VENEZUELA: TRUMP FAILS BIGTIME

for jesus and afraid to die

we are going to We are Gallagher Charlie God

Co.

This is

courage I wrote

to get

and run

the world

I'm and uh...

uh...

a

baby,

I'm

shot

you

I'm doing

here

I'm going to

and

and we're a for the guy He lived He lived for Jesus

Unafraid Unafraid to die.

We are Charlie.

You know. Charlie Charlie We are Charlie and who we are, Charlie His courage out

Together

I'll never give up

I He stood unshaken, a voice in the storm, a man of conviction, a heart

reborn

he spoke the truth

when the cost

was high

he lived for Jesus

unafraid to die

We are

Oh, we carry

The flame We'll fight for the We carry the flame

We'll fight for the gospel

We'll honor his name

We are Charlie Kirk

His courage our own together unbroken will make heaven know A husband and father

His family held near

A home built on scripture

On faith without fear

The world tried to silence

But his voice

remains

In a city I was killed

We are Charlie Cuck

We carry the flame

We'll fight for the gospels

We'll honor his name

We are Charlie Kirk

His courage our own

Together and broken

Who may heaven know

the battle

is raging

the darkness

will fall

we rise with

spirit

we answer the cross.

The truth is eternal.

The cross is our guide.

With God as our captain, we march side.

I don't know. Oh, no. Oh. And I don't know.

I'm a

I'm going to

I'm I'm I'm not. I'm a lot. I'm

and no. I'm I'm a little Oh I'm a lot

I'm I'm I'm I'm a lot I'm a

I'm not going to be able to be.

I don't know. I don't know. I'm not. I'm a

and I'm a lot of

I'm I'm I'm I'm not

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm I'm I'm not my

and

I'm

I'm

I'm

a I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm going to

and go

I'm going to I'm I'm I'm Young Soviet, what's going on, bro, appreciate you.

All right, y'all.

So what, what, what do you know?

Okay, what do you know? what he says it turns out after all this time we still it's a full day so yesterday was quite shocking we

didn't have a full understanding of what was going on we We had every reason to assume the worst for Venezuela.

We'd have a reason to assume there was some kind of coup going on internally, some kind of whatever.

So here are the facts in case you haven't been brought up to speed.

A, nothing happened to the regime.

The regime is still intact.

The Venezuelan regime is still intact.

B, the U.S. did not

put any

boots on the ground. There's no military

I mean, it was a hidden run. It was

just a hidden run. It was the most bitched

out thing you can imagine.

No nation was conquered. Nobody was conquered nobody was conquered the u.s did a

hit and run now that's a hit and run that requires the best intelligence in the world requires a

very powerful well-tratrained special forces for sure.

But Venezuela is still here.

I mean, troops have not been committed on the ground.

And exactly, you know, Rubio and Trump, both in press conferences, are dancing around the question of, well, what do you expect?

Who do you expect is going to replace Maduro?

And then Rubio's on camera saying, well, we don't recognize

their legitimacy, but we still have to work with them. So it just makes the entire thing

extremely bizarre, makes the entire thing like extremely puzzling like it puts it into perspective

was there a deal

was there an inside deal that may be involved

China or something I don't know

there's no regime change so far

and it's it's abundantly clear if you're looking at the footage coming out of venezuela

which there's an abundance of i know that cnn and all these uh right wing piscants are showing footage

of argentina they're showing footage of chile they're showing footage of Chile. They're showing footage of

Colombia. They're showing footage from six months ago in all these random countries. They're showing

footage in Miami. Not one has shown footage of Caracas. Not one of them have shown footage of Venezuela itself. Because

if you look at the footage in Venezuela, if you look at the footage in Caracas, what do you see?

You see overwhelming support for the regime and for Maduro and protests against what the U.S.

did to Maduro.

So this was just kind of a type of

banditry they did. They went in and it

was a hit and run. They didn't conquer

anything. They kidnapped

the president of Venezuela. Congratulations.

You kidnapped the president of Venezuela. Congratulations. You kidnapped the president of Venezuela.

The regime is still here. Everything seems to be mainly intact.

Now, what the purpose of this is just not very clear.

That's the puzzling thing about this entire thing.

Is what is the point?

Trump talks tough, but is the U.S. military willing to fight the Venezuelan military?

I haven't even seen proof of that.

I've seen no proof the U.S. military is even willing or able to fight the Venezuelan military.

And I'm not saying that because they couldn't win.

I'm saying that because could they justify the loss of U.S. soldiers to the public politically?

Could they survive that?

So, yeah, this was just an absolute failure okay so they took maduro they kidnapped

maduro who was the president of venezuela uh you know look admittedly that's extremely

unprecedented it's admittedly it's extremely bizarre admittedly it's extremely bizarre. Admittedly, it's extremely, you know, like, that's just not a thing that happens, right?

But all the chest thumping, all the talk of the Monroe Doctrine, and how this was an act of conquest and successful conquest and defeat of Venezuela and the brown people got owned or whatever.

Wade, what's up? Appreciate the 10.

This was a definite optic optical humiliation of the venezuelan regime in a way but what do you expect

you're talking about the cia which knows everything you're talking about the cia which knows everything you're talking about the CIA which knows everything

you're talking about some of the most advanced

special forces in the entire world

and they you know they

they built a replica of Maduro's compound

and they trained on it for months and months and months to get it down perfectly.

When they want to do something this surgical, they can.

Master Yota, what's up?

Look, I'll tell you a few things.

Surgical acts like this, the U.S., Britain, and Israel excels at them whether it's kidnapping or whether it's targeted assassinations they absolutely excel at this kind of thing that doesn't mean you're conquering the nation It means you're engaging in a surgical precision act to kill or steal one person in particular.

Leaders can be replaced.

Leaders can change.

This isn't even the first time the U.S. has violated Venezuela's sovereignty. So the regime is still

intact in Venezuela's for now. Apparently, they're going to have elections in 30 days. Don't quote me on that.

And if they have elections in 30 days,

what is that going to mean?

Well, maybe that's when we're going to see the U.S.

try to get more involved to make sure that in the outcome of the elections,

but they don't have it.

I genuinely watch the interviews from Rubio,

and it seems clear that Rubio and Trump have given up on trying to replace the PSUV regime.

So I don't exactly know what the purpose of kidnapping Venezuela,

kidnapping Nicholas Maduro was.

I think it was for the purposes of the, you know,

bread and circuses maybe, Roman style parading the bad guy on the streets

and it was for domestic political support.

I don't know

what the purpose of this was. That's what's

very puzzling to me. Was there a deal?

You know, they're talking about how they're going to be stealing Venezuela's oil now.

I'm very interested in knowing what that's going to look like.

Because as far as I'm concerned, the United States has not taken back Venezuela's oil from

when it was nationalized under Chavez.

It's still nationalized.

Nothing has changed.

So is Trump just dressing up a type of new contract with venezuela in different terms now

and saying we're taking the oil but in reality it's just some kind of new contract.

I humbly resign myself to just not being able to understand what the purpose of all of this was.

The only thing that kind of makes sense to me, which even then doesn't, is that the Trump administration wanted to normalize ties with Venezuela, but met too much heavy resistance from, you know, Rubio or whatever.

So the compromise was, we're going to basically just lift the sanctions, start doing business with the regime in Venezuela, but we have to

have some dramatic

show of force and some

dramatic display to humiliate

them by kidnapping Maduro

specifically.

Maybe

that's what's going on, but i don't think much has really happened here

structurally or consequentially you know tim pool was talking about how we're about to get

all this oil from venezuela's like, well, it doesn't seem like that's what's going on. It seems like something else is going on. It seems like the U.S. is probably going to lift sanctions with the current regime just without Maduro.

And why without Maduro? I mean, maybe to appease Rubio. I don't know.

So this is, I don't know, this chest thumping about expansionism and conquest.

What an epic fucking fail, you little bitch.

What an epic fucking fail.

It's like they're celebrating the fact that they did a precision raid and just kidnapped the president okay chavez was kidnapped i mean what is what it did was were they saying it's impossible to

kidnap third world presidents that has nothing what is that's a far cry from some kind of triumphant successful conquest of our nation shut the fuck up you little bitch nothing nothing of that sort happened okay they they they uh sailed in they kidnapped the president and then

they left okay okay unprecedented

you know it was absolutely a sick, disgusting

ritual of humiliation

and it killediliation and it killed, you know, it killed a decent amount of people, you know,

it killed a considerable amount of people, I should rather say.

But Venezuela has not been conquered. It's just straight up has not been conquered.

It's just straight up has not been conquered.

And when I say it hasn't been conquered, I mean the regime has not been toppled.

PSUV is still in charge.

The Venezuelan people haven't been subdued.

No confrontation has occurred in which the U.S.

has gone to Venezuela and, you know, at gunpoint,

successfully subdued them.

They went in and just kidnapped the president and left.

Unprecedented.

Ridiculous even.

But,

you know, pedophile i would say people who are psychologically pedophiles like matt wals

you know this utter nihilism is just i want to show it to you, because I want to make a tweet.

But I'm so disgusted by this piece of shit, Matt Walsh.

I want to show you what this Zionist slave cattle said.

And then I want to have a broader discussion about third worldism, which I'd like you guys to to clip and share.

But first we're going to cover this psychological pedophile matt walsh he is a

psychological pedophile i'll absolutely call he has the psychology of a pedophile the pedophilic petterast

matt walsh a literal pedophilic petterassed psychologically we are matt walsh oh wait was that the

wrong guy?

My bad.

I keep getting these guys mixed up.

Anyway, here's the petterast, and I'll explain why he's a petterast, and a pedophilic pussy

Matt Walsh

the slave

the Zionist slave of Epstein

who literally is on his hands and knees every

single day getting whipped

he is literally not even a human being he's a subhuman cattle i mean he's not even cattle he's literally

just a he is a psychological pedophile this is pure pedophilia on display right here

and we're going to get into this discussion but this is a pedophilics on display right here.

And we're going to get into this discussion, but this is a pedophilic statement to make.

And I can justify why I can just call you a pedophile for saying this, Matt Walsh.

We are Matt Walsh. Wait, is that the wrong guy? Sorry. I keep getting these guys mixed up. I keep getting these tough guys mixed up. They're so tough. I hope nothing bad happens to them.

But, because they're so tough, I would never want that to happen to a tough guy like matt walsh

he's just so tough it's like it'd be like a fallen hero you know he's such a tough hero he's a

strong guy strong tough guy matt walsh. Anyway,

I totally support

turning other countries in our hemisphere

into subordinate vassals

of the United States.

So, this

is basically just the psychology

of wanting to rape children, and I'll explain why that is.

That's the very definition of an America first foreign policy.

So I'll translate that to all of you who are not pedophiles so you can understand why someone would say this the psychology of a pedophile is that they take the innate God-given potential of another human being, which is graced by them by God from the minute they're born, right?

And they want to suppress that. And that's why we as human

beings have such an instinctual revulsion toward pedophilia and pedophiles. And it's why

most human societies killed pedophilia and pedophiles and it's why most human societies killed pedophiles

and executed them i should rather say you know in a lawful procedural manner whatever but

they were executed in most human societies pedophiles because beings, most real men, are absolutely disgusted at the notion of taking the God-given and innate potential of another human being and ruining that. You know, we human beings, we at least would like to believe that the

misfortune that befalls other people is a consequence of their own choices. That when you're

an adult, you have a free will, you can make your own choices. That when you're an adult, you have a free will, you can make your own choices,

and what you do with your potential is then up to you. It's a matter of your own will, what you do

with your potential. But a child, that's just the state of grace that God puts us in

that's God's grace that's just given to us for free

and for someone to violate that

and take that away from another

just disgusts us naturally. But that same feeling of

disgust is also why we're disgusted at oppressors. An oppressor takes the innate potential of another

man, another human being. The word oppress press, it literally means to press against.

You press against them and you stop people from reaching their potential. You stop people from

being able to do with what God gave them, with God's grace, right?

To fulfill their lives, to fulfill their existence.

So the same things that make us hate pedophiles make us hate oppressors.

And what Matt Walsh is saying is that he is a big fan of child rape.

He's using this language like, we should make them!

Our subordinate vassals!

And he thinks this is edgy and he thinks it's cool.

You know, we don't have a right.

We don't have to justify ourselves on the basis of any principle.

We should pray on other human beings and rip away their God-given potential for our own benefit.

Now, forget the fact that the logic is all fucked up and screwed up, because who is we?

You little cattle, slave, little bitch, Matt Walsh, you tough guy, Matt Walsh you tough

guy Matt Walsh who is we

exactly it's your Zionist

masters that you're talking about

you fucking cucked bitch

Matt Walsh

who thinks he's a man he's not a man

he's literally the biggest bitch I've ever seen.

Low T bitch Matt Walsh.

Tough guy Matt Walsh.

Who is we?

There is no we.

Okay, but he's talking about social predation.

He's talking about predatory behavior, which Nick Fuentes, who also has an interesting relationship, you know, in terms of his thoughts on the underage, he has the same reasoning.

They have this idea that because throughout history, there's conquest, and there's

violence, and there's struggles between powers, that this somehow means you can translate that into a logic of, you know, well, the 19th century, you know, the coping retard Anglos who invented the social Darwinism.

Well, if we can do it, then we will do it.

And like, you know, forget that sissy moral morality stuff.

We should just take it.

And that's what a cool guy does.

Just, just, just oppress people and kill people and steal from people because you can

because we're strong and they're weak and it's like first of all i mean the logic is all warped

because you know for for people who are bullied in middle school, this sounds very, very compelling and powerful.

It's like you're getting back at your bullies.

Just like how I was bullied, I'm going to be a bully.

This is the law of nature.

If this wasn't the law

of nature, why did I get swirlies?

That's what Nick Fuentes says.

Because Nick Fuentes probably was bullied and

beat up and whatever and stepped on in middle

school. So he goes, this is the law

of nature.

We just go and kill and steal from people.

Well, that's just how it is.

And if it's not, then where were you when I was bullied?

Where were you when I got swirlies and wedgies?

Probably has a song and everything, right?

And it's like, where were we?

Yeah. And it's like, where were we? You know, honestly, usually people that are bullied in school, there's tons of people that try to help them and they just don't want it, right?

Honestly.

But anyway,

yeah,

it's just so childish. It's just such a stupid path. I'm not even like offended

by it. I would like even like offended by it.

I would like to be offended, but it's both childish and just disgustingly pedophilic, right?

And you don't know whether to laugh at these people or just say, lock them up.

Lock these people up.

These are, you know, dark Matt over here.

Dark Christian Matt, dark conservative Matt over here.

Just lock this fucking guy up before he starts raping children.

That's what I have to say to Matt Walsh.

Lock this guy up before he starts raping children.

Because if you talk about other nations in this way,

Long Guy, what's up?

If you talk about other nations in this way,

and you have this idea that, you know,

you fantasize all wanting to oppress other people and, um, humiliate them and subjugate them and all this other kind of stuff.

What you're basically saying is you recognize that other people have this God-given innate potential.

And you just want to like oppress that and suppress that and take it away from them,

somehow for your own benefit.

Well, if you had any potential of your own, you wouldn't need to do that, right?

So you're just a little bitch who wants to go...

You dream and fantasize of oppression, of oppressing others,

of enslaving others, of subjugating others.

This is your fantasy.

I'm not saying I think Matt Walsh is going to do that.

If Matt Walsh went to South America and said this,

I think... I think...

If Matt Walsh went to South America and said this, he would be grabbed off the street.

That'd be the first thing that happens.

And no, he wouldn't be killed only, okay?

First, he would be tortured.

He would be beaten, like, very severely, very brutally, of course.

But they would torture him

for a long period of time they would do that

cartel shit you know the

the bloody angel or whatever they would do some really

sick stuff to this guy if he went to

if he went to south america and said this

you know an astec would rip

his heart out and eat it you you know. So I'm not worried

that this tough guy is going to, you know, he's going to dominate anyone. You know, he's a guy

whose wife is probably getting dominated every day. This is not a tough guy. This is not a strong

person. But what I am worried is that he's going to try to

rape children and that's why i think he needs to be locked up because he's telling the world his

fantasy of oppressing other men and you know look in the in the in the worst i mean in the best case scenario he's not going after

children but he's like ditty because this is like some ditty energy is it is that not the case

when you think about it isn't that isn't that just the truth? A man who fantasizes about oppressing other men of taking away another man's God-given potential. He's on some ddy Booty Bandit shit

I don't know what to call it

this is whatever this is

it's not normal okay

and he needs to be locked up

just like Diddy was

so that's the best case scenario

if you could even call it that.

I think it's fair to say this guy's a threat to children and he has the psychology of a child rapist. So.

I said.

So, you know, I can already anticipate the responses to this.

Do not clip me out of context, guerrilla army.

Don't clip me out of context and wait for people to respond in the way I know they're going to respond.

Well, you know, you can clip the part about me calling him a child rapist and stuff.

That's fine.

But in terms of my reasoning and stuff, you have to include my argument, all right?

So I'll explain.

I already know, hey, right-wing retard.

You have Down syndrome.

You're literally subhuman.

I know what your response is going to be.

What about Russia? What about China?

What about the Mongols? What about other? What a Ha's? Why do you praise authoritarianism then?

Why do you praise dictatorships? Aren't you a communist?

Yeah. Yeah. This is the response, right? And you could just tell these people are subhuman,

because they don't even think about it for five minutes. I want to separate two things.

First thing I want to talk about are empires. I want to talk about the logic of real empires, not the Anglo LARP, which is just child rape on a global scale. And they somehow, you know, we're the new, we're the new, you know, empires of it you're this has nothing to do with the real

imperial traditions

of the pre-modern world right

this was just anglo

global child rape

ideology right

and literally right you have epstein barrio what's up child rape ideology, right? And literally, right?

You have Epstein.

Barry, what's up?

I want to talk about the logic of

empire throughout history,

Eurasianism, civilization

states, and I'll include

Russia and China and their geopolitics and that.

And then in the second part, I want to talk about communist dictatorship and proletarian

dictatorship.

So the first thing, history is replete with conquest and power struggle and conflict right absolutely it is but simultaneously

a great power whether it starts out small like the step nomadsads, like bands of Mongol warriors in the step,

or whether it's beginning from somewhere big, like the Persian Empire or the Ottoman Empire or something else,

they could have cynical motivations for wanting

to conquer a land. They absolutely

can have that.

And that's common

throughout history. I'm not denying that.

But they still had to

have a principled pretext.

Might is right is like an empty formalism.

It means nothing.

You still need a principled pretext.

And actually, for the most part,

there's always a discursive justification

which they find necessary both internally and externally,

whether for the purpose of convincing themselves or others.

You know, this lesser power had a contract with me and violated it,

or this lesser power encroached upon our land and did, you know,

and it's not just, Trump is providing a pretext for Venezuela, but nobody believes it.

And it's not just that nobody believes it, even he doesn't believe it.

So, and then the discursive justification is what you're getting from Matt Walsh.

Well, we could just have the right to subjugate others.

That's actually not an authentic imperial logic in terms of pre-modern empires at all.

There has to be a principled reason.

There has to be some kind of compelling reason right

not just the empty form of my that means nothing that just means you're you're hollow you have

nothing oh because i'm stronger what is stronger stronger? Who is the subject? That's what you

really ask, who's stronger? What's stronger? What principle is stronger? Because it's always a

conflict of contrasting principles. And I mean principles in an effective sense. It's not simply about morals. What kind of civilization and order do you stand for? They can't say, like, under George W. Bush even, anymore, that we represent a superior civilization because of freedom and democracy and our principles are better.

We have degraded into a point of nihilism where they're just doing what, you know, hit what, what the hit, either the Hitlerians or some kind of 19th century bullshit,

you know, um, social Darwinist argument, which is just like might is right, whatever.

By the way, the actual person who wrote might is right was a socialist

so they're not even i won't even get into that but this is just a civilizational and ideological

nihilism nick flintes is a nihilist, Matt Wallace are nihilist.

They're just basically saying, well, this is just the nature of power.

Hold on.

Power has to reflect something other than just power itself.

You know, when I know these guys watch Game of Thrones when the blonde-haired bitch

said, power is power. Yeah, but in reality, it's not just that, okay? Power has to be

determined. There's plenty of power in the cosmos. The sun is very powerful. The heavenly bodies are very powerful. The titanic

currents below the earth are very powerful. The ocean is very powerful. Okay, weather can be very

powerful. Power in the human sense, or yeah, in the sense that's meaningful to us,

distinguishes itself when it has a determination, when it's the power of something.

It represents a principle.

So that's why, you know,

the first world empire in history was the Persian Empire.

And that gave rise to a title called Shaw and Shaw, right?

The King of Kings.

And Cyrus rose to power on the basis of what protecting the weak the weak we're getting preyed upon nobody was protecting them somebody's got to keep these kings in check.

That was the imperial principle.

And you'll find on the

even the earliest, you know,

tablets

from ancient

Babylonia, how do kings come to be? Well, they say, we're here to protect the weak.

We're here to protect the little guy. We're here to put an end to the, you know, the cannibalism.

The law of the jungle. That's what they're there to put an end to right appalachia what's up so real power

doesn't come from chest thumping about how you want to pray on other men. Okay, Diddy? That's not where power comes from.

Power comes from the opposite. Real strong, great power in the effective sense, because people say, well, the British Empire was strong and well in a sense

yes the British Empire was a strong naval power and it was a strong force but it wasn't a strong

authority it wasn't a strong authority it wasn't a strong authority it wasn't popular among the

people of england and britain itself and it didn't actually unify the people under the empire

under any common principle that was respected.

What they had was gunpowder and they had force.

The key distinction is between force and authority.

They're not the same thing.

Because authority is the combination of force with principle.

Authority doesn't just say, I have the ability to kill you or to reign you in.

It's, I have the ability to do this for a greater purpose a purpose that's superior to yours

and empires can become arrogant which is why cyclically throughout history what ends up happening is weak very primitive

bands of nomads who have a stronger morale and have a stronger purpose end up conquering the empires and why because they have a stronger

purpose they have a stronger what ibn chaldoons called assabia right a stronger solidarity a stronger

purpose and a stronger morale so it's not you do need force you

need to prove that your morale exists you need to prove that your principle exists you need to

prove that it is real so their force is necessary for sure,

but by itself is not enough. And this is what these idiots don't understand. Glazing and glorifying

force for its own sake,

it's not simple.

I'm not saying it's immoral.

That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is it's impotent.

It's just impotence.

It doesn't translate into effective victory.

And that's why Trump cannot occupy Venezuela.

Because the PSUV has more authority than the United States does among the Venezuelan people.

Can they kidnap the president?

Yes.

Can they kill a lot of people?

Sure, they can.

Can they actually successfully prove to the people of Venezuela that they are the authority?

And the PSUV is not.

They cannot do that.

Same thing in Iran.

You can use force.

You can have all the force in the world.

That doesn't mean you have authority.

Authority doesn't come from force alone usually throughout history the reason force

could be an effective way to communicate to people that you do have authority is that force presupposes a more complex

division of labor meaning you have a stronger unifying internal principle and therefore you must it would be safe to infer that you have more of an authority because you have a superior force like you see a superior force and you say wow what a strong principle that can unify people

with such a complex division of labor they must be superior that's what it means to be

superior but the force alone does not mean superiority because force is chaotic and it's random and it's the most

common thing in the universe everything is force in the universe force is everywhere okay there's

nothing special about force by itself so this is the impotence of nihilism force is a very

abundant thing in the universe what's not abundant is purposeful force force that is concentrated

for a reason and the reason nick flentes and Matt Walsh give us is, let's take their stuff to enrich

ourselves.

Now, let's forget about how this is just opportunism in the sense that, yeah, that could sound

edgy and compelling to teenagers, but you're just running cover for Wall Street banksters who are going to get rich while the American people continue to be raped daily.

So the American people are not going to benefit from this in any capacity.

So they're just getting the logic wrong. They're getting the facts wrong. Like from the very outset, they're just fucking up and getting it wrong, right? No, you're, this is not going to benefit the American people. It's absolutely not. But let's entertain the structure of their fantasy, if you will, right?

And ignore the fact that they're getting the details wrong.

The force that they're talking about is for the purpose of watching porn, playing video games, or being a pedophile like Matt Walsh and wearing a lumberjack shirt and doing

um diddy photo shoots in the woods with log cabins that's the actual like purpose that's the

justifying principle and purpose for the use of force to continue facilitating

this extremely hollow empty and meaningless way of life which is driving men to suicide at record

rates and driving women into prostitution because no one can afford anything, right?

So this is the facts. I mean, these are just the simple facts. This is the reality. Force is a very

impotent, pathetic thing if it doesn't have a strong principle.

Now, with that being said, why does the U.S. have the ability to project so much force.

Why does it have the most powerful military in the world?

There's only one reason that the United States of America has the most powerful military in the world.

And the reason is, it's very simple.

The global economic system is structured in such a way that the United States absorbs all of the surpluses.

Lionel, what's up?

All of the surpluses line all what's up all of the surpluses so let me repeat myself the reason why the united states has the most powerful military on earth isn't because of matt Walsh's superior genetics.

It's because the United States absorbs, as a consequence of how the global system is structured, all of the surpluses and profits of the entire planet.

All the surpluses of the planet through the dollar system are absorbed like a vacuum cleaner by the United States, which gives it an unlimited budget.

But it's the same reason why we're $40 trillion in debt.

And the tendency toward having an extreme deficit started with the Vietnam War, by the way, to finance the military.

So these are the same things that have led to deindustrialization. They're the same things that have led to the complete destruction of American popular sovereignty in the constitutional form.

But it has indeed led to the creation of the world's most powerful military.

But the real cause of that isn't because of the innate superiority of America or Americans whatsoever.

The reasons for this have its origins in World War II. In World War II, which was a World

War, by the way, all of Europe was devastated. So the other modern industrialized

country was the USA, which was untouched, which gave it an immediate advantage for dictating the terms and

conditions for how the post-war world order would be structured and how it would be

rebuilt because a lot of it was destroyed, right? So, you know, these are the reasons why we have the

most powerful military on Earth. Now, if we were to articulate a principle that could be worthy of the

great force that that u.s. military is capable of well it's just communism the soviet union is the

one who articulated that china is the one who is now articulating that because there are the only ones who have made

sense not only of technological modernity, but of polarity of this kind of system of combining the import and export of capital for the purposes, but they made it

purposeful, for the purpose of strategic development, right? So they're the ones who have articulated

authority, whereas the U.S. military just has blind force. Russia has authority. China, especially China, has authority. Okay. So to have authority and to have force are two completely different things okay to absorb all the

profits and surpluses of the world is one thing but to to subdue the system for a strategic purpose that's meaningful is another one.

Our purpose just so happens to be keeping up the, what do you call it the Ponzi scheme of the financial speculators and of the

banksters so the system doesn't collapse that's why we have the most powerful military on the earth

we use all these surpluses to build up our military

because our military has to ensure that the monopolists will not have their revenues,

or it's not even their revenues necessarily, but their Ponzi scheme is not in any way going to be

disrupted by new poles emerging or by the existing poles, freeing the world from this unipolar world order, right? So it's very simple, you know, force and authority are not the same thing and so i have nothing against

force i'm not a moralist who says conquest is inherently immoral violence is inherently immoral

conflict is inherently immoral that's not our position we're not hippies but conflict violence and uh you know and war have to be purposeful.

They have to satisfy a purpose.

And I don't mean they have to satisfy a utility.

That's not the same thing.

Before we can speak of utility, let's talk about purpose.

For example, it's absolutely justified to take up before we can speak of utility let's talk about purpose for example

it's absolutely justified to take up arms to defend your homeland

that's absolutely justifiable

it would be absolutely justifiable to take up arms

and invade another country when it continues to engage in acts of aggression against your fraternal people on your border who are indistinguishable from your nation's people,

but were only divided because of these extremely bizarre circumstances.

I'm talking about the Soviet Union and the transition to Russia.

When you have situations like Russian speakers in the Donbass, who for 10 years are getting

shelled and attacked by an extremely aggressive, you know, banderist regime in Kiev after a coup

Russia does have the right

absolutely has the right to intervene

to restore stability

in order to the situation. They tried doing it through treaties multiple times

and it didn't work.

To compare that situation to what the U.S. does in Venezuela, it's just, it's comical.

Russia does have a fucking reason to go into Ukraine.

Why do people miss that?

Like, Russia does have a moral reason. They do beyond mere, you know, well, this is our right to conquer and steal. No, that's not the point. Russia absolutely respected the treaties and the right

of self-determination of Ukraine.

Even though Putin

and most Russians didn't

personally believe Ukraine

was a legitimate nation.

They still respected for formal purposes and for legal purposes

the fact that this is a neighboring country that has a right to solve determination.

It wasn't until the terms and conditions of that agreement, which was that the Russian-speaking

people in the Donbass would have dignity, would have the ability to speak the Russian nation,

would be protected in some capacity, that Russia had to step in.

So Russia is fulfilling something that is historically legitimate.

It's absolutely legitimate from a historical perspective.

The same thing is true of China with respect to Taiwan province.

Taiwan has always been part of China, and this much is agreed upon by both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China.

There was a civil war within China in which the communists were victorious.

The civil war hasn't ended formally.

It's very generous that the Chinese government is proposing one country, two systems for Taiwan.

Because in reality, by the logic of the civil war, the ROC is an illegitimate government.

Because they lost.

And the reason they lost is because they lacked the same moral purpose and superiority as the

communists.

They represented landlords and bandits

and Comprador shill of

foreign imperialists. So the

communists won the people. They

won the masses of China.

Just like

Lincoln had the right

to fight the Confederacy.

So there are multiple circumstances that you can think of in which war is justifiable, and conquest is justifiable.

Henghis Khan did not engage in acts of conquest just because he could.

He had reasons.

A lot of people don't know this, but he absolutely had reasons, which, when you think about it, were absolutely legitimate.

Genghis khan originally rose to bring law and unification to his tribes laws which had precedent but which were forgotten and he reminded them of that that's all he did he reminded them of that

in the process of trying to unify his tribes other tribal chiefs that were allied with foreign powers

got in his way and started attacking him

and started persecuting them and started oppressing him so these foreign powers started getting

caught in between the the the conflicts of the Mongol bands themselves.

So that's why they invaded Yuan China, okay?

Say, well, what about what they did in Baghdad?

Well, the Mongols, whose first internal conflict just started spreading, right? Because it's what's happening is there's a relitigation of all of the treaties and forms of recognition that exist. Because old powers

that be um feel threatened by these by the unification of these step people who they wanted to control and keep tightly controlled anyway they sent the delegation to Baghdad, which wasn't saying, and you know, history, some historians will say, oh, they were just saying, you know, you know, kiss my ass or die

that's not what they were saying

they were saying we are a new power

just like you had ties with the old power

we're the new one

and you know we're here to

we're sending an emissary

to you to let you know

like whatever

relations you

had with the

previous power

we

for whatever

reason

you know

because of what

happened

that's us

now

well that

emissary was

beheaded okay because these guys were arrogant. They were saying,

who the fuck are these third world brown barbarians to tell us what to do? So that's why Hulagu Khan went

to Baghdad and massacred them. Now, am I saying every conqueror had a justifiable pretext for what they did?

Absolutely not. But what I am saying is that the form of conquest that is just cynical, purposeless, wanton thievery and banditry happens three times in history that I could think of

on a very like significant, historically significant level. I'm sure there's so many other

examples, but there's three ones that stand out.

Alexander. so many other examples, but there's three ones that stand out. Alexander

in Greece

that was just piracy.

It was just banditry.

The Romans

were just bandits.

Like the war with Carthage

was absolutely just on behalf

of the senatorial oligarchy

and there was no legitimate

justifying pretext for that

and then the

early modern

colonialism

of Britain, Portugal, and

the Netherlands

and the Netherlands.

And of... and the netherlands and now you know i mean i guess now america which is just a continuation of that when you think about it and you know nazism was a failed attempt at this, which absolutely failed.

But, yeah, and French as well, you know.

Just the early modern European colonialism and the history of that colonialism.

Because that colonialism wasn't a Eurasian logic of the expansion of a universal principle under the blue sky on horses and it's this universal principle that unifies people and creates giant civilizations civilizations and um massive you know policies and you know, policies and, you know, complex administrative systems that unify the

division of labor and restructure and reorganize it in a new way.

European colonialism was a private enterprise, or it was on behalf of private actors, who were just pirates trying to get rich.

And, you know, the colonial administration administration by and large what it did it just parasitically took and extracted the systems that were already in place and funneled it overseas, right?

Even extractive systems like the Mughals, they stayed in India.

They built an empire in India.

The British didn't do that.

They just stole and packaged it and took it to Britain.

So piracy and banditry exists in history,

but real imperial principles from the earliest times, from the days of Sargon of Akad, not the British guy, but the real one,

or even what you read in the epic of Gilgamesh, or the earliest kings in history arose to put an end to that, to bring justice so that there wouldn't just be, you know, banditry. There wouldn't just be this law of the jungle or whatever, right? That's why Genghis Khan rose. People think Genghis Khan was

a barbarian and a savage, but when you think about it, Genghis Khan was a civilizer.

The savagery was going on before Genghis Khan.

The Mongols were stealing from each other.

They were killing each other.

And it was anarchy.

And they had forgotten the codes of honor

that were supposed to keep them unified as tribes,

which are life and death in the step, and Genghis Khan restored that, right?

So, real imperial principles, you know, to simplify for you, it's eurasianism versus atlanticism

irasianism refers to real effective unifying principles

that do actually create large empires large continuous empires that change the fabric of civilization atlantic empires

um are just sophisticated systems of piracy for the enrichment of oligarchs and aristocrats who themselves are bereft of purpose, okay, who themselves don't have purpose, who themselves don't have an actual, who themselves live a very hollow existence right so this is the truth i mean um

there are reasons why europe over the past 500 years was able to take over the world.

But then there's also ways of thinking about how they didn't actually take over the world.

What they did was... was occupy a great deal of the world, but they didn't restructure the fundamentals of the civilizations on earth.

For as much as China was humiliated and occupied and so on and so on, it's not like Europe

rearranged to the nature of Chinese civilization, you know, or the same in Africa or even

the Middle East or any. They had to do that themselves in a

revolutionary way so there's reasons europe took over the world just like the greeks and just

like the romans but from the long-term perspective of actual civilization, what Europe did was introduce a principle of universal modernity as a principle, right?

And this meant technological modernity.

This meant a whole lot of other things.

But that was the accumulation of all human history.

You know, starting with the Mongol World Empire,

the creation of the Silk Road, which in some ways ended in Venice, and Europe, which was on the periphery of this, was able to basically take all the science, take all of the discoveries, take all of the knowledge produced by this, and concentrate it in a way know, outside the framework of existing very large, very complex regulatory systems.

You know, there's the whole theory, I forgot the guy's name, the whole theory of the river versus the, um, the rainwater civilizations, you know,

I digress. We don't have to get into it. But, um, so it's just very cringe, you know, this whole idea that, you know, well, might, well, well, you're just a hippie if you don't agree. And it's like, buddy, you're a literal, you sound like a child rapist.

Because the world is messy and violence and conquest and stuff are part of the world.

But you sound...

You're either childish.

You're like a video game guy who plays video games and doesn't know where real life is.

Or you're a child rapist.

Or you're like diddy or something but you have to understand the

reasons for why there's conquest it's like there's a like nick flintzes is like this little boy

this terrified little boy by the way who's uh getting around. He's always been a little bitch slave of

anonymous internet trolls. He doesn't even know,

aka Massad.

But he was this nerdy kid who would go on 4chan, and then he would just appease

4chan. And that's how he became king of

the groipers he just he has to appease them he's sweating nervously he's got he's got to appease them

he has to take all their kates takes concentrate and distill them and give them what they want.

I'm not like that.

You know,

that's what sets people like me apart.

I don't give a fuck about,

you know,

appeasing my audience.

I don't answer to anyone.

I believe what I believe is right. You know, I don't change, I don't flip- anyone. I believe what I believe

is right. I don't change. I don't flip

flop like this like he does

for that reason.

But it's like this little boy, Nick

Fuentes, going up to Genghis Khan.

He's seeing Genghis Khan beheading

people and he's seeing him conquer.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So I can do that too, right?

And then Genghis Khan just kind of looks at this little bitch kid.

He goes, but do you know why i do this do you know the yasa code do you know the code of honor that like he's got reasons though

like very actual heavy reasons it's not you think gangus con is just sitting here like some

fucking gamer going i am doing this because i want twinkies i want more twies. I want more

Twinkies. I want more.

No, he has, it's a drama.

It's like he's doing it

because I am defending

the honor of my people.

You know, I was belittled.

They said I was nothing.

This is a guy who began from nothing.

He's humbling.

What did Genghis Khan say?

He said, what did he say about china do you know he said heaven has grown weary of the excessive

luxury and arrogance of china this is how conquest real consequential conquest happens in history you know maybe it's so it's so fucked up because there's the greek under alexander and then there's the romans Alexander and then there's the Romans, right? And then there's the way early modern European thinkers interpreted those things and twisted them and distorted them. Because in the 1500s, Britain claimed it was the new

Roman Empire, so that's where neoclassicism

came from.

And that's why, you know, this notion of white marble

and all the white statues, that

was from Britain. The statues

of Rome were not

white.

They were, maybe they were white people, but they were not like, they had color, I mean, you know?

Same with Greece.

They all had color.

But the British changed the meaning in English. same with greece they all had color

but the british

changed the meaning in in their own ways so

the continuity of rome for example with bisonthium and with russia that kind of gets forgotten

but in any case um

Rome

the drama going on in Rome

if you know history

was an internal class struggle

the foreign conquest

were a way of displacing internal pressure for land

redistribution. Because you had a free population and you had an enslaved population. But even among the free population, there wasn't enough land. So how do you appease them? How do you stop conflict and turmoil? You have to go take other lands and give them to them so they get off your back so these you know senatorial aristocrats

won't have to have any of their land taken away that was not a sustainable system rome was not a

sustainable system.

It's very bizarre to me that people don't understand.

Rome was not sustainable.

Almost the entire history of the Roman Republic was constant class struggle and conflict, culminating in the assassination of Julius Caesar. Then the Roman Empire didn't even last very long. Like by the standards of an empire.

And I'm talking about this because Egypt had millennia of history.

You know, Egypt, since 3,000 BC, you had Egypt, Babylonia, they had continuous traditions of kingship and imperial authority, which the dynasties might have come and gone, but it was a continuous dynastic imperial principle for thousands of years. Rome didn't even last very long, right?

So if you want to understand how empires work, don't look at Rome and don't look at Alexander in ancient Greece.

Look at what the norm is for human history.

China, Babylon, Persia, Egypt. And that's the distinction you're going to find of Eurasianism versus Atlantisism. There's a prejudice in Atlantisism where this is the nature of power and politics and empire no you're talking about exceptions to the norm which are not stable which are extremely unstable and which don't last for a long period of time.

And I would say, I'm not saying Rome is not part of any, I'm not seeing the West is not part of this history, but it's part of a specific stage of that history.

For China had many stages of they had their own greases and roms

and they had their own feudalism and little ages or whatever.

But through the continuous development of history,

they achieved a pretty solid, long-lasting,

unifying principle of power.

And Europe did not achieve that.

And that's just the truth.

Europe didn't achieve that. It still hasn't.

America seems to be the culmination of that in a lot of ways. We're called the United States of America, which is pretty, like pretty explicitly that that's the problem, the founding fathers in a lot of ways we're dealing with. It's like, how do we fucking unify people? How do you actually unify a large policy? Because Europe

didn't know how to do that.

Europe never was able to do that.

For however big the British Empire

was, Britain

had fucking trouble unifying

the clans of Ireland

and Scotland

sure they could take

gunpowder and muskets

and shoot Zulus

who had bows and arrows

okay yeah they could do that

sure but

knowing how to actually unify people and create this effective imperial

principle, even to this day, Britain has failed to do that.

Ireland, most of it is outside of the UK right now, you know?

Um,

and of course Europe had its many wars in the 19th century and its world wars.

So people need to humble themselves because they don't know what they're talking about.

Creating continuous large landmass empires with a united population, with a united division of labor,

with a united effective imperial labor with the united effective

imperial principle

part of which includes

reining in private interests

and subordinating them

Europe does not have experience with that

and that's okay but it just doesn't

like those with that and that's okay but it just doesn't

that doesn't mean white people are inferior but it's the truth

that europe hasn't done that and america hasn't done that right so when

matt walsh and Nick Fuentes talk about,

I support turning other countries into our vassals.

You know, Matt, I feel like, you know, I feel like your Zionist Jewish boss turns your wife into his vassal every night.

I just kind of get the inkling.

Like, stop taught.

You're not a tough guy, buddy.

Shut the fuck up.

Like, literally shut the fuck up. it's like yeah yeah it's like it's such like a petaphyphilic psychology what he's saying

but it's also so just unimpressive it's just so woefully unimpressive like you get your

entire understanding of how power and civilization and empire's work from Game of Thrones.

You're just not literate. You're like a larping retard who doesn't even know what you're talking about.

You're talking about such big things. Oh, empire, a subjugation vassals

buddy you've played yeah we get it you've played map strategy games we get it you've played

fucking real-time strategy games

real-time strategy games

real-time strategy games.

Yeah.

We get it, buddy.

You played them.

Okay,

you played,

yeah,

because,

you know,

it's funny because RTSG

does know what they're talking about, right?

But for Matt Walsh, you know, it's like, yeah, buddy, you just, I don't know, you watch Star Wars or something and you think you know how power works.

You need to sit down, little boy boy. Sit down little boy, please.

Nick Flentes. You know, you see he has these really flamboyant

hand gestures when he...

We're gonna conquer them!

Like he's Super Mario Hitting.

We're gonna come!

He's gonna conquer them!

And he puts his hand up like that.

Little boy, sit down, little boy.

You don't know what power is.

You don't know what conquest is. You don't know what conquest is.

You're a little boy playing with action figures, and your idea of conquest is when the

Buzz Lightyear starts smashing the Woody. You're like a fucking autistic,

retarded child who doesn't know what it means to con you know what it means to conquer

to conquer means to be recognized as the authority as the highest principle of politics okay so when america goes to vietnam however

tough and strong it is and rice farmers are just picking up guns and like killing you a bunch

and slaughtering you and ridding your body with bullets.

They're basically saying you're a little bitch.

We don't recognize your authority.

Kill yourself and fuck off.

That's what Iraqis did.

That's what Afghans did.

That's what Vietnamese did.

Because nobody respected America's

authority. They certainly recognized

that America has

the capability

of inflicting deadly force,

but that's not enough to actually

acquire authority. That's why U.S. military

doctrine had to pay so much emphasis in Iraq and Afghanistan

on this nonsense about hearts and minds.

Why did they talk about hearts and minds so much?

Because when they were looking at the drawing board of what happened in Vietnam, they said,

why did we fail in Vietnam? Is because our army was weak or no? Well, it's because we didn't

win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. So to avoid repeating that mistake, this time when we go to

Iraq and we go to Afghanistan, we're going to have the

people's hearts and minds. And you just don't. Because Newsflash, when you are a child rapist,

diddy, you know, cattle, slave, Epstein, Zionist slave, like Matt Walsh, the pederastic

ideologist of Epstein, of Epstein Empire. You know, if you ever meet people who work jobs

and smoke cigarettes

they're kind of just

like pissed off all the time right and it's kind of a constant and a norm

of human history farmers are hard workers okay

people and you know working in the city of bet in bagdad and afghan these people work hard

so to have some fucking guy come on your country and come to your country and fucking

talk about how they're the conquerors

and you're a little bitch.

You're basically provoking them to literally kill

you and sacrifice

their lives and doing so. Like,

straight, think about it. Imagine you're just some guy.

You're already frustrated with life because you're because how grueling work is and somebody steps foot on your land saying i'm this master i'm your

conger you're a cuck and a yeah i mean of course it's understandable why you would want to strap a bomb to your chest

and, you know, run out a tank or something.

It makes total sense.

Like, why the fuck would anyone want to, like, live through that indignity, right?

And if you're a real man,

you respect

that all men on earth

want dignity. You don't want to

oppress other men. That's what Diddy wants

to do. Diddy wants to

oppress and pray on other men and suppress their potential.

Or you're a pedophile because that's what you're doing when they're doing it to children, right?

Before they can even make choices, you want to ruin their ability to make anything of their life

so it's like a real man hates seeing other men oppressed a real man hates you can only oppress

people say oh that sounds cringing hippie.

You know, the word oppress, it means to press against.

Something that needs to be pressed against is strong.

It has potential.

If it didn't, you wouldn't need to oppress it.

Does the lion oppress the buffalo?

The water buffalo?

Does the lion oppress the gazelle?

No, the gazelle is what it is by nature the lion is what it is by nature

no oppression needs to be involved at all the lion hunts the gazelle runs sometimes the lion catches the gazelle sometimes they don't but alas this is nature you know what a lion doesn't need to do a lion doesn't need to take a gazelle and humiliate them and act cruel to them and convince itself of how much how stronger it is than the gazelle is and symbolically like turn into a signifier the weakness of the gazelle and affirm this as a mantra that the gazelle is a weakling the lion

doesn't need to do this because nature itself speaks for itself so oppression by nature implies

that the oppressed are strong but their innate potential is being suppressed or it's being disrupted or it's being confused, right?

So a real man hates oppression.

Unlike Matt Walsh, who's a cuckold.

We are Matt Walsh, who's a cuckold. We are Matt Walsh!

Oh, wait, sorry, is that the wrong guy?

My bad.

I hate mixing them up, really. You know, a real American is embarrassed and disgusted by the pretense of Matt Walsh.

Oh, tough guy, You're going to go

and you're going to

dedify the Venezuelan people in Latin American

countries. I wish he went to

Latin America and said that shit, honestly.

He's like, we need to subordinate

them as our vassals.

Buddy,

Russia would

never use this language

about any of the

republics within the Russian Federation.

You know that, right? You know the Russian government

would be sweating, nervously, and terrified if a member of the Russian government said,

we're going to subordinate

Dagestan and make them our vessel

even a Chinese

emperor would be

embarrassed about saying that

about a tributary state you want to know why because these

relations of imperial authority are not you're my vassal because i'm innately better as a man than you

and i'm subjugating you,

there's no oppression involved.

It's not like Russia is taking away Dagestan's potential by including Dagestan in the Russian Federation.

What Russia is actually doing

is its uplifting

to Afghanistan's potential by including it

in this community.

Same thing with, you know, the

tributary states that would pay

tribute to Imperial China, you know they would get more

than they give in tribute, far more, just in gifts.

That was what made Imperial authority cohesive and strong.

You're not telling them, I'm going to humiliate you and subjugate you. You're telling them, we're going to include you in our great unified polity,

and we're going to recognize you though you are small people in size in your

population and your division of labor we want to include you, if you want to be included

and retain your culture

and independence in your religion

and your authority,

your local authority,

we will recognize your local authority.

Putin will recognize

Kadirov's authority.

As long as Kadyrov recognizes Putin's authority, because Kedirov is not claiming to be Putin,

and Putin is not claiming to be Kedirov.

Russia is not Dagestan and vice versa.

Russia is more numerous, has a larger landmass, and represents a more complex

division of labor, and a more diverse society. Dagestan has a very traditional culture they want to keep.

So this is true for Yakusha.

This is true for all of the different republics within the Russian Federation.

They don't use this language.

We're going to subjugate you and make us, you know, make you our vassals, our little bitches.

That's humiliating.

You're humiliating someone's dignity.

And it's not just about using mean words.

You're implying that they have this innate potential that you have to suppress and subjugate.

You have to subjugate their potential. You have to keep them down to keep yourself up.

That's not the relationship whatsoever.

The relationship is I don't have to keep you down to keep myself up.

By being a part of my great polity, you can protect your way of life. You can keep your way of life.

You can be part of something bigger simultaneously. You can enjoy the benefits of being part of this united economic mode of production, this complex division of labor.

So this is the Eurasian logic versus the Atlantis' logic.

Yes, oftentimes, I mean, look at the Soviet Union and Finland, for example.

Did the Soviet Union say to the Finns, we're going to conquer you and turn you into our subordinated vassal?

No.

We're here to include you in our USSR.

Specifically, Carilla.

Not even the entirety of Finland

by the way

they even

had a song

returned to

us beautiful

Finland

or they called

it Suomi

right

um

the song was literally saying,

you know,

hey,

look,

we're brotherly peoples.

We,

you know,

we respect you,

join us,

yada,

yada,

yada.

So it's like,

you know,

this is not utopian. This is not hippie shit it oftentimes

violence absolutely uh conquest absolutely the subject here's the difference when you

subjugate a foreign leader versus a people is a completely different thing.

The subjugation of a people implies a relation of oppression.

Every relationship of oppression will inevitably culminate in an instability.

Because to continuously suppress the potential the innate god-given potential of another requires energy

when your system breaks down and collapse and oppressed people will break free of you

and they'll hate you and resent you forever

you know

so you know

um So, you know, turning other countries in our hemisphere to subordinate.

I'm actually scared for Matt Walsh.

Because this is kind of the language Hitler.

I don't approve this. I don't approve this.

I don't approve this.

I absolutely don't approve this.

It's really fucked up.

It's really regrettable.

But what Matt Walsh is basically saying, when he said, when Matt Walsh says this

I fear for this guy. You know what he's saying?

He's basically

inviting

Guatemalans and

Peruvians

to just come and rape him.

He's literally saying that.

Like, I'm scared for this guy.

I don't approve of that at all.

I don't want...

I don't want that to happen,

and I don't approve of that.

But this language is really...

I worry for him.

I hope he never travels to South America.

I hope he never goes to Latin America.

Because there are ditties that are

living there, and they're going to see this as an invite by Matt Walsh

to have his dignity violated in a really bad way.

Okay?

There's ditties everywhere,

both in America and in South America.

When the ditties of South America hear

what Matt Walsh said right here,

they are going to come charging across

the border and they're going to snatch him.

And I don't want it to happen

and it's an awful thing.

But he's basically giving the bat signal with this type of tweet.

Okay?

With this type of message, he's basically sending out a bat signal for Peruvian Diddy to come and find him.

Not good. Someone should tell him to knock that off. That's gruesome. That's horrible.

But that's what he's doing.

That's what he's doing, you know. Yeah, that's just this is we know it's it's you know but it is it's dangerous for sure

because you know hitlerian rhetoric was similar they they've But it's dangerous, for sure.

Because, you know, Hitlerian rhetoric was similar.

The Germans, before they got, they were humbled by the Russians.

They were talking like this for sure.

They were saying,

We take them, We are superior.

The Germans had no notion of state craft under the Nazis.

I mean, they had no notion of what a true imperial principle was.

I'm not using it in a sense of Lenin's imperialism.

I mean, in the more pre-modern sense.

They had no notion of what it meant to be a conqueror and to be a leader and to be... They didn't know what it.

All they knew how to do was manufacture weapons and bombs, for sure.

But they didn't know how to do that.

So, you know, when the Germans invaded the USSR,

they were very destructive for sure.

They killed 27 million people.

But what Hitler did... but um

what Hitler did

when he was broadcasting that message to the world

he was inviting something into Germany

that you know

absolutely um well he killed himself in that bunker. He literally shot himself

because he invited the Red Army to come and conquer Berlin, which they did.

Like he was literally broadcasting a bat signal telling the Russian hordes,

you know, the Asiatic hordes, to just conquer and take Berlin and overrun Germany, which was a tremendous defeat for the German people in terms of the war, you know, it was a victory for the german people in the refined sense that uh you know

they were liberated from nazism but the war itself was a defeat for the german people. It was absolutely a defeat. The fact that they were brought into this war, the fact that they, you know, when they were bombed in Dresden and stuff, that they, Hitler brought calamity and destruction to Germany.

And that's what people like Matt Walsh and Trump are doing to America.

That's why I'm talking about this.

That's why they're bringing calamity and ruin upon us.

Their, their mouth, Nick Fuentes, Matt Walsh, these are the types that are bringing calamity, devastation, and ruin to the USA.

When they're talking this way, oh, it's the Monroe Doctrine.

Oh, we're going to conquer them.

Oh, we're so tough.

And it's like, buddy, you don't know the first thing about what it means to have a great power or anything like that

you're just eating up military d o d slop and zionist propaganda and you're, that's so cool.

And it's like, I get it, buddy.

There's a big Hollywood budget here.

I get it.

It's meant to look cool.

But you don't have any, you don't have the first grasp of what the reality is.

You'd like to believe there's a semblance of truth to it.

You know,

that it's,

it's just a super cool thing.

It's like freaking...

Lucas,

it's like the freaking Roman Empire.

But, uh,

you know, this is why veterans turn against the system in the ways that they do because these are the guys who know what's going on at a more proximate level you know beyond the propaganda and uh it's not what you're saying it is, you know. It's not what you think it is. It's not what you presume it is. Before you even talk about America, conquering anything, the first question you have to ask is what principles are we asserting upon these foreign people what system are we imposing on them and what makes that

superior because I could tell you

that in our country

people can't afford groceries

and they can't afford rent.

The daughters of Americans

are becoming prostitutes and the sons

are killing themselves at record rates.

Strauss-Stani, what's going on with the 10?

So this is the reality of what's going on in America.

So what right do we have to...

What principle or what banner are we raising over others? I don't understand. And when you get to the crux of it, Nick Fuentes is going to say something like the white race. And if we're going off of the Nazi ideology, it's a little bit awkward.

It's a little bit awkward because, you know, the truth is, there are many Jewish capitalists.

There are many Jewish capitalists. There are many Jewish capitalists involved in U.S. imperialism and who are the beneficiaries of the imperialism. So how is this about the white race? I mean, how does a white guy in rural Arkansas benefit versus, you know, versus the CEO of BlackRock.

Does anyone have an answer to that question?

So, you know, though, it's just, you know, it's just, you know,

it's just, you know, I hate to use the term,

but it's

goyslop.

This whole white nationalism

thing is this complete fraudulent

invention.

You know, created to keep

the American people divided

and to whip

up a frenzy among Europeans on

behalf of Israel

but especially

in America that's what it is

and you know I'm not here

I'm not here.

I'm not here to people say, oh, you guys are just blaming Jews for everything.

I don't even know who I'm talking to anymore because I could have sworn these were the same people claiming I was scared of JQing and shit.

My position has always been clear, okay?

The elite don't have a race.

They don't have a notion of racial solidarity. There's a specific faction of the elite that seems to, you know, in some way.

The Zionist Jewish faction, who have a notion of whatever ethnic solidarity

but the Anglo elite are cosmopolitan

and they're the majority

and they absolutely just have no sense of like racial solidarity

they think that

the majority of white people

are subhuman.

And so

like, in a way, like, you know,

you're just cattle

to them. The real

wasp elite in America, and you know, Richard Spencer kind of figured this out.

That's why he's like larping in the way he is.

By the way, Richard Spencer, I got to say something.

Richard Spencer, one of the top 15 comedians in politics for sure.

Because Richard Spencer figured out that the WASP elite are these cosmopolitan liberals that find it vulgar, plebeian, and brutish to even utter the obvious of white supremacy,

consider the majority of white people subhuman and, like, virtue signal about racial diversity as a way of signaling their high status.

And Spencer somehow figured this out.

And now he's pretending to be a liberal because he wants to be accepted in the elite white club, right?

So he's a big comedian for that reason.

It's hilarious.

He's like, oh, guys, I get it.

It's like Spencer is like showing up at Newsom's

country club

Gavin Newsom's country club

you've got all the nice white people

with their scarves and whatever

and then Richard Spencer

showing up

hi everyone I get it I get it I And then Richard Spencer is showing up. Hi, everyone.

I get it.

I get it.

I'm one of you.

I understand.

I'm on to it.

And they're all looking at him like he's a fucking crazy fuck.

They're all looking at him like he's mentally deficient or something or he's insane

but that's richard spencer you know

he's like trying to it's like buddy you know though it doesn't work when you're richard spencer you know right

maybe if you changed your name and your your entire reputation and past and you know you didn't make

it obvious but you you're you are saying the quiet part out loud.

And that's quite vulgar and plebeian of you.

Gavin Newsom's not inviting you to his country club.

So, yeah.

Now, I want to talk about, um, I want to talk about how, you know, I want to talk about third worldism,

which is a term that they that these people like to use.

Well, no, by the way, you know, and yeah, I want to talk about the third.

We could begin from there, third worldism.

Because when Nick Flenta sees the overwhelming disgust and disdain that other people have for pedophilia,

people are like, this child rape stuff, it's awful.

And Nick Fuentes, he goes, this is third worldism, you're just a hippie.

When he sees that real men are disgusted by the notion of fantasizing about oppressing other men and subjugating other countries, he's like, well, how come Russia and China sometimes do that? And it's like well how come Russia and China sometimes do that and it's like

you're right they do

but they have a reason

that's what you're missing

there's a logic there's a historical logic at play

that is not a utilitarian calculation

of, you know, how do I

benefit on this hedonistic

level better than others?

It's a logic

of the development of

a principle, okay?

Of a civilizational principle it's not just a phrase we're talking about different logics of power and how millions of people are unified into one division of labor and how oftentimes there's a logic of how these interact with other principles other you know imperial principles and and it's not about utilitarian power maxing.

That's not...

This is not realism.

This is just LARP,

because you're seeing the world as a video game.

How do we benefit the most?

Well, the way you benefit the most is by developing your productive forces.

The way you develop the most is build your people infrastructure.

Give them health care.

Okay, give them resources.

Master, what's up?

Give them education.

Give them literacy rates.

That's how you benefit your people.

You want to talk about how do we benefit?

Well, the way we benefit is by developing our country.

That's how we benefit.

So when it comes to how countries interact with other countries

and you're saying well how do we benefit

in terms of those interactions

well

when you interact with another country the entire principle that unifies you internally

all the principles upon which your civilization stands become refracted and reflected

to the other country

in how you treat that country

meaning you can't be

a civilized country

that gives dignity to all the men in your

country and then enslave other

people and the best

examples of this are Greece and Rome.

These were societies that gave freedom to citizens only and enslaved the non-citizens.

But even these could not help, but give way to a logic, which ended up applying the same brutal subjugation to the citizens themselves.

So your principles and how you interact with other countries,

the reason why that has to reflect your principles as a nation is because that's the only moment in which you are a united you are you exist in a united capacity you're delimited as a distinct power in a unified capacity only from

another's perspective is that possible because within there's just a division of labor right so

there there is a logic in which conquest happens. There's a logic that makes conquest

rational or meaningful historically, but merely saying, I want it because I benefit from it, that's not how it fucking works.

Even in the most brutish of settings historically, that's just not a long-term logic of historical development.

And you may think it is because of your common sense, but you don't understand anything.

It's not just that you don't understand history.

You're a Philistine.

You're not well-read.

You don't understand human life itself.

You don't have wisdom about what life is. You don't understand human life itself. You don't have wisdom about

what life is.

You play video games. You know what a game

is. There's winners and losers

and stuff. You have this understanding.

That's very primitive.

That's not at all.

A refined sensibility of existence or of existing, right?

So when you reject their Philistinism and retarded worldview, they call you a third worldist.

They say, well, you're just saying that Americans sacrifice their interests on behalf of third-worlders.

This is, I guess, their definition of third-worldism, that we should, in the weighing of America's best interests and the interest of third-world countries, we need to sacrifice America's best interests and the interest of third world countries, we need to sacrifice America's interests.

And I get it if you're retarded. I totally get it. Like if you are a straight up extra chromosome, down syndrome,

absolute retard,

I totally understand

why you would accuse us of

third worldism. It's because

you're mentally disabled.

And I totally get it.

I hope you're wearing a helmet and you're safe and whatever,

and you're not eating crayons or anything.

But the reason it's such a preposterous and stupid notion is that when we're calculating and weighing the different interests between America versus third world countries or whatever we have to clarify and delimit the subject America.

Is America our regime?

Is it Wall Street and its shareholders?

Or is it actually, in any minimal sense, the American people?

And when we start to interrogate that question, what do we find?

We find that, let's just talk about white people, since these are white nationalists,

rule white people in Appalachia in this country in the same way that Burkina Faso has a common interest with Iran and with North Korea and with Venezuela,

so do people,

white people living in Appalachia,

who live in basically

third world conditions themselves.

Because what they have in common

is they either lack sovereignty

and are struggling for it or they have sovereignty

and they're struggling to defend it.

The rule white people in America do not have or do not partake in any form or participate in in any kind of way in the popular sovereignty of what we call the USA.

Because we live under a regime that occupies the overwhelming majority of people.

That means there is no popular sovereignty.

And I don't just mean to imply that because elections don't matter and because the regime

acts with independence

from, you know, electoral procedures.

I'm saying that

because the regime acts in ways that are

contrary to the interests of the American

people. There's a conflict of interest

between using America's wealth and resources

for Americans or using it to maintain a global transnational financial system.

That's a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

And that is what has put the American people at odds with the U.S. regime.

We don't have popular sovereignty,

not just because elections don't matter,

and we have no say in power.

We don't have connection to power.

See, elections may not matter in and and you know an authoritarian country um like the dprk or something right

according to the the prejudice at least but there's a people have a connection to power though power obeys a popular principle power facilitates the will of the people power acquiesces to the will of the people Power is responsive to the sentiments and feelings of the people.

Power establishes itself functionally and in principle to serve the people's interests.

That's not true for the U.S. regime.

The U.S. regime is built on a kind of classical liberal framework of defending negative freedoms.

But what that has translated into in the 21st century, it's an autonomous state machine, what Antonio Gromsky would call a hegemony, because it includes media, it includes academia and all these other things, whose purpose is to maintain the interests of monopoly financial capital. That doesn't belong to the government. That doesn't belong to anything that even exists in the name of the American people. It belongs to private actors. So in weighing the conflict of interest, it's not between America and third world countries. It's between the American people and their own regime.

Now, Nick Fuentes is too stupid to understand this.

So he calls us a third worldist because he used to get bullied by BAP and the Bappus and captive dreamer.

And, you know, just like how he was bullied or whatever when he was in a kid and now he wants to become his bully himself to feel powerful.

He also wants to become his Bapist bully, know his bapest jewish talmudic or whatever

bullies right so he's trying to use that energy against us and call us third world us

but he doesn't understand the conflict of interest he doesn't understand the order of interest there There isn't a conflict of interest between the American

people and third world countries. There's a conflict of interest between the American people

and the regime. And no, the prosperity and well-being of the American people does not depend upon subjugating and enslaving and looting and stealing from other countries. We have plenty of our own resources. We have plenty of our own talent. We have plenty of our own ability. We have plenty of our own everything to build

productive forces in this country. But let's just say we didn't for the purposes of argument.

Because I'll even entertain that argument. Well, there are in a certain sense, there's resources and global supply chains that, you know, we can't just be isolationist.

We do have to depend upon those.

We do.

But when we do that, the same principles that unify us as a nation have to be reflected in how we interact with other

nations if our state is founded upon a principle of national self-determination we

have to recognize other people have that right as well. If our state, I'm not talking about individual rights, I'm talking about the rights of our state, so to speak. We're talking about the right of the American state. What purport does it justify itself on the basis of? Well, we, you know, we declared independence from the British Empire, for example. Okay. If we don't reflect that principle in how we interact with other nations, that will damage, corrupt, and erode the principle

that's supposed to unify us internally. You can't maintain internal cohesion, unity, and

morale while simultaneously violating the same principles upon which those rest in your dealings

and treatment of other nations. And that's very simple. If we need resources from Burkina Faso,

we need to strike a fair deal with the people of Burkina Faso, we need to strike a fair deal

with the people of Burkina Faso.

We can't oppress them. We can't

use gunboat

diplomacy and do it by force.

We have to treat them

as a people with their own dignity,

with their own right to national self-determination,

and we have to respect that.

Otherwise, we run the risk of compromising, corrupting, and damaging our own morale, our own internal principles that unify us as a nation.

The way we recognize others

is the source of our self-recognition.

Now,

this is two, I guess this is too, like, intelligent or too complex for these people to understand. But yeah, how you treat others is a reflection of how you regard yourself and how you treat yourself. So this applies for nations as well.

A nation, and that's why Lennon said, can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.

A nation cannot be free if it oppresses other nations, it cannot. A nation cannot be free if it oppresses other nations.

Because you can't create a united subject, Nick Fuentes, you fucking idiot.

There's a subject implied when you say, let's go take it.

Let's go do it.

Who the fuck is we?

And what keeps we unified?

What unifies us?

That's a principle.

Only a principle can unify individuals, right? How do you have individuals who are separate and then just say nothing of separate families and all these other kind of separations? How do you unify people into a single national subject.

Well, the dimension of principle and morality and all these other things he says are hippie shit.

Well, that becomes relevant.

And that is going to be determined, or I should say, that is going to be suspended in the reality of how you treat other nations.

You can't create, you know, he could say, well, we're just going to unify all the white people, and then we're going to treat all the non-whites like shit. So like a basic, you know, let's, if you want to

think about it in a game theoretical logic of team sports, we're the blue team, we're going to

kill everyone who's not part of the blue team.

So green team, yellow team, pink team, we're just going to treat you as subhuman.

And we're going to create a bright line rule for whether or not you're considered human and worthy of these lofty principles.

You know, yes, we have these principles of sovereignty and self-determination, but we only think that they should apply for people on the blue team.

You know, if you're on the yellow team we don't recognize you exist

so you're nothing to us so that can only lead to two branching paths, both of which, well, I'll explain the one, which is just immediately you can dismiss it.

Extermination. We're going to exterminate every single team besides the blue team.

So that's the

path of extermination. We're going to

kill and exterminate everyone

outside of the blue team, right?

Now,

extermination.

How Now, extermination. How as a functional principle would this lead to the breakdown of internal unity?

If the blue team kills and exterminates and annihilates every other team, yellow team, red team,

orange team, whatever, then

they have created

a cause for the

annihilation of beings who

do not fit the

criterion. A specific

and it has to be a very strict criterion.

There's no room for ambiguity when it comes to annihilation.

To annihilate something is to delimit a thing.

So we have to have absolute certainty.

Okay.

But then internally,

part of the logic of unity,

part of the logic of how to unify people,

how do you ameliorate conflict that emerges,

petty conflict, squabble that emerges between people.

Well, within your nation, you have two neighbors arguing over offense, right?

People on the blue team.

Okay?

Guys, shut the fuck up about viewers and listen to what I'm saying before I forget about what I'm talking about.

I don't...

This is really high-level stuff, okay?

Don't fucking forget this and lose this train of thought, okay?

As a matter of fact, recite what I just fucking said, so I make sure that everybody's fucking listening.

Blue team, are you following me?

There's two paths.

If you want to have the Nick Fuentes view,

his model of international relations and realism,

and how we can model this in a game theoretical sense,

that we're the blue team,

and we should do everything that just benefits us,

and that we don't have to recognize any other team, right?

So red team, yellow team, they're all fair game because

we only care about benefiting us

so there's two branching paths as far as how you can treat

others who are not part of the blue team

and blue team can mean whatever you want it can mean

our race the white race

it can mean our country America it can mean any kind of like bright line rule that,

you know, defines our tribe versus them, us versus them, right? So I'm just calling it

Blue Team for the sake of it. So, Blue Team,

first path, let's just go annihilate

and kill everyone. So everyone who's not

part of the Blue Team has to get subjugated.

Okay?

Now,

Nick Fuentes is like, this is, you know,

I'm not saying he's calling for this.

Just ignore the moral dimension.

This is not a moral argument.

Just ignore the moral dimension.

This is a functional argument on how principles function, right?

He'd say, well, let's be safe.

You know, the blue people will be protected.

We're going to go and annihilate all the others but we'll

sleep soundly and we'll be fine because we'll be unaffected by this we will not be affected by this

okay but what do you get when you get two individuals to say nothing of three or four or five

or six or seven or ten or twenty or a hundred

million. The inevitability of conflict. Conflict is inevitable. Squabbles are inevitable.

Misunderstandings are inevitable. Some kind of conflict isn't, especially if we're

living in a capitalist, I'm not going to talk

about that. I'm just going to say, human

nature endangers the inevitability of

petty conflict.

Even within families. Okay.

And conflicts have a tendency to escalate.

So part of what makes a principle, a unifying principle of national existence effective is that you can ameliorate conflicts, right? Okay. Well, when you create an absolutely rigid – and again again it has to be absolutely rigid has to be absolutely certain okay

it has to be absolutely like um a red line because it's the difference between life and death.

You need to be fucking absolute about it because this is annihilation versus life.

If you don't fit the bill, we're going to shoot you and kill you.

So you need to be certain.

So it's an absolute formalistic

line of distinction right

okay

so

when conflict happens internally

let's say two neighbors are fighting over

offense

when the conflict escalates internally, let's say two neighbors are fighting over offense.

When the conflict escalates, what happens when someone accuses another of not really being blue?

You don't fit the criterion, buddy you're 5% red now maybe maybe this is impossible maybe you've created a state where using technology you you have made it absolutely pure, and only

blue people could possibly exist according to the

technology. But all it takes

is someone to spread a rumor. Hey,

there was a glitch in a system.

Let's create the suspicion

and paranoia that there's

this part of our society this person this group

they're not on the blue team

so therefore I have the right to fucking kill them

the logic that you apply to other nations is your own logic so if you say you're not on the blue team well what if you say okay what if it's not something as rigid as race or blood quantoms what if it's about just being an American citizen? You know, I was born here.

Again, you could raise an era of suspicion around whether someone was born here, or whether

someone is a real citizen, or whether they forged and fabricated their documents.

In any case, the harsh

and brutal, formalistic, rigid

principle that you use to annihilate other people

will fucking devastate

and destroy your internal unity.

Because you're setting a standard, although it only at the outset, appears to only apply to outsiders, what applies to outsiders will inevitably infect the group within? Because the group needs to know who's in the group and who's out. That is not a given.

It has to be continuously affirmed. If I'm part of a unified nation, if I'm part of a unified nation,

okay, the nation has to continuously

affirm to

itself the principles

that united. Any principle

that is united on the basis

of exterminating

all outsiders

will inevitably break down within.

Because in the continuous affirmation, in the positive sense of what it means to be part of the tribe,

eventually there's going to be a misunderstanding.

There's going to be some kind of internal conflict. There's going to be some kind of, some kind of confusion. And this strict, harsh principle of annihilation will be turned inward. And the blue team will start annihilating itself now

ones if that makes perfect sense to you two is if i need to continue elaborating why this principle

of unity which says we can just annihilate all the others, is impossible. In a game

theoretic sense, it's just impossible. No morality needed, no morals, no anything,

it's just actually impossible to unify a nation on the basis of, you know, annihilating all their nations.

Like to say nothing of it's, if it's possible. Maybe we have nukes and we can do it. Maybe we

can put a dome over America and just nuke the world, right? Like the most... Even if we presume that's possible,

that could not unify America.

It can't unify a nation.

Okay.

So the second thing...

I know I talked a lot about the first thing,

but the first thing is supposed to be dismissed

because it's just easy to understand. It's the second thing, but the first thing is supposed to be dismissed, because it's just easy

to understand. It's the second

thing that's interesting historically.

It's the second thing.

If you project the premise, you're a retard.

It's the second thing.

Because this is

just a fucking thought experiment to explain why it's not hippie moralist shit and third worldism that you should have a principled stance of how your nation treats other nations that's all this this is for the purpose of demonstrating.

It's a necessity for the integrity of your nation.

The second thing is more interesting.

Okay.

The second thing is the one that's historically observable and it's interesting.

It's subjugation.

We're not going to annihilate others,

but we're going to subjugate them

and consider them lesser than us.

That's where the entire interesting

kind of development of history happened

you know

because if there's just annihilation

there's no development of history.

Like, nothing can develop.

So this is Hegel's master slave dialectic.

Two men fight.

Okay, if one kills the other, then nothing will happen.

There's no development of mutual recognition.

It's just, it's over.

But if someone subjugates another,

then you have the master

slave dialectic, right, that Hegel describes

or Kojev explocates.

So,

in the second case this is nick went as his actual position he would never add he said we're the blue team blue team should subjugate all the other teams because they're lesser than us it's not that we don't give them any recognition,

but they are inferior to us,

and we should subjugate and oppress them.

Now, this is exactly in a way what Greece and Rome did.

Yeah, historically.

This is what happened.

We are free and they are slaves, right?

The problem is the same as in the first case. Every principle of unity upon which you distinguish yourself from others has to be continuously reproduced. So the question is not, should we as Americans, for our own self-interest, subjugate and enslave

the world?

The question is, can we do that while continuously reproducing a principle that unifies our nation.

A principle that unifies our nation.

That just a common American sense of Americanness and American national identity,

participation in a common political community

of any kind.

The first

easy question is to ask is very

this is the simplest one.

Who's doing the subjugating?

Are all Americans going to subjugate the world equally?

Are they going to divide the entire world equally into parcels?

This is kind of what happened with Alexander's conquests.

Let's just pretend it did.

We conquer the world and every American gets a parcel of slaves to subjugate and oppress.

This is just the most ridiculous extreme example of what Nick Fuentes is advocating for.

Let's start from there.

Even if that happens,

because everything has to continuously reproduce itself,

a Darwinism occurs.

Some slave owners end up outperforming others i don't believe

individuals are equal i think individuals are quite varied and in this case some will be better at subjugating than others

so when that inevitably happens some people who were initially entitled to an equal parcel of dividing the world and subjugating and enslaving a given, you know, quantum of human beings not on the blue team, that person will have to depend

on another for the purposes

of continuously reproducing

that subjugation.

Common identity

does not eliminate

the phenomena of mutual dependency. So in Rome, if we presume that every Roman citizen began with a equal quantum of slaves.

Some experienced problems in agriculture and others did not.

And the guys who, you know, whose plots of land did not bear enough yield and output had to take out loans from others

hey you know i i i don't have enough to feed all of my goy cattle slaves.

Can you lend me some?

I can't maintain this.

You know, this is just, I can't continue oppressing.

Because subjugation and oppression are economic facts.

They're expensive.

So, hey, can you give me a loan?

Okay.

So from this germ, the entire conflict within Roman Greece occurred, which was a class struggle?

And what did it culminated? It culminated some of the people who are part of, some Roman citizens

became slaves. They became serfs. Those people became serfs. but they became indebted they lost their land they lost their means of production and their means of subsistence and they found themselves subjugated by others so anyone who advocates for the subjugation of other human beings and the oppression

of other human beings whatsoever and in any capacity is advocating for this within the

nation, not just against other nations.

This, no nation can remain united where everyone has equal dignity,

but we just don't have to recognize or respect the dignity of others.

Because principles go two ways.

The internal unity and how you interact with other unities, right?

Because there's, you have a principle. It's not a person it's a principle there's other principles

how you interact and relate to these other principles is what defines yours or at least how yours

is at stake in that interaction so yes external subjugation

always comes home it's never strictly external it always finds its way home because all relations predicated upon oppression and subjugation however much you define a strict identity that can you think is going to save you from happening to you it comes home

it corrupts and erodes this identity this which is really a purport and it's a pretense

a nation cannot be free and simultaneously oppress other nations it's not possible if you treat other nations as equals i'm not saying equals in the sense that you think they're the same as you, but equals in the sense that they have just as much of a right to self-determination as you.

They have just as much of a right and to live in dignity.

Then you are just reflecting the same things that unify your own nation.

Now, you might ask, what about the Soviet Union and what about China and all this other kind of stuff?

First of all, to whatever extent the Soviet Union was mistreating other nations,

those same contradictions were absolutely internal, and they were probably a big factor in the dissolution of the USSR, you know, and the revisionist

period. For example, the way the USSR was wary

and mistrustful of China in the beginning,

well, these prejudice, what did Mao criticize Stalin for?

He said Stalin didn't trust the peasants.

Stalin didn't trust the peasants.

He also didn't trust the Chinese.

So you see,

and by the same logic, that was true.

So, but in any case,

the USSR held other nations to the same standard it held itself in terms of you know socialism proletarian dictatorship yada yada yada say well this was just formally and in reality

there is inequality of some kind.

Maybe, maybe that's inevitable

in some sense.

But what it is not,

what it is not

is a deprivation of others' dignity

and humanity. What it is not

is oppressing and subjugating other people just because you're

saying you can. Inequalities, developmental inequalities, our sorts of inequalities can arise for all

sorts of different reasons.

That doesn't mean you have a right to sanctify those into a principle, though.

That's the difference.

You don't turn those into a principle. So, So there's a major difference there.

There's difference between the principle that unites you

and, you know, the inadvertent realities that arise as a consequence of the interaction between different nations and principles,

which themselves, you know, engender a continued and continuous and further development.

Absolutely, they do.

Um,

um, And then, okay, so the second prong of what I wanted to talk about is then, well, if you hate oppression and subjugation so much, Haas, why are you a tankie? Like, what's up with the Stalinism thing? Because we don't fantasize about suppressing other men and their innate god-given potential.

What we do want is a state that is strong enough as an authority to lock up Matt Walsh

and persecute Matt Walsh

and make Matt Walsh go

work in the minds

to humble him

and the purpose

is to humble him. And the purpose is to humble those

that would oppress and exploit others.

That's the reason.

It's not like we have a hard on

for oppressing other men.

We think that some people

need to be fucking humbled.

Because they violate justice they violate the justice of a civilization they think they're superior they think they're better than the common man

well they should fucking toil in the ice and in the snow just like the common man.

To fucking teach them a lesson.

Not to sadistically torture them to prove our superiority over them.

Communist dictatorship has nothing in common. prove our superiority over them, communist

dictatorship has nothing in common

with fascist terrorist

dictatorship. We

oppress people, not because

we love oppression, and

we love, you know, we

want to somehow torture people to prove our own superiority,

we oppress people who fucking deserve it.

They do fucking deserve it.

They need to be oppressed for justice they need to be oppressed so that others

can be free they need to be

oppressed so it can

be proven to them

that their arrogant tendencies

avowing themselves as

superior

are wrong

by their own logic. And it has to be proven by their own logic and it has to be proven by their own logic

Germany had to be conquered

you have to teach those fucking Nazis

you are wrong even by your own logic

to humble them did the Russians want war do they love

war do they love killing people

and slaughtering them and bombing

people of course they fucking don't

but if these are the principles

upon which you stand you need to be fucking reined in by the same sword you live by you think gangis con just loved killing people for its own sake no he loved he loved humbling people. Genghis Khan loved humbling people,

who thought they were superior to a guy who lived on his fucking horse and lived on tents.

He didn't love brutalizing and humiliating

people to prove his own

superiority and their innate

inferiority

he loved humbling people who thought

they were fucking better than him

because he lived in tents

and rode on horses.

That's the fucking logic of conquest.

You bring down the fucking arrogant to level things.

You don't fucking put people down to raise yourself up.

You stand up and you bring those down who seek to raise themselves above you. That's the fucking passion of conquest.

The passion of conquest is proving them fucking wrong.

They said you couldn't do it. They said you were nothing and you fucking did it.

Why? To bring justice, cosmic justice to the world.

They said you were nothing. They said you were a barbaric Turk. You live in a fucking tent.

You're nothing.

You ride a horse.

You have nothing.

That's what they told you.

So you humbled them in response. You told them you better fucking recognize me. You better fucking recognize my humanity. I am equal to you. This is the passion and fire that is fueled every major fucking conquest in the history of humanity.

Not, I'm superior to you because what, you're a fucking pederast who's arrogant and contrived?

Some fucking principle you pulled out of your fucking anus like Socrates and you said your your your fart was fucking God and therefore your superior

bitch slapped into the ground and humbled

that's not the passion of conquest

that's nihilism

all of conquest, that's nihilism.

All men are born free with God-given dignity.

It's when we seize upon this freedom

given to us. It's when we

seeth upon this dignity, given to us. It only seems upon this dignity,

given to us and innate by the grace of God,

that we as men conquer.

When we assert ourselves as men,

not as slaves, not as bitches, not as cattle.

We hate seeing other people oppressed.

We're disgusted by the oppression and enslavement of others.

But if we have to conquer and annihilate and destroy,

those who would see us in chains what would our fucking founding fathers say so be it the passion of conquest is to assert as supreme a principle a principle that humbles those that consider themselves powerful a principle of cosmic justice a principle that descends from heaven it's the mandate of heaven it's not the mandate of some fat fuck fucking watching anime

It's not the fucking manned it's a fucking pedophile eating Twinkies

It comes from story heaven above

It's God's grace. We live, we die for it, or we're nothing. Thank you. you think at

you think attila the hun could inspire passion and resolve in men willing to die for that cause,

were it not for the fact that he was preaching a principle of cosmic justice?

Not self-gain, not self-interest,

not consumption, and that's what this really fucking is.

It's consumption. It's filthy and disgusting.

You preach a notion of consumption. I to consume more you little bitch that's what you fucking want

they would have fucking beheaded you and paraded your fucking head around their camps and their tribe. Orbitol, what's up, bro?

And y'all, we're entering the new year.

I appreciate it.

Appreciate it, y'all.

Appreciate the support because let me tell you guys

this month tomorrow I'm going to be on YouTube

I'm going to leave it up to you guys

how you want to support me

if you want to support me on YouTube because you like the uh the don't

chat's things that's on you it's up to you youtube takes 30 if you want to support me on uh kick

and then on youtube we're just chilling. I mean,

because I'm going to be on YouTube tomorrow.

And then there's a third option is if you want to support me

and you don't want YouTube to take 30%,

just go through my

you know, go to the bottom

of this stream right now. You'll see it.

Go to my

what is it called?

My, what do you

call it? Text to speech donation. It's like, my, what do you call it?

Text to Speech donation.

It's like, yeah, it says text to speech donation.

So you can, yeah, through the co-fied text to speech donation, I'll get all of that.

It's not 30% is 100%. So there's that. But I'll be on YouTube tomorrow, guys,

but I think for one, I can't make nothing this month. I mean, that would be crazy. But, uh, you know, I'm taking, I'm going to take a big risk for this month.

But, uh, support me on kick and I can do more on YouTube.

That's all I'm saying.

Or you can support me on YouTube, you know.

You can support me on YouTube.

But, yeah. but uh yeah thomas i appreciate you bro thank you Oh my god, Orbital with the 25.

Bro, thank you so much.

Holy shit.

Thank you, bro. Appreciate you, bro. Thank you, bro.

Appreciate you, bro. Thank you. Good luck on YouTube.

Guys, I'm going to try to be on YouTube tomorrow.

I'll be early.

I think it'll be like at three. I don't know.

Yo, Comrade, kid with the 25.

What's up, bro?

Thank you, bro.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate you.

Thank you, bro. Good shit.

You know, I was just thinking about something.

You know, they tried to take a song from us.

Why? Because Tyler Robinson put the song name

on his bullet. You know, they tried to take

Bella Chow from us. Like,

we should be scared of using this song.

Oh, this. Fuck. Literally, go fuck

yourself, you bitch.

I don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk.

Yeah, I say, I didn't know who he was.

I have nothing to fucking do with him.

Humble, what's up?

Oso, what's going on, bro?

You know, yeah.

Bella Chow, that's the song of the Italian partisans.

We're never giving that up.

Fuck yourself, you bitch.

No, they didn't steal it from us.

They're claiming that if you play this song... Um, no, they didn't steal it from us.

They're claiming that if you play this song, that you had a hand in Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Or it's proof that you killed Charlie Kirk.

Hey, fuck you. I don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk.

It's got fucking nothing to do with me.

So,

on that note, y'all,

see y'all tomorrow. of the people that will beckon oh, bella,

bye,

be la,

chou, la chou,

people who will

be said

oh, and they will

say, oh, what

they're so

a,

a,

and a a, ha, ha, b' What will be my Oh Oh I'm

What's the

love

Oh

Well

Bye chao Bye

Chao Chao Yeah

in the I'm What

What

my

M What

M Pregion

I

will

P

M P M P What are you guys are no, my dragon, what's better.

You can't be able to say, well, la, chao, la chao, chow, chow, chow. Eremy, hey, tell, chow. Eremy, that's in me, that'seran, no, my big man,

no, no, myrily, go, la, chow, love me destroy I'm a

little

and a

tell that's all a and a I'm going to be able to be a little bit more

a little bit more

and a lot of it.

I'm going to get out. You know,