, let's say, tradition. including mainstream scholars, accept claims that are made for the history of the Bible that they would accept for no other text because... But no one has found a copy of the Septuagint from before 250 BC. Or anything like it. So philologically and archaeologically, this supposed history of the Bible before that date is, I think, a fiction. You do find things like Dead Sea Scrolls or other texts... But But that's later. That's later. Well, no, no. These are from before, but there is no evidence that they were part of a centralized text that was a national literature of a national monotheistic religion. And so what Gmerkin is saying is that, yes, there may have been some Canaanite religions

in that region, but that they were likely polytheistic, that when you look at very ancient Greek authors, Herodotus, for example, who has such an interest in the unusual customs of other peoples, but when he goes in that, he covers that area, he mentions nothing about a supposed monotheistic religion with a temple or such, that would be around 500, 400 BC. From him or other historians, no record of such a people exists, or such a religion, and only later. So Gmerkin's claim is that the supposed translation into Greek was not really a translation, but a composition that the Bible was actually written then. Some prior traditions and texts were incorporated into it, but especially the beginning, Genesis,

was written at that time in 270 BC, so a very late, shocking claim for a late composition in Greek of the Genesis part of the Hexatuke. And the claim further he makes is that it was a Platonic project that, in other words, it was inspired by Plato's philosophy in the laws for a centralized national religion. And I can get into the details. He has many details to come up with why he says so much evidence, including the fact that the catalog of nations and other things mentioned, it would have been impossible for it to be a very ancient tradition because it was based on contemporaneous Hellenistic texts from other authors around at the time. And he has subsequent books, including a recent one, to show the influence of other Platonic dialogues on other parts of the Bible.

This to me is shocking claim because, of course, you know, everyone know supposed interpretation of Western history as tensions between… Athens, Jerusalem. Yes, tensions between… Athens, Jerusalem. Yes, Athens versus Jerusalem, but this would be like Athens versus Athens 2.0 or something like that. What do you think is shocking theory, Bob Barker? Well, it's very interesting. I certainly haven't encountered it before. I think that I always like to find rhymes between the modern world and the ancient world. And it's certain that if you look at basically the Jewish world of 250 BC, of course, that's already a very deeply Hellenized world. There's a lot of Hellenism running through it. And one of the things, you know, and Hellenism in the ancient world is in a way,

it's kind of the first modernism. It's the first modernity. It's like, you know, the gay American empire, you know, is sort of like, has these elements of it, you know, and so you see basically, you know, who are the Jews really? Like, they're Canaanites, they're Phoenicians basically, Hebrew, and do you know, let me tell you a, you know, a funny, a funny thing. I was talking to a couple of years ago, I was speaking to a professor of Semitic languages or someone who should have known this, you know, completely, but and did know it, but had just not put it together in a way. You know, of course, the word king in Hebrew. It's Melek? Yes. It's Melek. And in Arabic, what is it in Arabic? It's Malik. It's the name of a black name. It's a black basketball player named Malik. Yes. Malik. Yes.

Yes. I had a, you know, someone in high school who was Malik, right? Yes. King. Right. And, and, but what about in Phoenician? What is that same word in Phoenician? What is, what is? It's Moloch. Oh, oh my god. Moloch. Melech. Melech. These are all the same word and of course, you know, we hear if you know Semitic languages Semitic languages are all based on these three-letter roots and you Often don't write the vowels and you change the vowels in the root to basically, you know, sort of modify the root and the trigrams so-called for the word for or Melek, Melek, Moloch is of course MLK. Oh my god, no this, no, no. So actually, you know, Dr. King and Moloch are actually the same in this deep way, right? So actually, and this is all, this is neither here nor there,

this is a little linguistic, you know. But when I look at, you know, the Jews, they basically, the really old Jews, the biblical Jews, you know, the, you know, clearly like, you know, the stuff in like the Book of Kings and so forth, all of this ancient history, like, these things happen, the names of these monarchs can be found, but you're not talking about, you know, they didn't make up these king lists or whatever, but the ideas are the ideas of 250 BC, and they're not the ideas of the ancient Jews. and the ideas of the ancient Jews, we can expect that, you know, although they're, I mean, it's like, talk about monotheism, it's just like, well, you know, the way that, you know, so-called monotheism sort of reflected itself in the truly

traditional pre-modern world is, of course, you've read the ancient city and you had a polis, you had a tribe, that tribe had a god, and when you said, thou shalt have no other gods before me," the first commandment, already in a way there's something non-monotheistic about the first commandment. It sort of assumes that there are other gods, but your god is better than them. And like, you know, that's not usually what we think of as like monotheism today. Like, my god can kick your god's ass. Is that monotheism or is it non-monotheism? It seems like actually kind of polytheistic in some ways, my god can kick your god's ass. right? And it was sort of, it was assumed actually, and you'll find this, you know,

this is discussed in the ancient city when you have a war, you have a battle, you conquer the enemy's city, you basically desecrate, you know, his altars, you know, and you've actually defeated the god. Like your god has defeated his god and you like, and you see all of this. Or to go with what you're saying, the Romans promising local gods that they would honor them more if they gave them the city. Indeed indeed indeed they and and conversely of course the way the Romans you know desecrated the you know the Jewish temple going inside the sanctuary you know God only knows what happened to the Ark of the Covenant although I think I think Trump actually has a replica but But, you know, it's not a replica, but, you know, he is the lion, he is the lion, he is

the lion of the tribe of Judah, you know, like, he is the living Constitution, you know, and like, you know, actually, I think in future, you know, Americans will no longer, we won't even use the word Trump, we'll just say Hashem, you know, but, aren't I, you know, Well, to go with what you're saying, sorry to interrupt. No, I had a point. I had a serious point. I'm doing the weave. I'm doing the weave. I had a serious point. My serious point is that when we look at, basically, modern nationalisms, when we look at 20th century nationalisms, we see this sort of same thing where we have these internationalist nationalisms, you know, the age of like liberal nationalism, like, you know, you're Czech and you just have to be speaking Czech

So you have to revolt against the cosmopolitan and highly cool Austro-Hungarian empire in order to have your dismal little Czech schools teaching only Czech, which is a language for peasants and donkeys. But it's this noble crusade, and you'd need a national literature in Czech. And they're going through this shenanigans right now with this Ukrainian, this linguistic nationalism in the 21st century. And Ukrainian is a language that was previously spoken only by and to pigs, as I understand it. It was a poor sign language. It was certainly not in Kiev, or as it's now called, Kiev. No one spoke this dirt language, right? And so there's this kind of fakeness to Ukrainian nationalism, where the real spirit of Ukrainian nationalism is actually liberal internationalism, or as some call it,

What do they call it? They call it, they call it gay race communism. And so you have this strange kind of, you know, twisted mix of linguistic nationalism, this sort of, you know, this tribal feeling, this feeling straight out of the ancient city, the feeling of philia, as Aristotle calls it in his politics, the feeling of like, we're all Ukrainians, we need to fight for our country. And yet you can't help but, you know, see, wow, this nationalism is just actually this, like, pastiche of, like, this fake sentiment that isn't real. And it's really just a way of, you know, making the world safe for gay race communism. And so the idea that basically in this, like, whole narrative of the chosen people from 250 BC, you know, this idea that you have maybe something similar is going on.

you have these kind of roots of like the Jewish people but like actually like you know what is Jewish nationalism and though you know at the peak of the Hellenistic age and you know 250 BC Jewish nationalism is actually turns out to just be Platonism with this like pastiche of like you know sort of it's Jew flavored Platonism. What this Gemurken with his you know whose name ends in the same last letter as Gimmerkin is saying, is it's a very strange name, Gimmerkin, the G. So it's like the stern, I think, that we were talking about earlier, the stern with the H, you know, Gimmerkin, you know. And, you know, I don't think any Gimmerkins came up with the Normans, you know, if you catch my drift, you know, but that's okay. But the, you know, what we're seeing here in that case

is that basically, you know, the Bible is actually a work of Greek literature. I mean, and some parts of it is clearly like, you know, Book of Job, you know, Ecclesiastes, like these have a very deep Greek dramatic fingerprint on them. But, you know, that even Genesis is basically really this kind of profoundly Hellenic influenced work, and that the one God, you know, that we meet in the Hebrew Bible is actually this kind of mix of, like, old school, like, our God can beat up your God kind of, quote, monotheism, which is really ethnocentric, mono, you know, it's kind of a monocentric version, mixed with, you know, Plato's, like, you know, idea of God as the universal good, and that this is what constructs, you know,

Not just, I mean, we all acknowledge that forgetting the Patels, there's a lot of Hellenistic influence in Christianity, but to say that this is actually present in the Old Testament as well is the argument, I believe, of this Gomerkin. Am I rephrasing it right? No, no, you are saying it right, and it's a shocking conclusion, and the parallel you make to modern dynamic, where you have reactions against Western universalism by supposedly this, in nationalism, but it's really a new phenomenon. It's not some type of return to tradition. I think existed in ancient world, and Nietzsche, I think, makes similar argument, and I'll say why in a moment and ask your opinion on this too, because it's, I think, congruent with what, in agreement with what Merkin say, but actually quite a bit darker,

because Nietzsche, I think, say in the Antichrist and Twilight of the Idols, but he say in the Antichrist that the history of Israel was falsified, and I think he means that it was falsified around this time, to reinterpret the history of a heroic typical ancient people, the way what you're talking about remote Israel prehistory might be, but to reinterpret that as a moral story that would be under the tutelage or management of a priestly class, and it was this innovation of a priestly class and a priestly people that would be, let's say, platonically influenced. Although Nietzsche doesn't say this, I do think he hints it, but he doesn't say it. But it would be this new thing in which the priestly class takes over, reinterprets national self-understanding, national history,

and the dark part of it, the dark part of it, if you read ancient accounts when the Romans are first encountering the Jews and talking about them in Tacitus and so forth, Tacitus, he say that basically they were not a people like other peoples. They were a collection of the dregs of other peoples that had come into the area and that Moses had designed this new religion for them to increase his political power. And if you read, I think, Nietzsche's Twilight of Idols, he has this hint in The Improvers of Mankind, he has this hint that, for example, writing from right to left, being in other words, forbidden, as he sees it, to right, from left to right, that this was one of the signature marks of the Chandala classes in India.

And one of his sources for this was a French diplomat in India living at the time who was, I think, making himself this argument that the ancient Hebrews were Chandala-class, slave-serve, class from India that had been kicked out, moved to Mesopotamia, and from there to Canaan, and that this religion was designed as a kind of—he doesn't go so far, but I do think Nietzsche does, especially in Antichrist, that this new religion that was taking shape to 70 B.C. and after, in which Judaism and Christianity are actually more or less the same thing, that it's a — at least in its early forms, let me put it that way, I'm not attacking anyone today — but Nietzsche claimed that it was maybe a biological doctrine, that was the

biological self-expression of the chandler classes of the ancient Mediterranean. It's a shocking— There's a kind of Bio-Leninism here, you know? Yes, it's a shocking thing in which it's the inversion of Rome. It's the inversion of Rome and of Hellenistic values, you know? That's what essentially he's saying. saying the Bible is, yes. Two things, two things. I don't know that, I mean, if we're talking about actual patels here, I don't know that so many of them would have made their way across Iran. Now there's this word, hapiru or habiru, which seems to be a cognate with Hebrew, which is an old Egyptian word. Of course, Moses is obviously an Egyptian name. And if we basically see the story of Exodus is kind of translated as the Hebrews and Exodus are up,

there's something like the Maroons of Brazil or Suriname. These are slaves that have escaped into the jungle, or in this case, the desert, and kind of created a new society. Of course, if we're looking for priestly class, That wasn't the situation of a bureaucratic ruling priesthood wasn't something that was so big a deal ever in Greece, or in Persia, which was always a despotism. But where they had that was Egypt. So there's an element of this sort of Egyptian, we have this, like I've often compared our situation under the administrative state, the derp state, as some call it, can be compared to the rule of the priests of Amun, which Akhenaton revolted against. And so, of course, Akhenaton, the creator of monotheism, Freud famously connects Akhenaton to Moses.

We see that, of course, these great leaders. But suppose, if we look at Akhenaton as ultimately this revolt against the Egyptian derp state, this attempt to drain the swamp, then could we not perhaps see Trump himself as a new Akhenaten? Yes. Okay, could Trump not create, could not, you know, as Akhenaten created, I believe that's a correct pronunciation, Akhenaten, not that anybody knows, but Akhenaten created his new city, Amarna, right? New styles of art, a new city in the desert. Could Trump not be the American Akhenaten? Could he not introduce a kind of monotheism, a kind of, you know, worship of just himself and his family? Could he not found a new city, new forms of art? No, this is amazing view. Mollbach, this is amazing view, and I don't like- I believe I'm the first daughter,

I'm the first to offer this, you know. Well, it's a light-filled view, but I don't mean entirely to end show on sinister note, but I do want to ask your opinion on the sinister suggestion made, that the general worldview expressed in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is an inversion of Rome and Hellenistic values. In other words, an inversion of the values of the ancient world, a transvaluation of values that Nietzsche believes continues into our time, even when they become secularized, the moral understanding of world, the moral understanding of history as the singular mark of this transvaluation of ancient values, do you find that convincing at all? I find it, it's not only convincing to me, but very dark thought. It's common, and of course when we think of Nietzsche,

it's common to think of the New Testament in these terms, right? You know, the slave religion and all of that, you know, we've seen these ideas, they're very common ideas, you know, most American schools, children will learn these ideas, third or fourth grade. Well, they should. But, you know, I think that in under Project 2025, you know, the curriculum will actually be reoriented to focus on Nietzsche instead of Dr. King, you know? And actually all the streets is a little known. Most people didn't notice this in the Project 2025 manifesto, But all the street's name for Dr. King, for MLK, will be renamed for Nitya, you know? And the, but in any case, we all, you know, this is a, you know, cartoon Nitya, this is Cliff's Notes Nitya, right?

But to hear that this applies also to the ancient Hebrews, to, you know, to so-called Jerusalem, you know, do you believe, I mean, it's this question I've long, you know, like, like this is the true kind of, you know, pagan belief, like, like the real ancient values, the values of the ancient city, the Spartan values, the values of Xenophon, can these ever be restored to the human race? Can there ever be like a kind of, the kind of new paganism that, you know, the Nietzsche perhaps dreamed of, that kind of so many dreamed of, that just a reversal, like a new Zarathustra? Yes, I don't think he dreamed of a simple return. That would be impossible. But a re-establishment maybe on scientific ground of that, perhaps that could be done and come out the other way of nihilism.

But look, this very dark discussion, I want to end on light note, because I am being some Japanese Yakuza mobster have. They're promising me tattoos, and I have appointment tattoo. Yakuza in half an hour, and I must go, but I want to end on- You will lose finger. You will lose finger. Yes. I want to end on a light-filled note. Your suggestion that Trump be the lion of Judah and in some way maybe also imagining of Christian night conqueror. Maybe he can redeem religions because, you know, speaking of Nietzsche, people forget he has dreamed that Cesare Borgia could have become pope because he believed that that That would have been the inner victory of Rome over Judea. If you have Cesare Borgia as pope, you don't need to refute, actually, the religion.

It's only the moral worldview of that that needs to be refuted. Maybe Trump, as Lion of Judah, can reinterpret entire biblical tradition. I will let you end on that note, Molbak. What do you think of that vision? Well, you know, we've seen, of course, Trump University. We've seen Trump's stakes. But I don't believe that America, you know, is ready for the Trump Bible. I can see it, I can see it, I can see the cover, I can see the product, it's like the Jefferson Bible, but you know, it's the Trump Bible, it's like, and it will be the only version that's permitted. Indeed, like Ptolemy, he should be like Ptolemy and order a re-translation of it. That's an amazing, frightening, frightening prospect. Imagine, in his inauguration speech, people expect his program, the mass deportations

or whatever, but no one expects him to come out and say, he's just shattered their worlds completely by coming out, and it's the first part of his Project 2025 program, he announces the re-translation of the Bible. No, this real project, I want to found the Carpokratian Union, but this dark thought for next time old bug listen i must go the yakuza are waiting i i get tiger tattoo on my back uh i get chinese character on my lower back or this okay um uh very good uh it's a pleasure as always having you on show please come back soon uh i will i will very good i i must go yes yes yes I hear them knocking. I hear the knock. I hear the knock. Go. You must go. Until next time. Bappa!