I just read now on Reddit a disbelieving poster from Finland saying they have never seen anyone make noise in cinema. They don't believe it actually happens. They think it's joking. I read verbatim, he say, for me, this all sounds so bizarre, and then some paragraphs, and he say, so whenever I see these comments about the whole theater cheering up or clapping or whatever, I can't help but wonder if these people are telling the truth or not. What do you think of this? I think Japan is similar. Everyone is very quiet on the subway, in public, in cafes, in cinema. These nations, some believe, should run the world. My friend the bureaucrats say this. And he is one of the men who does Reddit round-up on X. This is one of the main reasons to get a view of what Libtard is saying on Reddit.

He has a good round-up. I would also ban popcorn in cinema. that crunch make me go crazy and anyway welcome Caribbean rhythms episode 209 as many controversies this past week I will talk this episode about idea of white culture does America have so-called white culture and why I think actually a big mistake talk this way and no it's not the optics thing but the man from our brother sphere had a terrible Senate confirmation hearing where he unnecessarily went down this path and I want to talk about that, what reflects about faulty ideas being traded on the right. And there are also changes in England, the new restore anti-immigration party and so on, there is Epstein continuing insanity. So many things to talk about, it's been a while since I've had a present week controversy

show, but will be today. First I see is it a war agitation, agitation of war Iran again. And there were rumors it would happen last week. And now I see various who are advocating for it and some against. Now look, a lot of people have made false predictions of war with Iran. Not only for five or six years, they've shown screenshots from influencers claiming that it was imminent war with Iran two, three, four years ago. It never happens. Excuse me. Sorry to repeat myself, but I remember from 2004 there was, you know, for sure Iran is going to be attacked next week by Israel or the United States. These rumors are periodic, you know. But if anyone listening from administration, if there are such plans, I think would be huge mistake.

First of all, regardless of outcome, Trump won in 2016, running basically against Bush, Bush W, Bush 2, that whole model of the GOP, and specifically against wars in the Middle East. And to enter into discussions of regime change in that area is a kind of symbolic dis of us, his early supporters. To some extent, the whole point of why he was different and not GOP was, it was this too, you know, and I don't think any of us would have been excited for him if he had been talking about once regime change or another involvement in that region. I also think it could be a disaster. The success of Venezuela raid notwithstanding, Iran is much bigger countries in Iraq, different terrain, much more mountainous. Again, I'm sorry if I've said these things before, and I don't mean to use this show

as advocacy, but after more than 200 episodes, there's some repetition when something important needs to be said. And the change in Iran would be much more difficult, I'm saying. That's besides the senselessness of doing it. I don't think Iran is a danger to the United States. I see rumors now that it's really about China and that it's countering China's interests in Iran oil and this kind. And I think actually Mr. Lutvak was correct when I don't know what he's saying now about Iran in the past. He used to say they are the donkey saddle production of the world leader. In other words, they make neon light donkey saddles. It's not a threat to the United States, really. There's no reason to attack. It's led by decrepit old men. It's not a young man full of the fire for jihad.

These are old fart seeking nuclear weapon because you keep threatening them with regime change and recently you bombed them So that's why they wanted insurance. It's hey, you can't expect countries not to seek that It's not to throw a bomb at you or anyone else. They've been Despite occasional crazy rhetoric not from the mullahs by the way, but from they would put their Bulldog attack dog whatever pitbull Ahmadinejad, the bus driver, to scream at the UN. But the mullahs themselves, the people who run the country, have been very moderate in pursuing their aims in Central Asia and the Caucasus, for example, after the Soviet Union fell. Although, historically, that's a sphere of Persian influence. They fought wars over that with Russia in the 19th century, and people thought they

would expand there after 1991. But they didn't, and they're a sclerotic, weak state, unwilling mostly to project power abroad in any effective way. That basically Israel can overnight destroy their retarded proxies in the Levant and Yemen in video game raids does not mean they can inflict, excuse me, does not mean that Iran cannot inflict also, however, serious damage if they felt really existentially threatened and they were about to fall, right? So I'm saying two things, I'm saying them action abroad is not fundamentally a threat to US that would warrant a war, but then if you do threaten them mortally, they could do something. Maybe they have something up the sleeve that they would only do then, you know, that's what I would do.

There is a lot of opposition and apathy regarding Islamic Republic by the young in the cities, but they still have a huge support, the rural areas, which are exactly what an insurgency would happen if you're so foolish as to invade and occupy that country. And if you don't, then it's at best a mess. At best it would lead to a very destructive long civil war like Libya. And Libya is not a success for America to have that type of chaos in the region. Libya is a shame, it's a liability now both for America and Europe, obviously removing Gaddafi was a mistake. But that's the so-called at best, at worst, if you invade with ground forces, and you You might have to do that if you want to overthrow them. Then you'd have massive casualties for the United States to begin with soldiers, right?

You could have actually defeated the Taliban if you did ground invasion of Waziristan or whatever, but you would have lost 10,000 or more American soldiers. And people figured it was not worth it, and rightly so. And it wasn't worth it. I think you'd lose at least that much trying to do with Iran what you did with Iraq in the opening invasion. Iran, by the way, also much more of a real country than Iraq was. Iraq was a Sunni dictatorship on top of a kind of fake, very recent country and made up identity. Iraqi, there was nobody called Iraqi some decades ago. Iran is an empire, but that's different from, it's not like a proxy, excuse me, like some type of dictatorship grafted on top of a post-colonial country.

In fact, like the Russians, the Persians are very good at inspiring loyalty among many minorities. You do have pockets of restive uprising in whatever their southeast to the Balochis, but that's misleading. It's one pocket. The majority of Azeris and Turks and even Arabs in Iran will not, I think, rise up against the Persian center, to the extent that you assume. You then counter fierce opposition in rural areas. And furthermore, Iran, I think, has sleeper agents in the United States. It's a sensitive matter, but I remind you of Tsarnaev brothers. They shut down the city, caused billions in damage, they were untrained teenagers. I think 50 high-grade professionals could shut down the United States. And that's genuine vulnerability of free societies.

I'm not sure if you can fix that at all. It's something a nation like Iran would only activate in the most dire circumstances, you You know, it's like their insurance for total collapse or revenge if they thought they were about to end. It's not a risk worth taking. And again, for what? I have to warn against hubris. Both people in this administration and some of their supporters, a successful raid against Venezuela, which I thought was good, against regional hostile anti-white dictator, fine, that's good. By the way, Maduro was mostly a figurehead. I mean, it was a wonderful operation, but the power is still in the hands of the man who runs violence in that country, who is a military man, it's not Maduro. But take your victory and enjoy it.

That made America highly feared and respected abroad. I was in two or three countries before and after that time. People are amazed by that victory. Don't spoil it. Iran is much different. problem in all this is that Trump does not have control over America's security or intelligence or diplomatic establishments. That's fundamental problem all along with believing that you are, I'm an empire, I'm Roman Empire and I'm now a conqueror and you talk then naively also about national interest when there is, I don't think any clear view what national interest or aim is. There's not also a civil or military top brass that is committed to your vision or even at at all competent. There are good people in American establishment, but also many, many

bad ones. And actually, the problem is that good or bad people, it may be that in its present organization or degeneration, it prevents effective action anymore. I will do a separate show in the future, maybe invite a friend who knows more about governance. But I want to talk about the great reforms that Theodore Roosevelt and Elihu Root did to America's military and diplomatic corps, a general organization, reform on that level that was done by the progressives in the early 20th century. I believe this would be necessary before you could talk, act as if you were a functioning state able to effect coherent foreign policy. The thing is that Trump now may not have the mandate or power to do something like that,

but to substitute to say, oh, I can't do what I wanted, but by the powers given to me as As president, I can engage senseless foreign actions and another Middle East war. That's a loss either way. It's a cope. It's a mistake. The corruption of America's institutions and the fact that competent white men especially have been sidelined, expelled or excluded from hiring over the last two or three decades, and that the olds in these places are often delusional. I think this is one big reason Trump assent in 2015-16 and his big task, which he may not be able to achieve. But to pretend that this problem is solved and that you can return to acting as if you have coherent foreign interests and just speak blithely about geopolitics while not even

knowing what you want to achieve, I think these are errors. So take Venezuela win and power, Eric Prince and maybe other private military firms you trust to continue abroad, they have much more effective actions. I hope I'm not being indiscreet, and actually I plan to write on this very soon, but what I saw from Erik Prince doing in Haiti is basically a much more effective form of what American military special forces, joint operations special forces would do with the latest cutting-edge drone and other technology, and none of the drawbacks or red tape for much less money than the American military would spend. So you empower men and organizations like that, give also your intelligent and ambitious young men immunity, the means to act abroad in a private capacity.

And do that if you can't reform the American security state, broadly speaking, do that. But don't just act with puffed up pride, believing you're a conqueror, I'm Alexander in Persia, when you're still made a sucker, actually, and no, I don't mean the Israel thing, or Again, a lot of the arguments against the war in Iran are ineffective, bring discredit on the kind of reasonable case I think I'm trying to make here. Don't refer to, however, I will not die for Israel or I will not die for oil when you are actually not in the military and nobody's asking you to die and actually a lot of combat active duty troops with whom I'm in touch, they do want this war and they want other wars because they want action and adventure. And that's understandable, but it's not the point.

And it doesn't make that a good policy. But it does make the whole, you're speaking out for the poor, conscripted soldier, that narrative that some of the anti-war people do. That's not an effective argument, is my point. And similar now, you start to see the wages of, again, intentional or not, the last two years of retarded, so-called anti-Semitism. I don't even think it's really anti-Semitism, a lot of the people spreading this are very cynical Jewish media operators, but two years of this that it's had the effect of discrediting skepticism over these kinds of wars, right? Now in arguing this, I have to take the time to distance myself from people who argue that the Jew invented the bikini to corrupt white Christian womanhood, you know, 50,000 retweets

on X, you know, or the Oaxacan Chihuahua pushing the so-called Muslim-Christian alliance and talking about a brave anti-Zionist brown people with keffiyeh and this, you know, it's what a way to discredit reasonable skepticism towards further Middle East involvement. Thank you also Candace Owens and Mr. Tucker. Let's have other shown demons, UFO and Mossad Rothschild child cannibal. Do you see now what the effect, if not intentional purpose of this insanity that lasts two years, what it means in the end? Anyway, please relax about Iran blasters. They make good kebab. Remember, the whole point was to wipe away the Saudi legacy of Bush W. Possibly the worst president America has had in decades, worse than Obama, I think. Don't repeat mistakes. And Mr. Trump, remember your promises.

Anyway, I will be right back. I have very strong cocoa coffee way. I add one teaspoon chaga extract, scion brand from Siberia, extra focus and kick, plus Eleusero, so-called Siberian ginseng, a great adaptogenic herb for strength and focus, Arctic supplement herbs. Anyway, as much of my audience is international and not actually on Twitter, and I want to tell you with this following sound clip what happened this last week in Senate. This was during confirmation hearing for some position, and this is Jeremy Carl being questioned by some libtard idiot senator. Tell me how you define white identity and what you think is being erased about white identity. Certain types of Anglo-derived culture that comes from our history. Like what? Let me think about this.

You know, Senator, I would say if you were to look at the book by one of your former Senate colleagues born fighting about the sort of Scotch-Irish military culture and certain pride that went with that. That would be one example. Obviously, you can have sub-elements of that culture. You could have Italians, you could have Irish, and those are in many ways more distinct. You're worried about white culture. You're now retreating to ethnic identity. You don't speak about ethnic identity. You speak about white identity. So tell me the values that stitch together white identity and make it different than black identity. I would say that the white church is very different than the black church in terms of its tone and style on average. Foodways could often be different.

Music could be different. Music could be different. If you look at the Super Bowl halftime show, which was not in English this year. So our ability to access white churches or white food or white music is being erased? I am concerned with the majority common American culture that we had for some time that through particularly mass immigration, I think has become much more balkanized and I think that weakens us. And again, I'm not running away from that comment. I'm not apologizing for it. Well, I'm way over my time. I think you're struggling to answer this question, right? Because underlying your beliefs is a sentiment that white culture is just simply better. Yes. think this Jeremy Karl fault as such. There are people on our side who are trying to argue

and re-litigate this after the fact, to save the argument with other things that I think are not entirely relevant, or to imply that this man had brain blank in the moment. I don't think many people on the right would do much better than he did. As far as I know, This is a smart man and he wrote a good book, but the real huge problem, because it used to be, let's say 2016, you could claim that a teenager armed with talking points from frankly me and my friends and even some 4chan memes would be able to out-argue a liberal journalist or politician, and you saw this regularly in Twitter exchanges. That's obviously not the case anymore. This is Jeremy Karl's fault only in so far, as he has replaced his own knowledge and study

and judgment for that of the so-called discourse on our side, which has degenerated, greatly declined in a telephone game, where we are now in the position of the left from before, in a bubble, unable to address opposing arguments, behaving as if you've never heard opposition arguments, not only because opposition on our side is now treated as treason and cuckery. If you disagree with somebody, the vilest language is used against you. But not only because also they no longer debate with leftists and liberals, but because even on their own terms, you know, on their own ideas, they don't read, they don't think. They only trade memes and prefabricated ideas in chat rooms. And this unfortunate in Jeremy Karl case in particular, again, I don't know him, but I'm

I'm told he wrote actually an excellent book on anti-white discrimination that's probably well researched. It's probably full of examples. He could have easily just talked about that. And instead he got caught up in like musical folkways and black churches or what and trying to get into definitions of white cultures and white whatever. And this is not a question of so-called optics, okay? Actually the other day I speak on the phone with this man. He is big shot nabob in Silicon Valley. I hope I'm not being indiscreet saying that. That's too vague, that's okay. People don't know who I'm saying exactly. But I bring this up on the phone to him and he says, yes, whatever the underlying thing may be, you cannot bring up in public questions of why this and why identity and why talk

and so on because it's coded as low class and it's dismissed. And so even though he may agree with the underlying thing, you can't talk, but I want you to know that's not what I'm saying at all. I told him, and what I tell you now, I'd have no problem with it if Mr. Jeremy Karl had won this argument, spoken like Teddy Roosevelt, for example, who spoke openly about the white man, white destiny, white civilization and such, and what basically sounded like a white nationalist at times, a smart and well-read one, that's a big difference, but that's not not low class at all, not as an exception, the early 20th century progressive almost all spoke that way, you know, you're supposed, many of you are conservatives, you're supposed

to see them as your enemies now, if you're on the right, yes, but they were certainly not low class, so called, whatever that, nor would they be seen as such, you know, so the problem is with the incoherence of the concept of white culture as such, not the associations. civilization or referring to America as a white country, that's different, that's defensible, even if it denies you Senate confirmation. In fact, I think you can win front of Senate openly arguing many extreme things if you are prepared. Go be known if you're well informed, well read on it, if you have examples and know what you're saying. But in my opinion, you cannot win with concepts like white cultures that are traded in online discourse meme complex

in which don't mean anything. I'll try to explain briefly on episode Y and deal with possible counter-arguments. Some friends I told this disagree. That's fine. This summer something bizarre happened. I just want to give you a history of this phrase. Suddenly there is a YouTube channel called Jubilee. Many views came out of nowhere. I have not heard of it from last year. Suddenly, you know, whatever, a million subscribers or something on YouTube, people hyping it. It's fake or in my view scripted debate site where with high production values in a kind of studio setting with an audience, they set up one person in like a hot seat with various young people in a circle taking turns asking questions and as far as I can tell, the point is to make the right wing look completely retarded.

They specifically choose unpleasant looking stupid strident people to represent right views and that does not stop dolls on our side from hyping them up as you know what happened was this one girl Sarah stock you may have heard of her if you're online in recent weeks she was by the way in some bizarre so-called sex scandal which I thought was a distraction the point isn't these people's sex lives I don't care about that but that they're fucking stupid and why are we paying attention to them in the first place and she's there on this Jubilee thing arguing with a Liptard and the Liptard does not answer well either I guess she makes claim that America has a white culture I didn't watch the clip you know but and all of a sudden a bunch of influencers on our side promote

her saying Sarah Stock said the United States has a white culture she is obviously correct I have never heard that before you know like this kind of thing out of nowhere and they continue this way it's it's remarkable first of all, for me to see these kind of phrases from 2008 recycled now under the pretense that there's something terribly new, exciting and striking when it's actually been run through several iterations of argument and debate, had wide exposure already. Excuse me. The point about Jubilee, just to tell you, is they have these libtard journalist Mehdi Hassan or some others in the hot seat and they make bad arguments too, but just because they make bad arguments doesn't mean that the people against them made good ones and they're both saying stupid things.

And the first thing this girl Sarah Stock does after catapulted to whatever national attention bizarrely by influencers on our side, she attacked Bronze Age pervert. And that's standard for any new conservative or pseudo-conservative pundit wannabe, right? Whether it's the opinions editor of the Wall Street Journal who got his start attacking me specifically in the Daily Beast, an Antifa publication, or every basically new dissident right magazine from Kelet to UnHerd to the American Compact magazine, they all take turns attacking me. It's almost like mandatory ritual. Have you attacked BAP yet? And that goes for these new internet influencers as well. Anyway, I found the idea that America has a white culture absurd. It has a specifically Anglo culture.

I said at the time, if you make bad arguments, these ideas are not suffering from lack of exposure. They were exposed plenty in the 2000s in a ridiculous form to be mocked in a stupid form. That is the problem. The whole model of, I will move the overtone window. Well, they were presented numerous times on Law and Order and other libtard episodes. It's just that these people now are willingly acting like the bad guy in those episodes on social media and being a patsy. But America, no, it does not have a white culture. What does that mean? It has an Anglo culture. It is especially an Anglo Protestant culture. A lot of these people have ultimately religious aims and are from ethnic various groups and cannot say that. They feel belittled by saying that. It has an English language.

It has political traditions coming from Magna Carta and similar other English Scottish political philosophers like John Locke and others, Protestant thinkers also, its public manners, political customs, institutions are specifically Anglo, its literature is Anglo, you know, the Harry James, think what you will of him, or Nathaniel Hawthorne, they come out of a specifically Anglo-American milieu, they don't come from Minsk, okay, they don't come from Berlin even, it's American, it's is English, in a way. And it does not have a white language. Like, what do you mean, Albanian, Belorussian? It's Anglo. Furthermore, it has significant African or black component to its culture, however you define that. I know this will offend some on my side, but it's not deniable.

The main cultural exports of America now are significantly black in terms of its music and sports and clothing styles and even slang, which basically are, in my view, it's pretty pathetic. but much of white youth has adopted similar language, you know, code switches, whatever, but black culture has always been, even aside from this, huge component of American life, and it's absurd for, right, this is a Polish immigrant girl, by the way, Sarah, whatever, to claim that she has a superior claim to American culture by virtue of her biological race, which is what's implied in her saying America has a white culture, you know, but that the black person's ancestors who've maybe been here since 1700 right. And it's just an absurd pretense that Polish or Armenian culture is more important

for America than black is, however you define that. Now you'll be attacked on that if you saved. She was not in that jubilee, but if you continue down this line, you will be attacked on that and then you have to defend it because you brought up the unnecessary complication of culture, which is software and it's debatable. America has a white racial majority, a racial majority. That's a different matter. Talk about race if you want, that's different. But of course these people can't talk clearly and without hedging about race either. So the huge problems in America are mainly two as I see it. One is replacement migration from non-white parts of the world as a mass phenomenon. The other problem is the discrimination

against white men specifically in America's leading institutions, whether academia, media, government, corporate or such, and their gradual exclusion in some cases amounting basically, when you look at the statistics, amounting to ethnic cleansing from its top institutions. The definitions that are used to effect this change are biological, they have nothing to do with culture, and it's even entirely in keeping with American norms and even liberal ideals to take what I just said head on, to counter it, to point out that it's a terrible injustice, it's reducing American and any other norms of merit and fair play, and that the biological definition is the state's definition, and what these institutions are using. That's the ground of the dispute.

What does culture have to do with any of that? Why bring that up? And even if you were to win that argument about culture, it opens up objections, it's just unnecessary. Look, you don't need to. Obviously, I do think, quite aside from the tactical considerations of, will you lose in public, I think it's a bad argument on its own terms. The liberal definition of culture is such that it confuses matters to start with because most normal, even normal intelligent people, they do understand culture as referring to various cultural products, folkways, music and art styles and so on. And they're not entirely wrong on that. And you know, which white American or various white subcultures in America, you know, in that sense, they're not in the danger of being erased.

If you take that definition, they're even fetishized often or at least celebrated, turned into kitsch. Whether it's St. Paddy's Day for the Irish, which as far as I can tell, is getting more popular and prominent in American, you know, Halloween is another Irish cultural distortion of that type, Celtic, whatever. And then there's a resurgence, actually, in many other notable white subcultures like Southern American, so-called Confederate, it's not called that, right, but you see constant celebrations on food TV, culture shows, featuring often ostentatiously gay Southern chef or interior designer or such celebrating that culture in style, you know, oh, that's not what you mean? Because, yeah, I know it's not, it's a defanged stupid, see, I know what you mean, and I agree with it.

The problem is that these memes and traded ideas don't say what you mean. So they are open to catastrophic counterargument, especially if you're not prepared, but I think even if you are. A natural outcome, another consequence of Jeremy Karl's view of white culture of what I just played for you and its supposed need for preservation or endangerment by erasure is that you would be happy in that case with a reservation system where white people were kept as Indians are, and maybe their culture preserved in a kind of country fair. We can have monthly white celebration country fair, would you be happy? And Chinese tourists can come and admire, and maybe even some elegant museums, you can curate them. And public respect for your white culture and identity, so-called, would you be happy

with that? Would you be happy with a liberal state declaring that all cultures and identities are sacred and valuable and equally protected, and that the individual has the right and the expectation to assume now this and now that identity, now this and now that culture, and to seamlessly move in between them, and maybe even to mix and match forms and to have multiple layered cultural affiliations. That's a big thing in liberal, political, civil society theory. Yes, that would not please you, right, of course, I must tell you that there are even some white nationalists who demand maybe even unknowingly exactly that. But most non-pathological people who care about these things would sense that anything on that spectrum is a failure mode, it's a joke.

Because what's at stake is not culture in that sense or its erasure or even survival, but hegemony, the ability of this or that group to have sovereignty in a state, to determine its future and yes, to decide its public aspects, including things you might mean by culture. But first, at least to be able to get rid of the racist discrimination against whites. And in that sense, most of what you, uh, most of your brain damaged because you've adopted the second, third order distortions of online discourse and you will collapse on public challenge even with a maroon like Senator Murphy in that clip or whatever. They attack my throat. I'll be right back. Yes, I come back. There is also a new political party in England called Restore.

I usually wait for local anime friends to decide how I always outsource to local animes in any country. I did this on Argentina, and it was very notable that the so-called Nazi animes were all very hot for me later, despite what yes, the so-called right wing and conservatives in United States who wanted to be against me because whatever, but then the Nazi anime in Argentina were so I defer to them. And I'm waiting to see now how the ones in England will decide on this new political party in England, Restore, and it's presenting itself as more based, more whatever, more dedicated to deportations than Nigel Farage of Reform Party. I can't comment on it in detail. I don't know enough to accept to tell you that it has no chance of winning, either now or in the short run.

And the whole reasoning of the new party, in my view, must be that, well, you intend, have a plan to win eventually, like soon in the next five to ten years, you know, second order intentions such as, oh I plan to force or nudge this other party to be more pure or more committed to the things that I want. I don't think these plans are good because you're assuming you know how people will react. You're assuming they will be threatened by my radicalism and move in my directions. You don't know that. In this case it may be that reform will feel threatened and forced to be stronger on migrations and deportations as a result of this so-called threat from its right, but it may also be that reform can be forced to go in the other direction

and to make an alliance with Badenoch of the Tories, which would be very bad. So you know, when you act with these PR second-order intentions, you're assuming you're smarter than you are and can predict things. But again, I don't want to say against this party because I think that my anime friends perhaps want to see where they can get jobs and so forth. Why would you, who listen to me, care about it either way, right? But that's kind of my point. I mean, these parties don't have a chance to win anyway, so there you go. But usually these kinds of efforts are just ways for the supposed politician to promote his media career somehow. And it feels to me like many people in the restore do not have political intentions in the UK. They have media intentions in America.

They seek engagement, aping of forms of the American online discourse that they think gets engagement, but don't really translate in real life either to England or Europe. are other copycat efforts in like Germany and so on, like this strident Christian nationalism thing will not do well in the United States, but it has no legs at all in Europe, which is far more secular, far more hostile to aggressive religious signaling, let alone of one particular denomination. So that isn't even historically dominant in these countries. So anyway, let's see what happens. They may be good, and I await the judgment of the London scene of, let's say, jacques and English anime friends. And I will riff for a moment, though, on one mistake that I see restore making, which is not unique to it.

I'm not picking on it, but it's shared by political actors or pretend political actors in America and the rest of Europe also. Here is an example of their messaging. I'm reading a tweet for you now. A healthy family, a home of your own, a fulfilling job, a decent wage, minimal taxes, friendly neighbors clean streets beautiful buildings proper schools world-class hospitals thriving towns safe cities well-kept countryside are you getting are you getting excited yet secure demographics what okay competent government a nation at peace with itself and the world free yourself from the gray miserable vision of the previous paradigm allow yourself to believe we are great before and we will be great again restore Britain from one of their

operatives presented with a medieval English village type photo and so on. Nothing against this guy. I don't know him. I'm sure he thinks I'm a Mossad agent or claims to think that or maybe not. But let's take a step back. I think this confused messaging, the tweet is very reasonable actually. But that's the problem. It's political boilerplate and it's a fundamentally boomer conservative and even very moderate program and it doesn't profit, therefore, from being presented in the most provocative and radical manner, radical possible, let alone you associate it with a particular religious belief or denomination. Of course you can agree with it, but why can't it be presented in, let's say, Lee Kuan Yew maybe style as moderate, centrist, technocratic, doesn't mean you can't be charismatic.

He spoke very well, Lee Kuan Yew, but this is what actually is in its content. some kind of common-sense conservatism. This party, though, wants to self-present as exceptionally edgy and based and radical and so on. And I understand why they want that, because that can greatly help your media exposure and sets you out against, you know, you're not just another bourgeois conservative party. But that makes you a kind of pundit or media performance artist. It's not somebody with political aims. So these types also in America, they want it both ways. They actually have ultimately a very uninspiring, even if correct, you know, correct political program. I agree with it, but it's not inspiring. They want the allure of being edgy internet Nazis because that can maybe inspire people

culturally, but that doesn't work politically. So this false mainstream radicalism or mainstreaming attempt of frog views that's been, you know, off and on since 2015, people have tried to take this into the real world. The problem is that you can't, it doesn't transfer in the real world, it can't inspire anything great, it only compromises both our ideas and the reasonable political program that you are actually promoting. You know, an inspiring thing actually would be eugenics. I'm not saying it would be possible to advocate that openly politically now, but you know, that's inspiring. Transnational ruling case, the Neo-Spartan techno-empires, inspiring for the future, for some. The problem is if you go that way, you can't pretend to be a viable modern

political party. This is what I mean. They want the allure of the novel and sexy ideas while also bait switching and presenting a rather mundane populist bourgeois program, which I have no problem with. I mean, that's, you know, Trump also does that. And maybe that's what's needed. But not with this huffing and puffing that actually discredits the program also makes a mockery of the ideas or rather aesthetics that are associated now with that kind of posturing in a vague way, you know, with this style. You're not actually radical you see, you know, but just be yourself, there's nothing wrong with that. So this whole thing, in another tweet they talk about the Saxons and they have this again very self-serious, I mean that's the problem, the humorlessness of all this, the earnest,

you are an Anglo-Saxon, act like it, okay. I mean, it's embarrassing, I mean, there's an image of a Saxon war helmet mask with chromatic scan line, you know, kind of camera glitch edit, you know, like that's ten years outdated. It's like coming, it's like the DeSantis people coming with vaporwave, whatever, neon eyes edits whenever DeSantis was in 2024, whatever, recycling stuff from, you know, 2015, okay, which I'm sorry to tell you, by now that's mostly used for some years only in transsexual tranny antifa edits, making fun of white nationalists and identitarians, because, okay, it's not radical, whatever you may think, like repurposed old internet schlock. This whole thing has the atmosphere of what I've told you, like Hillel community center

or like after-school church special youth outreach. Hey, we're using the youth sign, but it's like 10 years outdated, you know? And like the only people who use that now are anti-white trannies, that style. It's become a complete parody of itself. So anyway, welcome back, I tell you, to the episode. I keep needing to take, I made orange juice with coffee and ice cube. That's a thing now in cafes, but I've been drinking that for a while, it goes quite well. I discussed some of these matters in episode 103 of Caribbean Rhythms, I mean these matters of identity. That episode may be too long, but includes, if you listen to it, includes a good attack on the concept of identity, which in my view is foolishly embraced by the right, although there are older, better words,

like peoplehood and yes, race and such, these would be more suitable. I explained there why, and I'd have in this case of what I'd been talking about with the Jeremy Carr fiasco in Senate and the whole white culture debate, I would have no problem if that man was talking about white civilization, for example, or the white race instead of white culture. So let me take that back, actually. I would object to that if he hadn't thought about it in detail and would be able to expound his own position with his own personal thought and words when challenged on it. It's just that the concept, though, of white culture as such is incoherent, I think. You don't have to go back to 19th century German debates on the difference between culture and civilization.

I say to you that the word civilization, even when you use it casually, it hits different in the moment. White civilization, white culture, it hits different, I think, even to the casual listener. It's understood in an intuitive sense that civilization doesn't necessarily just refer to art style or just ways of self understanding or ways of being that is a material concrete objective basis implied by the word civilization. It's much more political in a way. And the problem with the word culture, which can mean 200 things, and so opportunities for misunderstandings and bait and switch are endless. You can easily fall into traps. From the point of view of a normal listener, again, it's not possible to disambiguate.

You need to further clarify just like music and art styles, that's what they understand, which makes the whole thing dead on arrival. And getting past that, if you want to go to the 19th century German nationalist concept of culture, which actually that's what's meant by some of these people, the problems are that in the meantime, since the 1800s, that new redefinition of culture, new at the time, And it was itself, by the way, very possibly faulty, but even since then, it's come to mean something else. So right now you can casually refer to stoner culture, surfer culture, black culture, gay culture, transsexual culture, and many other such subcultures with varying degrees of reality. There's not clear where white culture fits on that scale. How did it happen?

I don't want to give you the historical lecture, but very quickly, culture had meant at one point more or less human cultivation as such not tied to a particular time and place necessarily and then it came to mean particular national or ethnic or temporal cultures and it appears that very strong in 19th century and then in various permutations in other thinkers like Spengler and Heidegger. I think Nietzsche is the most profound thinker on this but the short of it is it came to mean this or that culture, right, Greek culture, Russian culture, whatever. But now it's come to refer also to sub-national, even various supranational groups and various invented groups too. So a lot of this is a very unclear reality. To what extent does gay culture exist, for example?

I'd say it's a complete invention and yet it recognizably exists very strongly. Everyone knows what you mean when you say that. You can go to any major American city and many foreign ones, there is a gay district, They have their own recognizably distinctive ways of speech, of dress, a complex of heterogeneous but often recognizably similar tastes in various things even ranging from food and drink, similar sexual practices, of course, similar disease biomes often, and many times similar ways of thinking phraseology. I mean, it's not just intonation and the lisp or whatever, but it's really quite remarkable for what actually, in reality, it amounts to a very recent constructed public identity. Its basis is a series, in my opinion, of unrelated pathologies of differing etiology, and yet

it has created for itself a quite publicly and privately strong, recognizable culture and enough solidarity that they punch way above their weight socially, politically, in culture so-called at large, whatever that means. I'd say actually the gay identity by 2025 has a lot stronger reality than many national cultures that are certainly far weaker. Ukrainian identity basically did not exist until 15 or 20 years ago. Let's not start that. I discussed that at length on episode 103. Of course since then I've stopped talking about the Russia war. People used to say I was the most psychotic zigger pro-Russian. It's not true, but they used to say that about me in 2022. I don't like to talk about this anymore. I feel very bad what's happened to Ukraine and so forth.

But I still won't deny that the Ukrainian identity is basically a complete invention. And what the hell is Tanzanian or Malawi identity? Have you ever been to Burundi? Do you want a worm? There's a certain worm, it whacks up your nose while you sleep and it scones itself in your brain, slowly wasting your way. My friend Druk Pakhandi says this, you go to Burundi. Now let me talk for a moment about what American culture and so-called America, whether it has a white culture, what it means. It certainly has a very Anglo-American culture and identity that is old and powerful. It's still present in large swathes of the country in the south. I would deny that it's still, you know, that that can still be completely identified with present-day American culture.

America right now, if it has a common culture at all, and I don't know that it does, okay, But let's say it does. I have a friend who insists it does. And that Jeremy Carlin testimony made mistake getting caught up in talking about music or art or whatever, when what matters, I said this myself in the post about it, sure what matters is it's Anglo-political culture, it's political traditions and language. Things like respect for the rights of Englishmen, respect for free speech and many other such things. There's so-called neutral third party enforcement of contracts, sounds, academic and boring phrase but actually what it means very plainly what you heard and it's very hard to establish in any country, it's quite rare still today, it's something that America with force was

not able to instill in Iraq or that's the problem, you can export democracy but not what I just said, neutral third party enforcement of contracts, a main maybe core feature of liberalism, not democracy. And the problem here, though, is, yes, it's definitely a specialty of the Anglo traditions and spheres, but there are also non-white places that offer and approximate that and many white places that don't. Japan, for example, and Singapore, which those two very clear, but also, yes, Barbados and Botswana, frankly, that black countries that do that pretty well, even compared to some, let's say, Slavic countries. There aren't, you know, on their own are not deadly counterarguments. The America itself, it's true that as white

share has decreased, so has respect for things like free speech. And this is one to one. I mean, I saw this myself briefly as academic, whatever, I was hardly that, but briefly, what I saw was basically only the white kids had any respect for the idea of free speech. You hear that, professors and other academics, you were very foolish to allow that change in universities. Obviously, not all white kids, but of the people who had respect for free speech, it was almost 100% white kids. And non-whites had almost uniformly found it objectionable or limited in some way. And nevertheless, the problem though, you define things in this way, it becomes arguable. I had friends say, well, it's a matter of high

trust. You know, the old distinction sociologically, high trust, low trust cultures. And white culture means high trust and low crime and this. Well, let me address this for a moment. I think the concept high trust, low trust is inadequate as such. Technically, it does mean something very precise like belief in public institutions, you know, willingness to forgo family and clan connections in favor of public state institutions, that type of thing, and reciprocally those institutions acting fairly and efficiently. The situation becomes confused when you mix it up with crime and other casual understandings of what means high trust day to day. Sicily is actually very low crime area. You define high trust by certain public behaviors like can you walk on street without getting bothered or most

notably I've seen people say, you know, this very notable example, can you leave your wallet on the train or on the street and have it returned to you in full. And so actually Sicily is like Japan. It's one of the only places in the world where that thing with the wallet is true. And that's because the mafia enforces that. And yet Sicily, because of things like the mafia, is the archetype example, the prime academic example of low-trust society. So the everyday casual use isn't actually what these words mean technically, and it's not certain that what they mean technically is useful. Same by the way with things like the Mediterranean diet, I've talked about that before. It doesn't just mean pasta or things people eat around the Mediterranean now.

But in the academic literature, it means the diet of Cretan, not Cretin, but like peasants from Crete. We'll discuss diet another time. But let's say you take something like the true technical definition of high trust as a core of so-called white culture. And for sure, America has an Anglo culture that has aspects that you can call high trust in its public institutions, political traditions and such. To some extent, let's not forget, contrary, went through a Tammany Hall phase as a result of its Ellis Island waves of immigrant corruption. And FDR then permanently changed the state to a clientelist spoils system. That's what the New Deal is. It's a fancy way for a vote buying scheme, in my opinion, and that present day immigration

system itself also is a kind of ethnic racket, initially by the Kennedy types, by organized Jewish interests, and by Catholic Lutheran and other church interests. But finally, it's been hijacked by all kinds of ethnic entrepreneurs on the DNC side who use it vote mill as a vote mill and corruption machine. But okay, let's forget all that. I'll grant you this. There are still big problems with it. One, that if you reduce American culture to this aspect, or let's say the residues of Anglo fair play that somewhat still exist, and let's say certain speech styles, or I saw a tweet actually right before recording, white culture means not talking in the cinema. I'm sorry, that's a kind of pathetic reduction of what culture means.

I mean, sure, a second generation Slovak, I can recognize that they speak and talk American, okay, if they grow up in America. But the problem is I've met Croatian teenagers in split Croatia, they also spoke American to me. I was shocked. They spoke American with manner and intonations and without, you know, any, I've seen this in Brazil too, by the way, they speak English better than me from, I have speech impediment, I cannot say the English pronunciation, they can, the American pronunciation, they learned it from TV. See what I'm saying? to know how that's a real thing and more real than the gay culture. It's a very thin basis for culture, for anything meaningful. Furthermore, if I can show you that certain non-white immigrant groups can partake more

or less fully in these aspects, to the point where if you deny it, you'd be quibbling, then this whole thing is a deadly fault, a deadly objection, because it's unclear then if white culture as software belongs only to whites because it originated with Anglo-Saxons, Or can be more or less assimilated by others, like if an Albanian can do it, why can't somebody from Azerbaijan or even Iraq, I mean, there are very educated people in Iraq, you know, there are Chaldeans and so I don't want to get into that. But if it can be proven that whatever you mean by it can be appropriated by let's say high quality immigrant minorities, then from my point of view, that's a losing position because I actually do want a specifically white racial majority state regardless of culture. Culture is changeable.

Culture, custom changes anyway. So if you look at Hong Kong immigrants, many South Indian immigrants, not actually South Indian immigrants, people from Kerala State, Tamils and so on, Tamil Brahmins and so on, and even Nigerians who in the United States, Nigerians are some of the highest educated immigrant group and quite a few others, I guess many can approximate these aspects very well. And meanwhile, I think massive corruption rings will be uncovered in California, already they're known, will be shown to run not only non-white ethnics but white ones as well, especially Armenians who in that jurisdiction tend to be blonde often, by the way, and quite a few other ex-Soviet whites and so forth. And so you say, well, exceptions don't disprove the rule, but there are too many exceptions

and the problem is it makes it disputable. You can easily be put on back foot in public debate. And I think it's a case where there are so many exceptions in fact and qualifications it makes it an unusable concept, I'm sorry. It's confused often in the moment even by very experienced debaters with low crime. Also there's that problem and that brings up especially killing counterarguments. For example that Asian immigrant neighbourhoods of various kinds often have far lower crime rates than many white and white ethnic neighbourhoods. I think, I don't know, it's possible Boston's South Sea has become tamed and gay now, but it used to be much safer to, say, walk through Vietnamese Chinatown Boston than through South Boston or Charlestown, which were tough Irish neighborhoods.

And it's not just white ethnics, by the way, there are others. Consistently Asian Americans have very low crime rates. So what? Are you saying we should import a billion Vietnamese, Chinese, and others, and then call it a day, move to their neighborhoods? See what I'm saying? These kinds of pseudo-definitions of culture or being or peoplehood by emergent side effect qualities and I'd say even IQ, that's another kind of cope that easily counteracted. And furthermore, things change. Some decades, and I mean decades, not centuries, I mean recently. Decades ago Japan was not so high trust as you think nor as safe. They had crime waves. America's Ellis Islanders were gangsters, public almshouse users, ethnic mafias, all.

The counterargument is that if you can change that so fast, then so can new immigrants be similarly so-called assimilated. And you end up then fending all kinds of examples of exceptions, which caused by the fact that if you don't want or can't accept the political-cultural understanding of peoplehood, which really makes all these questions irrelevant, okay, and that's what it comes from. You're left trying to fend off, well, it won't be like the Irish, because when they come now they get on welfare but what about these ones that don't get on welfare you see it just keeps I don't bloody think Ernst Röhm was going around talking about white culture on crime rates or IQ you know he was as Mugabe said about the the English he was a gay gangster

leading the gay Nazi gay gangster gay street government okay just read it I don't know yeah not talking in cinema white culture I I swear to you I just read that I did not set that up, I saw this before recording, and that level of very thin, very gay actually definition where the people who are docile sit in an office and do not speak out in cinemas, and these secondary, tame qualities, right, and I'm not saying there's nothing there, but that's not enough to sustain, right, it easily mimics speech styles, for example, which aren't even constant because youths now frequently code-switch between themselves and they speak black between themselves and then white in public. The United States was a place, a territory, with a clear culture of its own.

I would like it if Robert Redford people were truly culturally and politically homogenous. I'll just say that. Is it that? Or is the United States in fact a technology in which various subcultures, some maybe most Mutually hostile and some partly unreal are in a clash in competition, right the chamber pot model, right? Not the melting pot. I'm sorry if I attack I wish it were not so I want to know how you are not gay I want to know how you're not transsexual. I will be right back I've lived so long, when I was your age, you were always there And I didn't know how long, when I was your age I thought I'd come back to you It was a beautiful night, like many three years ago

I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you, I saw you Yes, and I come back and at risk of boring you with with repetition, to get into these debates about culture and white culture and so forth, you don't need to touch the idea of culture one way or another to argue for the preservation of a white racial majority in the United States, which you can even do indirectly and with reference if the worldwide racial majority bothers you. You can do it just with reference to voter consent for bringing in new people for whatever a reason, nor do you need it to argue against the ethnic cleansing of white men from America's top institutions and so forth. Again, it's a non-starter.

It's such a stupid complication to get mired, expanded now into whether such a thing as yellow culture, for example, or Asian culture exists, which somebody predictably brought as counterargument. And then people try to argue against him and he's an idiot, but the people arguing against Tim also, obviously it doesn't exist, there's no such thing as Asian culture, you know, just take a situation in East Asia to start, right, to claim there's such a thing as Asian culture because of mutual borrowings or because of pensions by China's neighbors to take an appropriate certain things from it. I think that plays bait and switch with the definition of culture. From an external point of view, you can claim some similarities in historical dress, architecture and the like, even city planning.

I've talked about some, regarding especially the unsavory favela-like aspect of Asian, but really actually all non-white cities. But these cultures never understood themselves as united in any way, never valued the same kinds of things and type of life. Even when they adopted some of the outward forms, they were in fact very hostile to each other. Mongol and other steppe Asians are extremely different in character from settled Han Chinese and maybe even the opposite as well as being almost constant mortal enemies throughout their existence. And they never had the same languages, ideals, even religions, I would argue, ways of life or, again, anything that could denote a common culture. does not make it. I have examples of Greeks who like the Japanese, they borrowed from

others all the time. These two cultures just love taking from others. And frequently the Greeks took things from Egyptians and Babylon to the point where there is a joke, there's some meme of Greek understanding themselves as heirs of Egypt in many different respects and yet it wasn't true in any level. It's not true historically, it's not true culturally, It was not actually felt to be true in their day-to-day life or the things that they culturally produced, but they had this fanciful story that they said about themselves and they did take some outward things. They took also the alphabet that you use from the Phoenicians and maybe even the institutions of the Senate from the Phoenicians, the Council of Elders, but the two peoples never had any shared culture.

They saw themselves as mortal antagonists. It's funny, they literally erased each other's cities and civilization in the Mediterranean and wiped each other's people out. They fought over Sicily. The reason, you know, you don't have a Phoenician language in Sicily now is because the Greeks and then the Romans wiped them out there. And they freely borrowed from each other culturally in just this sense. So which is not necessarily a superficial sense either. But the way to speak, for example, of a Near East culture because of Egypt, Levant, Babylon, Anatolia, Greeks, and Phoenicians borrowed from each other, that is an outside scholar's perspective. There was never anyone in that sphere who believed themselves part of a common culture or Near East culture.

It didn't fucking exist, you see, and when it eventually did, it existed as Hellenic or Hellenistic culture by virtue of conquest, adopted usually only by small elite in those places but it was just Hellenistic. In the same way as when I pointed out that Japan has always understood itself as China's mortal opponent and even in the realm of ideas and culture, people informed me about a greater co-prosperity sphere, that Japan wanted Asia for the Asians in World War II. Well, that is a modernism that Japan borrowed from the West, actually, and I am not saying that conquerors don't have made-up ideologies to justify taking over other places. But it's very funny that the big project of Japan's Asia co-prosperity sphere was

taking apart China, literally dismantling it as a thing, under the pretense that they were protecting traditional minorities in China from centralization. So if there ever will be an Asian racial culture, which there might be someday, Japan or China at the very least will have to destroy one or the other. Yes, on that sense there will one day be a yellow culture, but there hasn't been so far. And many other things that get called cultures from history are entirely constructs of modern day observers that were not anything of the sort at the time. One of the biggest questions being so-called Greco-Roman culture, which I'm not sure existed in the way people think. certainly Nietzsche didn't think it did. Now that's disputable, but I tend to side with

him on these matters, but let's take that though as a widely accepted example of cultural unity, union, syncretism, synthesis, call it what you want. You had in the Roman world though men like Cicero and others who wrote better in Greek than in Latin. I don't know if analogous things existed, even let's say in the Japanese world where there was intense interest at times in Chinese literature. But I don't think there was a case where you had someone like a Japanese famous statesman or philosopher who wrote better Chinese than Japanese or that level of cross-cultural adoption as the Greeks and the Romans or rather the Romans took from the Greeks. But again, I do think Nietzsche is right. I think he says only fools speak about the Roman passion or love for Greek culture or

They were really in love with certain aspects of Greek culture like the Greek history or the Greek actor. This charm, the Romans and their adoption of Greek culture is not what people think it is. But anyway, even that would never convince me if you showed me like a Japanese statesman who spoke as good Chinese as he did Japanese. You can have cultures that are quite different maybe from each other and they form a unity of sorts. After all, a man and a woman are different, and often a husband and wife can be very different and still get along and such in a harmonious household, and in that union, by the way, the Greek would be the female and the Roman the male, but cultures are never self-contained anyway.

See, when you get into this, there are some male cultures and they seek others, and then there are some female cultures, they seek to be fertilized, and in the case of Japan and China, they've had plenty of back and forth, especially from Japan's side, engagement right, there are gentlemen's anime in my replies who are making some very good points at length about the number of Japanese thinkers who saw themselves at one end as appreciators of Chinese literature and poetry, at the other end even as inheritors of the Mandate of Heaven from China after they thought China became degenerated. And even in the Meiji Restoration, when samurai Japanese factions overthrew the shogun to supposedly re-establish the direct rule of the emperor.

And through this pretense, they modernized Japan very rapidly. And in that process, you know, they very much emphasized this distinction between Buddhism as a foreign and maybe Chinese import versus Shinto, the native animist religion of Japan, which was never actually clearly distinguished in Japanese history and still isn't in practice. In other words, you can go to a Buddhist temple in Tokyo, it will have a Shinto shrine of its own, and it's just like Islam and Christianity are often adapted and some say highly distorted by local pagan animist cults. Wherever rural you go in the developing world, or even in Latin America and recently even in parts of Europe, Buddhism is very much like that at the day-to-day level, especially of the people.

And it's very much mixed with all kinds of other things in practice. Sorry to go on tangent, this interests me. I was in Taiwan recently and there were the main religions, if you can call them that, at the everyday level that seamlessly integrated into each other in a kind of folk version. You go into certain temples and it's unclear where the lines between these three religions are. And this is why French show me an image allegory. Imagine three mountain peaks, right? But as you go down at the base, they are all connected. So like one big mountain, a common base of one mountain from which rise three distinct peaks. And that's an image allegory that this is Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism at the high and the self-conscious level of the theorist, the intellectual, the high priest and the

theologian, they are of course very distinct. But at the level of the base, the people, the national culture, they're all rooted in that mass and form a seamless union. That's actually very Chinese and they borrow in their culture also from Buddhism, right? It's an Indian, maybe actually Sakha step religion, but in any case with Sanskrit scriptures. still venerated in Japan too and in Sanskrit and so on sometimes. So you can talk forever about cross-cultural fertilization. I'd still say that despite sharing that, this very important element of just Buddhism, of religion, that affects way of life and your highest aspirations as a man, it would be nonsense still to speak of anything like Indo-Japanese, Indo-Chinese

culture. It's really very odd the people saying this. Many of them want to deny there's such a thing as Judeo-Christian although these things share scriptures and values and ways of looking at the world and lately they go you know their clerics are friends and do all this interfaith bullshit whatever and from the outside from people who don't believe that barely distinguishable and in fact despite tensions historically they're not as unfriendly even in the past, as many like to claim. But I'm saying the same people who deny Judeo-Christian as a thing want to claim that Japanese and Chinese form a common culture of some sort, although Chinese and Japanese never understood it that way, you know, like yellow culture or whatever.

And they have actually radically different conceptions of the world, ways of life and characters, which you can see if you go in person to these, you know, just this small sphere – Korea, China, Japan – without even looking at Southeast Asia or the steppe. But even those, they don't feel like you're in the same cultural sphere in any of those countries. And actually, I'm in this case, less crudely racist than the people who naively speak of Asian or yellow culture, as if something more than very superficial united – Bali, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Japan – because being actually interested in those histories and cultures, I've noticed something very peculiar, that China's neighbors have a special relationship that's only vaguely analogous to anything outside.

By the way, I went a long tangent. I started to talk about the Meiji restoration in Japan. Well, that very nationalist restoration was still, I think, heavily influenced by Chinese literature on one hand was my interlocutor's point, and that's true. They rejected the outside and yet they had quite a lot of imports in phraseology and letters and so on from classical Chinese and especially Confucian literature. That's true. I don't think it means that they share the common culture. The famous Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which I think means something like peaceful land or let the land be made peaceful, and it's borrowing from a Confucian classic, the Annals of spring and autumn. Sure, things like that happen. But yeah, I very much doubt still

that Yasukuni is therefore a Chinese-Japanese syncretism. Please tell that to a Japanese person. But anyway, China's neighbors, I'm telling you, have a very special relationship to the Middle Kingdom. It's only vaguely analogous to say Rome versus the periphery in Europe. In fact, it's extremely tense, it's hostile, even existential. And in the case of Rome, by the way, as much as the ideal endured as a unifying theme later European history, no one would be so insane to say the Germanic tribes, for example, even when they traded heavily with the Romans and wore Roman clothes and drank wine, as some did in South Germany, and spoke Aryan languages, oh, I love that one, right? The Greeks and the Persians estranged Aryan brothers.

Nothing to do with each other, their cultures or any aspect of it really. I guess Herodotus says that the Persians borrowed boy love from the Greeks. I don't know. I don't think Greek nationalists like to bring that up. But anyway, I don't think you can speak of anything like a common culture between ancient Germanics and Romans as opposed to mutually hostile cultures and civilizations. But to go back to the relationship of China's neighbour to China, and it's not just the steppe Asians or the Tibetans who might as well be a different species of man from the typical East Asian that you stereotypically imagine, but the Vietnamese and the Koreans and others too. Their attitude towards China, and I don't know that Japan ever saw it as anything but

an existential struggle, and other Asians in the region have the same posture, and I'll for you now how Manchu saw China. It's the last Chinese imperial dynasty. Basically, they were an Eskimo-like people from the Taiga, from Siberia, Tungusic people who took over China. In the 1600s, to set up the Qing dynasty, let me read for you. Ever suspicious of the Han Chinese, the Qing rulers put into effect measures aimed at preventing the absorption of the Manchus into the dominant Han Chinese population. Han Chinese were prohibited from migrating into the Manchu homeland, and Manchus were forbidden to engage in trade or manual labor. Intermarriage between the two groups was forbidden. In many government positions, a system of dual appointments was used.

The Chinese appointee was required to do the substantive work and the Manchu to ensure Han loyalty to Qing rule." And that's from a book edited by such and such, China Country Study, Washington, 1987. Do you like this? There is your yellow culture for you, you know, so like you can borrow food styles and architecture inspo and even admiring the literature and thinkers of another country doesn't mean actually that you can speak of two places having shared cultures. I insist on this and if you're to look from what goes on in East Asia to the United States, is there such a thing as Asian culture in America? What do you expect such thing to exist because many different Asian people come to live now United States, outsiders who are not so sensitive and don't care, they think they're

the same, they look the same, they lump them in together, right? And the same way people online think as Asian culture in Asia would think maybe even more so in the United States, they can't tell whatever Koreans apart from Chinese. I ask you what that would be though. There's certainly Japanese-American, Chinese-American, et cetera, Filipino, Viet, Hmong, Korean subcultures, but they're on the whole a little hostile to each other, still in the United States. And when they have actually any Asianic identity, what means, what's Asian culture in America? What's an Asian culture in America? Here's the thing. I think it does exist to an extent, but what extent? It's extreme thing. What is it? It's like fusion restaurant and some vague personality forms and some other characteristics

that are properly racial and not really cultural and they're imputed by outsiders often. What's yellow culture in America, right? To the extent it exists, it exists far less than something like gay or even tranny culture. It's a complete weak tea fabrication and no one really identifies with it. No one lives that culture. And I'd argue that if you were to look away from the core of Anglo culture, right, where you do have that for sure, that is the Virginia Tidewater Gentry, the Boston Brahmins, Northeast Yankees like my friend Harvey Mansfield, I hope I'm not being indiscreet, he complained how New Haven became, was where Yankee City then became Italian. They're all different, they're all recognizably part of the same broader Anglo American culture

Add the Scotch Irish in Appalachia too, right? And I would say that is American culture, all of that, the complex of Anglo things. You can add the very old Dutch minority, Dutch New York culture. That's apparently the New York accent again is a Dutch accent. And you can sort of expand that. You can see that's a racial definition because it includes Dutch who are white and whatever. But you know, yeah, the Dutch became Anglo in their public thing too, and some continue to have Dutch as a language at home, I think. But that's very much real. It's its own thing and it's what I think of as the real America, but when you expand beyond that to so-called others who have adopted aspects of this and then call it white culture as opposed to Anglo, I think it becomes much thinner.

It's either superficialities that can easily be adopted by non-whites and often are, like I said, by model minorities that are from Asia, and in my view that does not provide a strong common identity or way of life that brings people together or anything recognizably cultural or else even thinner things like I said you know emergent unconscious whatever high trust low trust or whatever the modern academic constructs in comment sections of Steve Saylor blog it's to my view a pathetic parody of what culture means as an immigrant to to America who admires and respects the American the Anglo that is I would never dream of saying that I share a common culture with an old stock Yankee just because I can code switch and then, you know, we can both act like corporate faggots, whatever.

And the professional office corporate faggot style is derivative of Anglo culture, you know, which I don't know that that's an achievement. I say this all as a long preamble to tell you that by no means am I implying that a A racial white culture as such can't or should not exist, quite the opposite. But the meaning of that, of so-called white culture in its true form, it's actually being one of my main concerns over many years. I'm astounded then when people speak carelessly and make a mess of the concept. Because let me explain now in closing, okay, Europe in its history proper almost never had the intense existential racial oppositions that exist in the Orient, especially by China's neighbors against China like I read for you from the Manchu Sing and such.

There were caste and class distinctions, but even those who were relatively permeable and the European nobility very early on was international with a European context, that is, they were marrying each other across borders. And there certainly is a white or European civilization or culture, but the only form in which it really existed so far is as high culture, scholarly culture, you know, Latin Latin was used as a lingua franca for all scholarly, shit, they attacked my throat. So you know, Latin was used as the common language for scholarly and scientific investigation that made it easy for minds to meet cross-nationally. And then there were high cultural styles that were not only borrowed, but it formed a self-conscious common cultural sphere.

I mean, that was specifically West Europe, okay, like East Europe and Russia were not really part of that. And that's existed though, for sure. And as Nietzsche says, it's extreme dishonest for the 19th century nationalists to pretend there's any real separation historically between German, French, the Low Countries, etc. You know, that sphere, the Austrian domains and the Italian and yes, even the Spanish and English, that whole thing was so permeable in multiple ways that those cultures at their best were never really national. They became a kind of united European culture, you know, and the fact that Europe was confusedly divided between these national states later and these decrepit eventually dynasties, that's a bad thing. I want a racially united Europe.

Mozart and Beethoven, for example, are very much European style composers. And this man, I keep mentioning Nietzsche, but many others tend to look down on the self-consciously nationalist classical music, the other styles that developed in the 19th century, they see it as a betrayal of this, that common culture that had already developed before 1800. I can't tell you how many great Italian composers like Bozzerini or Scarlatti found home in Spain and many other European courts. One of the funniest examples is Florentine stand-up comics. That was a thing starting in the Renaissance, traveling to various European courts and such. For all their fetching, the Jews were also part of that, the same motions that Italians,

like Florentines and Genoese, made providing a transnational professional and banking services to other European countries and so on. Countries is the wrong word, but regions, you know what I mean. That's very much a thing historically, but in present day, it's a joke, right? The present day national cultures of Europe don't share anything except debased, pseudo-Americanized pop so-called culture at one end, and at the other the pathetic last-man institutional bureaucracy of the European Union, the dried-out males and females, the blank eyes, again they pretend to inhabit European culture and identity in the guise of this corporate faggot marionette personality. I've told you what I want, and the work of this age, what it calls for is a united political

Federation or civilization stretching from Alaska to Vladivostok or the other way, not across Asia but the other way around, around the world, right? At least something uniting West Europe, England, the United States and Canada, maybe the rest of the Anglosphere, that would be a minimum but ideally I think also East Europe and Russia, why not? A united world, white civilization that would be able to rule the planet and it can't be democratic, it must be the work of a new-bred caste which sets its sights to the far future and thinks in centuries and millennia, not yearly election or fiscal cycle. And the preconditions for this are my aim, but to speak then in extremely dire and debased conditions that we find ourselves now, when that is very far away from us, to speak in

this situation as if that identity is something that you can just casually assume exists as As opposed to it being, it's actually not a so-called identity, it's a desired empire and race and state that would have to be forged rather than assumed. It's so to me so frivolous this discussion. Still more frivolous is to speak vaguely of such a culture existing, when actually culture would be the crown and the fruit of this effort that could only possibly re-emerge after some years once you have this political achievement. You can't worry about, see when you worry about culture right now, culturally we're completely erect, and everyone is in this modern world, there is no culture as such for real anywhere. And worst of all, and most disgusting when you go down this path, this path are the

fake agitators and white, like white nationalist, pseudo white nationalist women sluts, influencers who post images of ballet or Greek statues or paintings, you know, none of which, you know, none of which they have any actual taste or appreciation or understanding of this, you know, with captions like we are the best people i love our people and our culture right and it's a ballet it's a ballet thing and this bitch okay she doesn't go to ballet or to opera or i can promise you she she doesn't even like those things it's the crassest kind of utilitarian kitsch propaganda is in fact at odds with anything that's supposedly trying to achieve because it makes us all look weak and gay like okay ballet fine a dead art form you can go to ballet now and watch with a bunch of old people love your

race do you understand the only thing this achieves is again to be fodder for memes by trannies and antifa mocking you as weak and pretentious and stupid and this is a way to turn people off this is indulgent actually similar to what late ching the kind of weak resting on laurels oh we are not like those barbarians we are going to celebrate our 200 old national gay calligraphy or lacquer technique instead you know so burn down the museums burn down everything that's not even that's not a living culture it's a self-defense preservation by taxidermy defeat idiots who want to prevent the emergence of any new actual vital culture you know let me read something for you so I'm reading so they are knowledgeable about culture because they generally like to get rid

of culture they behave as if they were doctors while basically they are only concerned with mixing poisons. Thus, they develop their language and their taste in order to explain in their discriminating way why they so persistently disapprove of all offerings of more nourishing cultural food. For they do not want greatness to arise. Their method is to say, see, greatness is already there. In truth, this greatness that is already there is of as little concern to them as what arises out of it. Of that, their life bears witness. Monumental history, meaning this crap kind of celebration of past culture in the hands of people who are quite mediocre themselves, but he say, monumental history is the theatrical

costume in which they pretend that their hate for the powerful and the great of their time is a fulfilling admiration for the strong and the great of past times. In this through this through this guise, they invert the real sense that method of historical observation into its opposite. Whether they know it or not, they certainly act as if their motto were, let the dead bury the living. That's from Untimely Meditations by Nietzsche. And unfortunately, a good number of people who interact with me have exactly that attitude. And I'll close this segment with the Nietzschean definition of culture, which is itself a joke in the sense that we are a joke today. We are so far. And by we, I mean basically almost all present-day mankind in the developed world really.

It's not just white civilization, it's the yellows and parts of others as well. I don't know of any modern nations or regions except maybe, you know, things like Bhutan or the Nuba of South Sudan or various tiny pocket holdouts like that that are often primitive. Maybe that fits the definition I'll read for you anymore. And even that's debatable and those of course are just rustic examples of what I'm about to read. Here it is. The culture of a people, in contrast to that barbarism, was once described, and correctly so in my view, as a unity of the artistic style in all expressions of the life of the people. I will repeat to you, culture is the unity of the artistic style in all expressions of the life of the people.

This description must not be misunderstood as if the issue were an opposition between barbarism and a beautiful style. The people to whom we ascribe a culture should be only in a really vital unity and not so miserably split apart into inner and outer, into content and form. Anyone who wants to strive after and foster the culture of a people strives after and fosters this higher unity and for the sake of a true education works to destroy the modern notion of being educated. He dares to consider how the health of a people which has been disturbed by history could be restored, how the people could find their instinct once again and with that their integrity. Now I want to speak directly about us Germans of the present

day. It is our lot to suffer more than any other people from this weakness of the personality and from the contradiction between content and form. I'll stop reading now. Do you like that? Please consider this what I just said you bastards. And it's not something we or anyone today really has. It's something that can come one day only after the greatest spiritual awakening and the greatest self reforms I will leave you on that until next time BAP out