Speaker 1: Because this is the problem with like a lot of
the text like that is that you you're reading it
and you try and convey the information to somebody else,
and unless you can tie it to something that's happening
now in their life, they're unable to get it.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, and Yaqui's speaking so people it seems
he's esoteric, where he's actually talking about real life and
what we should be, how how we should be processing
things on a daily basis, how how a culture should
should be forming, should should form, how it how it operates,
how who's operating it, because it's always going to be
a very very small group. But the when you try
to relate that to people, especially from the metaphysical, but
when you add the metaphysical to it, so many people
are run away from Yaki because he he in ways
that people just aren't used to hearing everybody. You know,
that's one of the problems with our age politics. Our
age of politics is go vote. If you can deport
this amount of people, everything will be fine. If you
can there's a certain group that's causing all these problems,
and we can just get them to go to their
country and leave our country alone, everything will be fine. No,
that's that's not it at all. That's not it at all.
You can hear all those people and you're still going
to have the same problems you have. Unless you address
high culture issues and you address metaphysical issues.
Speaker 1: It starts.
Speaker 2: I mean you literally have you have people talk about
boomers and they're like, oh, boomers, you know, we just
people will get over their Zionism and their their worship
of Israel once the boomers are gone. Really you think that, huh,
how's that going to happen? You don't think that. You
don't think it's being passed down. You don't think that
there is something that something could happen, something could happen
that causes them to you know, some kind of attack,
some kind of thing like oh, I don't know, something
happened like nine to eleven where people put their guard
put their guards down, you know, start calling people third
world this again, because it's like, hey, wait a minute,
there's this group out there that's really trying to destroy
our enemies and are really trying to or at least
weaken our enemies. And but you know, you're a third
world this if you support them in doing that. I mean, really,
people just people think this is simple. Isn't simple. Yes,
it's one of the you know, tie it back into Yaki.
People read Yaki and they're like, I don't get it
because it's not simple and it's not for everyone.
Speaker 1: Yes, it literally is not for everyone. That's that's actually
the whole point. And one thing I seem to keep
stumbling on is the for a bunch of guys that really,
you know, say they value greatness and individual achievement and
hierarchy and aristocracy and all of these things, all of
that shit goes out the window the moment that they
start to get the feeling that they're not in it right, like, oh, hierarchy,
I'm not at the top of this, or I don't
understand this. Oh well I don't like it anymore. It's
the same. It's the it's the crabs in the bucket
thing that we seem to knee jerk our way into
really quick, because as soon as this starts to happen,
they immediately, like people immediately start inviting. And to your point,
I mean, this is where you know, you start you
start getting called the third worldist. And the reason that
that even is possible, whether it's third worldist or whether
you know, oh you're just a trumper or basically I'm
trying to think of all the little different type of infighty.
It's actually crazy, like being off of Twitter for a
couple of weeks and like the drama like is actually
hard to remember. But the reason that that happens is
because the same reason why even if you sent all
those people back to their country, even if you send
all the peoples, not just the ones that are causing
the problems, not just those specific people, all right, you
get them to go live in their place in the levant,
but you get all the Indians to live in India,
you got all the Mexicans to go back to Mexico,
it isn't going to help you any for the same
reason that as soon as people start disagreeing with you
or in order of operations of things, you start attacking them.
Because the reason that's sending all those people back is
because you don't actually have a You can't position yourself,
you can't worrient yourself in a culture right, you are
not expressing you are you're not on a mission basically right,
because the person that is possessed by a high culture
right or is in the process of being possessed in
the process of bringing that high culture about. That person
has a purpose like his. There is no period of
time where he does not know exactly what he is about. Right,
it's not you know, the will like, it's not ideologies,
it's ideals, and we don't have those. And this is
why as soon as there's any tactical disagreement, any broad
strategy disagreement, we are impossible to coalesce because none of
us is being actually moved. Well, some of us are,
and a whole bunch of other people that don't realize
that they're not going to get it no matter what
we do, are not really falling into place. Right, No
one is willing to say, I don't know what the
thing is, so maybe I just don't have an opinion
on this one. We don't have. The left can paint
you a picture of exactly what it looks like when
they win. It won't be a good picture. There'll be
slight variances, but we can't even do that. I ask
one person like, oh, I'm a Nietzschean vitalist type whatever,
and then oh, I'm a trad CAF monarchy, like these
are just words. You're not moving with like there's no
purpose behind you. If you believe those things, you're not
moving to bring them about. You just think they sound cool.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: One of the things that Yaqui says is he says
a high culture, in the course of its fulfillment, acts
in all directions of thought and action, and on every
person within the area.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: He says the intensity of its action in a given
direction depends on the culture's soul. Some of the cultures
have been in passion have been passionately historical, like the Chinese,
some completely ahistoric, like the Indian. Some have developed massive technics,
like the Egyptian and our own. Some have ignored technics,
like the classical and Mexican. The intensity of the impression
of the culture on individuals is proportional to their receptivity
of spiritual impressions. The individual of small soul and limited
horizon lives for himself because he understands nothing. He doesn't
understand anything else. To such a man, Western music is
merely an alternate alternate up and down loud and soft.
Philosophy is mere words. History is a collection of fairy tales,
even the reality of which is not inwardly felt. Politics
is the selfishness of the great military conscription of burden,
which his lack of moral courage forces him to accept. Thus,
even his individualism is a mere denial of anything higher,
and not an affirming of his own soul the extraordinary man.
The extraordinary man is the one who puts something else
before his own life in security, even as he faced
a firing squad, William Walker could could have saved his
life by merely renouncing his claim to the President of Nicaragua.
To the common man, this is insane. The common man
is unjust, but not on principle. He is selfish, but
is incapable of the imperative of Ibsen's exalted selfishness. He
is a slave of his passions, but incapable of higher
sexual love. For even that as an expression of culture,
primitive man simply would not understand Western erotic if it
were explained to him, this sublimation of passions into metaphysics.
He lacks any sort of honor and will submit to
any humiliation rather than revolt. It is always leader natures
who revolts. He gabbles in the hope of winning, and
if he loses, he whimpers. He would rather live on
his knees than die on his feet. He accepts the
loudest voice as the true one. He follows the leader
of the moment, but only so far, and when the
leader is eclipsed by a new one, he points out
his record of opposition. In victory, he is a bully.
In defeat, he is a lackey. His talk is big
as deed small. He likes to play, but has no sportsmanship,
great thoughts and plans. He castigates as megalomania. Anyone who
tries to pull him up in along the road of
higher accomplishments he hates, and when the chicks offers, he
crucifies them like Christ, burns them like Savonarala kicks his
dead body body into the square in Milan. He is
always laughing at the discomfiture of others, but he has
no sense of humor and is equally incapable of true seriousness.
He denounces to crime of passion, but eagerly reads the
literature of such crimes. He herds in the street to
see an accident and enjoys seeing another sustain the blows
of life. He does not care if his countrymen are
spilling their blood, as long as he is secure. He
is everything mean and unheroic, but he lacks the mentality
to be Iago or Richard the Third. He has no
access to culture, and when he dares, he persecutes anyone
who has it. Nothing delights him more than to see
a great leader fall. He hated Metternick and Wellington, the
symbols of tradition. He refused as Reichstock to send ex
Chancellor Bismarck a birthday greeting. He makes up the constituency
of all parliaments everywhere, and he invades all countsls of
wards to advise prudence and caution. Leafs to which he
committed become dangerous. He recants they were never his anyway.
He is the inner weakness of every organism, the enemy
of all greatness, the material of treason.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's good podcasting form to ask you
to read that again because it's long. But if that's
not important, Yeah, that's curia.
Speaker 4: That's that is that that is as powerful as the
very first time I read it, because this time I'm
now assigning I can just see profile pictures.
Speaker 1: In every fucking sentence, you know, and not all of them,
but easily.
Speaker 2: And easily, someone like myself. I can look at some
of those and go, damn, I've been guilty of those. Yep, same, Yeah, Yeah,
I mean there is there's a difference between celebrating your
enemies being defeated and you know, Shodenfreud yep, yeah, what.
Speaker 1: Did a I'm trying to remember who said it. Justice
needs to be dispassionate or it ceased being ceases being justice.
Speaker 2: Thomas says, they don't actually want to win. Yeah, Thomas's
all the.
Speaker 1: Supper go on.
Speaker 2: Thomas says, all the time. If you have hate, if
you have hate for people, you're just you're not in
the game. It's not a that is not a that's
not an emotion that people in high culture, people who
you know, are of the culture bearing stratum of a
culture culture bearing element should bring to the table, and
we fall for it all the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've had that exact conversation, Like with leftoids that
are the situation is starting to become so bad that
even the aware leftoids and it seems to be the
voids out of these because the men that are on
the left aren't really possessing of any type of belief right,
they're either there for safety, you know, so you know,
they don't They want to be seen on the right
side or you know, amongst the good guys fighting the
good fight and being where the risk is not right.
They want to have the safe beliefs. So like the
men of the left, they're a they're not really men.
But really, the only people that are on the left
that I think are there because they believe in some
of the tenants are women. The left is feminine in
its nature, right, I mean d E says it the best,
where Mom is always going to be left wing because
if there is one piece of cake left, she will
make sure that every single person gets the same size slice. Right,
it is in her nature to have that empathy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That just eased that predisposition to sympathy.
Speaker 2: Right, So I think I think that that that Charles
Bideel said that women are romantics. Women are He said,
men are practical or romantics pretend to be practical, and
women are practical pretending to be romantics. I can't remember
exactly what he said.
Speaker 1: That's very true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's an inverse, there's an inversion there.
Speaker 1: But the so it's not the men that I've noticed
it in of like the left, but the women of
some of the women of the left are starting to
realize that things are about to get bad. They can't
quite put their finger on how or why. But they
are more spiritually in tuned than us. They are, you know,
vessels as why like every clairvoyant, every oracle, every suit sayer,
they're always women. They're tuned in on a level that
we're just not. So they're starting to ask questions. I've
noticed this more and more some in my personal life
and just also more broadly. If you look at like
the ones that are if you look at the people
that are kind of dipping their toe into like even
like normally conservatism, it's all women, right, like the there's
that's fucked up, but the men aren't because they are
a lot of what Yaqui talked about, and we see
the exact same thing on our side, right, these women,
they they don't possess beliefs in the way we do.
There theres are always going to be different, so you
can't expect them to be the same or have the
same responses. But what I think is the most explanatory
is the men of the left and the fact that
they're never going to They're never going How do I
put this. Fuck damn it, I had it right on
the tip of my tongue. Something something something. Half of
our fucking guys are leftoids. Basically, basically, they don't feel anything, like,
they're not being moved by feeling. Anybody that starts to
take on any type of how did you? How did
Yackey put it? There's not a leader amongst them. Oh shit,
damn it.
Speaker 5: Hey, hold up, Thomas, Thomas is here.
Speaker 1: Oh thank you. I just thought Jesus Christ.
Speaker 5: Guys, I am so fucking sorry.
Speaker 1: Man, my kid, we already forgave you.
Speaker 5: My kid has never done that. All right, I'll shut
up about it. Thomas you there, brother, we already forgive you.
Thomas is here. He just texted me.
Speaker 1: Oh real quick, guys, did you did you any of
you guys read The World in Flames?
Speaker 5: Uh, not the whole book, but the essay.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so like in the forward of the essay, right,
I don't know who he's talking about, with the possibilities
of Germany whatever, but he says this on in October
forty six a quiet garden in Weisbaden, an unknown person
whose writings and actions are only valued by his enemies,
and that negatively composed a short monograph entitled The Possibilities
of Germany, and this estimate can best begin by a
short citation from this unpublished work. Eventually, not before fifteen years,
the Anglo Saxon Jewish combine and the Russian Empire will
wage the third of its series of World wars. Nineteen
sixty was the first year in which the world political
situation was ripe for a great war, but the exact
moment of its outbreak is known to no one other
than this or other than time, not even to any clairvoyant.
It may take place this year, it may take place
the year after that. Last possible time. Oh yeah, the
last possible time is something about like I guess whoever
this person is. The prediction is like nineteen seventy five whatever.
But it goes on to basically talk about how this
is going, this has to end in a third World War.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And.
Speaker 1: I was reading that today and it kind of shook
me quite a bit, considering like where we're at and
the people that are escalating to the point that you
know they are, And it just goes to another like, no,
I don't think anybody's talking up w's about how fucking predicted.
Yaki is like Yaqui's prediction, we're able to predict.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is why I want to talk about Yaqui story.
That's exactly why I want to talk about Yaqui.
Speaker 2: Stormy and I started jumping in on Yaki and I
read that part out of Imperium. I'm sure you remember
it where he's talking about the how a high culture,
in the course of its fulfillment, goes in all directions,
and the intensity of the impression of the culture on
individuals is proportional to the receptivity of spiritual impressions. And
then he goes through this whole list of how you know,
the common men just can't be a part of it
because he's unjust. But on principle he's he you know,
he lacks any sort of honor and will submit to
any humiliation rather than revolt. His talk as big as
needs are small. He likes to play, but has no sportsmanship,
great thoughts and plans, He castigates his megalomania, and he
just goes down this whole list. So, I mean, I
guess what we we wanted to talk about culture tonight.
So can you jump off on that? Because that's like
the articulate. He's it's a section that's called the articulation
of culture, and yeah, how do you know, how do
you recognize it?
Speaker 3: Part of that's a reaction to imperium from mostly throughout
nineteen like nineteen forty seven, pretty much throughout the year
nineteen forty seven year old imperium. Okay, not only was
that that's arguably, I mean in arguably actually like when
when communism was added the like, in terms of it's
in terms of the zeitgeist globally, so it seems like
he's savaging the proletariat, and he kind of is. But
a lot of that's a reaction to this idea that, oh,
you know, class is this illusory thing. People are sociologically
conditioned into these roles. There's not any biological or metaphysical
aspects to it. You know, it's it's this totally malleable thing.
And you know, even if you think that revolutionary revolutionary
imperatives are destructive, obviously we've got to we've got to
raise up the we gotta end the tramgy the commons
by like raising up the proletariat, because they've got this
boundless potential that was not recognizing. So it seems sort
of like an angry savaging of the of the mentioned
material of like the body politic in any in any
given state. Yeah, it is, it's probably it probably seems
mean spirited, but that's the context. But you know, the uh,
the fat matter is he's right, and people are don't
accept that, you know something I until the twentieth century,
there were there were situations in Europe politically, you know,
I can't remember, I can't remember talking about Gustav Mannerheim
some weeks back. You know, Mannerheim didn't even speak Finnish, Okay,
Like there was it's it's sometimes the ruling element was
literally like a different ethnicity and sometimes almost a different
race than the people they presided over. And like why
why why was that nobody was rising up and and
and and you know and and demanding that these people,
you know, liberate them from from this this uh, this
oppressive modality or what have you? I mean, like why
is that? It's because you know, I mean, yeah, there's
situations where there's you know, uh where like a genuine
tyranny becomes untenable, you know, But that's a different thing.
There's people being subjected to material deprivations or or punitive
abuses that you know are fly in the face of
reason and and and you know, even even slaves won't tolerate.
But you know, the the lower orders are essentially the
subjects of the historical process. They're not the know that
they're they're not they're not animating it, they're not really
participating in it, you know. And I think I think
that that's an arguable you know, one of the one
of the things, one of the things that separates civilization
and savagery. Like savages don't really have culture, like they
might have stratified sociological situation that they existed almost always
they do. I mean, the only the only kind of
truly like egalitarian uh cultures would be something like the
Black Seminoles that's basically like a war band, like masquerading
as is like a as like a nation who happened
like I mean, and then you know the so uh yeah,
I uh, I think I think that that's an arguable
and the uh it's not a it's not it's if
it was just it's kind of like intrinsic thing to
like human psychology, you know, uh, there there wouldn't be
that stratification between you know, not not even just high
culture and savages, but like any culture at all. You know,
like basically the emergence of the ability to bear culture.
That's what raised man out of a you know, essentially
a beastial mode of existence. You know, it's like, why
does that happen? You know, it's the emergence of Ah,
this culture varying element would seem to be intrinsic. The
book that I wrote about the Bronze Age, it's interesting.
I think it's called uh. It's called uh The Horse,
the Wheel and Language or something.
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah, I have.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a really good book. But he makes a
point that, you know, the the Indo, like the the
Indo European element, you know, they they weren't indigenous to
the places they conquered. They came from which like the
they came from the step. They were master equestrians, and
they imposed this order that became protoan civilization on uh
on Central Asia and Europe, and you know, the war
the world island. If you allow the geopolitical UH nomenclature,
you know this, and usually that's usually that's the case,
Like usually cultures imposed from without, you know, so if
it was this kind of spontaneous thing, if it was
like universal grammar, you know, or the capacity to like
make tools or something. If if it's just something that
like just emerged, like well, there wouldn't there'd be kind
of like a monoculture planetarily. There might be like different
phases of development that people found themselves at, but you know,
there wouldn't be this profound distinction between peoples and their
modes of life. And you know, there wouldn't there There
wouldn't be uh there, there wouldn't be people outside of
the outside of the paradigm of civilization. It just be
something that happened, like oh, eventually people developed this capacity
for high culture and then you know, but that doesn't happen,
you know. Plus two, it's just like and I realized
I'm kind of rambling, so forgive me for that. But
you know, like I when you look at look at
the largest structure in the war in the world's about
thirty five hundred years with the Great Pyramid of Giza,
Like nothing else that came close. Okay, The amount of
like human labor, like it's like human slave labor it
took to build that thing is unbelievable. You know, like
slavery is not just the ability to force people to
do things by like literally cracking the whip on them,
like people like internalize the paradigm otherwise they will otherwise
like the otherwise history would just be like one ongoing slaverable,
you know, like some successful, some not. But it isn't
is it, you know, And it's not just everybody's brainwashed
into believing that like their inferiors or something. That's not
the way things work, you know. It's it's it's almost
uh I don't I don't like information agent metaphors, but
it's almost like at scale, different casts within a cultural organize,
they're like running a program, you know, and it doesn't
even occur to them to revolt against it, you know,
it would be uh I remember I can't remember who
it was. Somebody said that something like the Bolshevik Revolution
or like the jacob and Revolution, or probably most most
poignantly like that, what happened in China with the Cultural
revolution and it cannibalizing you know, an entire you know,
like you know, like probably like twenty percent of its
own population. It's mostly the cultural organism, uh, like developing
a kind of cancer you know, like attacking itself and
just deteriorating into megacyitle anarchy. But that, but that's an outlier,
and that usually comes from they usually was something like
future shock or some kind of breakdown in the internal situation.
We're whole classes of people end up starving or something,
or you know, or there's some kind of punctuated natural
disaster that radicalizes people. It's not just that there's not
just inevitably at some point, you know, oh, there's there's
a there's a massive slave revolt, and and the sociological
structure just cannibalizes itself. It doesn't happen. It's like, why
doesn't that happen? You know, like marxistsoud say that, like, well,
it's because you know, the the uh, the psychological environment,
Like people can't think outside that paradigm. It's like, yeah,
but there's a universality to it that doesn't really bear
that out, you know. So I mean, I think I
think it kind of goes with that's saying, But it's
also people don't people in America have a and to
a lesser degree, I think probably in Russia, although I
haven't been to Russia, so I can't say with certainty.
They have a difficult time with this because they there's
two things going on. There's there's there's the hyper modernity
and the conditions they're in in America. But America is
also an incomplete culture without a medieval origin. So the
kind of prime symbols that would sort of tie you,
like the past to the present, you don't see that
as much. It's there if you're if you don't what
to look for, and but especially people who you know,
are are kind of rootless anyway, they don't like detect
these things because they're not insinuated into into social conditions
where there's a there there's vestiges of the past and
and informative events all around them, you know. So I
think people have this idea that the conditions they live
in here are we were just kind of spontaneously devised
or something, or we're just like you know, the results
of like nature's bounty and you know, the the rare
industriousness of early Americans or something. And don't gonna be wrong,
they had that obviously had played a part in it,
but it's not the whole story. So I mean, I
think it's a it's it's inarguable and this stuff has
a mysterious origin at the end of the day. You know,
that's one of the reasons why the liberal perspective capital
l I mean, and you know, the enlightened perspective fails.
Like this idea that there was some sort of like
rationally devised process of civilization that was consciously implemented like that.
That's that's ridiculous. You know, there's a mysterious quality to uh,
to the political order is they are all like anthrop
logical things, like this idea that one day this's just
happened because you know, it's a product demand's intrinsic capacity
to reason. That doesn't make any sense. You know that
that's not all things work.
Speaker 2: Do you think that the one of the reasons why
when you talk like this and people read Yaki and
they read about a high culture that they may reject
it out of hand is because they don't see themselves
as being a part of it. And yeah, because I
think about the time that Yaqui wrote this, and it
almost seems like writing this, I'm gonna this may be
a terrible metaphor for it, but like it's almost like evangelism,
Like he's he's putting this message out there and he's
trying to figure out who's going to accept who's going
to embrace it at a time when culture has been
torn to pieces and there's basically nothing, there's nothing left.
So he's putting this message out there and he's like, Okay,
who accepts this, who has this? Where's the culture bearing
element now so that we can start over again. It
almost seems like he does that. But then you know,
people hearing this, listening to this and listening to us
talk about this, they're like, well, this just isn't me,
so why would I want you know, I rejected out
of hand.
Speaker 3: Specifically, he was writing for a European audience, and the uh,
the political situation was very unstable, you know. The and
what became the East Germany, which is just then like
as internal being written, was just then like ossifying into
the DDR. You know, it was it was literally the
Eastern occupation zone. You know that the Soviets, they there's
a cadre of people like will hump Pike and Ernst
Volver and Eric Milk and Honeker, a lot many of
whom had fled to the Soviet Union under the Reich government,
you know, so they had a reliable cadre. But the
body politique in the eastern occupation zone was what was
was very resistant. So they were imposing their system quite
literally at gunpoint in the west. You know it, Uh
it wasn't quite as it was, it wasn't quite as
heavy handed, but it was it was still very brutal,
and early on, especially the legitimacy of the occupation regime,
a lot of it derived from, you know, fear of
the Soviet Union and the Cold War paradig I mean,
I argue that almost entirely, that's what it derived from.
And uh, Europe like devastated as Europe was, you know,
the there was there was the potential really monkey wrench
the designs of the Americans and the Soviet Union, and
there was there was a radical element that very much
realized that and was looking forward. And that's why Yaki
considered it so imperative, you know, alie with the Soviet
Union contra America. So that's what we was writing for,
and you know, there mostly had similar thoughts. So obviously
he felt he was at loggerheads of the Jackey and
the issue of the Cold War. But you know that
that's that's the element that he was h that that
he was addressing and that that was his singular focus.
Like what Yaga's view of the American situation was is
is an open ended question, you know. He he he
wrote a couple of speeches from McCarthy, Joseph McCarthy. This
has in particular when McCarthy was on a terror about
the treatment of Vermont and SS veterans and things, you know,
and uh, the Carthy's view was, you know, obviously Germany
is essential to is the essential bulwark against the Soviets,
and what was you know, and what by that time
was warsaw packed. Yaki was coming from a different place
than McCarthy was, but that was the main subject of
the species he wrote from McCarthy. But other than that,
I mean, Yaki wasn't really writing for an American audience.
The stuff that his allies in the Old Resistance, people
like Metal, people like George Sylvester Viereck, the guys like
Connie McGinley, you know, they they were the minority faction
and the Old Resistance who were pro Soviet and that
was you know, they they were they were kind of
running in a insurgent campaign on on within within that ideological subculture,
so that's important to consider. I mean that that's what
he was writing for. It's also too there is something
he was a he Gailien obviously, you know, and he
was a national socialist, so he viewed, uh, he he
viewed kind of like new European man as in the
way that younger kind of did as like neither master
nor a slave was kind of like the self contained individual,
and that the cast paradigm in the traditional sense didn't
really matter anymore, you know, along to historical and technological variables.
I mean that's kind of like a different question, but
you know, generally, uh, what he writes about where when
he like the everything in Imperium is tailored really for
a European audience, and specifically you know, the people situated
in in in in in ki uh and and what
was the be key battlespaces ideologically and and and and
potentially actually.
Speaker 5: Okay, there's a lot here. So first, uh, to go
way back to the beginning of what Thomas was saying.
We touched on Yaqui's pension for saying, and this comes
from Spangler that certain people have race and certain people
do not have race. So the lower orders, as we understand,
you know, the cast or the hierarchical stratified social system
informal or formal, the lower orders don't have race and
the higher orders do. Right, So you were talking about
like the slaves, and you know, we don't have a history.
The world history is not a world history of slave refaults?
Speaker 3: Are you?
Speaker 5: Were you saying that because because of what Yaki says
about people who have race and don't have race. So,
for example, right from the text, I just want to
give one example, right from the text, he talks about
how people who don't have racey if they're in a
situation in which they'll lose their lives, they will only
lose their lives for themselves, their only self sacrifices for themselves,
whereas somebody who has race will sacrifice themselves for something higher.
They'll sacrifice themselves for the future. They'll sacrifice themselves for
the culture and for the future of their nation. And
I even remember he says that like a martyr is
convinced that he possesses the truth, a warrior is convinced
that he the honor that he feel also is so
important that helped die for it. And this is somebody
who has race and someone who won't put themselves in
that situation or who run away doesn't have race. And
I think this kind of gets to what you're talking
about how these things sort of sift themselves out informally,
there's like a mysterious origin to the way this all
sorts itself out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's also it's part part of a two conceptual horizon.
You know, if you're somebody like somebody who's part of
the culture bearing element, they're not just a standard bearer
of the of the cultural organism like ontologically like they
view their existence. They're kind of discreet conscious existence as
like sort of a discrete sort of cellular aspect of
a chain of being, you know. And that's why, uh,
you know, you get that. That's why traditate royals and
in high culture is worthy of the name. You know,
they're they're basically oriented towards generational projects, you know, unless
there's unless they haven't to be born in conditions whereby
you know, their charge with seeing the the nation through
its total war or something. You know, generally, what's on
their mind are historical imperatives that began centuries before they
were bored and will endure centuries after they're dead, you know,
And that's that's the way that that's a that's that's
an existential and a nontological phenomenon, you know. And people
who into their station don't think like that because they've
got no practical reason too. But also like aren't cable
of thinking in those terms, you know. I mean that's
the that's that that that's an important distinction. And then
that's one of the ways you can tell that most
people are natural slaves man. I mean, like they like,
look at these fools on either side of the kind
of contrived political divide in this country. You know, they've
got this idea that after they themselves die, like nothing
exists or like post any significance. It's the it's the
mentality of a rodent or something, you know, Like I,
when I die, I can't eat cheese anymore. So if
I can't eat a piece of cheese, what does it matter?
You know, like because I don't.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's there's a French quote that's attributed to a
French king that Yaqui includes in here after me the flood,
and I guess the context was the king was asked,
you know, what's gonna happen after you die. And it's
basically him saying, I don't give a shit. The flood
can come and take everything away for all I care.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no exactly. And that's you know, and it's not
it's not just some it's not just some moral or
ethical issue. That's part of it, you know, absolutely, but
it's it's really like ontological like people aren't you know
that that's one of the that's the difference between you know,
higher man and uh and slaves in the Aristotelian sense.
But also to be clear, like Yaqui was not at
all some like reactionary or some royalist or so even
some guy like Maras who like was like, oh we
got to go back to you know, the the aristocratic order.
You know, he was a national socialist. He was saying that,
you know, like like new European man is he's he's
like he's like what young are described in their arbiter.
He's you know, he's or in on pain. You know,
he's Uh, he's neither a master or a slave. He's
he's he's a self contained individual. You know, he's a
he's like a worker, yaleman, racial warrior who uh is uh,
you know at at the same time the you know,
the culture bearing element. But you know, he's he's he's
also like literally the vanguard yeomanry, you know, and that's uh,
that's the national socialist that that's that's their historical mission
in terms of the internal political situation, you know, anthropologically
and sociologically. Is it cultivate you know that you know,
kind of new historical man who's who can't be conventionally
understood within the cast paradigm, you know, because he partakes
of of of ask you know, the the noble aspects
of all but he's he's at the same time like
neither or none of those things, and in archetypal or
essential capacities.
Speaker 1: What Thomas said is kind of borne out in Yaqui's
essay about the American all right, it was the destiny
of America. Yeah, but how he described how he describes
the American himself. But yes, yeah, it is the destiny
of America. What is it nineteen Well that's the title
of the anyway. Anyways, it was the individual imperialism of
the frontiersman that actually opened individual imperialism of the frontiersmen
that actually opened up and conquered the North American continent daily,
he was surmounted by a thousand dangers. He lived in
the face of death. This intrepid type, who was at
once warrior, explorer, minister, doctor, judge, and settler, advanced until
he reached this specific ocean and then looked onwards towards
Alaska and the Western Islands.
Speaker 5: This is Yaki's got a whole section in Imperium on America,
and he elaborates on this for like either one long
chapter several chapters I can't remember, but he talks about
how that spirit of America and those men, those men
were driven by the same Faustian spirit that drove the
men who created European culture. So when Thomas comes back,
I want to talk about this because America is a colony, right,
so it's not its own culture. It didn't grow up
with its own ethnogenesis America.
Speaker 1: He says that something came out of it, out of
them due to basically the savagery, and out of those
colonials was bred a new man, the minuteman, these American farmers.
Speaker 5: Yeah, which is which is awesome. Yes, yes, he talks
about that a lot. That's such a good essay, but
it but nevertheless, it was I was just going to say, nevertheless,
it was ethnogenesis of a new culture. It was a
continuation of European culture that was the same animating spirit
that sort of morphed into its own different thing. But
it wasn't. It wasn't an ethnogenesis, is all I'm saying.
And now you know that spirit is gone and or
it's it's morphed into something different.
Speaker 2: And I think Thomas is gonna have something to say
to contradict that, But I want to ask, Yeah, he
and I have talked about, well, not about it being gone,
but about the fact that there actually was a high
culture in the United States.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, there definitely was. Do you think there was?
Speaker 1: Do you?
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, no, no, no, there absolutely was for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah. As somebody who like uh, you know, spends all
his time reading, reading and talking about the Robber Barons,
I can definitely tell you the culture even yeah, particularly
in the I was in the Aristocratic Ideals, right, So
the I talked about it briefly in the in the
Robber Barons series, and I give a lot of examples,
but this came up in a conversation with a friend
from the UK. Right when she's she's talking about the
kind of this sorry dejected state of British Man now
and like what the British Man is like now and
basically how backbiting and really it's not just like a
feminine But the best way that actually I've ever heard it,
this the best way I can encapsulate what she was
trying to say, is what Yaqui was trying. Was Yaqui
was saying about like the the low man, about how
they rejoice in like they'll you know, watch a car accident,
like they take joy and other suffering. Right, but I
was trying I was explained to her that the values
of the aristocracy of England they died out in Europe
in roughly out the sixteen hundreds, the only like they
were continued in America by America's elite. Like these men
if you read a Rockefeller, if you read Morgan, you
read Ford, like they had nothing to like, They had
nothing to index their position in society to like they
they didn't they didn't have any points of reference, right,
So what they went and looked, what they were constantly
looking back on was like was stories and memoirs of
the British aristocracy in its glory days, right and That's
what they were basically using as a rubric to basically
set the tones of their life, how they interacted with
the people around them, what duties they had to the
people that worked for them, if they one of the
men that worked in their service, Like the guy that
ended up running JP Morgan, right after JP Morgan, after
John Pierpont Morgan, and after his son Jack was some
was the son of one of the guys that worked
on Morgan's cars, right who died like unexpectedly, right, And
because the guy was in the gentleman, the mechanic was
in Pierpont's service, it was his dude right to take that,
you young man in who's now orphaned. Because this man's
father was in his service, it was his duty to
raise that person like it was his son. He got
sent to the exact same schools that his son Jack did.
He got the exact same doors opened and the exact
same opportunities at JP Morgan. The guy's name is Thomas Lamont.
He ran the bank from like nineteen fifty or sorry,
nineteen forty onwards to like the eighties. This was a
you know, an orphan son of a guy that worked
for him. We don't see any of that anymore. But
that died out, I.
Speaker 3: Said to Washington for Hamilton, because Washington had no son
of his own.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, exactly exactly, And we didn't see that in
the you know, in the British Isles anymore. By then
it was all you know, trying to think of a
word that's not over anyways. Yeah, the the the disease
that America inherited was running rampant in the UK beforehand.
The people that.
Speaker 5: Were all so we were talking about America coming into
its own as a culture, and Stormy read a passage
from the Destiny of America, the essay about the the
Faustian spirit kind of like pushing through the founders of America,
not not just the founding fathers, but like the pioneers
and the frontiersmen that they were. They were driven by
the same spirit that that drove the people who created
culture in Europe. But so so last time, Thomas I
asked you if you thought America or if you thought
Yaqui thought America was the continuation of the Faustian and
you said no, But Yaqui kind of accounts for that
in a myriad of ways. One of them of course
being the Revolution of nineteen thirty three. Where what I
was trying to come to what I was saying before,
is that America now post war America, or at least
post nineteen thirty three America was fundamentally changed from the
America of you know, pre Revolutionary War Revolutionary War America.
Speaker 3: So what's also the war was when the states changed
things too, Like they don't I don't, you know, I
mean that the the Faucian element if you want to
in in pure terms of the Confederacy, you know, I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
they can't be denied.
Speaker 5: But he actually says that the Revolution of nineteen thirty
three and then before that was the Civil War. It
was like several republics, American republics, right, So yeah.
Speaker 1: He says, actually the Civil War brought about the sub American.
He rolls like liberals and egalitarians in as. So I
am assuming he did think some ethnic genesis took place,
or use the term sub American means means, you know,
it's kind of nonsensical unless you look at it in
those terms.
Speaker 5: Well, I think he's calling the North.
Speaker 1: In general.
Speaker 3: I mean it's a historical phenomenon. I mean, like it
and you know, after after, after the this kind of
monoculture was imposed, which is the whole point of reconstruction.
You know, there are that uh, the you know that
that entire historical enterprise was was derailed and essentially it
ceased to exist. I mean that's what That's why it's asked,
I mean, last nine for all kinds of reasons for
people to talk in the twentyeth century about the West,
like it's this thing that still exists, you know when
I mean the Second World War obviously was you know
that the West went down at Stalingrad. But like this
idea that America is this like legacy of Europe and
it's somehow like fulfilling it's historical mission. Like that's ridiculous,
you know, like not only is they grossly at odds
with you know, with historical realities, but New Dealer America
literally waged like a genocidal war of annihilation against Europe.
Like I mean, like, I don't understand how this tracks
in people's minds, but I guess it's because they you know,
they they simply lack a historical education. But no, that's
why Jacky, like Adolf Hitler made the point that America
had more in common with the then Soviet Union and
vice versa than like either did with Europe or any
or any other extent or historical cultural form. America became
an ideologically driven enterprise and it remains. I mean that
that remains to the day.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: That's why the these goofballs like heg Set, I mean,
he's I mean, Hexts was a fucking idiot. It's like
he's he's a cornball, but he's also uh, there's also
like a profound ignorance to people like that. But he's
he's an exemplar of like what passes for the American right.
He's always going around talking about these these imaginary Jewish
strategic threats, and just today he was talking about communists,
you know, like calling like I guess you're talking about
like MSNBC types or whatever. Like these people have they
not only do they is they have totally impoverished ideological
commitment that they represent. But it's like the parameters of
it don't even exist anymore, you know. That's all they have.
All they had was the Cold War. Like all they
have is this ideological imperative that's extra abstracted for anything
historically concrete and that didn't make any sense anymore after
nineteen eighty nine, but that they're still trying to not
only they still trying to milk that that that paradigm
for credibility, but they but in ontological terms, like they
they have no idea how to even structure political and
historical realities anymore, you know, because it's always made, it's
always making a point the regimes. Like it's like a
million miles wide and like a centimeter deep. There's like
nothing near, you know. That's why I don't know what
people can't realize that it's dying, like it has nothing
to stand on, you know, nothing, And uh, A large
part of that is because you know, there's there's no
there's no historical imperative animating it.
Speaker 5: Well, to go back to him writing, you know, at
the end of you know, nineteen forty eight or whatever
it was, and him not being a reactionary, the imperium
is supposed to be the future, and it's supposed to
be the future of the Spanglarian you know, model of history.
So he says we're moving towards imperium. And I think
his argument, you know, in this book and others, the
culmination of his work is that the Cold War was
going to culminate in the European imperium right potential, the.
Speaker 3: Idea, what the idea was that the only way that
Europe can liberate itself is through a political concord with Moscow.
And because communism is not long for this earth, you know,
it'll eventually sort of exhaust its revolutionary momentum. And because
it's it's, it's, it's, it's, it's you know, it's in
it's a superficial ideological overlay that's at odds with immutable
historical processes as they actually are. Like his notion was that,
you know, yes, like the Soviet Union will come to
dominate Europe in superficial terms, but the Russians will be
both attracted to the political and cultural works of superior
European forms, but also they'll need the that kind of
driving engine, not just a prosperity, but of cultural dynamism
that is auto Cathonics to Europe. So essentially, like the
Russians will become European, the Europeans aren't going to become
a Russian. And basically that tract, like if you look
at you know, it's when the it's not. It's not
the places that when they're Soviet occupation that are mired
in these kinds of sociological catastrophes, you know, like like
the West is like the you know, and even in
in East Germany it wasn't unco like Putin was a
kind of an outlier. But KGB and g R, you
guys were different than the the military, uh and party
occupation authorities. You know, Putin spoke German and and he
can actually speak English in a rudimentary sense, but he's
highly fluent in German. But most uh, most Soviets in
East Germany he didn't even speak German and they didn't
fraternize with Germans socially. You know, there was like the
one off of like some Soviet officer who had like,
you know, a German lady that that he married, but
this not it was actively discouraged. But it's the Russians
just didn't really index with the culture that way, but
they wanted to emulate it, and uh, they wanted the
trappings of it. And that's why that's why East Germany
he was like the jewel in the crown of the
East Block. So I think that kind of goes out saying,
but that's what is notion was and moving forward to
an n seek situation as Jacky saw it, you uh,
you know, you'd have this Eurasian super state as uh
was what the Third Reich was was their ambition, you know,
but it would come about basically through Soviet victory in Europe.
But then over time, you know what would happen is
what I just enumerated. You know, the Russians had become
kind of Europeanized as the Soviet system kind of collapsed
under its own weight and uh, and the Soviet state
abandoned these kinds of revolutionary imperatives. You know, that'd be
the new European imperium and uh, you know again it
would be it would be characterized by a kind of
vanguardists yeomen like metaphorically speaking, not not talking about actual
Yalmen farmers, although although they in the national soldiers of perspective,
they they were to play a key role in the
in the East. But that's a difference. That's a tangential
subject matter. But that's yeah, that that's what that's what
he meant by it, and it's you know, the the
there was no there wasn't like a national socialist or
a fish it's equivalent of like new Soviet Man. But
again there is a Hegelian archetype that people like Yaqui
and and people like Adolf Hitler and people like Mussolini
viewed as you know, uh, the ideal partisan. And that's
that's very much a historical phenomenon, you know. And and
again like this, this this archetype is a man who's
neither master nor slave, you know. And uh, that's that's
a very uh but that's been that that's that's been
the ambition of a European or a continental philosophy, you know,
really from a really from yeah, really really from the
Hagel onward and even people like uh cont And and
Hume obviously like you know, in in terms of their
political values, they they they they came down and you know,
on the issue differently than somebody like fictor Schopenhauer or
Nietzsche or Heidegger. But that that was the ambition, you know,
the the sovereign individual, you know, who's.
Speaker 1: Not a.
Speaker 3: Who doesn't who It wasn't part of this minuet of
a you know, of of the traditional class paradigms. And
that that's that's that's fundamental because a lot a lot
of people they senter this idea that national socialism and
and some of it's adjacent to ideological tendencies. That these
are just like reactionary guys on steroids or something that's
not at all the case. That's that completely misunderstands what
their historical ambition was.
Speaker 2: So how does that translate? How do we translate this
to the situation that we're in in the United States
in twenty twenty five. More people are waking up to
people like Yaqui, people like Spangler, to high culture. More
people are waking up to our occupation, and they're looking
for answers to how to how to fight against it,
how to or or at least how to mitigate the
damage it's done. How do we translate that now?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, in America, the situation has always been
that the path forward has always been to secede from
the ruling regime. You know, it's not it's not the
ambition isn't to capture the government and put the right
policy in place. Like that doesn't make any sense. That uh,
that that be that that put people in the same
camp metaphorically is as these guys you know, in the
Soviet Union in nineteen eighty six or eighty seven, thinking
like oh well, we just need to we we just
need to find a way to get into the Polaric
Bureau where the Supreme Soviet and try and do what
Shivid Nardse is doing or whatever. But like you know,
with an eye to advance, you know, our own kind
of imperatives. That the regime is slowly dying, you know,
as I've written about extensively, and the only the only
divide now in in in real terms, is between globalism
and the resistance, you know, and people who identify as
right wing if they're at all serious. You know, they're
building alternative structures and succeeding as much from regime and
system life as possible, and you know, building alternative structures
that will be there when it's gone. And again that's
already underway, like I'll be dust, yeah, exactly, it's on
its way out, and it's gonna be it's probably gonna
be another two hundred years before like it's fully realized.
And even after that, like something something they called itself
the United States of America is gonna like kind of
shamble on. You know. It's like it's still gonna put
its like seal on things, but no one's gonna really
take it seriously, you know, and it's not, uh, it's
gonna be more kind of like a formality than anything,
you know. And the real the real power, the real
power projection capability is gonna be with these kinds of
constellations of private actors, you know, some of which are
extraordinarily powerful, but none of which have like a monopoly
on the ability to project hard and soft power and
planetary capacities, you know. I mean, that's the way to
look at it. And that's why I'm always making the
point too that like like people people aren't in the
game who uh who look at like like non white
or non Western people as their ops or something like
whether you like it or not, Like you've got to
like live among these people, Like that doesn't mean you should.
That doesn't mean like, you know, I'm not talking about
like the current immigration paradigm or something which obviously is
tailored to cause destruction. I'm not talking about that. Like
what I'm saying is that deciding that resistance elements are
like your enemy like is is totally self defeating and
it's literally retarded because you know, so the paradigm is
totally different than during the Cold War. But you know
the but that's uh, I mean yeah, people ask like
what what would Francis Perger Yucky or people I can
think today, you know, they'd uh, they'd they'd look at
they look at Russia, they'd look at as that, you know,
as as a key aspect of the resistance. You know,
you consider them the Arab world especially, you know especially
you know, the Palatinian resistance is key to uh, this
consolation of of resistance actors. You know this this should
be clear to anybody who's engaged. It's I mean, can
tell you're talking about either a fan of sister or
an idiot who's like, yeah, we're gonna save the West
and like wake up Europe was like what are you
talking about? Like there're you're you're gonna get in a
time machine back to back to nineteen forty three, you know,
and you're gonna turn the tide at Stalingrad. You know, Like,
but these people don't live in reality. You know. That's
why that's why there are ops, not just because I
mean yeah, like some are like obvious grifters and like
fig it's like uh, like Princess Dicky Spencer and or
guys like Greg Johnson who decided they don't like darkies
because like some hood rat like called them gay or something.
But uh, I mean there's like it's easy to kind
of like hook fun at those guys because they deserve
it and they're just so obviously like goofies. But uh,
you know, most of them, like probably like ninety percent
of these people just like aren't aren't serious. And and
even some of those that you know, maybe they're hard
is in the right place, they don't understand the that
they don't understand the parameters of the historical situation, so
you know, they're not really worth engaging with. I mean,
I I'm trying to go to my way. I trying
to be mean to anybody. I I only the only
people I openly criticize and make fun of are guys
who are like legit assholes and are doing harm, like
the guys that's mentioned. But I'm not gonna I'm not
gonna pretend that we've got like on board or like
index of people who don't know what the fuck's going on,
which just because like they're good guys, you know, when
their heart's in the right place or something. I mean,
I feel very strong about this, but you know, I'm.
Speaker 2: One of the thing, one of the one of the
things you said about the last I was listening to
Carl Benjamin the other day talking about England and an
American super chatted him and asked him a question about,
you know, taking back England, and he said, he so
the problem we have here is not that people don't
care about England, he said, it's gotten to the point
where people don't care about themselves. Yeah, so it's like,
how what what are you trying to save? How do
you how do you save a people who like are
self loathing at this point where they they will literally
not do anything. They they won't even speak out for
threat of being arrested. Like some guy the other day
who said that, you know, people should speak English, and
you know in England and you have these like British
cops who are who are like ready to arrest them
for it. It's like, I mean, if you're if your cops,
if you're if your police won't step up for you,
and they're armed and you and the people literally hate themselves,
how do you save that?
Speaker 3: Well, it's also uh, yeah, what's also too And yeah,
I mean that England is an extreme situation because it's
it's it's a totally destroyed country. But even I mean
the point of people, like even even in circumstances here,
like in America, even in places where you know, there's
more people are more animated towards corrective action, like without
without some sort of h without some sort of spiritual life,
and without any sort of like communitarian ethos, like you're
pissing into the wind. It's like so if I like
even if if you know, if you if you go
to go to some blighted place like Flint, Michigan, or
like or some of these places in Filly or whatever,
it's like, okay, even if those people were to like
wake up and like purge immigration or something. But like
having like a pointless society of like all white people, like,
it's just that it's like a pointless society. It's like
a pointless, nihilistic society of like all white people. Like
why is that awesome? You know, like obviously it's not
not being somewhat obtuse, but no, the uh, the UK, uh, well,
I mean the the UK. The UK is as badly
off as Germany because they lost World War two, and
like that's they're not just it's not just this. Yeah,
it's not just an issue of like them having a
bad government or the ship need to needing to be righted.
Like the degree to which like they literally lost the
war like well well diluting themselves and thinking that they
wanted can't be overstated, you know. And that's uh, you know,
people don't people don't understand that, uh, you know, aren't
in the game because they don't understand the meaning of
the twentieth century, and they don't understand why World War
II was fought, you know, and like they don't understand
the stakes that were involved, and they they don't understand
why that's like a critical juncture, you know. And then
that's also why regime narratives are so bound up with it,
you know, because like that was there, that that that
that was that was that was the that was their
nd seed. You know, that's why it's like they're founding myth.
But uh, it's basically impossible to get people to understand
these things unless they're a student of such matters and
they just kind of like instinctively apprehend politics. So it's
kind of a fool there and trying to explain it
to people because they won't. They they just they don't
get it, you know. And and that's fine. I mean,
most people aren't gonna understand politics at this scale. I'm
a I'm gonna I'm gonna raise up in a minute.
I don't mean to be abrupt, and it's it's my
fault because I got a started late, so forgive me
for that.
Speaker 1: But I.
Speaker 3: Well, uh, we'll reconvened later in the week if that's cool,
and uh, I'll be able to dedicate more uh more
time when I promise I won't, I won't. Uh, I
won't delay the proceedings again.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna take a piss real quick.
Speaker 5: Guys of the REBECA, Yeah, yeah, it's all good man.
We all got shit going on. It's great that we
can keep convening this. Uh, Pete, you want to stick
around a few minutes. I would like to take the
high culture conversation a little bit longer if you have time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, I have. I have imperium pulled up here, so.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well it's not even necessarily from imperium. But maybe
I misunderstood you the other day, but we were talking
and you said something about a high culture in America.
I agree that there was a high culture in America,
and I think it's basically what you and Stormy we're
talking about the Gilded Age. But is there another chance
for it? You know, is America going to.
Speaker 1: Have I think there is something happening. I don't know
if it's as I think.
Speaker 2: We just talked about the fact that like America is over.
So if there's going to be a high culture, it's
going to be it's going to be in pockets and
it's going I mean, am I wrong, Thomas? It would
have There's no way you're going America is going to
have a high culture. If you're going to have a
high culture, it would have to be localized. It would
have to be people coming together of a culture bearing
element and and channeling, you know, channeling the spirit of it.
Speaker 1: But so consciousness doesn't work locally though, we're watching ideas
travel literally all over the place, pop up in all
these different places.
Speaker 6: I'll see you guys, I mean, all right, Thomas, tradition, Yeah,
you're welcome the way, not even just the fact that
the spiritual element of this is non local, right, I'm
hearing my ideas out of.
Speaker 1: Like people in their fifties that are not plugged in
talking about martial cultures and like it's fucking unreal. They
the way that ideas travel, and it's not just because
of the Internet. It's something else. So I don't think that,
I don't think the I don't think we're going to
see it be local dependent. I think we're we're kind
of at that point in time where a solid percentage
of us are all kind of tuned into the same thing.
You know, not a lot, but you don't need a lot,
and it's non geographic it, right, we all feel a
certain type of way inside. We're all sensitive to something
whatever you want to call it, use your preference. Right,
We're all getting the same ideas at the same time.
We're all getting the same feelings at the same time.
None of us are in the same place. And frankly,
like we just saw globalism get detonated by the US government, right,
the US government pulled the plug on globalism. Well Donald
Trump did, and yes everyone's trying to stop him, but
it doesn't matter. Once you signal intent, the market's taking
it from there. Like if you haven't noticed, he says,
I'm going to do these things. The market doesn't wait
for those things to be done, It starts unwinding the
trades itself. Capital is already moving, right. All you need
to do is signal intent, and after that it's going
to be taken care of by people that are trying
to front run the trade. They're going to do the
moving for you. They're going to underline globalism for you
because they can make a bunch of money doing it
getting there first. And I don't think we're going to
see anything resembling globalism within two or three years from now. Right.
The on shoring that's happening is only just hold on
a second.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, to Stormy's point, Sorry about that cat problems. Yeah,
I figured it was your cat. I just wanted to
interject here to your to your point. What we're talking about, Yaki,
we're talking about the Golden age, the Gilded age, excuse me,
the end of globalism. Trump is talking about ushering in
a new Golden age. So of course there's some of that.
Some of that is Trump's typical pumposity and bom bombastic speaking.
But at the same time, that's what the Caesar figure does,
if he is the Caesar figure, the Caesar figure reinvigorates
people to get them back on track and to get
them filled with the nationalistic spirit and the spirit of
the culture to work together as a culture again like
they once.
Speaker 1: Did, look at Zionism.
Speaker 5: Well, that's what Yaqui says. Exactly, are you getting back
to the essay?
Speaker 1: No, I'm actually pulling up the most recent Quinnipac poll.
Speaker 5: And extremely what are you saying about Zionism?
Speaker 3: Though?
Speaker 1: Well, okay, so what Quinnipac is saying is that sixty
percent of Americans don't support Zionism as far as actively
view Israel as a threat to the United States security. Right,
And the most important part about that is that is
the most dramatic shift is in conservatives and independent It's yeah,
but the agents of sixty we'll hold the home. The
between the ages of sixty or sorry, yeah, fifty nine
and twenty.
Speaker 2: Millennia, it's unders under fifty.
Speaker 1: I just I just did thank you this. But in
the in the subset cartinal, since it's like president in
your head, I believe it was conservative and independence in
that age group went from seventy percent in support of
to now thirty percent in support of That's fucking huge.
That means the only people that still believe this shit, Well,
first off, none of the like the people that are fifty,
they're not getting their shit on Twitter. They're like these
people are picking it up culturally from people around them.
And you don't view Zionism as a threat to the
United States like an actual threat, which is I believe
how the questions in the surveys we're posed, right, unless
you see the apparatus that controls the US government through
we'll call it unscrupulous behavior and means, and then forces
the US government to then go do things that hurt it.
Because that's the only way Israel's going to be a
threat to the United States is it's going to take
control of your government and it's going to make it
do things that hurt your government. So you can't wake
up to that without waking up to the power structure.
Like that's a profound thing because you and let's put
this way, you don't stop at a pack? Did any
of us stop at a pack?
Speaker 5: What you mean?
Speaker 1: Once you go down that road, you know, you may
not end up where we're at, but you're definitely not
checked in anymore.
Speaker 2: Right, the people who stop the people who stop at
Zionism yea, as Thomas would say, they're not in the game.
Speaker 3: You have to go further.
Speaker 2: The people, the people who are running Zionism and doing
the things that Zionism does. We're doing this before Zionism existed.
So this isn't a Zionism problem. Zionism. I will use
the term Zionism strategically, but everyone knows. I'm not scared
of saying it is Jews. And I don't even really
like the Jews. I just like Jews because when you
when you look at banking, you find Jews. When you
look at when you look at d C, you find
I mean not d C, well, d C too, but
Hollywood you find Jews. When you look at pornography, you
find Jews. It's not the Jews, it's Jews. And you
can see this in a lot of Jews right now
are basically running. They're I mean, they're running as far
away from their fellow travelers there, their fellow ethic Yeah,
normantin controlled by Yeah. Norman Finkelstein was on Jimmy Yeah.
Norman Fankelstein was on Jimmy Door today saying that Hollywood
is controlled by Jews. He said, yeah, and it's more
than this. Actually, he says since nineteen eighty there have
been two hundred Holocaust movies made. No actually maybe out
of Hollywood, but if you look at minor studios and
things like that, it's actually you're looking more like four hundred.
Well why is that Because that's their that's their crucifixion,
that's their Christ, that's that's their cross. They have to
keep that going or else, you know, it all falls apart. So, yeah,
Zionism is is a major problem. But when you look
at like say, there Saudi Arabia has Jews, Syria had Jews,
Turkey has Jews, Russia has Jews. Now a bunch of
Spergs will tell you that Putin is completely you know,
enslaved to the Jews. While they're retarded, I mean, they're
they just they believe they're bigger Zionists than Zionists. They're
bigger Jewish supremacist than any Jews. They're there because they
believe that they they control everything, and it's just not true.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like Stormy, you know, Stormy and I had a long,
you know, conversation about who controls Wall Street people.
Speaker 3: Oh it's Jews.
Speaker 2: Well, no, it's not. Wall Street is basically a guild
of of interest groups that protect each other because they
know if they don't protect each other and one gets
too much power or one fucks off too much, they're
gonna they're in trouble of losing their fucking cash cow,
which is, yep, their ability to do what they do.
Speaker 1: This is a problem with like people that know things,
but they don't know enough of things. Right. They know
that Jewish power exists, and they organize, and you know,
they generally push out other people, but and they see
some of them, like you said in Wall Street, but
that doesn't make you know what's up on, like on
how that place functions. Like. I love this. It's one
of my favorite you know, little stats JP Morgan Chase.
The bank didn't hire its first Jewish person till nineteen
eighty nine, nineteen eighty nine, all rights, like, and they.
Speaker 2: Didn't I think it was I think it was nineteen
seventy nine.
Speaker 1: Actually, home men, are you correct? By home them guys?
That's all right, I'm fucking up tonight.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That tells you a very important fact is that there
are interest groups. Right. David Solomon and Jamie Diamond, the
two most powerful people in finance globally have signaled the
end of globalism. Well, what is this organized power group
that we talked about, what do they want? They want globalism,
they wrote, they want the nationalism.
Speaker 5: They wrote the treaties, they wrote the yep, they literally
wrote globalism, globalization.
Speaker 1: What was it?
Speaker 5: NAFTA? And yeah, NAFTA in nineteen ninety four couldn't get past.
They had proposed several drafts of NAFTA, but one I
remember I had an argument with a guy who was
of the tribe and I said, the Jews are responsible
for globalism and he said, that's total bullshit. It was
a bipartisan bill. I said, yeah, it was a bipartisan
It was a bipartisan bill. Stormy, you were there for
this argument. It was a bipartisan bill. Yeah. It was
in a group chat because one side drafted a proposal
for NAFTA that everyone rejected, another side drafted a revised
proposal that everyone rejected, and then Jews came in and
wrote a new revised proposal that everyone accepted. And two
of those Jews were jose Stieglitz and Paul Krugman. Some
of them. I don't know if those those two have
both won the Nobel Prize for Economics. I'm not sure
if they won it specifically.
Speaker 1: Both of them are basically in the last five years.
To call them discredited, I mean everybody is basically everyone
in finance nobody. Like these people held a huge position
of like financial authorities and like banks would do what
they say, listen money where these people said.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Paul Krugman, Yeah, in particular, right, he was like
dictating policy from the pages of the New York Times.
But see this is how it works, right, because they
have plausible deniability because it was a draft. It was
an excuse me, a proposal that was accepted by both sides.
It was a bipartisan thing. But at the same time,
the nineteen sixty four uh, well, I don't know if
it got pat Yeah, the Immigration build nineteen sixty four
that was also written with Jews. So you blame it
on Jews, and people say, oh, no, its Kennedy. It
was the Democrats and it was agreed upon by everyone.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: Sorry. They were trying to get some sort of immigration
bill passed that had massive amounts of restrictions on non Europeans,
and the one that they finally put through was literally
written by Jews. The book A Nation of Immigrants that
John F. Kennedy wrote was written and by Jewish people.
So that's what we're talking about. That's why we are
saying that. But Pete is also correct. They don't literally
control every single facet of every government in the entire world.
And Pete, I wanted to add to that what you said.
Not only do those people say that Jews control literally everything,
but they also say that there's no escaping it, that
that they will never lose control until everything crashes and
burns and the only thing to do is prepare for
how to fucking live off of rain water and uh,
you know, possible roadkill. You've heard that. I'm sure right that, like,
they don't just control, but they will never not.
Speaker 1: Be the guys that are so black pilled, they're actually
doing exactly that.
Speaker 5: Astral Oh, yeah, I wasn't being hyperbolic or facetious.
Speaker 2: Someone I had a a sweet today. Some one of
the typical Zionist females on Twitter had something about if
a certain breed of dog continuously takes human life, often
the tiniest, most defenseless humans, then that breed should be banned,
and then she goes. The fun part about this post
is I didn't name a breed, you just know. And
my comment was if a certain people group continually gets
kicked out of every country they go to, amazing that
I don't have to mention who. And someone goes, what's
your solution, and I said localism as far away from
them as possible, and then gatekeeping. No group has a
right to access to another. And he said what if
that doesn't work? And I said, that's the exact question
someone asks, who gets excluded from our group? They don't think,
they don't think you can win. Why do I want
I'm not going to have somebody around I don't want
somebody around me who's asking that question? Now if you
want to say, if you want to start getting into
articulars of how this would work, everything like that. Sure,
but if you come right out of the gate, we're
going to lose. Fuck you, you're out. I don't want
anything to do with you because we're going to win.
Speaker 1: It's so much of this depends on hiding, right, Like
how does Macivli say it? Like if you're going to
take over a government, but you need if you're going
to take over a I can't remember whether they says
kingdom or principality, whatever. But if you're going to take
it over without the people knowing that you've taken over,
if you leave all of the edifices, all the outside fixtures,
the aesthetics, the buildings, and you change the way that
they operate inside, you can effectively run that for an
infinite long a long period of time, as long as
the people don't ever know.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: But once they do, it basically says this is the
riskiest thing to do in the world because as once
they do, you no longer have the ability to wield force. Right,
you can't wield any type of martial power because you
rule from in secret. So therefore your authority is a
secret authority, right, it's a you know, finagally type authority,
and men won't do anything in their own soil against
their own countrymen with that type of given by that
type of authority. If you're going to command men to
either rebellion right or to quelling insurrection, you have to
have the authority. The authority needs to be visible, as
in like foxes can't make foxes can't make for per
oppressive governments. You could never get away with what Stalin did, right,
If it was just the po At Bureau, if it
was not Stolid, the guy where authority is arrested clearly
in him, you would never be able to do any
of that.
Speaker 5: That's exactly the why I was optimistic about Trump, dude,
That's exactly what I was optimistic about Trump.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have to do shit. He has oh he
has to do is to do is yeah, and he
has to see people all everyone. The best thing that
Trump can do is sit there and keep getting these
people to come out of the fucking woodwork where Norman
Republicans can see him or see them, and then try
and fuck up his agenda. The best thing that Zionists
can do is actively push the most maga people out
of his government, out of his cabinet, and try and
get him into wars that he's actively campaigning against. Right, Like,
the best thing that they can do for us is
exactly what they're fucking doing. Right, You got like fucking
who are the Hodge Twins? Right? Like, I know boomers
that listen to like the Hodge Twins because like, oh
they're you know, they're my base blacks. You know, I
am both not racist and conserving and you know, consuming
my daily slamp allowmance at the same time a multitasking
and these guys are having fucking like having people on
that are openly talking about how the Holocaust isn't real,
all right, how apac works. It was on the fucking
Hodge Twins, like Canas owns is going after the Holocaust, Like,
we're in a very different place than I think anybody
predicted that we would be. And guys like even the
one thing that I think that I wish Francis was
around today for is because he what he describes in
imperium and how it functions is the thing that gets
us from here this place that he actually, like a
lot of people him included, didn't think that we would
ever be in unless things would absolutely just collapse, right,
But now we're at the point where just the regime
is collapsing and not the country, And like, the thing
that gets us from here to where we want to
go is that ideal that he is able to explain
the way he does. And that's like, that's why I
think it's important that we focus on him, because he's
the only one that accurately describes both the spiritual and physical, Like, yeah,
you know, corporeal realities of the political but also that
it's not like you're just seeing the expressions, you're seeing
the ripples on the water, You're actually see the current
underneath it.
Speaker 5: It's too late in the show to dive into that,
but I want to start off talking about that another time,
because that's a whole other thing that's absolutely needs to
be talked about with Yaki.
Speaker 1: He do you remember when I first reached out to you, Astro,
like the very first thing I ever talked to, Like,
I think it was like the very first time you
and I spoke and we talked about the zeitgeist.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, of course.
Speaker 1: And I was like, well, he thinks this gist is
like a vibe and it's not.
Speaker 5: Look, it's like a vibe.
Speaker 3: Feel.
Speaker 5: We're coming back around to Yaki now, like the zeitgeist
and all the stuff you're talking about. We're like catching
up to Yaki. He talked about all this shit, he
said all of this stuff, so we're like, but we're
just now catching up to him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I was like, what the zeitgeist is is
what another horribly misused term in aggregor is all right,
Like this is something that possess as people. If you
look at like the National Socialists, everyone in the country
was every painter all right, every architect, every you know typist,
every tailor. Like there wasn't big meetings of all the
tailors like hey this is how you need to tailor,
or any architects saying hey, this is how you got
to build stuff, this is how it has to look right,
or painters or name anybody in that culture. They were
all guided by the same esthetic they were all bringing.
It's like they all had a unified vision of what
needed to come out and what their little role in
it would be, and they were unconsciously bringing about something
that was a much bigger, cohesive thing, even though they
only saw a little piece of it. They didn't all
of a sudden decide like, oh well, because of the
political situation and who is you know in the Bundestag,
I think that I am going to start building buildings
with a little bit of this type of flair in it,
or I think we're going to start you know, we're
gonna start tailoring suits. This particular type of way like
that ever happened. These people just instinctively just did it.
I don't think anybody ever focus enough attention is paid
on that because all of these people were going about
their daily lives suddenly in the spirit of something, and
that's exactly what he's talking about. And I think we're
at the earliest stages of that now everyone kind of
knows history is happening.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, it's turning against the Holocaust narrative.
Speaker 1: That again, when Pete and you were just saying it,
I was thinking in my head, I'm like, well, fuck,
there goes old religious.
Speaker 3: Station. Slastionis