Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I hope all of you have a beautiful Russian New Year. This is what I associate holiday champagne caviar with. It's prime Russian oligarch holiday champagne bathroom grape time. It is now January 1st, 2025. Of what week it's been, Caribbean Rhythms, episode 181. For some reason, Elon decided to take Christmas break. Go to bat for some of his retard friends in tech who are apparently using him as a shield, although they are not in any way worthy of the admiration that he might be. For example, Accenture and Cognizant, these companies, these are sweatshop Bangalore mills. They are not SpaceX, OK? They're basically temp agencies for the coding equivalent of a stenographer. And they are using Elon for some reason. I guess he feels beholden to his friends.

He goes to bat for them. And Vivek, I think he's done, Vivek Ramaswamy, he just slipped on a banana peel head first into a locker, wearing top hat waistcoat, top hat swerving in the air off of his head. What a time for Vivek to insult Americans and American culture as lazy and focused on too much leisure. And to promote what I told you is the problem, the fundamental problem with this whole Dork Right, which is their support for a cruel, authoritarian, Slave Driver State. It's their positive program that I talk about on my Substack article from a few weeks back. Article is not really about the tech people who are proving to be just a very insecure, very unready, frankly, new aspirant to an elite that's not worthy of the name. But I didn't want to write about them and their penchant

for self-serving cheap foreign labor, that's too obvious. I wanted to write about the public justification for this and for the kind of state they had in mind which you can find in their shallow mouthpieces, many of the dorks who write about this human biodiversity, HBD, this phrase, and who extol IQ and want to measure mankind by IQ, and which I will show you now, I'll talk a bit on this segment, the fraud of the IQ discussion, especially with respect to India, and the H1B or the foreign tech worker question. This is not innovation, this debate that's broken out, It's really over scab labor to undercut the wages of American citizens who study technology. They are told to learn to code. And then they find that, oh well, these jobs are also outsourced.

And let me just explain what outsourcing means, because I think there's misunderstanding about quality versus wages. Wages are easy to measure and quantify. It's just a number. Quality is more debatable, except when you are the end user, and you run into spaghetti code, and apps, or other things that barely work. And then you see the results very plainly, or customer service that's busted, and many other inconveniences, inefficiencies that Americans run into in day-to-day life. There is a computing bubble. Maybe Scott Laughlin will talk this one day on this show. Maybe he will write more on it. There's a bubble of bad code written on top of more bad code. The electronic sphere is built on this, and our world in turn depends on that, and it's going to burst at some point.

I'm not saying there's a solution to that, but McKinsey Consultant, if you've ever known any, I've known quite a few, they would, for example, advise a company to fire its American staff because they found a temp agency in Spain who would do the same job for less. Okay, this example I just told you, I know firsthand from friend at McKinsey, So you know if it's actually the same job for less, supposedly you can say that's a market advantage to the company. But first of all, let's not pretend there's even a claim that in this case the Spanish firm or the workers it's subcontracted to, that it would be doing a better job or giving a better end product. It's just cheaper than the American workers. Second, there are numerous studies I've posted in response

both to Elon and to Ackerman a couple of times that show actually American STEM workers, graduates of American high schools are better performers when an honest attempt is made to judge work quality than high skilled immigrant labor. Graduates of elite schools in the US do better than elite schools abroad, et cetera, and at every level. And they outperform their counterparts, for example, in India and China, at if like is compared to like again. And so this is not a discussion with any basis, in fact, except for the very rare cases where there is genuine talent I let's not use the word genius. There are cases where there are genuine talents who have problems getting visa for the United States. I think even the hardest migration restriction is to say, okay, we want men like Elon

and maybe even not as successful as Elon. It should be made easier for them. And no doubt, Elon knows of cases in his own life where tech friends who are unique talents, possible founders of new companies from other countries had problems coming or staying to United States. But if you look at the figures, for example, of Nobel Prize winners in America after, let's take the year 2000, which is a time of high increase migration to America, especially from the non-European world. The 1990s onward, especially high non-European migration from the 1990s on, nevertheless. And also let's not forget that China has been modernized and industrialized since at least the 1960s and 70s. It's not like they just encountered the European and American science yesterday.

That's the pretense in many of these discussions. They've had a Western science and technology geared communist-style education system for decades. So let's look at the composition of Nobel-winning immigrants to United States, and these are in the hard sciences. 28 Europeans, 10 Jews or half Jews, five Japanese, including one from occupied Manchuria, one Armenian Lebanese, and one Turk. So that's very interesting. Now remember this, again, very high Chinese-Indian migration to America during this time. Nevertheless, these are the figures. I went to a science program. It was full of Chinese, but in tech, they tend to become the equivalent of what they do in general from other elite programs. They become an ophthalmologist in upstate New York

or whatever, and in tech they become the analogy of that. Overall I'm saying, always exceptions, but it isn't what you're being told. So let me continue for a moment on what Elon's likely experiences were, because I've seen similar things, and it's unjust when it happens, right? When you get, maybe let's not exaggerate, it doesn't need to be Nobel level. It doesn't need certainly to be Einstein or Ramanujan level. It can be someone on that spectrum who's very talented, who America could profit as a nation from having over, I don't think, even the migration restriction hardliner would have a problem with poaching such very talented people, but that's numbered in the thousands. Maybe the low tens of thousands tops overall. By contrast, the H1B brings hundreds of thousands

per year, I think, and it's not the only program. There are other programs, this nice account on ex-US tech workers documents. there are even bigger scam programs like H1B that bring over essentially scab labor in the hundreds of thousands. That's something that helps the country, I'm saying if you bring in the genius, not the hundreds of thousands, but if you bring in, let's say, thousands of very talented, let me not say genius people, that's something that does help the country, but it doesn't really affect its demographics. It doesn't really affect the labor markets. It doesn't hurt its native workers for no reason. So I'm saying that it's unjust, yes, it happens. I've seen students of this caliber who are unable to stay in the United States.

Others in the sciences and arts, it happens. But they're almost always the demographic. I mentioned they're European or Russian or Russian Jews or Michelin and such, an occasional smattering, occasional from other countries. but the bulk are from the regions I just said. And Trump actually spoke out about how Europeans are discriminated against by the American immigration system, which is something I've seen many times in context I just said, and others. Just people who wanted to come for tourism purposes, who presented no immigration risk whatsoever, who had considerable assets in Europe, or just wanted to visit friends or family in the United States. Just terrible discrimination and scrutiny on them that would not happen with other peoples, but if you're European, or just a white

from the Anglosphere, it's actually very hard to get into the US. America actually has very strong immigration law, but it's selectively enforced, I'm sorry to say, on a racial basis, I'm sorry, but it's true, it discriminates against a few others who are not white too, but the Japanese, for example, as honorary white people, honorary historical oppressors of others, you know, so what I suspect is happening Elon is confusing a few things in his mind and his rhetoric which is normal because really a man's attention is limited and Because Elon has had to give so much time To his companies and has not really had time to think about political or social matters so when he talks about them, he seems quite confused in these fields, he acts on a mix of conventional wisdom and

and received liberal morality, and then his own self-interest, and the boundaries are rather vague. On one hand, he sees what I just said happened to very smart people sometimes. I'm sure he's known them. It's unjust, and he'd like to change that. It maybe even happened to him too, almost maybe it happened to him. And on the other hand, he's too mired in Silicon Valley and libtarded morality. He was a libtard for many years, So he's probably ashamed to come out and just say that, he would be seen as stumping for Europeans. And although I would think, theoretically on liberal grounds, there's nothing wrong with calling out anti-white racism. It's still, it's not something you're supposed to do. You'd be considered an elitist. You'd be considered the fascist if you do that.

So he puts then the Indian thing front and center because Indians, right, and this is well known, Indians in particular, they have a dusky skin color, are considered POC in America. They are, so actually many companies can get around America's implicit racial quota system. They say, okay, we'll fill our POC quota with Indians, or not just with Indians, but also with so-called Hispanics who are really white Hispanics. Funniest of all, I've seen Germans and Jews from Brazil and Argentina be used by universities also for this purpose. mathematics department says, yes, let's get an Ashkenazi Jew from Argentina. His name is Edmundo Goldberg, you know, or that's our Hispanic for show, or Diego Mengele and so on.

Now, these are smart individuals, maybe they even deserve to be there, but they did get a leg up over, let's say, Native American whites who, you know, these universities have a racial POC quota to fill and they have to find some pretext to do that. I just the white Hispanic thing is funny, but they use Indians for that. Let's not pretend that's not in play here that Indians don't benefit from the POC status for which they lobbied by the way I think in the late 70s or 80s or sometime around there in the 80s. They lobbied to be reclassified from Caucasian to Asian or South Asian because that gives them certain benefits or exempts them from certain the abilities that you're subject to as a white in the United States. It's not DEI to point that out. That is the definition of DEI.

But Elon is probably too stuck in anti-racist ideology still to be able to say what's on his mind in regard to the injustice of the American immigration system so he filters it through this other thing. And then second is that his self-interest is deeply bound up with this kind of talk. Because although he himself, there is a layer of top talent at some of his firms. If you look at his job openings, though, for Tesla, for example, pays very low. The working conditions are very bad. I have more than one friend in STEM who has refused repeated job offers, poaching attempts from Tesla. It's notoriously, it's known to be bad in the tech world. It's notoriously bad. And it smells. If you go into a Tesla shop, it smells. See, if I joke now, I tell you it smells like Vivek's curry shop.

They will say I'm racist against Indians. But the fact is, if you listen to my show, you know the high regard in which I hold historical India, and also many Indian individuals in our day. And as I hear it, I have a high listenership in India among Brahmin nationalists especially and such, not as high as among Kemalist Turks, but high. I don't have a problem with India, but the fact is for Elon, he has less appreciation of India than I do, or for some of these other people, like Cognizant. For him, I'm sorry to say, it looks like it's a way to exploit people who are in tough straits, who are willing to do a lot of hard and boring work for very low pay, because he doesn't want to pay American citizens higher salaries. And the thing is, no one likes to imagine himself a villain.

No one likes to think himself a sweatshop owner. People are mostly incapable today of Machiavellian scheming and hypocrisy. So I don't think it's any cynical show. I'm sure in Musk's mind, there is a sincere confusion between the two cases. What I mentioned, the Nobel Prize potential spectrum winner or someone in that pipeline, who is maybe usually a French or Italian or Dutch Danish guy or a Russian Jew, a potential founder of a tech firm that may actually be innovative, and they get abused by the racist American immigration system that practices a kind of anarcho-tyranny in the immigration realm where they will abuse a grandmother, these are Homan's guys, I'm sorry to say that the guys at the airport, the TSA people or whoever runs them, I guess that's Homeland Security,

should really do something about this. This is from Bush era years where they will harass and bully a nice Norwegian grandmother or whatever from the Midwest, but let people in full, you know, what do you call it? Trash bag burka, just, they get expedited treatment because it would, of course, it would be racist to stop them. After the 9-11 attacks, Bush increased Muslim migration to the U.S. greatly. It's insane, but anyway, but I think that's confused in Elon's mind, the case I mentioned of the genuine injustice against, let's say, a French or Breton scientist, and that's confused in Elon's mind the kind of sweatshop that he actually runs at a lot of his firms, which of course he doesn't want to think of it that way. Probably he casually confuses

it with the other case and maybe in his mind he's still a scrappy hard worker in his garage starting his startup you know and doesn't realize what he's doing but I don't know I don't want to psychologize him. No one likes to think of himself a villain though and I know this psychology quite well. I've had many friends like this they have a blind spot when it comes when I challenged my McKinsey friend on similar grounds and I told him all you're doing your company isn't actually giving any special New unusual advice to improve company performance It's always just the same brutal advice cut costs to the bone outsourced fire Americans and hire foreign and he had Ready made the same talk that you've heard this week and this was in 2016 I was talking to this guy and by the way, this is a

an all-American. I'm not making this up. He is a tall blonde Aryan wasp guy who served in the Marines in combat. I have high respect for him, but again people are unwilling to think of themselves as villains. And so it was always this talk he repeated to me again about Americans being lazy and not good workers as foreigners and this whole mythology they made to themselves so that they can live with what they're doing and when I pressed him on it there was no answer I said well what are the Spanish doing in terms of output product that the Americans aren't I mean they're just accepting lower paid it doesn't make this story doesn't make sense but this not being able to live with yourself and making up a story very common everywhere it's similar many alt-right figures like

Richard Spencer or Chuck Johnson or others they likely justify ratting out the nones and doxing them to the SPLC and the FBI under the excuse that they're exposing Zionist networks or whatever. I mean, you have to do something to live with being a CHS, a confidential human source for the FBI, or other law enforcement, okay? So it's funny, the Charlottesville idiots, the old alt-right, has come around to the view that the federal agents of our blood, they use this phrase, if you can believe it, The federal agents of our blood are good guys because they are stopping Zionists' version. So we are justified even though these people are not Zionists and may not even, you know, they may just speak all American, whatever, but we will call them that so we can live

with ourselves for being confidential informants and such. All nations have their different vices, but Americans most of all cannot handle hypocrisy or conscious cynicism. They need to always come up with delusional myths to justify the self-serving and stupid things they do to make themselves believe they're a good person. I would call that the characteristic national vice of American, that type of morality. But anyway, regarding IQ, let's not pretend that IQ or elitism is the matter in question in this debate. These people are not elitists. The ones advocating for increased mass migration from India under H1B and similar programs and such. Not just India, similar countries to that. The whole pretense, the self-flattering pretense from media and these people is that this is

all a conflict between the working class, afraid of being left behind, afraid of the outside world and international competition, versus on the other hand, polished elitists who believe in IQ and competence. And this is all complete fakery. Immigration restrictionists are people who are the ones often intimately acquainted with the foreign countries in question, both from personal experience, travel and study and so on, as well as being up to date on the most recent experiences with mass migration from other countries, including mass migration from England, Canada, Australia. I mean, there, the experience of these countries I just named with mass migration from India and others, high skilled migration, very bad results, bad economic results with attempting high skilled migration

And so migration restrictionists have rational objections and apprehensions about further increased migration of any kind, and the pro-migration people are unaware and uninformed. And furthermore, it is these, the tech crowd, Elon unfortunately as well, and their spokesmouts, they are the ones who are holding to an outdated mode of sinking from the 1960s and 70s. And it's a kind of parochial, libtardic, sheltered nostalgia for the promise, you know, the stories, the promise of the West to radically alter human nature and culture. And the decades since 1990s shows this to be a false delusion, both in the inability to transfer Western modes of government to places like Iraq and many others, as well as inability to assimilate populations from non-Western backgrounds.

So when you get these unctuous sycophants, like Banania, who's chasing after the possibility of Silicon Valley handouts, who was whining online 10 or something years ago about being bullied by black teenagers when he was a fry cook at McDonald's, and he's now still the same retard he was then, and Vivek, similar experiences, you know, they get bullied by blacks, so they want the whole world wrapped up in, you know, what is that paper that protects, I forget what it's called, but this wrapping paper to make the world safe for, you know, men like them, but is just unaware of what India, as a whole, is actually like. I'm talking about people like Banania and Softness and so on, the sycophants of Silicon Valley who don't have any actual experiences or knowledge of these places,

and what the general run of immigration from India already looks like in America in the Anglosphere. And to correct this, I recommend Torbert Feigy's article in Jacuzz, it's called An Open Later to an Open-Minded Tech Rightist. I've posted about it twice, you should read it if you haven't, I will relink it, which this presents many examples. First of all, we know how migration actually works through chain migration. If you invite a lot even of technically or arguably competent people under H1B, let me grant you that, although it's not true, they nevertheless can bring in relatives later and those relatives can bring in other relatives. And so you get eventually not just the cream off the top, the butter or whatever, you don't get just the wheatish butter,

but you get the general run of Indian society too, which again, some hiclub innocent like Banania is maybe unaware of the extent, for example, of gang rape and normalized rape in India. So yes, someone like Sri Ram would not be of that class, but previous experience with migration shows that chain migration will be the average of the society in question, and that will be possibly in the millions will be brought in in a rather short time too. Five, 10, 15 years, you will notice changes. Fahy also document, for example, the Patel monopoly on motels in parts of United States, which something that exists now, and they've been taken over essentially by one Gujarati clan in open practice of ethnic networking and nepotism that, for example, if whites tried this, they would be quickly prosecuted.

This is not a theory. The Patels openly brag about these practices. And again, the point is that this is far more typical of India, along with the casual everyday corruption and the fucked up-ness of that place. This is far more frequent than the occasional arguably high IQ Indian that Elon or I have come in touch with and who we count among our friends, let me not say supposedly high IQ, genuinely high IQ. But overall, that's not what you're getting even now if you claimed H1B status standards as exists now under American law. But I'm sorry if you're Indian, you know I'm saying the truth about your country, okay? I've seen just amazing things over the last week, week and a half, what do you have, I don't know if Vivek used this, but it was many like that calling Americans inbred

because they saw a movie about West Virginia when India itself, okay, is the problem of co-sanguinity in India, inbred in other words. If you look at Pakistanis in United Kingdom, the rate of father-daughter incest babies who end up retarded often and so on, it's something like 600,000% extra incidents among people of Pakistani background in England. That's right now, that's who is inbred. And in India itself, if you want to measure the IQ of India, there have to be two measures. If you look at the, I think this is from the book, the IQ of Nations book, which these people are supposedly conversant with these texts. How do I know this and they don't, but the authors of studies on national IQ of India, estimated national IQ, place it at 75 to 80

with an asterisk saying, you know, we had to disaggregate because there's such high rate of consanguinity in India that we could be accused of just cherry picking this number from basically products of inbred, which lowers IQ, makes a lot of retarded progeny. So they say, no, no, no, we accounted for that. We discounted all consanguineous marriages and so on. We're only considering, and still the national IQ of India is like 75 to 80, which is about the same as many African countries. I mean, I didn't even know this exactly. I had only a vague idea of what the national IQ of India was. I like the country, but if I had to live somewhere, I've always told people I would prefer to live in Africa over India and China. China's a whole other story, which I will talk about some

other time, the fraud about so-called Chinese IQ. But it makes sense. It makes sense. African IQ isn't that different. And the difference with India is much lower population density and there are animal or you can enjoy animals in East Africa, especially in Tanzania and Kenya and so on. So the fact is that immigration in the West now, the way it's arranged, it's not Dubai. Chain migration is inevitable. You're not putting these people into war camps like the Arabs do or whatever. And even beyond this though, I want to emphasize why this chimp out for specifically Indian but also I'd say similar third world country-level migration. This chimp out demands from the tech dork right, it's not a sign of that they're urbane elitists who care about competence.

You're not IQ elitist, you're a sweatshop, Fagan gang, yeah, you're running a kind of, you know, like from Oliver, you know, a Fagan gang slave labor driver of the lowest kinds from the gutters of pro-life grind in 1906, somewhere with a charcoal on your face and a hoarse voice. First of all, again, the average IQ of India, what is it, Razib Khan, has this been brought up since people are insulting the work ethic of Americans? And now they're posting this fakery about a textbook, supposedly Indian seventh grade math textbook versus American, completely fake. The so-called Indian textbook is not a textbook. It's from a defunct tutoring website. And when you look at PISA scores from India, they were so bad that India had to pull out of I think the 2009 PISA. They were just atrocious scores,

inability to do basic subtraction and such in India. So I know the argument, by the way, yes, that you're skimming off the top, that there are high IQ and such. But let's grant you that, the fake diploma mills aside and so on, and the credential inflation and the cheating. I'll grant you that there are high IQ people in India. I've met some. Some were my friends. But would you then, gentlemen, support instead an IQ test for immigration, let's say a cutoff of 135 to be generous? I would place it 139 or 140 maybe, just, I haven't thought it through, but just throwing out an idea. But it would be an IQ test administered in the United States or Switzerland or something under medical conditions, third party tested, no cheating possible, maybe with the Japanese,

everyone recognizes the Japanese as fair and neutral and they are very upright people, they would not allow cheating. Under conditions in any case that both sides in this debate can agree are fair, would you agree to that process? I would, I think, maybe, but nobody's proposing that. But why no one proposing that if you're an elitist? But it's a moot point, right, because past experience again shows you, when you consider the background of the immigrants who have won Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences since 2000, clear pattern emerges, which I said earlier, and a friend was also kind enough to present more related graphs on this question of high-value immigrants. Isn't that what you like? Graphs about high-value immigrants? Let's look at the graphs.

Fortune 500 immigrant founders by country. Germany, 14.7%. Russia, about 8%. Ireland, 7%. Scotland, 6%. Switzerland, 5%. France, about 3.5%. Sweden and Hungary, about 2.8% apiece. Poland, slightly more. England has the most at 18%. Taiwan, the only notable non-European country at about 3.4%. That is significant, by the way, because Taiwan, like Singapore, is a self-selected collection of people, in this case, from China. That's a matter to discuss another time, but that's actually a very interesting case, Taiwan. But overall, Europe stands, when you consider the regions, at 47.4%, Anglosphere at 44%, and no, that does not include India. East Asia at only 5.2%, this is the founders of Forbes 500 companies. And I guess that those extra supposed five IQ points

that show up on tests in East Asia do not translate very well into real-world results, either now or in history. Now you get, again, maybe a nice accountant or ophthalmologist, you know, usually that's what, so, I mean, usually it's what happens with any people, to be frank, but with East Asians and Indians, It's all about the only thing that happens, you know. So remember, this is after decades of Asian immigration to America. Other, you know, other than Asian and the other groups I've mentioned, any, you know, the category other is 3.4% things outside the region mentioned. And yeah, again, this is Fortune 500 immigrant founders, not CEOs who you hire to fill your POC quota and to your POC image for the outside world while they maybe run your company into the ground,

as the Yahoo lady did, or I hear Coca-Cola or something, in any case. But for Nobel Prize winners, you heard earlier, and it's funny, when you look at the graph by world region, Asia for Nobel Prize winners now does go up to 22%, still much lower than people are claiming. The bulk is still Europe and the Anglosphere. But a lot of this is made up of the... The funny thing is that a lot of the Asian figure at 22% is made up by Israel. It's counted as Asian because it's in the Asian land mass. So it's weird, man. You don't hear much about this in all this talk about IQ and elitism and genius and high-value immigrants. Why no figures like this? Because these people are actually rubes. They are rubes. They're peasants who care about slave labor.

They are vulgar, the kind of vulgar fake elite you find in Latin America or some sefard in the Dominican Republic running a sweatshop, you know. They're not elitists who care about IQ or genius, technological advancement, colonisation of Mars or geopolitics, whatever else is being disingenually invoked, to cover up against sweatshop owners' self-interest. So even while talking this, I'm coming up with ideas. If you really cared about the things you claim, you know what I would do if I was you, you'd found American academies, something formal like that, in all these countries that have a proven track record of producing business founder and Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences. Go ahead and found American academies in those countries, offer IQ tests to students as young

as early teens, you know, 10, 11, 12 years old and up, groom them, I mean that in the best way, of course, but offer them benefits and incentives, classes. A 16-year-old or 15-year-old scores very big, shows aptitude on scientific or whatever tests you want. Offer them and their families streamlined migration citizenship to the United States. Offer them incentives, get them early if that's what you care about. Carry out these tests into people's early 20s if you want to get them even before they achieve anything or Argue at least for poaching the top talent from these nations that's already established itself like the Operation Paperclip guys who are also absurdly brought up, there are like 1,500 of them with already proven scientific track records.

That's not what's being discussed here again. Or offer again IQ tests with high standards and high cutoff but that's not, by the way, there are objections to what I'm saying now. These countries themselves would be very smart to resist if any such thing were ever attempted but I'm saying the fact that I'm just thinking these now offhand and nothing like this is being proposed by the supposed elite high IQ human capital advocates. They're not elitists. They're apologists for human misery and mediocrity. They want to import dumb fuck labourers who bring in their sister groping cousins in ten years or even now many of these H1Bs are cashiers or whatever to make thirty thousand dollars a year it's a complete scan just look at the also Cato instituted Heritage Foundation they hire h1b h1b

pastors you know yeah h1b al pastor yes the pineapple but many also just have sexual fetishes I think for Asian and Indian girls let's not pretend that's not also driving a lot of this from the door cry do I need to spell this out you Gobineau was a racist, he had a fetish for mulattas. I think that's more respectable. Many of these dorks have, in any case, analogous fetish for Asian and Indian girls, to each their own, but then they don't say that. In public, they say all this other thing. I met Guy, Austrian, he was an Austrian tech dork a while ago. He started spouting off to me about hybrid vigor because he had a Thai girlfriend he was going to marry. I mean, give me a break, there are multiple personal fetishes and quirks and neuroses being played out

in this tawdry affair here as politics, as pretend politics, because America is a fucked up feminized country like this now. And real elite human capital, man, yeah, get the Pakistani doctors. Just like there was a missile gap and a German scientist gap, competition between Soviets and United States for German scientists after World War II, we have to solve the German scientist gap. The coming struggle with China will be decided by who can poach the most Pakistani doctors who can blow garlic breath into your cavities during surgery. The Pocky Doctor and Spaghetti Code Mill Code Monkey Gap, man. That's what the coming century will hinge on. A bunch of disingenuous, slithering provincials, these people. I will be right back. There was a debate recently over the inheritance tax

on X-Twitter, which I like this poster, Mika Sith. I've mentioned him before. It doesn't matter if you disagree with him. I don't go online to form a party platform and push a line. I go to explore, engage with unusual ideas. And in that sense, it's to be celebrated that Mika Sith argued in favor of inheritance tax. Indeed, I think he means something like confiscatory inheritance tax. And he argued this from the right, from a eugenic and meritocratic point of view. And again, it doesn't matter if you disagree. The discussion of such crazy things, That's what I come online for. I happen to disagree with Mika on this, but only circumstantially. I think it's interesting why, and I'll talk a bit on this segment, this matter of, because if you are, as you say, elite human quality advocate,

and you care about human excellence, please maybe stop stomping for your own ethnic group. I am myself an immigrant. Well, at the moment, I'm just a peripatetic traveler. I don't live in any particular place, but whether now as a traveler or before as an immigrant to America, I never found a need to stop for my own, the people of my country of origin or my own ethnic group or however you define it, I always found that in a very poor taste. Call me a cosmopolitan libtard. I grew up to look down on ethnic identity as a superstition and I cannot empathize with people who, I care for my people, I do not like this, I'm sorry, but to speak about this inheritance tax matter, in ideal situation, I think he, Mika, is right that there should be 100% inheritance tax.

If I were to imagine a perfect state, one which is geared to increasing the quality of human individuals, I think the inheritance custom is unproductive from that point of view, but only if you had that total state revolution, not in the circumstances in which we are now. But it would be ideal if in some variation of Plato Republic, children were raised communally, they all began from an equality in each generation, and then they went through batteries of exams, and maybe I would disagree with Mika on what these exams are. I think some need to be explicitly confrontational from intellectual confrontation in terms of hostile games of strategy like chess and other, to non-lethal physical duels at the extreme other end, but still violent physical contests too and so forth.

And then that's very important to weed out a certain kind of bad, over-intellectualized character that makes poor decisions, especially for top leadership roles, you know. And then the most worthy youths in each generation who achieves through these exams and then maybe show real life achievement also. These ones breed the most women, with the women themselves, of course, being selected by similar exams. And I'm not sure if a cased system like that proposed in Plato Republic is necessary, where it is only the guardian class that is raised this way, whereas the common people live under a different law, and you occasionally pick the promising youths from the common people too, and you say, oh well, they must have been begotten secretly

by a special spirit and he's actually a guardian in nature and we're going to elevate him. Such things have always existed. The Tutsi ruling class in Rwanda would often take promising Hutus from among their serfs and bring them into the elite class. But in any case, but I don't know if you need to do that today or if you can organize actually the whole society could be raised maybe in this way. And I agree with this from ideal eugenic point of view as a pure and just meritocracy, because the way human inheritance works, inheritance of qualities, it's a lot more complex than animal inheritance. Very often, great families quickly fizzle out. On the other hand, also very great men in the past have had sons who were completely worthless. Famously, in ancient world, Pericles had such a kind of

worthless son a traitorous son even Socrates also had non entity Children and and many others and so there's no reason as such why an unworthy and stupid son should have access to the resources And name gathered by the father You know because of the fathers he did it because of his innate virtue, but that's lacking in the Sun You know and then of course you say well such gifts can lie dormant for a generation or two and then reemerge If you have two very high quality individuals breeding and their offspring will regress to the mean is the word, but they will regress to a higher mean usually, but even so, even then, such traits would in any case be preserved equally under the alternative eugenic republic system I'm proposing in line with Mika.

You know, it would take care of that eventuality. But the overall quality of the group, I'm saying, would be accelerated in a system like I'm proposing or Mika's proposing. And India, I'm sorry to say, does not have that. It has practiced dysgenics for millennia with quite sorry results. It's the result of the father having possession of the daughter and using the forging of family bonds out of financial interest, as this was also the case in the Orient and maybe among mankind generally, that is not a eugenic outcome, that doesn't lead to good things. The Spartan efforts, on the other hand, censured and fined the king for marrying for money rather than for looks. I love all the retards who, when you bring the example of Sparta, they scoff at it because Sparta ended.

But Sparta's age of hegemony in Greece and in part of the Mediterranean, it's hegemony, I'm saying, not just its existence as a nation. That was for a longer duration than any existing modern state. Everything ends, but I think that even if two or three generations of magnificence were attained through the system I'm talking about, let's say within a few centuries in the future if you practiced what I just said, and you get two or three brilliant generations, that would be the peak of all humanity and all known existence aside from the hidden gods. I believe that. But having said this, I don't support the selective introduction of particular policies into a modern context. Think of it if you're the partisan of some ideal regime.

Let's say you think ancient Egypt is the best of all systems. Do such people exist to believe that? Or the ancient Hittite state? And then you go around saying, well, Egypt had a scribe class, and such is such policies to regulate the behavior and privileges of the scribe class, and then there are these types of people or professions today that I'm going to imagine are analogous to scribes, and let's say because that's my ideal regime, I'm going to advocate for introducing similar policies as the Egyptians had to apply to these ones. That's idiotic. Even today, even forgetting history, but the policy on its own may have a completely different meaning in America versus Iran or Burma or China. It can have opposite or very different effects in each of these countries, the same measure.

But this is actually how people think about politics, what I just said now, this retardation. I mean, I'm asked every few months about what the Bronze Age policy would be, as if I'm a Bronze Age policy advocate. You know, like, hey, how can this be more like a piratical war-band state like Afghanistan, and I'm going to introduce this one small thing, you know, as if that makes any sense at all. not to speak of the liars who try to enlist me in every new chimp out conflict from around the world, I'm asked, wouldn't it be Bronze Age to support this? I'm supposed to stop because of course if it's violent and the more incontinent, excuse me, they're tripping up my tongue, they put, yeah, but yes, as the most violent and incontinent

and stupider it is, the most according to their cartoonish conception of barbarism it is, obviously then I must support it because I've used the name Bronze Age in my username or such. But people think this way. To be fair, the leftists do think that way, they're insane. But I believe there should be neural ink implanted into their brain and use electroshock every time they start to think or say such things. That's not how politic. But anyway, I don't think Mika Seith was himself advocating, introducing just a standalone policy of confiscatory inheritance tax, which, you know, what means anyway, as we're not online to advocate policy. I think he was trying to start interesting controversy over this crucial matter, which he did. In our world, I wouldn't support

inheritance tax confiscation or such, because we live under a GNC, such a thing would only strengthen international racial Marxism. It's already a regime of despoilation on behalf of the dysgenic many. On the other hand, even now, the hoarding and possession of all wealth by the decrepit Olds across all civilized technological societies, this is a disaster as great or greater than the slobbering, loathsome empathy of roasties run amok in mass democracy. I mean, the Olds' question is much, much worse than the woman question. The entrenched power of the Olds, their ability to dispense of their wealth as they see fit. To me, that is connected to the matter of inheritance law. And it's the olds that are suffocating societies now, the olds and the women.

And meanwhile, the migrants in these things, I see them as opportunistic infections, symptoms, because after all, insane rhetoric aside, these are not invaders. They're not coming with tank divisions. They're invited in by this gyno gerontocracy and inheritance or no, the absolute right of these decrepit olds to do what they will with their money. And you know what they want? They want a slave labor class for themselves to wipe their asses and take care of them in the hospital and so on. But the absolute right of these decrepit olds, I'm saying, to dispense of their own money. If you guarantee them that right, that would not change the future for the better or stop worst case scenarios. You see what I'm saying? Confiscating their money and not allowing, for example,

wealth imbalances to be perpetuated even now among ethnic mafias or the foundations that are run by these billionaires. You see what happened to Ford Foundation, right? So even now, the most active vehicles of this global racial communist mess that caters to the weak, the beige, the womanly and the old, the most active vehicles are NGOs, which are in, these are funded by endowments from billionaires now and billionaires before who wouldn't have been able to do this with a huge confiscatory inheritance tax. then these things would have to be funded by government. And I do think there would be more scrutiny on that than, you know, whatever Ford Foundation does. So, I mean, it's actually government that uses these NGOs to launder quite a legal preferential and political activity.

So you see, what it matters on bigger social level, it doesn't change anything if you defend the right of inheritance today. Tell me what right Bezos' wife has to spend his money, or Steve Job's wife, to spend these men's money for whatever causes, you know, and you know what they're spending them on. It's amazing what Bezos' wife is doing. It's all going to increase the lowest common denominator, human biomass. I was amazed, it's almost, where go compassion for animals? Aren't libtards supposed to care for the welfare of, yes, families of animals, yes, of animals, but no, that's all forgotten. So even now, I think even now there's something to be said for Mika's inheritance tax talk. I'm not sure that defending the absolute right

to keep your wealth and give it supposedly to your children, I'm not sure that will save us from worst case scenario. Which from the point of view of interest in use and progress in a society that fosters genius and excellence, I don't know. I don't know how it would go even now I'm saying, even as an isolated policy. I guess I'm considering it even as we talk in that direction. It's interesting to think this matter, the effect of mass migration on this. I'll tell you anecdotes so you see what I mean. I once met a kind of libtard faggot. He was not a literal faggot, or maybe he, I don't know, he was, he had a wife and a young child. He was a young professor from North Italy, I think. You know, informed me with relish that he was a fascist, to use that word.

I think he knew who I was, and he was trying to be edgy and impressed, and he said, he is a fascist, because I was complaining about migrants, and he said, no, you know, I'm actually edgy too. I'm a fascist when it comes to youth, because I want a society of young people, and therefore I favor immigration for that reason, to counter Europe's demographic aging profile. But let's go with this for a moment and consider, because I think this kind of thinking, what I just said to you right now, is more frequent than you'd expect. Of course, when you push libtards, they come with a variety of economic And then economic arguments, relativist arguments, at times they have humanitarian reasons. But in fact, if you keep pushing them in private conversation, many immigration advocates, when pushed,

they revert to some version of what I just said right now that this professor believed. Maybe not said so vehemently or explicitly with ironic references to their supposed fascism, edgy fascism, oh yeah, my views, but along the same lines of that, It's the way they imagine themselves at their best actually, their positive vision of the pro-migrant world when they are pressed. It's to claim that they're on the side of youth and to be fighting against the aging of advanced societies. Which let me add another asterisk. I've long warned you that all this talk of natalism, the way to filter out when you put it into a mass society political debate is as a support for mass migration. And I'm not saying that Elon is cynically thinking that through in some Machiavellian plot.

I actually think Elon's heart is mostly in the right place in all these debates. I think he's maybe not thought it through yet too much and make some facile confusions in his mind. I don't want to be patronizing to him, but I do think his heart is mostly in the right place, but maybe he doesn't see that pushing the kind of empty-minded natalism and agitation, the birth rates falling, there are not enough people. The way that translates into practical day-to-day policy, it says advocacy for mass migration. But if you think through for a moment, the kind of immigration being practiced now has the opposite effect, I think, than what these people claim. I mean, when you press them and they say they support use and a youth culture and a youth society,

but this kind of migration that's being done today entrenches the power of the gerontocracy. Peter Thiel gave good recent interview. Idiots focused on his face. I think he has a nice face, but he has sometimes, he speaks in a certain way that's halting, and they wanted to use that as a gotcha about how he supposedly was afraid of that Luigi, the psycho shooter from the healthcare executive. Did I ever comment on that, by the way? It's of no interest to me. The guy Luigi is obviously a mentally ill retard, and if the manifesto attributed to him is true, It seems his real problem was with fucked-up American doctors who had nothing about diagnosis or treating the patient, but my real problem with Luigi was actually his gay facial expressions

and this kind of, excuse me, it's not even correct to call it go-getter, because Luigi, he did not have such a good job from what I see, but it's more like everything about Luigi is built on the 4U tab of X, you know, in other words, a trend follower, an empty Team-minded social pleaser trying to please trying to be liked a tryhard with homo facial expressions and my guess is They attacked my throat. I may need to take quick music break Well, my guess is Luigi probably went insane because he had good physique I'll give him this and prized physical prowess, but doctors screwed him up permanently with a ridiculous back surgery You should never get that by the way, there was a blog before I think it was called the skeptical doctor he show that a lot of widely used medical procedures

in America have no value. In other words, statistically the results are about the same as placebo. He focused especially on spinal fusion and other back surgery in many posts. There's no evidence that kind of thing works and it's high risk, you should never do that. But you'd think that an internet-aware fitness guy like that would research it for himself before just believe what moron doctors told him. Anyway, look, I go on tangent. So these idiots are trying to attack Thiel because he sometimes speaks in this halting manner and they say he was afraid. I didn't sense he was afraid at all. But the really interesting part of the interview that's being cut out of these clips you're saying is right before that when he makes historical comparison

to Nazism and Marxism in early 20th century saying, what danger or threat the world faced at that time came from these kinds of societies that were full of high testosterone young men that they were really leading their nations at the time, or trying to, and Nazism and Marxism was the, you could use a Marxoid language, superstructure view, you can see the ideological epiphenomenon of this biological fact, the youth bulge. Whereas now, that's not really a problem, it's the weight, it's the biodemographical weight of the olds in advanced society, that's what poses the threat. But intellectual discourse hasn't caught up to this fact, it's mostly stuck in that earlier frame or you're afraid of violent totalitarian movements run by young men like that,

or I'd say it's also stuck in the Cold War frame. And I think this is important point that it's not that Thiel is endorsing either Nazism or Marxism, or that you have to be based, excuse me, that you have to do that based on what I'm telling you here, but even if you are a liberal, you cannot deny that while those things were happening, those youth movements which you see as dangers, and the two world wars catastrophe, of course. But nevertheless, European society was at that time the most intellectually and culturally powerful and dynamic it had been in so long. I mean, the period 1890 to 1940 in human history, not only in scientific and technological and medical, but in the arts and literature, it's so wonderfully productive. I think history will remember it maybe

as one of the European worlds and mankind's heights maybe similar to classical Athens, something like that. I know reactionaries love anything from the past, but if you look at 1860 to 1890 or even 1850 to 1890, European culture, there was a kind of lull there compared to previous times and what came after. There was a kind of malaise. Nietzsche and quite a few others remarked on that. It was not such a good time for European culture and society, I think, and even before that, what was great, let's say, 1814 to 1850 was simply the leftover momentum of the Napoleonic era. The spiritual momentum of that. Many of the great writers of the time were Napoleon worshippers. And they recognized their own age, even the 1840 to 1850. They recognized this as a kind of reactionary doldrum age

ruled by olds and the interests of retarded old people. It's a common running theme in Stendhal's books and many others. You know, Flaubert wrote his tirades against the bourgeois in fiction form during this time for a reason. This is a time when the forces of reaction asserted themselves after Napoleon and crushed the spirit of youth. But whether it was the fertility baby boom of a late 19th, early 20th century, or I think there are other causes too, not only Nietzsche but a few other decadent authors who were writing in the wilderness. So, you know, in the 1870s and 80s during that time, breaking through the ossified forms of the mid-19th century, resurrecting the spirit of Napoleon and youth and progress, but it all converged to where you had this brilliant effusion

of cultural scientific creativity in the first part of the 20th century. Yes, including in Weimar Germany, where, by the way, a lot of the artists in question that are celebrated in decadent Weimar Germany by Libtards, but a lot of those artists were men of the hard right. And what concerns me is the possible re-emergence of such an age which then you ask, can you have this when you have this large weight of olds? Maybe you can, but not if these olds and their interests and orientations rule the tastes of society. And, you know, with that, what you get rather is a nursing home tyranny, the nightmare of COVID. Remember, governments were often the mild and moderate partner in that COVID insanity. The olds, the fucking olds wanted much harsher measures than what was actually done.

The alliance of the olds, and especially the schizophrenic single liberal women, especially of ages 29 and up, who go mentally ill if they don't have a child, they wanted much worse. And even after restrictions ended, I remember I was driving around parts of Europe that happened to have a lot of olds, some of the provinces that are very nice in each country that have olds, a lot of the young people move away, the old stay behind, places in North Italy where the first panic happened, if you remember, a Covid panic and then North Spain where it was old hags telling me that I could not take my mask off in their stores even after restrictions had ended getting very pushy and these old hags very powerful lobby also in Japan by the way that you know the it's my Japanese and my expat friends

in Japan all know this the the brutish old Japanese hag they usually get a short haircut they have a mask on, they will push physically in front of you in a line, they are so entitled. But much worse things like this will happen if these people continue to rule advanced societies, which under the logic of mass democracy, they will rule. They have the numbers. And honestly, I don't know what's worse, if it's that or third world migrants. I mean, I would honestly prefer to live in Africa over living in that, and I will. I have friends who do, right-wing friends who do. But that would be my first answer to a faggot like the Italian professor I mentioned is, if you really prefer being around youths of any kind rather than around olds,

you can go ahead and do what I do. Go live in various countries yourself. Seek the excitement in the third world, which I have long done to escape the antiseptic and highly controlled and frankly overpriced character of first world life. Actually, I want to return to that. I mean, to go on another tangent, I've been enjoying some nice cities lately over these Last year or two, I go to Tokyo and Madrid and such. It's great, but it makes me remember why I had decamped from the first world before. And it was not only because of cost. It's just kind of moribund, antiseptic. Tokyo's still lively. And actually, in that case, the lack of crime helps. People feel free to congregate on street in Tokyo, to talk to strangers. They go out at night, and they feel secure enough to talk to

someone they don't know. They approach and speak, socialize with you in very often drinking snack bar or sushi. And strangers will just talk to you and be curious about you. Which in America, I hear people are too afraid to do this now. But anyway, yes, I'm still tired of the highly controlled character of first world life. I feel watched in Europe and such, the weight of highly well-run society does not appeal to me. But if you like that, if you enjoy youth so much, go and do that then, to answer my smarmy Italian libtarded interlocutor. There is the unsavory quality. Also, when you go around and say, there are not enough youth of our own, so we're going to import the youth of others, which, that's such a weak, desperate thing full of so much dishonesty,

and unforeseen probably bad consequences, even if it works out at first the way you'd want it to. But in the crucial matter, it misses the point I'm saying, because what's important here is not whether there are some young people around. For example, taking care of old farts in hospitals, cleaning dishes in restaurants, or lounging around on welfare, which is usually what happens anyway, manning the stations at 7-Eleven, which I'm sorry to say, you see this increasing now in Japan as well, migrants in service jobs and so on, but whether it will happen in Japan or not, the olds still win out. They'll still rule, you see. they, and the democratic social welfare machine, and the business lobby catering to them, these will still rule. And even if you manage to bring in a very large number

of youths from whatever, maybe who've used outhouses their whole lives, or lived 20 to a room in Manila, and they can replicate that culture in whatever, Madrid or New York. But the point here is not whether young people will exist in some form or whatever, or whether they will meet every other weekend in an industrial basement warehouse and smoke weed or put on musics or even if they will provide your city with some spitting on the street or vibrant street fights and street crime or gropings in subway. That kind of thing will always happen to some extent but it's irrelevant for me anyway, right? It's irrelevant. If you have a fetish for that feel free to do what perverts have always done from the west in the nineteenth century and before. Go and travel to the third world yourself.

But the crucial point for the world isn't whether young people exist in some form, but whether youth and youth as a principle can rule and think through what will happen in these societies. Let's say the migration advocates get their way, as in large part they've been getting their way since Merkel busted open her country's borders, and even before that though, but it's accelerated since 2015, right? But let's say they get their way, and let's take their argument as good, even though it's not. Let's say that the disgusting triumphalism you're seeing, for example, not only from Muslims in Europe, but apparently now I see from Indians and others in America and Mexicans and Aztlan, now and before that, where they're saying, yeah, we're taking over

demographically, we have all the young people, we're taking over your societies. But okay, let's go with that for a moment. What will it actually look like? Will these be societies of use, as my European faggot interlocutor hoped? So, obviously not. The projections are, if that does happen, it will happen when the current crop and cohort of migrants are old themselves. Their fertility is low. It crashes in one generation, whether in Europe or America, whatever it had been in their home countries, the fertility of immigrants crashes. So you see what I'm saying? It will just be the same thing from this point of view. You'll still have society of mostly or relatively childless olds. If you replace European olds with these other olds, they'll just be dumber, more beige, more vulgar,

but it won't change the calculation. They will still be old, they'll have the same character, they'll have to import, still import youths from abroad, they'll have to keep doing that, and in the future they'll have to do that, it's just a revolving kind of pyramid scheme, right? And this youth will also exist as just indentured servants, and what I call urban ghosts, right? The ultimate sign of social and political powerlessness. In my neighborhood in Madrid, I rarely see migrants at all. Actually, I don't want to be too specific, but it's all quite good-looking young Spanish people. But very early, when the subway opening, if I stay up all night, and I see them coming out of the subway, but I don't see them during the day, I guess they work in basement kitchens or whatever.

You see what I'm saying, the matter, if you get a society that has intellectual, artistic, scientific, and physical dynamism of youth bulge societies, for example, in the European past, including most recently 1900 to 1940, that's the issue. It's not whether you get to see occasionally migrant youths idling by the subway station with smell of weed wafting and retard reggaeton playing on boombox, but then they will still be slaves to olds of whatever background, and all the projections are that olds of some sort or another will continue to dominate these societies for the coming decades and centuries if nothing happens. And how you get beyond this is the most crucial question, and it's not through this revolving importation of a youth-indentured class.

And I guess Mika Sith, this poster I've mentioned, he believes the inheritance question, the matter of inheritance tax, can maybe do a great deal to lower the power of the olds. He may be right, I don't know. They're vampires sucking dry the world of life. And I have other good friend, by the way, also Italian. He's a very smart frog friend. I don't want to say, I hope I'm not being indiscreet. But he told me his father is leaving his inheritance to his Nigerian nursemaid, you know? So he's shutting his own son out of inheritance. And this woman, whatever she may be, Albanian and Nigerian Filipina, but convinced him to leave her his wealth, which I hear that is not unique in Europe. Now, it happens a lot with these old farts. So the whole argument about the availability

of wealth of the olds, and how they have absolute right to dispense of it, as if they're, like the pretenses that medieval lords of manners who will carefully take care of their legacy and keep it for generations, the castle and the family, that's not really happening now anyway. These olds are demented, they're self-destructive. They are the ones bringing in migrants. They're the only ones voting for the Biden-type senile parties, by the way. both in America and Europe and also in Argentina where Millet won the youth vote by a lot. And he's trying to address by another name this problem of the ossified interests of the old in that country. We'll see how that goes. But yes, I do hope for this, whatever means it takes, but a youth revolution, not revolt,

a true youth revolution, a youth secession of some type to allow youth and the principle of youth sovereignty somewhere, it's the only hope for future. So I leave you with these thoughts on New Year 2025 and changing of the tide in our time. I will be right back. Welcome back to show that it was a tech, New Orleans, and I don't know if this man is in the name of ISIS, it appears, but I don't have confirmation on his background. The man who ran the car into a crowd of revelers in New Orleans, New Year's, after, I guess, copycat attack Magdeburg. I don't know if he planned it on that. I don't know if he's of immigrant Arab stock or something like that, or if he's an American black who converted and adopted a flamboyantly Muslim name. That can happen too.

Authorities should be more forthcoming. It's been a day since that happened, and I would like why should such information be obscure. But either way, I would provisionally classify this man. If you see his resume and his YouTubes, and he's a kind of dork and I would classify him as a black cell, a black cell. There's such a thing as the radical black cell violence that's a lot more frequent I think than other kind of incel violence and it's not just this guy it's the Dallas black who chimped out and shot six police after he heard Obama's call at the end of Obama's second term which has that terrorist attack has been hidden under rug by the press since then and they're also pair of possibly homosexual blacks who are randomly shooting people off highways outside DC if I remember right

and other cases too I think more violent more frequent than Asian or white incels is the black cell and it's an interesting psychological obviously American blacks are encouraged to have absurd grievances sense of chip on shoulder humiliation sense of humiliation they constantly want to lash out but usually blacks who do that they do it in a personal life like they They feel dissed at the club and they come back to the club with a gun and shoot and wound a bunch of people. It's usually mostly wounding, please search Steve Saylor on that. Or they chimp out trigger during confrontations with cops, you know. But this style of planned terror attacks, usually from someone with a good job or some black cell dork like this, that's a kind of black cell I'm guessing.

If this guy's Sudanese and that adds a kind of bizarreness to it because you know the Sudanese Arabs We call them Sudanese Arabs, but if you look at their faces in America, they would be considered black But in Sudan, they they hate and look down on blacks There's actually quite a large percentage of sub-saharan DNA in the Arabian Peninsula If you look at Osama bin Laden his face has somewhat negroid qualities his families from Yemen The further south you go, that happens. I'm sorry to say there's evidence of sub-Saharan in ancient Israel, whatever you want to call it, that Levant region, let's not go there. But in Sudan, these Arabs, they look black to let's say European or American, they have the black facial features, I would call them natural mulattoes in the same way that Kazakhs

or not Kyrgyz, but Kazakhs, are natural hapas. But in Sudan, they hate to look down on blacks. I mean, the pitch black blacks from South Sudan. So you have to imagine the psychology of a man like that who's raised in the United States by parents who think that way about blacks in general and about American blacks especially, I think, but he's considered a black in day-to-day life in his new country. And Attorney General Holder was such a case also. He was raised by Bajan. These are Barbados, I think, parents, who isolated and protected him from American blacks. They have an insular society. They want to be professional. But he then embraced the black identity, and he's been one of the most viciously anti-white public officials in any first world government,

I would imagine ever, just demonstrating that Obama's radicalism in picking such a man. But the psychology of such types is interesting. And I count the idiot Kamala in this group too, because her Jamaican father, when you look at the photo, he probably has majority non-black ancestry. I would classify him as a mulatto, and I bet he raised her to have contempt for American blacks. I mean, Tariq Nasheed is right. Even full-on Igbo black blacks from West Africa, professionals who immigrate to America, have contempt for American blacks. But unlike the others, what I mean about Kamala, there is actually no evidence she had any kind of like a black self-identification until recently. Trump very smartly pranked on that in an interview and that I think changed,

well, she was going to lose anyway, she was horrible. But he very smartly played that because there's no way for her to answer that. But anyway, it's not just these types. Let's say this is an American black. Just a normal American black background. And he converted to Islam. And from that and his resume, I'm getting strong, dork black cell vibes from his face and his demeanor. Now, I could be wrong about him. They say there are other people involved. I don't know enough. But you have to consider, it's funny, the rage and the particular psychology of the violent black cell. Because today, what happens especially when as a result of media manipulation, the supposed sexual prowess and sexual excellence of black men is very much extolled.

But obviously, most black men will fall far short of that. And I'd imagine that it's mostly a matter of, you can think it through, it's a pathological stew, feelings of failure at not meeting both social expectations and expectations that you may have delusionally attributed to yourself based on this propaganda from Hollyweird and other places. And then you would also be experiencing envy at the disconnect between what media led you to expect about yourself and about your kind versus what you see in reality and many such thing. And you can see how this can drive a certain already unstable dork who may be sexually inhibited to begin with and would drive the black cell over the edge. and he will say, yes, I'm a black Muslema, I'm a proud black Muslema radical,

and they become that way and then they chimp out in this, I'm saying, more methodical terrorist black cell way. This would make good material for a comedy. Maybe I write it sometime, no one else will. But there was good article on another note recently in Tablet by one David Samuels, which, if I summarize it for you, it's not so good as you yourself reading it because this article reads very easy. Look, actually I want to go on another tangent before I talk to this article. Trump is being attacked now by doomers, so these are called right-wing dissidents who love to feel betrayed and love the feeling of failure and masturbate over it. Because Trump said something about H1B and that he wants more good people coming in.

They are declaring defeat already and say, see, we've been betrayed and this kind of thing. exactly the same things in the campaign in 2015 and 16 and during his first term he said exactly same rhetoric and yet the number of H1B went way down he restricted it greatly and Stephen Miller not to speak of Homan but Stephen Miller will have the biggest position he's had yet in the incoming administration I am told the people around him have good instincts they're professional he will be in charge of immigration. I don't like this word blackpilling, it's used so much, but any despair or such isn't necessarily cynical sabotage, but it comes from people who don't think straight. This is absurd. Trump not even in office yet, let's see what he does.

Again, first term, he used the same rhetoric and he lowered H1B and other such things. But in any case, yes, you read, please, this article by David Samuels. It reads very easy. It's exciting. It's a nice return to rambling blog posts of the best kind. The title of the article is Rapid Onset Political Enlightenment, and it's about the 2024 election. And the culmination of the article is about how three men, Elon, Trump, and Netanyahu, They broke apart, they broke through by using their boldness and resolution, they broke through a system of incipient pervasive thought control, a totalitarian emerging system you can maybe call it, that it was in its early stages, we've all experienced it, especially from 2020 on, but it was just in its early stages and it was vulnerable because the hubris

of its founders, Samuels puts a lot of stock in Elon simply buying Twitter and breaking you call it whatever you want, I don't know what you'd call this regime, but it's control over information. But the founders of this incipient totalitarianism, Samuels understands to be Obama and especially his advisor Axelrod, political consultant Axelrod. So the whole woke hysteria that really only accelerated since 2020, but everyone knows it's been quite bad since at least Obama's second term, and Samuels makes a strong case that it had started in Obama's first term, but Samuels reinterprets this in a very creative way, and it's really his description of that, whatever you want to call it. He doesn't use the word wokeness, which is very good, he doesn't, it's become a hackneyed

always good to use your own coinages you know but it's in his creative retelling of what happened the last 17 or so years that this article shines and is nice even if you disagree with a bunch of it I disagree with a lot of it I think he may he puts too much weight on the Obama thing but Samuels makes the case that a system of social shaming constructed social approval scaffolding was erected by Democratic Party activists especially Axelrod It was building up on earlier practices from advertising, PR techniques, media manipulation techniques. The most annoying part of the article, I'd say, is the beginning of it. You have to get past that and read through it fast, because in the beginning of the article,

Samuels veers into this type of leftoid paranoia that you may have seen on Reddit or from some posters, dissident posters on X to the claim that all public opinion is manipulated, manipulated, that you are but a leaf in the wind of forces that you will never understand manipulating what you know and don't know. With mentions of Walter Lippmann and Bernays, all the big names like this make a showing. The usual cast of characters used by Reddit historians of the 20th century. You may have heard some of this before, that men in suits in the 1940s in smoke-filled wood-paneled rooms, the power elite manufactured the entire modern world you live in, and you live in the labyrinth of their making. So I didn't like this beginning, but Samuels then becomes quite creative.

He lays out the case for how Axelrod changed the nature of Democrat Party, moved it away from Clinton-type moderates, and put, let's say, a radical activist at its spearhead using sophisticated media, PR techniques, at first with the aim to get black mayors elected in majority Democrat areas, which had previously not been a Democrat party thing, it was formerly not really done so much. And then he tells the story of the success of this and of Obama, who was just the same thing on a national level, but this emboldened a cadre of Democrat activists like Ben Rhodes under Obama 1 and others like him to turbocharge these same tactics using power of new social media, creating with it a system of again pervasive social approval seeking, pervasive thought control based on shaming.

What you'd recognized a system of cancellation actually and that it was Twitter, social media and broadly speaking the internet that allows this in which professionals with credentials were actually the ones most vulnerable to these tactics, and I think this article in its most insightful parts is a restatement in some way, I think, of my friend's Second City Bureaucrat article, Ideologies of Delayed Informatization. It's also trying to tell the story of how the internet radically changed cultural and intellectual life since the year 2000. It's one of the big questions, I think, one of the very big questions to consider now. I'll repost Second City Bureaucrat article, Ideologies of Delayed Informatization. It's hard to find this article anymore.

I think the bureaucrat actually has a deeper, more accurate analysis of how internet change things. It's the best article I know on the meaning of the internet, but unfortunately, I hope the bureaucrat doesn't mind I say this, but he wrote this article in a rather heavy, half-academic ponderous style, and I keep telling him we live in an entertainment age, and Samuel's article is written in accessible, entertained style. So I'll read you a bit from Samuel's article. The Iran deal proves that, with the collapse of the reality-establishing function of professional media, which could no longer afford to field teams of independent, experienced reporters, a talented politician in the White House could indeed stand up his own reality and use the mechanisms of peer group pressure

and aspirational ambition to get others to adopt it. In fact, the higher one climbed on the social and professional ladder, the more vulnerable to such techniques people turned out to be, making it easy to flip entire echelons of professionals within the country's increasingly brittle and insecure elite, whose status was now being threatened by the pace and scope of technologically driven change that threatened to make both their expertise and also their professions obsolete. I interject for a moment. This is, in large part, the thesis of Second City Bureaucrats article I mentioned, I think the bureaucrat makes the case better for how this kind of group organism collectivist mind reaction developed in response to the threat posed by the internet.

I return now to reading from David Samuel's article. As a test of the use of social media as a permission structure machine, permission structure is, I interject again, permission structure is a formal, let's say trade phrase from the world of PR and advertising. So I continue. As a test of the use of social media as a permission structure machine, the Iran deal was therefore a necessary prelude to Russiagate, which marked the moment in which the mainstream media was folded into the social media machinery that the party controlled as formerly respected names like NBC News or Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe were regularly advertised spouting absurdities backed by top national security sources and

other validators, all of which could be activated or invented on the spot by clever aides with laptops playing the world's greatest video game. Yet the extent to which reality was being regularly manipulated through the techniques of social psychology applied to the internet was not immediately apparent to outside observers, especially those who wished to see or had long been conditioned to see something else. The collapse of the press and the acceptance by flagship outlets of a new role as a megaphone for the Democratic Party meant that there were many fewer actual outside observers to blow the whistle. And in any event Obama was on his way out, and Donald Trump aka Orange Man Hitler was on his way in.

The conspiratorial messaging campaign, targeting Trump as a Kremlin-controlled asset who had been elected on direct orders from Vladimir Putin, himself seemed more like the plot from Vladimir Putin himself, seemed more like the plot of a dark satire than something that rational political observers might endorse as a remotely plausible real-world event. Having reported on the Iran deal made it easy to see that Russiagate was a political op being run according to a similar playbook by many of the same people. Familiarity with the Iran deal made it easy for reporters at Tablet, particularly Lee Smith, to see Russiagate as a fraud from the beginning and to see through the methods by by which the hallucination was being messaged by the mainstream press.

What surprised me was how alone my colleagues were, though, and he keeps going. Well, and one of the most interesting part of article come later when Samuel tries to explain the insanity of libtard elites over the last decade or so, Russiagate being just one. I keep saying it's amazing. They accuse others of conspiracy thinking, and they are the biggest spinners of conspiracy-tard thinking. I would say not just the Russia thing, but the narratives around the Iraq war from both sides just full of insane conspiracy hysteria. There was a line during Bush W that he was a Nazi and there were people in his administration who were following Leo Strauss, who was a Nazi, because he was friends with Carl Schmitt, Hitler's lawyer. And this kind of thing, these lurid conspiracy theories

the stock trade of the DNC and the left for a long time, but he attributes it more to changes made by Axelrod in the late 2000s. But he says such people end up acting schizophrenic. I mean, obviously, you know, a Trump Russian agent and many such things ignore facts and reason. Same thing happened around COVID. Except unlike literal schizophrenics, the voices they are are hearing are come out of compute art screen and then he makes this he's a literary editor and I like that he makes a kind of literary feel analogy to the bicameral mind theory which here I'll read again from the article this is interesting neither Greek nor Hebrew literature which are the two great narrative streams out of which what we know today as Western culture was formed

neither of them appear to have any equivalent to what we identify today as as internal monologue. Instead, they are filled with talking bushes, plants, and animals. Above all, they are filled with the voices of gods, including God, which talk to humans in nearly every physical location imaginable, from mountaintops to the road to Damascus. Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, Jesus, and Paul all heard voices. According to Princeton University scholar Julian Jaynes, author of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, human consciousness did arise as a chemical-biological by-product of human evolution, but is instead a learned process based on the recent development and elaboration of metaphorical language.

Prior to the development of consciousness, Jaynes argues, humans operated under a previous mentality he called the bicameral, two-chambered mind, where in place of an internal dialogue, bicameral people regularly experienced auditory hallucinations directing their actions. What the permission structure machine seeks to do is to undo millennia-long work of consciousness by once again locating consciousness outside of the self, but closing it as an internal product via the mechanized propagation of what Marxists used to call false consciousness. But where the progenitors of false consciousness in the Marxist lexicon are villains, working on behalf of the capitalist order by preventing workers from being cognizant of their own interests, the mechanized

permission structure machine offers the reverse. The false consciousness it seeks to propagate is a positive instrument of the party's attempt to establish the reign of justice on earth, which is why the natural outcome of the automation of permission structure is not humor, however cynical, but institutionalized schizophrenia instantiated within the structure of the bicameral mind. No matter how the bots that animate the mechanism position themselves for whatever low-end careerist purpose. The voices they listen to come from outside. They are incapable of being truth tellers because they have no truth to tell. They are creatures of the machine. So you know, I don't agree with all of this excerpt. I like very much its creative analogy because first of all why I don't agree with, I think

the bicameral theory of ancient auditory hallucinations, I don't think that's correct and so on. The reason God spoke to man back then was because there were some few men worthy to hear and there are not today, and gods were alive and not sleeping. And also consciousness does not come from an internal monologue. An internal monologue is a simulation or parody of consciousness to begin with. It's not something to be praised. It's neither the source nor expression of reason or insight. It's the ossification of insight and perception. If you speak your thoughts out in your mind, I think they're already fossilized and dead. That's not genuine thought. I don't experience thought that way. I don't experience it as a voice either, unfortunately.

But second, even if the theory was true, I think the application to what is really internet global village theory is a stretch. It's unnecessary. I've said something like this myself. I don't know if I was first to say, if someone say before me, people can come to conclusions separately, but I've said myself that the internet has come to function as a return to the pre-modern village model with the old hag looking enviously, maliciously from behind the curtains into the yard to report on the two young people are kissing themselves. Why was he talking to her? The gossip and old fart mill machine, the rule of the witches. The witches, yes, the network of old hags and gossip that run African villages and African society to our day.

I feel very bad, I know this may be a leptar thing to say, I feel very bad if there is a gifted African man, what their life force is completely drained by the way African society is made, they're complete slaves to these old hags that run through networks of magic They say it's really witch society, but they use the fear of the magic of the ancestral to instill terror and Run this regime of gossip, but now the same thing is turbocharged electronically. It's to be expected I think because that is mankind's default state It's it is why mankind live grass-hut for 40,000 years or water So when Zucker face and I don't know if he's changed his mind on this But when he was saying before that he thinks it's immoral to be one person at work

And another at home with your family and another at the nightclub or whatever or you go museum Thursday night to to pinch arthole ass and you shouldn't you know that you should be the same person everywhere to everyone and I found that the presumption in this the totalitarian shtetlbili pretense to get rid of distance to get rid of privacy to get rid of a charm and masks of social games and I will not pick on this culture by saying shtetl Billy because again there's nothing unique about the shtetl it's the favela it's the all-seeing oriental fake city as well this is mankind's sorry broken domesticated condition so I mean no recourse to bicameral theory of mind is is not necessary to explain what's happened with the internet as normal

facts took it over you know but in the sense of a creative analogy I much appreciated what Samuels did. I wish, what I just read for you, I wish people did that. That is a return to fun blog writing. I wish more people would advance bold, colorful ideas and comparisons like that. But yes, as analogy in which people surrender their own power of reason and observation to a collective group mind, I agree with that. It can work. But that was true also for communist totalitarianism and other kinds. And if there is big mistake an article, I'd say it's this, that although Samuels recognizes the origins to modern libtard or leftist or whatever you want to call woke totalitarianism, he recognizes that it does

have origins in previous methods of public opinion, manufactured consent and so on, nevertheless he greatly, greatly overemphasizes, I think, the role that Obama and especially Axelrod had in creating all this. I think it's quite a bit older. I tell you most instructive, again I must repeat excuse, read Camille Paglia's essays from the early 1990s, and not just hers, but there were others. Barzun also wrote a book around them, touching on this less explicitly. Agree with these people or not, but you'll see that the same leftist hysteria existed back then, and it was not just confined to a few corners of academia, but the date rape hysteria fakery and many other moral crises like that, including things about race, gender, gay, class, the whole toolkit of leftist moral bullying and shaming.

It was in full force, societally, even then. The debates were very much the same as now. So did something did change in the last decade? Yes, the internet, I think, did make moral hysteria easier and more pervasive, but I will remind you that in America, just like in Brazil, Trump and Bolsonaro won in, let's say, 2015 to 17, and there were other populists who were winning around that time too, like Salvini, and they were winning on the back of social media and the internet themselves, coinciding with multiple failures that had accumulated by the ruling establishment and its doxies. And it was only in response to these successes by men like Trambol, Sonaro Salvini, and Orban I'm saying, it was only in response to that that there was this leftist mega reaction,

this harshness, this clampdown that charged up. And I think really the story Samuel is telling is the failure of this final reaction by the left to what had already been happening organically on the internet since the early 2000s, which was a chipping away of traditional media as well as elite cultural consensus on the big things. And yes, what you saw 2017 to 2022, and it's still going on now, but it's breaking down. It's a kind of desperate last stand. Whatever happens going forward, but the left has been making a desperate last stand, and it's lost already in the sense that they've lost the youth from everything I see and hear. Young people, even in New York and such, have no more taste for the left has become pathetic to them.

Not to all, obviously, a large enough of the most vital and intelligent part of young people that the hold of the left over their minds is gone in the last year or two especially. I think it's because of the overreach of COVID during which they were imprisoned, but I don't think that Elon, by the way, or Tucker are helping in that respect. In that, I'll say something people will not like. I'll maybe elaborate on another time. I think Elon, Tucker, and Bannon are causing harm to this natural progress of the breakdown of the left. Elon did a very good thing in relatively ending censorship on X. That's great. But in the types of stories that he promotes, as if it was his own site, for the most part I think he's doing harm in the same way that Tucker and Bannon are. I know that sounds

harsh, why am I attacking these men? I will talk that later. I have my reasons for why I think. It's not the ideas themselves, it's the way these men are presenting them, and what that's doing, but we talk another time that. I want to end this episode with quick personal reflection on these same matters, because this is very interesting read to me, Samuel's article telling the story of the world, as he says it since 2007 or so, but that coincidentally is around the time I started posting under this name, more or less. And I had no ambitions in it other than to shitpost, to meet friends, maybe to form a militia, I exaggerate. But I was on these small forums, And the story he tells coincides with my own full experience of using the internet for my own ends,

which my experience of the internet is very different from what Samuel describes in this article. I found my circumstances in real life stifling, intellectually stifling. I accounted the real life characterized by groupthink, moral social pressure, office type formal codes of language, other such. I always found not just my particular circumstances, but in general, American middle class society, faggoty and constricting, especially coming from an East block where there was solidarity against authority and there was none of that in America. And I found smart friends only online who I could talk to about the things I cared. I tried and failed repeatedly in real life with maybe one exception. I couldn't talk to people in real life about the things I cared about.

They immediately ostracized me as crazy and so on. So, and then starting in 2009 or so, 2010, I noticed Hartis and Roush and the others, but especially Hartis around that time, 2011, 12 and so on, was able to use Twitter and his blog, Hartis Chateau-Roissy, and without, he did not have any of the scaffolding of social psychology and control of political and media levers that Samuel describes that Axelrod or Obama had. Hartiste was a guy with a blog, and he was able to get his ideas and words into mass popular and youth culture in a few years, to where now people just casually use his words like alpha and game and S and D and many others, and the first season of Girls was basically a sitcom version of Hartiste ideas inverted with a different value judgment,

but they were his ideas and words. It's an amazing thing when you look at the ultimate provenance of those ideas. They come from, well, Harti's own insights and his wonderful writing style, but he was very much influenced by F. Roger Devlin, who was very much influenced by Schopenhauer. So really it's Schopenhauer's ideas that infiltrated so quickly through a blog. And so this tells you the story of another part of the internet that Samuels doesn't touch on here. And I say it's really the essential part that's left out of his story, because what he's talking about is really the desperate reaction to what I just described. And it's not conservative, by the way. Hardtist and such conservatives had their own magazines, foundations, academic chairs, and conferences, et cetera, for decades.

I'm not aware of a single case where conservatives were able to do what I describe Hardtist did with his blog, to get ideas and words into popular culture, into youth culture, and so on. Not one case, I think. And now, of course, they try to come to me and my friends and say, oh, we should work with them. And they want, I'm sure they want to absorb us in their so-called intellectual movement and ask, for what? What would be in that for me? What would be, how would what I say and believe be propagated through this powerless, useless conservative movement that's existed for decades and did what? Anyway, the point is that here, and there are other examples, some say, Some people say not to self-praise. Well, I have to praise myself. If I don't, who will?

But some people say I did in other ways and for other ideas what Hartis did. For example, now I have the dubious honor of seeing my own coinages like Longhouse, for example, get spread everywhere. And so from my point of view, the internet has been all good. It's been a tool of liberation, a tool of meeting friends, a tool of propagation of my ideas on a global scale, as far as that goes, for a humble internet poster. But you know, I feel that for a shit poster, I won the internet game, and I won't claim sole credit, but there are thousands or, you know, I'm saying I would not claim sole credit for what I'm about to say right now, but now there are thousands or many more thousands of smart men who read Mishima, Celine, Junger, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche,

read the last two in a totally different way than they would in highly edited version in schools, for example. But I remember in 2007 when I started posting, nobody was reading these mens. Nobody was interested in these ideas in real life. I could not encounter people. And now I think, yes, I will not take sole credit. But I think in large part as a result of my efforts, so many are reading them. But I do believe that supply creates demand. I believe that. So when you look from the broader point of view of internet, making it possible, especially for a youth culture to develop outside the scrutiny of authorities. And now they're trying for some years, yes, to reassert control over this youth culture through various parlor tricks by both the left and the conservative right.

They're all clumsy parlor tricks. They all fail. They have fake influencers who try to do it, fake dissident influencers, fake leftists. So when Samuels describes these kinds of tricks as used by the DNC or the leftist wing of the DNC. I think he overstates their sophistication of their methods and also their success for those years. He thinks they now failed through the efforts of these three men, Elon, Netanyahu, and Trump. I think they had already failed through the collective efforts of the anonymous posters and the frogs who are a broad and diffuse group, not really a group, but from before 2015 even. I think that's why. They were never able, really, to suppress us. And the methods that these people use from the political activists, Axelrod, but the other political activists too

that Samuel describes, the methods that they use, it's easy to put a new name on something old. It's relatively easy to rearrange concepts the way you would shuffle papers in different drawers, to mention a few sinister names like Bernays and drop hints of a power elite and corridors of places with high names, and to imagine that it's all something terribly satanic and Machiavellian sophisticated, but isn't this really all just rhetoric? Isn't everything like this already described in ancient Greece and Rome as the tactics of rhetoric in a democracy, which includes varieties of deception, which is really what Samuels is talking about, speaking to the crowd, various forms of cynical deception, manufacturing moral hysteria when it suits you

So I don't know that putting a new name on such things from academic social psychology means that it's actually something new. I think Samuel's article, very good, you read it, but I think he describes the pathologies, the very old pathologies I think he's describing of democracy. Maybe charged up now for it's accelerated in a modern electronic age, but as very much an establishment man he is, and now writing for establishment conservatives, I think he overstates both their role and that of Elon and Trump and such and of the leftist activists he describes and he forgets that what these men responded to, the overreach hysteria since 2017 and especially 2020, this was itself a last-stand reaction of a sclerotic establishment

to really a revolution in thought and perception that had already been happening on the free internet for maybe close to 20 years, chiefly but not exclusively among the youth. So, yes, my own experience in that story is very different of the Internet. For me, the Internet is a great tool to spread my psychosis to all corners of the world. And I hear stories of a return of hidden plant beyond green-ray horizon. I hear murmurs again coming soon in this new year, new frightening covenants whispered in forgotten language. I will see you next week. Until then, Happy New Year and Bap Out!