And welcome Caribbean rhythms episode 194. I wrote blog entry on China industry. It get a lot of engagement spread around. I'm hearing from friends, their fathers, their libtard boomer father's cousins, who don't know, have never heard about me, are talking about the article. I guess it's spread through financial news, whatever grapevine and more on that in a moment. But I've ignited a controversy again on the last few days online if you've seen. And this concerns, of course, the issue of breast milk and whether it is possible to create an entire autarchic economy based on breast milk production and farming. It's a famous aphorism of mine. I restated it the other day. Let me read it for you. I'm reading now. Could breast milk become the backbone of the family? Hear me out.

Consider a world where the father worked to bring home various organic greens and fruit and such, fish, egg, and mollusk. And mother fed on these and provided milk for rest of family year round, an entire economy. Do you like this? This is GDP maximizing activity, high economic thinking of Swiss cow-milker variety. And you only have two combating schools of economic thought, really, today. There is this, what I just said now, which is wholesome, autarchic, self-determining, it's kind of distributism improved. And then there is the Brazzaville School of Economics. You give me that from Brazzaville, Congo. And as for this breast milk thing, I think is actually a secret message of Xenophon's Oeconomicus. It's an ancient text where Xenophon, the statesman in general, student of Socrates,

He in this dialogue has Socrates talk to Greek patrician and this man's explain to him how he manages his household, how he educated his wife. Because you see in traditional society, it was given that the man must civilize and educate the wife. Of course, for the modern conservative and libtard house husband for that matter, they believe in the opposite thing. They think that it is the woman who civilizes the man, which tells you more about the joke that modern conservative family life is. But I suggest you read, if you want to see what the real patriarchy looks like, by the way you read Xenophon economicus, which even though in this case, Aristotle said that the Greeks treat their wives as rulers, treat their subjects in a republic, as opposed to

to how Orientals treated their wives, which was as slaves. The Near Easterners treated their wives as slaves. The Greek, maybe Roman way, was relatively egalitarian compared to other things at the time. But anyway, the secret meaning, yes, of Xenophon's economicus, literally economicus, that's what economy originally meant. That translates to art of household management. Then the meaning got extended to the art of national management of same and so on. But the secret meaning, if you read between the lines using special esoteric reading techniques, it's obviously the breast milk thing I said. Oh yes, why not? And if you read between the lines in Plato, it's also about transsexualism, the assertion of bull dyke, lesbian identity. I told you I was going to write

about transsexualism in Plato. It must have been done, not ironically by now, but I was going to do it as a kind of SoCal hoax and send it to academic journals under a false identity. But you know, I too lazy to, and again, it's hard to satirize the left. It's become its own satire. In fact, it's so absurd that it gives protection against itself. You can't really make fun of it anymore because it's already, but yes, between the lines, breast milk, That's Straussian or something, you know. That's another word thrown about now. Most people who use it have no idea of what it means. It's Straussian. I assume they think it means evil bad guy to trick you using words. They use the white man's linguistic tricknology to it might corrupt your mind. It apparently means secret meaning in writing,

some don't say or that. But what is the purpose of putting it in secret though? What would be the endgame? What would be supposed to be achieved by secret meanings in writing? I'm not saying it's never been done, but very few people who make this claim, including, by the way, academics who invoke it, ever stop to think, well, why would they do that? I mean, usually it's done in history by a writer to escape persecution, you know, hanging, things like that, or something less than hanging. But the idea would be that some of your readers in, let's say, the future would be able to grasp the meaning. That would be the purpose of putting a secret. And that's not even the most important part of esoteric writing, by the way, but the way it's used now in casual conversation

and since the early 2000s, the left has used it because it gives a leftist intellectual a frisson or makes them feel important to say there's a conspiracy at that time they were saying conspiracy of Nazi, Nazi's in Bush White House, and their secret meanings, they're trying to trick you, you have to be in on it, and I, the influencer, the Shadia Drury intellectual, will reveal it for you, you know, the secret agenda of breast milk industrial production on a massive scale. Unthinkable tyranny, use milkers on Swiss housewives. Think like the matrix pods, but to extract my own colostrum for my use. Only the most delicious colostrum from young and fit cows for me. It could be marketed by race and by diet. Same as with grass-fed milk varieties. I hear the Amish are expanding into this.

This poses a civilization, but so, yeah. But anyway, look now about my economic article, a secret writing. What's the end game of the secret? Nobody ever explains this kind of state. But look, I need to repeat to you, I'm not economist, but it's about what it would take for America to have a re-industrialization of a type that can challenge Chinese dominance over the next few decades, points on which I think there is much ignorance in commentariat on all sides. I feel maybe it's a looming danger, not just for the Trump administration and its possible successor, but for America as in the West's position as a whole in the world. I'm sorry if this phrase tires you, the West, but it's something actually real.

It's America plus West Europe, plus now the appendage of East Europe, plus Anglosphere, and maybe plus Japan. That's actually a certain type of thing that's not shared by the rest of the world. And no, America does not have the economic or population scale to go it alone without its allies. And you are crazy if you think economic collapse, or essentially dominated by China, is going to be anything better than global homo was, or let's say the 20-30 years before Trump was, by the way. Collapse – or it wouldn't even be collapse, it would be more like severe decline in American economy – is not going to lead to exciting piracy and freedom in the world, it's going to be a depressed society in West Europe and America resembling something like Argentina

China was for decades a place without opportunity, in this case where the Chinese will seek to ritually humiliate you in ways people who use the phrase humiliation ritual can't imagine. And this, more than other looming dangers that I'd like in my own small way to draw attention to, because I see extreme ignorance about the huge strides made by Chinese industry and technology and energy generation in the last 10 and especially five years. They're no longer coasting on cheap goods and just using cheap labor. You can buy, small example on Alibaba, now factories of your own, at home factory to give you an idea. It's one of these ready assembled factories for private purchase, can meet or exceed the entire demand in United States per year in say plastic or paper cups.

One machine for your private buying. This is small example, but think about this for a moment. The left will not be on top of this. They can only conceive of the economy in terms of political economy, handouts to their own pressure groups, and they see economic growth as such, as a mythology or as unfair. They do everything they can to retard it. But I would like American intellectuals and politicians on the right to wake up, understand the danger you are facing. See, you have very limited time to solve this problem, five or maybe 10 years. It's not too late, but it's not a long time, 10 years, and this problem is not solvable as long, you can't even begin to, if you don't even see it, as long as you conceive of industry as a means of achieving aesthetic or merely political score-making

or social, moral, religious goals. So unfortunately, I hear the effects of these unwise tariffs which do nothing, by the way, to help America re-industrialize, but the bad effects are already being felt. The jobs numbers in the last week or so were atrocious, as bad as anything I think since 2008. Does it help to not say that, to ignore it? I saw what you call, by the way, cope, it's called cope on these reports now, the jobs reports, the recent ones, claims that actually only foreigners lost jobs while Americans gained them. I haven't studied them closely, but the answer would be two things, not what I hear from friends who are in the job market, not really, and it would be something like 80 to 90% of all the new jobs created in these last months are in education or healthcare.

I think in the last two or three months, that figure is what I saw. Now, please understand, healthcare and education are industries of consumption, not production. They represent luxuries of a sort. They represent spending. There are no jobs added in manufacturing or anything like that. In fact, since the tariff thing started, capital investments by enterprises is way down. CAPEX, it's called capital expenditure, you know, way down. Hiring, way down in these kinds of companies because they don't know what will happen. They live in insecurity, not knowing if their input costs will drastically rise, if trade wars or countermeasures get put in place that destroy their markets. Many other insecurities that are introduced by these measures.

I ask friends again to understand, you are playing with something very dangerous here from which there is no going back. I'm hearing from smart frog friends, they either can't find jobs, they're stuck in a job, they can't switch out due to the overwhelming arrogance of the slave driver employers in very good, even in very good or seemingly good high-paid jobs, they can't switch out, no one is hiring. These are friends I hear from now, United States frog friends, some of them you know. To begin with, if such things roll further and escalate into 2026, Democrats are going to come back in House and Senate, Trump will become a lame duck, and then you can probably forget 2028 also. But more important than the near-term fortunes of the right is the condition of the country longer term.

I think if this path continues, something like a fiscal crisis or something like that is possible. You simply end up accelerate Chinese dominance. This is not a path to economic industrialization or revitalization In my opinion, I did what I could to sound alarm on this. I'll probably let the matter drop. I had some good responses to Article there were some bad responses to I see them online. Oh the country could not be any worse we've seen what no tariffs does for the last 20 or 25 or 30 years and and then just list the country's problems. And there are tariff advocates who are smart people who make a good case. What I just said now is not a good case. My friend Starr pointed out, he's completely right, you know, rattling off America's considerable

economic problems, which nobody on my side of things denies, to only then claim that tariff will be a solution without any evidence. I don't know, I gave particular examples in this article of countries that do have tariffs and have the same or worse problems, and it can certainly get much worse in the United States than it is now. My problem is not about tariffs as such, I think tariffs are good, I think these particular ones again do nothing to solve what you're claiming. But since we are on the matter, another friend, Japan's anime friend, points out the passage from Oswald Spengler that relates to my points. Here is what Oswald Spengler says, this from book The Hour of Decision. I'm reading now from Spengler.

Then there is that catchword of abolishing unemployment, providing employment, that is to say superfluous, useless work, since there is no longer any essential, profitable, useful work to be had in these conditions. No one admits to himself that the cost of this production without a market of these faked Potemkin villages in an economic wilderness Must be sometime made good by means of fiscal Bolshevism Which includes provisions of fictitious means of payment from the relics of the healthy peasant class in urban society Then again, there is dumping by means of systematic depreciation of the currency Does that sound familiar? Dumping by means of systematic depreciation of the currency whereby one particular country Seeks to maintain a market for its products at the expense of others

This is at bottom a false and too easy miscalculation of real wages and real costs of production By which the buyer is deceived and of which once more What is left of the property of the rest of the nation has to bear the cost in the form of depreciation of values But the fall excuse me but the fall of the pound, a huge sacrifice for England's pride, did not diminish the number of the unemployed. No, not by one man," he's saying. Inflating your currency to increase industrial production doesn't work the way some claim it does. I continue. There is only one form of dumping which has its natural roots in economic life and is therefore successful, the form of cheaper wages and greater output of labor. This is the basic reason for the destructive influence

of Russian exports and of the factual superiority of colored areas of production like Japan, whether they are engaged in industry or agriculture, and whether they are killing white production by their own exports or by exporting themselves, or by keeping home products so cheap as to exclude imports. Finally, there is the last disparate measure resorted to by the mortally stricken economies of nations – autarky, or whatever big word may be chosen to describe this attitude of the dying animal. It manifests itself in the reciprocal putting down of economic barrages by political methods, by hostile tariffs, import prohibitions, boycotts, blockage of currency transfers, and everything else that has been or will be invented to establish a state of siege that almost represents

actual war conditions and may one day put it into the heads of the militarily stronger powers that such gates may possibly be opened and economic capitulation enforced by a timely allusion to tanks and bombing squadrons. For, again it be said, the economic system is no self-contained kingdom. It is inseparably bound up with world politics. It is unthinkable without a strong foreign policy. And therefore, in the last resort, it is dependent upon the military strength of the country in which it lives or it dies. Yes, what do you think of that? Oswald Spengler, as you know, the famous free trade and libertarianism advocate, right? But pay attention closely to that last sentence that he said, replay it if you have to or I will post it,

regarding the inseparability of a nation's economic strength from its military strength and foreign policy. But regardless, really, I'm not saying that what I just read applies in every case to the American example in the current tariffs debate. It's worth to consider, maybe, are your tariffs created in a spirit of focus on national power and increased prosperity and to nurture critical industries or is it a defensive turtle crab crouch type you're hoping to not have to compete compete with nations that make a bid for economic dynamism and instead to have you know, as I say in article a nostalgic reenactment economics to foster habits of the heart that phrase from Conservative punditry in let's say the 2000s the habits of the heart the cozy communities and such some friends tell me

yes, you're right on this map, but on the other hand, it's a country. You need to help out people, you need to give handouts to even in, there's no economic benefit or profit possible. It's a society, you need to help social. And I wanted to respond to that for a moment on this segment and maybe I will add something in writing. Anyway, I was not writing any of this with assumption that there is any fundamental opposition between the welfare of the workers or a working or middle class on one hand, and on the other hand, or opposed to this, that stands economic advancement or modernization and dynamism. I absolutely disagree with the idea that the Trump movement is a movement of the left behind or those spurned by globalism who can't or don't want to compete in the global economy,

that it's motivated primarily by a demand for aid, it's a cry for help, for transfer payments to such a constituency. This has been the line, by the way, of so-called Trumpists who are not really Trumpist intellectuals since 2017. These are very intellectually insecure people. They have a bad conscience in front of Libtards and others and need to make these kind. That's not what Trump is about at all and it's not his constituency. I think it's also wrong and kind of self-destructive way to think of things. In the article at the beginning, I linked to a speech I posted on X in full from Lee Lee Kuan Yew, founder of Singapore. Maybe I will put part of this speech at the end of this segment now or such.

Not the part I'm about to mention now, it's a bit dull, is a rally speech he gave in 1980. He was facing, I think, as usual, some socialist challengers of various kinds and ethnic activist challengers as was normal in his Singaporean case. He points out that China had abandoned socialism because he in part convinced Deng Xiaoping that it did not work. China at this time, 1980, was just abandoning command economy. Events beyond Lee Kuan Yew's advice convinced Deng Xiaoping that command economy didn't work. The Chinese experiment with command economy didn't work. The example of Hong Kong across the border also convinced him, convinced China's leadership, besides China's and Russia's own experiences. And he points out to his, that his opponents in this election in Singapore 1980, that is,

they want to pretend these things never happened. And that's been my experience with some American college students too, by the way. Many the ones who self-identify as left, totally unwilling to hear these ideas have already been tried, didn't work. They don't have the excuse that people in their early 20s might, where I can look the the other way, if they have entered the workforce, and they see there is very hard work, very difficult to advance, experience the arrogance of employers, the bleakness of corporate life. I frequently talked about that, too. But that's not what these are college students I'm talking about. They've had easy sheltered lives, no work yet. And it doesn't work to point out to most of them the examples of the East block, even if you get quite specific

on what went on there. And at least for the real left, I mean the far left ones, there is a lot of chauvinism, I think, involved in this position because they assume, well, why does that example matter to us? I don't need to pay attention to these other country examples you gave because we are Americans and we can do what these potato slobs and corrupt Chinese or others, they were not able to do it. Of course, we can do it right. Or by extension, they assume it was not real communism and so on. I've known men who were communist, founders of communist states, they're close friends, I can tell you some of the leaders of those movements were quite sincere, even fanatical in their commitment to it. I hope I'm not being indiscreet. For a short while, when my grandfather

was in charge of economic, if I remember right, currency planning in a certain East Bloc country, his policies did not work. But he was committed to implementing them honestly, and I think went so far as to make sure his own mother didn't have heating in the winter so that it wouldn't look like there was even a hint of corruption or favoritism. And there are men like him, a few, they got retired, replaced from the government in the 1960s in those nations by more corrupt types. But what he tried didn't work, what his successor tries also didn't work. And American leftists believe they are so much purer and smarter you see that men who who actually lived lives of Marxist-Leninist struggle and combat. In fact, the men who tried to do this in the Soviet Union and the East Bloc, many of them,

especially the first generations in these respective regimes were honestly trying to put these things into action to make them work. And again, I recommend to you before, but maybe you read Leszek Kolakovsky on how this huge cope of, oh, well, Soviet Marxism wasn't actually real communism. It was actually state capitalism though, you know, I I've had this discussion with left to its many times, but no he shows exactly what it was exactly what it will always look like Soviet Marxism. Anyway, this speech by Lee Kuan Yew, he praises Deng Xiaoping as a great man, a former revolutionary who had the courage to see that he had been wrong, and that it was time for a change, but he doesn't in any way think of the economy or economic progress or dynamism or any such

thing as something that exists in opposition to the welfare of the people or to the workers. He spends actually quite a bit of time in this speech, this is what I wanted to say, so much of this speech where he talks about Singapore's desire to move up the skills and production chain. They're no longer going to produce just basic goods and services. They want to do more advanced things, logistics and more advanced things, and he spends so much time talking about. Well, in 1970, we only had this many two or three room apartments. And now we have this tens of thousands more and it goes basically through every main apartment class to show that the whole population of Singapore experience consistent rising living

standards over the previous 10 years, measurable, real ones, you know, the kind of space you live in. And this how I want to think of it too, you know, in distinction to let's say, State Soviet or actually post-Soviet populist economics, Argentinian-style Peronist economics where you keep open factories that produce low-quality goods that nobody wants to buy, potent in markets, as Spengler say, in order to give make-work jobs to some of your constituents. Yes, that's something. It gives them make-work jobs, gives them something to do and some income. It won't give them good lives in the end. It won't improve their living standard in any real way where in 10 years you can point like Lee Kuan Yew did.

You live in a much bigger apartment now and you have a green city, you have gardens everywhere. For that to happen you actually do need wealth production, dynamic, innovative products and factories and in many ways in America now it's not legal to build these things. Or you have, as I try to describe briefly in the article, large corporations like Boeing, tell others to who are sitting on IP, innovate nothing, have terrible hiring practices, rent seeking on IP, risk averse management, refuse to innovate in the slightest. Germany too is also fastly industrializing. It's being done there in the name of green dogmas. Regardless, If you want to have what my friend suggested though, benefits, some kind of redistribution for your own constituents, well then just do that.

Do it directly, don't mask it as a kind of economic industrialization program while neglecting to actually have an economic industrialization revitalization program. America does have a Brazzaville school, you give me that economic mindset. The left, of course, does this for its own NGOs. Furthermore, much of the service sector, even outside the government NGO complex, is also make-work redistribution bullshit jobs for the left, various of its constituencies. So then there is the understandable effort in response to do it for your own constituents, which by the way, one thing isolationists also miss, is that this is in part what the arms industry is too. Most employees of the arms industry, and excuse me, the attack might

throw it again while I try to tell you, but most employees of the arms industry and contractors and such are red state Americans. And a lot of the subsidies and money that gets sent, for example, to Israel and to Ukraine is contingent on them buying American weapons, which then acts as a indirect subsidy for red state employment. Egypt too, I think, has to buy them as part or the funding agreements. That said, I think these programs are also superfluous. They're wrong because of their other external costs. That's not the topic I want to talk now, but I understand the impulse to give out money for your own constituency, and I suppose that even using industry as a way to do it wouldn't be so bad if you at least also had understanding that that wasn't the primary purpose of the industry,

of reindustrialization, that it wasn't just this. but I see no awareness of such things or plans and the situation is too critical, time too short to engage in what amount to simply political favor buying and frivolities and to pretend that you're actually building an industry. On certain matters, when national security is at stake, by the way, of course, profitability does not need to be the first priority. For example, America should have its own steel, its own rare earth steel production, rare earth supply chain, several other such things, even if it doesn't do them as well as the Japanese or such, and even if there may be profit losses. Although, at this point, I think it's a good thing if America allows its ally, Japan firms, to produce steel on its own territory,

because it can learn, and it has a lot to learn from them regarding modern steel production techniques. One such thing could be shipbuilding. Edward Luttwak has posted, to his credit on this, relentlessly, the necessity for America to build its own ships. And here is what? Zero, zero moves have been made or are being made in that direction so far. Where is massive national strength, national sovereignty, shipbuilding program? It could be also a massive jobs program for, yes, your own constituents. What is it? No one, certainly not me, I would not complain about that. They don't do it. So this is why I'm against the triumphalism on tariffs that, oh, we get more money, We squeezed a few more money out of Switzerland of all places your ally Switzerland 40% tariffs or such

Why or Denmark bullying them or other allies? It seems petty to me It doesn't do anything to solve all these huge holes. Okay, fine. You want national security supply chains? What are you doing about shipbuilding? Mmm, what is the point of taxing Switzerland their trade? Surplus with you is not their fault But anyway, I've been meaning to say on this you want to subsidize your own constituency. Don't be heartless BAP It's a nation not just a national economy. You have to help your own people good Why don't you do that directly then why pretend industrial jobs? For example, Steve Saylor used to say one of the lowest hanging fruits is in Appalachia Appalachian people often live in great poverty squalor even to this day and probably a lot of

of smart, very smart white youth in that part of the United States especially, but also in the upper Midwest, Rust Belt, West Pennsylvania, and many other such places. I've heard stories of people even with very high test scores through difficult circumstances, personal circumstances, they had to become menial temp jobs and so on. They work at the restaurants somewhere in Louisiana or probably in Appalachia you could launch, if you are serious about such things, let's help our own constituency, fine, launch a massive program, martial programs, Sputnik whatever martial program for Appalachia, to identify and groom high quality use. This would involve batteries of exams and then once you identify them, not like a $5,000 credit, huge funding, support, programs to nurture and develop that

talent that's now being wasted and it's not allowed to achieve its potential and that obviously will have no profit motive not immediately anyway but it's the kind of thing that if you groom these youth into good positions it would pay off greatly for the whole nation nothing like that is even on the table as far as I know I'm the first one now to propose such a thing Vance of all people could be the man to carrying carry it out he's point man poster boy for such program. But if you step back a moment and think it, the United States and Europe too mostly is so fucked up at the moment that it's inconceivable and not just, I'd say not even primarily because of the racial and anti-white thing, although that too, but just of the

way it understands education, I mean. Quite aside from that, elite selection, merit, those kinds of things, doing what I just said now and doing it for real would be seen as outrageous and unacceptable because let me just stick back for a moment to color it in for you why. In this Lee Kuan Yew speech I keep talking about, I'll put a part of it, a more exciting part, a couple of minutes at the end of this segment. But when he talked about in 1980 his plan to raise up the living standards and skills of the whole population of Singapore, and he tells them how the next part of the program is to move up the skill and quality chain, he says this is why our educational system and university system, we just set this university system up, that's why it's so important for this next phase.

And if you say that, the words I just said, it sounds like boilerplate politician talk. On the one hand, you're used to it, I'm almost embarrassed to say it because it's so obvious, right? I mean, you've heard it before, we need them educational programs, education this and that, we need to train the next STEM and technology graduates and whatever. But the Singaporean educational system actually did that for their population. The American one, where, by the way, more is spent per student than anywhere else in the world, actually. Only Switzerland, I think, spends more. And there are new returns. And I'd say in America, there aren't even returns at the so-called highest levels. Which is why I think Moldbug and others are delusional when they refer to Ivy League students

as genuinely smart or elite or this. It's certainly not the case anymore. after 20, I don't even know when you put on the cutoff date, but as time went on, it's not the case anymore. There are intelligence students, of course, there, but it's not the rule anymore, and maybe ultimately even mostly because of affirmative action, yes, but only if by that you also understand that women are the prime beneficiaries of this even more than minorities. And when I say I color it in, what this means, you get to university or high school let's say, but let's say university, and you see some students, your friends maybe, who want to be serious, want to work hard, want to learn things, and they have very outdated, unfortunately outdated notions of what's expected of them.

They think they're coming into other universities, they saw a movie from 1950s preppy elite schools or something, they read it in a book and it's very serious and they thought it would be highly competitive and you are tested and grilled and then intelligence and creativity are rewarded and what you find is an infantile atmosphere, complete lack of seriousness, just an unseriousness that pervades the educational systems in the West at every level from primary school, high school, whatever to universities, nothing is learned, nothing is actually tested. There is indeed selection, but it's not based on any type of merit that matters almost. It's hardly even, you know, you can say, oh well, the grinds and the nerds were never going to make it big in the world.

It's the people you know, the friends you make. It's not even that though. That's not how it works now. It's just all extremely loose is what I would describe it. In the old Prussian system, if you want a counter example, they had a classification gives you older contrast because it's not what you think. They had the Prussian military system, Prussia, the cornerstone of Germany, as you know, united Germany in 19th century. It's a territory in East Germany with indefensible borders surrounded by constant threats from all sides. In other words, a matter of survival for them to actually pick the right men to lead their military. pick the right ones. If they hadn't had the culture of discipline and intelligence they had, they

wouldn't have been able to survive, let alone prosper and unite the biggest empire in Europe, and the most powerful. And there are two classifications, two gradients, the gradient of hard-working versus lazy, the gradient of intelligent versus stupid. The lazy and stupid, they assigned to, I think, actually not the lowest functions. The lazy and stupid, they assigned to kind of the next-to-lowest functions, okay. The hard-working and stupid are the dangerous ones. The hard-working and stupid, they assign to the lowest functions. The hard-working and stupid do very well in modern American universities, even elite ones, very well. And one of the reasons that am I being misogynist? I'm sorry to my five female followers, but it's one of the reasons

bosses like to elevate women in the workplace so much, they are very hard-working, usually stupid rote workers. And they are subservient to the boss that elevates them but cause immense damage. The hard-working stupid person, if you add emotionalism to it too, it's over. That type ruins organizations, ruins economies. But anyway, so they gave actually the lowest position to the hard-working and stupid or actually even exiled them. Now the lazy and stupid they are mostly useless but you can give them some some rote things and then the hard-working and smart or relatively smart they gave the second highest position they did not give they gave the highest in command planning functions they assigned to the intelligent but lazy and you think that through for a moment that's Prussia

that's hardcore Spartan Prussia. It takes a kind of cold realism, a confidence for a state or organization to be able to make that classification and act on it. Different nations, certainly Singapore and some East Asian nations, they've had different needs and priorities. They may not be able to do that. They're organized for different things. I understand they don't want to do that. But in the United States and Europe, if you tried what I just said now or anything like it, it that's a civilian update of that you would get outrage scandal enormous scandal resistance enormous you know you would speaking of which asian meritocracy right let me go on a tangent quickly i've attacked uh asian meritocracy in the past tokville famously says that europe

which was not as such meritocratic in the in the technical sense where you take exams and you advance that way the civil service right is it is aristocracy meaning the military in some cases, military commercial aristocratic class ruling the place, as opposed to China and Chinese Asia, which was meritocratic and based on testing for hundreds of years. And he says, well, it was Europe that subdued China and not vice versa. And actually the Chinese meritocratic system led to an imbecile state. And I believe in this, except that now, of course, in America and Europe, you don't have aristocracy and you don't have any kind of workable meritocracy either. So it's just, you know, but as for Asian or Confucian meritocracy, more generally, though,

I go on brief tangent, because I was reading, a friend sent me on the Korean example, Korea, like many of the nations around China, resisted on one hand, signification, they didn't want to be absorbed in the Han glog, but they were, of course, much influenced by Chinese norms, mores, customs and ideologies, in this case, Confucianism, Korea was originally a kind of Northeast Asia, not Mongol, but kind of Mongol tinged, Mongol-like, let's say, type of place that physical descriptions from 19th century European visitors emphasized this Mongol physical type among the Koreans, saying that the Koreans too, they recognized each other by how they look different in this way. Siebold, a German doctor living in Nagasaki, this was the only city in Japan before Japan

opened up that was open to trade and allowed to have contact with the outside world. There was a, I think, a Dutch outpost there that the Japanese kept just to have some touch with the outside world. And this German doctor who lives there has some very minute description of the dress, the look, the manner of Korean shipwrecks who lived in Nagasaki. They were carried there temporarily before they could return to Korea, you know, fishermen their boat capsizes or whatever on the coast of Japan. So he has some quite close descriptions. He emphasizes that there are two main Korean racial types, you can say. One of them is very prominently high cheekbone Mongolian type. But visitors and anthropologists in Korea in 19th century describe actually a kind of

a closed, unsociable, unfriendly society, rigid five-tier caste system. There was meritocracy, yes, but to be able to sit for the civil service exams, you had to be part of the upper 10 percent originally. They were called, I think, the young ban. They formed a class of learned scholars and administrators who were forbidden to hold jobs or work in commerce. And this is under the famous Choson dynasty. It ruled from about 1400 to about 1900, for about 500 years. The Japanese invasions in the 16th century Japan invaded Korea, periodically invades Asia, but the Japanese invasion and war at that time caused the crisis. Many family records were lost in the invasion, so it led to a kind of genealogical craze

in Korea where families tried to scour public records and graves to prove their eligibility to sit for the civil service exams that only the upper class was allowed to do. And by the end of this dynasty, actually the Yangban, the upper class, theoretically expanded from about 10% of the population to 70% because of forgery of family records, as well as bribery and so on. Does this sound to you like meritocracy? Well, it's what meritocracy in the Confucian and Asian style eventually becomes, you know. Maybe you have actually intelligence test meritocracy for one generation, if that. I'm guessing it was always something stupid like this, like what I just described now. Furthermore, by the 19th century, it had led to a retarded, spur-like, asocial, antisocial, stagnant society.

European visitors describe it actually in very negative terms. You may be surprised to hear me criticise a stratified aristocratic society this way, if you don't know what I actually say and believe in my book and elsewhere. But this is a form of social, national, slow death. Rigid case systems, where you get this kind of grubby upper case that just sits in place, it extracts resources, nobody can innovate or advance or do anything. And actual intelligence, courage and charisma so far from being rewarded are seen as great threats. You can't, it's just a living death for high quality people in such place. And Korea had not always been this. If you read the description during earlier dynasties, the Silla dynasty for example,

this is kind of a south-southeast-east Korean kingdom, existed from about let's say 60 BC, 930 AD, I think it became the most powerful Korean kingdom. Let me read you what it was like, it was very different, it was very different. Another – I'm reading now from a history book – another key Silla institution was the Huarang, military bands of aristocratic youths that served as the elite units in the Silla army. The Huarang were originally connected with shamanist rituals. Pre-Buddhist religious practices remained a part of their ceremonies. Boys just beyond puberty would meet at sacred sites outside the Silla capital, swear oaths of loyalty to each other and participate in initiation ceremonies. According to a later recorded tradition, they were selected for their beauty and painted

their faces. Whatever the sexual connotations these ceremonies may have had, it is clear that they served primarily a military and political purpose. Only sons of the elite could be Hurang. These young men traveled around the country getting to know the land and each other before later serving as the elite warrior aristocrats who would govern the state. Selah's aristocrats were first of all warriors and the greatest honor for apparent was to have a son die a hero in battle yes see that's aristocracy that what it mean originally it come from military free barbarism it's a legacy that existed also in medieval Europe which is why men like Tocqueville refer to medieval Europe as the fount of liberty with traditions of liberty it's

a manly society based on earned rank it's very different from Confucian good boy faggot student society which leads just to this grubby stagnation. And I'd say the fake meritocracy that America and Europe have now are a kind of degenerated meritocracy in a different way than late-stage Confucianism and with different causes of decay, but with similar desultory results. And if you want to instill something like real selection, the Prussian system I mentioned being let's say a modern and rational version of the ancient warrior society where you earn rank by your virtues, I think that would cause a huge social and political earthquake, more than banning Beaners from Home Depot or banning H1Bs, okay?

It would be incredibly hard because it undermines the whole basis of the new life in these nations where women and the mediocre, hardworking and stupid, would be relegated in this system to the second tier at best. And these economies and nations are now organized to reward what I just said, women, the mediocre, the stupid and so on. Then after people graduate from the unseriousness and the laxity of modern universities, they are crammed into an employment system that also doesn't select for merit and is still lax, but at the same time extremely demanding and unpleasant in terms of the time and the make-work it requires of you, long hours for actually not much pay, inability or very hard to build wealth.

Now do not use this as an excuse by the way, despite everything I say, men of great ability, I notice it all the time, still advance, they end up having good lives and so on, but it's a great cost to themselves with huge delays and there is much time and energy lost by entire society wasted on nonsense because of national inability, unwillingness to identify and promote the real measure of talent and merit. I've known quite a few men of genius and very high intelligence who, and no, I'm not talking about myself. Okay. People always like to second guess you when you bring up such things. They say, Oh, you're talking. I have no ability whatsoever to function in a modern career society. I'm under no delusion about that.

I maybe have even less of an ability to do that than a Negro indigent from Haiti, but I've known men who are smart, who can be, who can play normal, which is a good thing to be able to and they end up in actually good jobs even by the common definition of things but their talents and energy are wasted in endless stupid work for many years because of I think fundamentally egalitarian sentiments that result in a rat race of credentialism, pointless make-work and so on. It's amazing to me that populists are often hand in hand with libtards in promoting a amiss that America has anything like remotely efficient or existent elite selection system. Yes, thank you very much. I'm aware that in tech and especially recently in very new things like crypto, it may be

different for a while, but even then it's not as different as you think. And it's not in my view, it would be even better if it was just legacies from old wasp world compared to what it is now. And that's across all fields in government, in private industry. But government, you know, I've, I've known several people who have had to hire from the CIA. It's just the biggest dolts who come from there who work at the CIA. I've told you it's lactation room CIA. You have UN wannabe intern girls, they triple major in Arabic, Chinese or whatever. I speak to friend over the weekend because I was suggesting he maybe look into the State State Department foreign service exam, if Trump administration actually makes it meritocratic based on that one exam again.

And it's just the entire culture of the place, though, after some decades of wrong selection, you would be working with nosy girls who are triple major studies, notebooks of notes in multiple colors, grinds, interested in micro-lending clean water for Somalia. And that kind of culture, of course, turns off anyone serious from ever wanting to be part of such a thing. And if you try to do an old school Prussian merit and intellect selection type thing for Appalachia or for other parts of America that were wrecked by offshoring and such, for which I think you could actually get a lot of popular support if you phrased it right. People could support that. But the way things are now, it wouldn't, right, it just wouldn't work because of how elites are selected.

If you try to make it work, there would be the biggest growing raised up you've ever seen. You're leaving people behind. You're discriminating against women. This is cruel. What about the people who didn't pass the, you know, what about the people who take notes in four colors and major in the, this is, you know, oh, and this is not an aid and educational development program. This is eugenics and other such, which it wouldn't be eugenics, I mean, but it would be called that. So elite or so-called elite life in America now is like 70, 80% moral positioning, moral purity tests, social gossip, female bullshit. And the remainder is not taken all up by merit or intellect either. So again, intellect in this world is so scarce and valuable that smart men who do make it

through this obnoxious filter still distinguish themselves. But at every step faced with insane obstacles, and it happens a lot in tech world too, is especially in the bigger corporations. I can't get into it because of discretion. I've heard from multiple Silicon Valley friends, the enormous struggle they had to expand, sometimes at high positions, sometimes as CEO, whatever against what you call woke and moral mobs, which is what really radicalized these people. But of course there's now a huge effort by all kinds of populists to alienate the tech people from supporting Trump. But let me explain to you, It isn't woke does not begin to describe it because it's not just that it goes way beyond like Tranimo furry rights agitation or such

it's because at every level intellect in America and Europe is seen with suspicion and It's faced by countervailing communitarian retardation reactionary moral forces and a serious selection system like the prussian one or even something that existed in Singapore in 1970s and 80s would cause enormous social spasm chimpouts. Think of the life of your average, forget minority, your average white girl, 25 to 35 or such, reasonable IQ, what goes today by the name of a good career. It's actually a very easy life, but that exists at the expense of, in aggregate, at the expense of technological and economic dynamism. And if you actually did something like the Appalachian Program, I suggest, and you did it right, and you did that for the whole country, if you made an honest

effort to identify and groom intellect and excellence. The lives of those women, and a lot of males too, by the way, who are just like that, those lives would be over or seriously degraded. They'd still have jobs, but they would be completely different. So you will get fought vehemently, and even more so than if you do Operation Wetback 3.0 or whatever deportations you do. I don't know if I can tell you to listen to that whole Lee Kuan Yew speech. It's about 25 minutes long. I find politicians talking boring, even Trump Trump talking is boring beyond a few minutes. But there's one other thing that Lee Kuan Yew says that seems so obvious as to almost be boilerplate. He says, as a leader, you can chart the course, you can make a call, see how it works out.

If it doesn't work out, you modulate, and if you see that doesn't work, you can scrap it and try something new from the beginning. And it sounds common sense, right? As in, oh, well, isn't that what all governments do or should do? Isn't that what the corporation does? I don't know about should do, but they do not do that. either, but governments certainly not. That kind of experimentalism and pragmatism, very rare. It was characteristic of Italian fascism, by the way, which tried over time, Mussolini tried multiple contradictory policies, and he was seen with confusion by others at the time. He was called ideologically inconsistent, and this, my friend Hope Peed points this out recently, simply because they were trying bold measures to see what works.

But the ability to do that, to course correct, and therefore to attempt experiments like this in the first place, that's lacking generally in the big democracies today. Your position is not security, you see. So if you admit something didn't work, you'll get called on it by your opposition. Then if they went deadlocked into their thing too, because you can't concede and admit you were ever wrong, ever, you know, that means the opponent was right, you were humiliated, therefore you cannot experiment. actually compared to a rational and serious man like Lee Kuan Yew, the character of governance in modern liberal democracies can become more fanatical and hysterical than a dictator like that would be. People have to dig in because of parties and factionalism, so no, actually you can never

get really pragmatic government. You get simply pandering, short-term thinking, and a bold plan such as America would need to undertake to have dynamic industrial base and economy again, which starting at the root you'd have to entirely shift your whole educational and elite selection system and your social valuation system entirely to something serious. I'm not saying, you know, ancient Greece or that, you know, these people who talk about they want Catholic monarchy, that's unrealistic, but something serious, yes, call it technocracy if you want, something like 1980s, 1970s Singapore, even that, that can't get done, I think today. It's very difficult in any case. This is why I say in article you would need radical, more radical and total changes than

you can imagine over the next five to 10 years. And you can achieve those things, by the way, not by imposing dictatorial, managerial technocracy or such. You can simply get it by actually allowing freedom of association, actually allowing freedom in the United States again, allowing companies to do what they want. They can't do that now, excuse me, they can't do that now. And it would take a while after you change the law for, let's say, the social environment to change. Certain corporations would have to take the first step to say, we are not going to listen to our faggot girlfriends anymore, and if they ostracize us, we will go ahead with this hiring plan and corporate culture anyway. But you'd need a few examples and trendsetters of that type to take a while, or get ready

to sink into your comfortable delusions and accept subordinate backwater position. The Argentina cold sack fate, except this time you see you will not be Argentina. China was a comfortable dead end in a world under benevolent American penumbra. With a resurgence in China, they'll make sure your kid gets the special Q Manchu haircut. Look it up, as well as maybe the monthly fentanyl and estrogen ration. But continue this way if you want to be encircled and castrated. I will be right back. Second, the next jump is a qualitative transformation. It's no longer just getting jobs. training people for highly skilled operations in which you use more technicians, more engineers than skilled workers and more skilled workers than

unskilled workers. So you move up, everybody moves up from unskilled to semi-skilled, semi-skilled to skilled, skilled to technicians, technicians to supervisors, supervisors to engineers, engineers to managers, managers to directors. Quite an operation. It has to be done in 10-15 years. That's why the university, the polytechnics, the whole education structure has become critical. The word is simple. It's called productivity. Productivity means the ability to use men and machines in such a cooperative way that you produce more products per man hour of a superior quality than any other person can do, any other group of can do and that means cooperation not antagonism and that's what the younger team has to achieve.

And after this elections what I want to do but which I will not complete which the younger team must do is to build up a relationship so that the workers, the supervisors and the managers and directors are at one, they are looking after each other, they are looking after the company. I'll be too old by the 1990s, even by the late 80s, to want to go down to the factory floor and see for myself and get things right. Reading reports and seeing things for yourselves are two different things. Watching it on TV is better, but it's not the same as seeing a man. I can tell you that when I met the SIA pilots, I didn't meet them on TV. TV, I met them face to face, so five feet across the table so they can see me and see

whether I'm still vigorous, able to campaign and take them on, whether it's worth taking me on. And I offered them two choices, either you argue, you stop this intimidation, which is what it was, bringing SIA right down, disrupting services, ruining his reputation, millions of dollars worth of advertisements and sales ruined within a matter of two weeks, I gave them a choice. Continue this and I will by every means at my disposal teach you and get the people of Singapore help me teach you a lesson you won't forget and I'm prepared to start all over again or stop it. Get back to work, restore discipline then argue your case took them 65 minutes and they decided okay it isn't worth the fight why because they know they lose they know that I'm prepared to ground the

airline they know that I can get the airline going again without them and let there be no mistakes about this whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him or give it up this is not a game of cards this is your life and mine I spent whole life I'm building this and as long as I'm in charge nobody's going to knock it down. I've been reading Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad, a frightful book, one of bleakest dark books I've ever read. It's about the far leftist anarchists and other such terrorists turn of century London. There's not one likable character in the book. It's one of the most brutal, gruesome books, really descriptions minute of what happens to bombed bodies and such. But the characters are awful, the cops are awful too. London itself, the wet grey

downtrodden low-class version of London, like musty old working-class shops where these covens of leftoids meet in the back and plot and it's just the bleakest, you know, but somehow reads like a great book, a great read, one of most accurate terrible images of the leftist spirit, terrorist mind. anarchists you see I think are somewhat like Antifa today. Someone, not all Antifa is like that. Antifa is not a uniform thing. But there are quite a few who fit Conrad's descriptions of the various leftoid types of his time. I've seen far leftists since I was maybe in 10-11 years old in the United States. I've known far-leftists forever. I've spent so much time around them. My favorites are the ones with rich wives or women who buy them trip to countryside. That's a type

today too. And this book, Secret Agent Conrad, very good character sketch of this. It's not correct to call them pure champagne socialists because these are people actually capable of great violence if you let them. But they're all dysfunctional, but they're not all pathetic. You know, I've had Antifa Christian Marxist friend. He, not all Antifa's atheist. He was of his own. I'm sure a real Christian would call him a heretic, but he was very wholesome. I mean, at some level, maybe full of anger and hurt feelings at what, you know, in his case, he grew up poor or something. I don't know exact history. And he was part of some evangelical hardcore thing in his youth and and became Antifa, but I never understood this, by the way, class feeling, class conflict.

I guess I did grow up in a classless society. I never understood hating the rich or such or looking down on the poor. That was foreign to me for such a long time. It still takes me aback that it's a thing in the West. I guess communist societies did get rid of that, but he was consumed by this feeling of class conflict. However, aside from his views, which he was too happy to talk about even to strangers, but he was very wholesome. He looked very good. You know, he didn't look like the Antifa you see on online when they get mugshotted and so on. He was smart, very smart guy, pleasant to me at least always, always been nice to me and had a girlfriend and everything like this. He could have been a normal fag if you wanted. And I think there

There are such Midwest blonde antifa types who simply happen to be spur-like, consumed by feeling the rage of justice or whatever. But very often, also as when Rittenhouse randomly ends up shooting into a BLM mob and it just, you know, statistically, right, think about it. He shoots at random at three ogres. He hits three ogres with child diddling records. They all look like out of an Untermensch poster or this. And that's more common type of Antifa, I think, the kind of street trash activist. And if you look at, yeah, well, the arrest reports, the mud, I was going to call them mud shots, but yeah, the mud shots, the mug shots, that's accurate too. And then among the far leftists, I'm saying this book by Conrad captures, well, the kind

of, it's not a glamorous or interesting neurosis or insanity. I'm a connoisseur of schizophrenia. I've always liked mentally ill people. This is not mentally ill in the interesting way. The leftist neurosis is driven by petty motives, feelings, all too human feelings of vengeance and the like. The leftist type, the refuse of modernity in the general case, it's here to stay. I don't like the phrase woke right. It's obviously a stupid PR phrase. I mean, to me, the woke right is literally the National Review and such where you had people like Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson and Bill Kristol talk about the problematics of whiteness and America's experience of whiteness. I mean, if you read Kevin Williamson and his, from 2015, 16 columns and so on,

there is very little difference between him and a wokester. So there are people on the right who literally have the same kind of racial, but, so to me, that is pretty much the same as woke tards, you can call that woke right. But aside from that, I dismiss the phrase. However, in another way, if you look at the face fags, these are the prominent, I'm not a non-accountal though. By the way, the distinction online between anonymous account and face account used to be useful. Right now, not so much because it's become kind of edgy to have your own anonymous account. And so it's been flooded the anonymous space also by very useless type of people who are also seeking to make a career or mentally ill in these uninteresting ways.

But if you look at the face people, not posters, the face activists of the far right in the United States, so-called, for a long time, David Duke, of course, is well known. And now in these past two weeks, there is a push to astroturf multiple so-called far out outfits in mass media all over the world. There's a thing going on in Australia, but there are two or three such attempts if you look online in the last two weeks. Just watch the news. I don't know if they're cooking something. Maybe it's another well-timed Charlottesville, unite the right type chimp out for elections or who knows. Maybe they're trying to form some kind of cable news 2.0. I don't know. But I'm saying among the face fags, the activists of the so-called far right in the United States

and from what I've seen in Germany, the same characters appear on the far left. That part is true about horseshoe theory. As depicted in Conrad Book's Secret Agent, when you read the inner life, the accounts, what motivates the way these people act, it's readily recognizable by both the far left, the antifa, the mentoids, and the far right face activists, truly demented types, driven primarily by envy, by bitterness, by the lust for fame, for the sake of fame, spurns, feelings of spurns, success and the like, the usual things that contribute to noxious human stew of petty malice. And in this sense, the Antifa type, the far right type are very similar in the general case United States, where the far right, as long as you put an asterisk next to that,

you understand it's always been a subsidiary of the DNC and they're all federal informants as well. This book, Secret Agent, is actually about an informer and it works well to show you because it's not the case that federal or police informers are James Bond secret agents. That's not what happens. These types are driven by the same feelings that other leftists are driven by, or let's say revolutionary activists. They see, they come upon difficult situation or hard times or pressure is applied to them So they become an informer. They're usually an informer for more than one faction and They themselves believe the things that they say and sometimes they go haywire and the the agent provocateur It's an interesting case and an interesting study in Conrad

But anyway, you read this book actually I'll read for you a little bit from it the paragraph It's a good profile of the so-called the professor and a character meaning. This is his code or nickname the professor He is the explosives expert a fanatical anarchist terrorist Frightening even to the other activists I'm reading now The professor had turned into a street to the left and walked along with his head carried rigidly erect in a crowd Who's very who's every individual almost over topped his stunted stature? It was vain to pretend to himself that he was not disappointed But that was mere feeling the stoicism of his thought could not be disturbed by this or any other failure Next time, or the time after next, a telling stroke could be delivered, something really

startling, a blow fit to open the first crack in the imposing front of the great edifice of legal conceptions sheltering the atrocious injustice of society. Of humble origin, and with an appearance really so mean as to stand in the way of his considerable natural abilities, his imagination had been fired early by the tales of men rising from the depths of poverty to positions of authority and affluence. The extreme, almost ascetic purity of his thought, combined with an astounding ignorance of worldly conditions, had set before him a goal of power and prestige to be attained without the medium of arts, graces, tact, wealth, by sheer weight of merit alone. On that view he considered himself entitled to undisputed success.

His father, a delicate dark enthusiast with a sloping forehead, had been an itinerant and arousing preacher of some obscure but rigid Christian sect, a man supremely confident in the privileges of his righteousness. In the sun, individualist by temperament, once the science of colleges had replaced thoroughly the faith of the conventicals, this moral attitude translated itself into a frenzied puritanism of ambition. He nursed it as something secularly holy. To see it thwarted opened his eyes to the true nature of the world whose morality was artificial, corrupt, and blasphemous. The way of even the most justifiable revolutions is prepared by personal impulses disguised into creeds. The professor's indignation found in itself a final cause that absolved him from the sin

of turning to destruction as the agent of his ambition. To destroy public faith and legality was the imperfect formula of his pedantic fanaticism. But the subconscious conviction that the framework of an established social order cannot be effectually shattered except by some form of collective or individual violence was precise and correct. He was a moral agent that was settled in his mind. By exercising his agency with ruthless defiance, he procured for himself the appearances of power and personal prestige that was undeniable to his vengeful bitterness. It pacified its unrest, and in their own way the most ardent of revolutionaries are perhaps doing no more but seeking for peace in common with the rest of mankind, the peace of soothed

vanity, of satisfied appetites, or perhaps of appeased conscience. Lost in the crowd, miserable and undersized, he meditated confidently on his power, keeping in his hand in the left pocket of his trousers, grasping lightly the India rubber ball, by which is meant Conrad means the detonator. But it's a very nice profile, and you can recognize this, I think, readily among many leftists you may have met, the Antifa of today, the spurned academic adjunct with images of of murder in his head disguised as social movement murder. But also I think the so-called far-right face fags, far-right activists in America, profiles in human brokenness mostly. It's exactly this kind of spurned pedantic character. It doesn't need to be like this, you know. It's not, in Europe it generally hasn't been,

except in much of Germany. But for example, the golden one, or Latsbra, you can find him. He's great. And I always thought that it's great for the right, such as it can exist today, to be like that. Or Tom Rozell, who's been on my show, I don't know if you, I would not even call him far right, but normal fags, I'm saying do or might call him that. He's great too. It's not just that these men I mention now look great, okay, but in character, they are cheerful, well-turned-out men with interesting things to say and so on and appealing and attractive to an audience and you can consider them to be in the entertainment industry even if you if you want and but it's very very different from this leftist gutter

revolutionary type PewDiePie even gets called far right and given his book recommendations like Mishima you know I think also he live in Japan which is taken by some people but But he reviewed Mishima without real explanation and such, so may very well be far right, whatever. But that's exactly the kind of way you would want heterodox ideas to percolate and creep among the new generation. Whatever's been done in the last few years, however, is very different from that and mostly counterproductive. You can see from the types of people it attracts that the prominent figures I'm saying, the The face activists are very much like this description I gave and others from Conrad catalog of leftoid demented types. But anyway, yeah, Sydney Sweeney in the jeans ad. I don't care, please.

I'm not talking about that, by the way. I'm not talking about being a lame, normal fag, norm-groid. I have the best media instincts, however, on such things. If you don't know what I'm talking about, good, ignore it. For some reason, everyone talked over the last two weeks about Blue Jeans ad with Sydney Sweeney supposedly showing that the woke or left is over as such. I'm not so sure. First of all, the woke or left is over. I don't need an ad to show me that. I hear from multiple reports around the world that young people, even when they're leftist, they don't have more taste for this kind of school marmish thing with you can't say this, you can't think that. I think on its way out, I think, by the way, since I'm going on a tangent, the immigration issue is

mostly also already settled, not in the sense of, obviously, the problem isn't solved, but the trend very much moving toward stopping it entirely in the civilized world and even remigration, even in Libtard countries. Let them have their way. Let them put it in their own libtarded stupid language you they do not need to be based in language I've told you this before I am quite optimistic on how things will turn out over the next 10-15 years in regards to certain small things well they're not small certain let's say limited actions I'm not so sure about the economic one but the immigration thing I think that will probably turn out well the way things are heading. But it will not be anything thanks to the far right, at least, again,

not what it's been doing the last five years, maybe what we were doing 10 years ago, but not what's going on now. It will be despite the far right, the far right can hurt this process by again, smearing it by association as an agent provocateur, this kind of thing. But I think things will improve in that direction. I don't need an ad by Sidney Sweeney, cynically capitalizing on, let's say, changing moods to show me that, and are you sure you know who made this ad? Are you sure you know why and what kinds of movies? Sydney Sweeney is slated to star in the next year or to maybe think for a moment before you build up a face, oh, this is pure Aryan womanhood and this, this is what I'm saying, face fags are cancer

all around because once you elevate someone like that, it's, they have options to do to This is not a movement. Okay, stop being the butt of a Hollywood joke similar this week media craze Over sorority girls dancing and I'm supposed to clap at this to Dutifully like a seal please at more videos of synchronized Dancing by sorority girls. I don't understand actually what is the message here in in what way is this even plausibly supposed to show? That we are back America's back woke is over how? Now, supposedly it makes blue-haired lesbians mad, I don't know. I remember since 2015 to now and before, there have been non-stop sorority girls synchronised dancing. As far as I know, it was not banned during Baidan.

I suppose the claim is because they're all white, it's a victory or such, but I'm sorry, this and the Sydney Sweeney jeans thing, I can't get excited over this lame, it's a degraded culture. Okay, and I'm someone who say I'm not saying that for puritanical reasons. I'm someone I think Ava van and these other right-wing girl influencers The ones who look like they could do it. I'm actually for them stripping going nude doing outrageous little dances and even Pornography, I'm not making a kind of school marm argument the problem here is these a lame boilerplate video fall flat for fat boomers and millennials. I don't have to applaud this. It's part of this thing where also maybe you're expected to applaud, I don't know, high school, college or other

sports as supposedly anti-leftist and I don't understand that either. This is a reduction to stupidity that comes from over-defining the left and fighting against, yeah, it is fighting against the kind of straw girls. This is why you get Daily Wire and other such pundits now who call it gay for a man to be interested in art or whatever like Matt Walsh one of the worst wankers around right now what's going on about this it's gay to like art you know some of you clap like seals at him because he says some things you like so why do you need a beard on TV to say things you like why do you need a guy who wants to be TV pundit but he's on the internet because he can't be on TV and he says things you already know and agree with

and you hear from your anonymous friends do you really believe you are raising awareness if he says it on TV and actually I don't know how many discerning people even bite on that but okay let's watch another jeans ad this whole persona is learned from Rush Limbaugh by the way I'm a real man I shoot animals yeah I don't care about animal suffering I eat industrial pork from a torture factory I think art is gay I'm real it's only it's only been updated for this kind new boomer smug millennial audience and I see this all yeah we are winning because sorority thoughts are dense on camera look that's not why I'm into this okay and I'm telling you that a certain conspicuous parts of this PR advertising agency design it is conservative but let's say

conservative ready-made personality the rush limbo insensitive loud fat idiot said, you do not win with this. It's very repulsive to maybe the kinds of people you'd want to attract among the more intelligent young who matter. And gratuitously so, you don't gain anything by, you know, and the spurning in particular of animal welfare and of the real conservationism environment. I'm not talking about fake global warming measures that that aren't, you know, let's put straws or banned factories and so on. But the environmentalists in America now look the other way and have given up the cause of animal suffering, which I care very much about. This animal welfare, this brutal heredian, Brooke Rollins, gets appointed to lead the

agriculture department, her policies are cruel, I think they have to be resisted every step, and again the basis for such corporate trappacity on animal suffering is this gruff, non-funny variety of Archie Bunker persona, it's been constructed by a gay GOP consultant in DC, It convinces the people and donors and such of the DC thing, but it turns off a huge portion that the Republican Party or whatever you want to call it could win now if they weren't so stupid about this. But well, listen, pleb discourse, plebeian discourse will continue, but it doesn't have to be manipulated like this. One thing never dies down is dating discourse, so-called relationship discourse, and most Most of it is similarly plebeian, very low quality.

You have to sit a five hour podcast and hear someone talk to OnlyFans whores about body count and a lot of it now, especially dishonest, kind of, I would call it fake reactionary traditionalism where there is a symbiotic relationship between a very cynical man. Usually it's a man, but there are sometimes when they come in front, they sit on a panel with five whores, they have an agreement. The whores sit and he berates them. How dare you do this? You are endangering your eternal soul. You burn hellfire and this kind of thing for five hours or making other disingenuous comments to them about how actually they're ruining the purity of their bodily essences. And the girls sit there and take it because they're getting affiliate funding. Do you understand how it works? It's five

hours of this and this passes for normal plebeian dating discourse now. But a welcome refreshment from this usual boilerplate you see now is an article in Pimlico Journal from England. I like this magazine, Pimlico. Pimlico and Jacque's mag. You know, I say a lot of bad things I know about the new right and this. Mostly it's because we've become more popular, so we're flooded by stupid shysters who want to make a living off the glint of fame without having ideas of their own and so you see them again they're doing this PR push all the spent face fags are being trotted out again for media push maybe again they want to do cable news 2.0 on the internet it's what happens to all social media in some way it's what happened to in a bigger sense to YouTube

and so on but many smart writers smart posters never went away they still exist if you look for them these are two good examples I strong recommend you read regularly, Jacque's mag and Pimlico Journal both come out of England so called I hear it's called London scene I don't know what that means but it's very interesting from Long Live Lord Mica but it's very interesting from what I've read some of the quite important readers for especially Jacque's mag good for them that they've managed that and they they have good articles interesting always I've recommended Torbert Fahey articles on Jacque's before anyway this This Pimlico Journal article is called In Defense of the British Woman. I'll link it on my Twitter and I'll link it on my Substack as well.

If you haven't noticed by the way, I have Substack now. This show can be found on Substack as well, Caribbean Rhythms, you can subscribe there. But anyway, you can think of this article In Defense of the British Woman from Pimlico as the inverse of a Scott Loughlin famous article, one of the funniest articles I've ever read. it must be 2011 or 2013. It's called something like open borders for foreign women. And you know what it's about from the title? It's a celebration supposedly of non-American women. That article was framed as a defense and praise of Europeans specifically, but other non-American women. And yet its actual content, the Scott Laughlin one, it's a thoroughgoing attack on the American woman, one of funniest, truest attacks on the graceless American roasties ever made.

And this article in the defense of the British woman is actually, yes, the title is that, but the content of the article is mostly an attack on non-British women, in particular non-white, non-European women, which have some popularity, you can say, red pill or other sex relationship discourse among not only passport bros and such, but even normal men believe sometimes that they are supposedly better for relationships and romance and so on, but then who? I've never heard actually people beat up on French or Italian women. It's in particular British and American women who are said to be unsuitable for such a thing. Anyway, this article defends them, but not really. It mostly attacks non-British, non-European women. So this and the Scott Laughlin article, I think,

should be maybe read together. They are inverse mirror images of each other and both very good this article its innovation I mean the one in Pimlico, it's not as funny and is maybe more academic and self-consciously Anthropological than Scott Laughlin's piece, but it's still very good And its strength is that it actually goes through the words for love and the concepts of love from from other cultures Chinese Indian Latin American Slavic and so on and I think it's especially convincing in the Chinese and Indian cases It shows the words don't quite mean the words for love They there are certain words, but they don't mean what they do in the West It shows the that lacking and disappointing as opposed to the British or European conception of romantic love

So whatever you may say agree or disagree with conclusions. I think it's this kind of writing that should be done It's witty, it's well-written, it's rich content about cultural and national differences on matters of great immediate importance. On this debate in particular, though, I think you have to take a step back. You should consider the context both of the Scott Loughlin and this Pimlico piece because both have the assumption, positive or negative, but the assumption of a certain leverage that is used in dating sexual tensions between men and women. In this case, it's an implicit threat that you can abscond towards, you can defect to the women of another nation, which I think is intended to have a moderating effect on the target sex in your own nation. You see what I'm saying?

I think it's, is it called arbitrage or this? The price of Western and particular British or American women gets too high, whether it's because of feminism delusions or because of supply problems due to obesity, which make the fewer non-obese girl very arrogant and such. So to bring down a peg their pretensions and hold a bit on their toes, you threaten or even carry out a defection saying, well, I'll go for an Italian or a Chinese or a Brazilian or Russian girl or such, so it goes. And I think, but even domestically in America, at least, in highly competitive sexual situations, urban situations, both men and women will use the threat of interracial sex as a form of combat, as a way to keep the opposing sex of your own group on their toes, as it were to also increase your own value,

which is the same thing, to increase your own value in various ways by expanding demand or such. And, you know, it's used as a form of, I think, not necessarily bad. It can be a kind of playful combat in between the sexes in which way these are used. But I'm not an economist, I told you, I don't know the technical economic words for this. But regardless, you should read this Pimlico article. It goes through different words used in various languages for love to show, again, not correspond to what you get in the West, so that when they see an American man and they don't want to be with an American woman anymore, they say this because they want to be with a Latina because they say American women are too crazy or materialistic. You feel like you're watching nature documentary

with a baby deer who gets lost from the herd and is being stalked by a big cat. I'm not sure if this image is from this article or someone who made a comment to it, but I found it funny. It's very true, and the worst in this regard are the Russian and Slavic women who look white, they look great, you know, they have a certain style and they're basically extremely cynical, calculating look-smacking spurgs who will make your life bitter with fights if you shack up with them, will grind you up, and furthermore, are just as much, if not more materialistic and grasping than any American woman, and I've known American men who bought all this red pill passport bro thing, went to East Europe, married East European wife and their marriage is only hysterical fights

and fighting and they either have to give up or they're in a very hard situation, they can't leave. And Latinas too, of course, it's the same. I've mentioned on this show Argentinian girls, they will take your things and throw them out the window if they see you look at another woman and it's this and it's, oh, I don't want an American girl, I want, and let me not get into the materialism of the Latina woman. And it's just that as British and American women become graceless in manner, it's a rush often, a genuine rush for American or English men to be around women who grew up with some training in arts of, just basic things like posture, standing up straight, seduction, basic seduction techniques, dance, ability to dance and so on.

but these come from cultures that have, and this is the core of this article, I think, even when they have that basic education in some of the feminine graces, the other thing they also have, these cultures, a very transactional view of sexual affairs under which I group everything having to do with, you know, romance, love, marriage, sex, etc. And these other places, they are seen as a means to an end. They're judged according to cold calculations. This leads to to a grubby feel. For example, at one extreme, to show you where that ends up. An excuse, this is such a dark and unpleasant image. Don't let your children listen if they are. My friend Lin Manuel Rwanda, funny name on Twitter. I don't think I'm being indiscreet.

He travel a lot in Africa, travel in Asia. Man who travels much, a student of some kind. And I believe his story completely talks about the scene he saw a city in India where a large number of men took turns having intercourse with the corpse of a recently deceased young woman. Now I'm sorry for such macabre thing to tell you, but someone else was pointing out on the English Pakistani rape thing. If you want to get angry, read the details about that. But you know, 30 men you could call on your phone who you could be sure would come over and help you rape a 12 year old or this. Now think about that. Do you know, do you know 30 men you could do that? And the thing is in these other cultures, which retards now are presenting these other

cultures as paragon of virtue, they're standing up to western LGBT, the GAE, the mind rot, the gay imperialism and feminism spread by western capital liberalism, you know, but it's places where at worst you have things like what I just mentioned, yes there are exceptions but they're conceivable and even relatively frequent occurrences, not to speak of the fact that Pockys in England have something like 600,000% higher incidence of incest by by which I mean, incest resulting in children born of incest, 600,000% increase over baseline population. I mean, specifically father-daughter incest, okay? And such things come from deeply rotted, degenerated, literally degenerated, not what gets called now by the word, it's a girl dancing at the party,

but degenerated old civilizations at the end of their rope, where it's not actually useful vitality that's causing this depravity, of course. Okay, it's an extremely cynical, oppositional, transactional view of social and sexual relations. That's what leads to all this. And that's at the bad end of things. I'm not saying that you're Latina or Kazakh or Chinese wife, or if maybe you want the Punjabi. I'm not saying she will sell your kidneys or pimp you out to her cousins, but at the more average and everyday level, she will indeed see you as a means to an end. Even if that end is something you may believe noble from your conservative books. So she believes in family or the continuation of your bloodline. Gosh, such a stupid way to say things.

Do you really imagine, do you need to think of yourself as having a bloodline like a medieval noble in order to get yourself to have children? What kind of level of self-delusion is that? But that's an online thing. I get it, people say anything on Twitter, they're playing a thing on social media, but there's a remove here when it's done let's say girls from traditional cultures and as a rightist maybe some of you again have innate respect for the words and unfortunately these girls have caught on to that they know that you're sensitive to that so they can play to your moral prejudices but what you miss is that then you have to be okay with being subordinated so it's a kind of second order thing right she's not

with you for you she might not even know you for who you are or even care to ever get to know you It's about the appearances of preserving roles in a tradition that's outside you, and to which you are just a means to an end. And I think that some men who feel alienated in the modern world, and they think they'll find meaning in tradition, and they seek marriage to that end, and let's, excuse me, they attack my throat, and they really suffocate me, they put a cold hand on my throat, there is an imp. But they say let's end up with one of these non-Western women, believing that they're traditional what and I think they will be left very cold someday realizing that they did find something yes they not it's not what they thought it would be

it's the cold comfort of somebody else's life somebody else's conception of what should be of life somebody else's texts and words and by someone else I don't even mean oh it's non-western I mean that this is a feature actually of all tradition as such whatever origin it's not yours it's someone else's life it's It's literally a guy writing a life out for you in a text, which is actually why traditional marriage even in the west in Greece, and especially among aristocrats, was frightful, very serious institution. But, for this very reason, it was never understood as a vehicle for love and romance. In the west, aristocrats, who had such a powerful understanding of the tradition of marriage, they pursued love and romance outside of that, in affairs with courtesans and so on, where

could be pursued purely. This is, am I allowed to mention Nietzsche again? It's one of his, it's one of his great insights that it's precisely in places where people understood what marriage was. It's not something based on a caprice like personal love. It's a frightful social institution and where people took it seriously, they also developed in the West, the cult of love and so on but aside from it not within marriage so you as now at the end of history in the kind of pre post a couple of pop but yeah they're doing it to my tongue now apocalypse you as a bourgeois role playing that tradition to find meaning in love when tradition is dead to begin with and then it was never a vehicle or home for the kind of love that you have

in mind and this kind of personal connection it was never meant to I think you may find it quite cold, I think. And that's in the best case, too. That's assuming you, let's say, find rich overseas Chinese girl, find a Chinese girl from Indonesian Island or Singapore who genuinely even believes in such things as strong tradition or you marry a lower level Kazakh princess or Kyrgyz princess, but at the more regular level, it's not that at all. It's not even a tradition. It's kind of its own peasant simulation of traditional words for cynical self-gain. It's girls ultimately of peasant or bourgeois origin who see marriage and love as basically a financial transaction and contracts and deeply tied in often also

with of course appearances of status seeking and status fart-huffing and such and vanity and so on, which there's always some of that I imagine for all women in anything, but it's 80, 90% or more of the inner workings of the non-Western women discussed in this article. I think it's quite accurate. And this is the basis of, I think, a lame pseudo-morality, a transactional morality where some in the West who justifiably maybe react against what they see as moral lassitude, they end up actually promoting really what isn't moral at all from the non-West, but actually just a simple system of mutual scamming each other, mutual tyranny and systematized corruption. The modern Western family, in any case, the nuclear family, partly comes out of the Anglo-Dutch

customs that date back to possibly a thousand years. It was partly was reinforced and made whole for Europe in the 19th century by Rousseau and the Romantic movement that came in large part from Rousseau inspired by him, which sought to replace the hypocritical and rigid transactional norms underlying traditional marriage with a different kind of marriage based on love and romance and choice, which has many of its own problems and maybe has reached critical problems stage in the West. But again, I'm not sure embracing Pakistani or Hainanese grandmother worship or incestuous multigenerational households, or especially Punjabi or Latina girl who is on the make and using cynically, you may find their concept of love to be quite empty and sclerotic, or

thinking that glorified harlotry, such as marriage in much of Africa or much of Asia is a solution to what you dislike on modern sex relations. In any case, I hope you enjoy nice media discussion episode. I will be back next time. I read nice book, Sentimental Education, about a very different type of love and longing. That is true romance, but I will be back until next time. Bap out.