Woes: Hello. And welcome back to Millenniyule 2021. My apologies for the delay. There were technical problems. My computer is really acting up tonight. There’s nothing I can do about it.

I’m here now for the final stream of tonight. And this is with Stephen from Radical Liberation, a YouTube channel. And he’s also on Odysee. Should I address you as RadLib, or Radical Liberation, or Stephen?

RadLib: It seems like when I’m on the internet in our circles, people call me RadLib. And I’m fine with that. So that’ll work.

Woes: All right. So could you introduce yourself to the audience please.

RadLib: Yeah. So I have a lot of things [chuckling] to share. And it’ll probably just take the whole time we have yeah.

Woes: I should just say beforehand, that I have described you as a “recovering libertarian”. I don’t know if that’s accurate, or not. If whether you were a libertarian, or whether you are recovering [laughing].

RadLib: Well actually that was cs.

Woes: You can take it away!

RadLib: I’ll touch on that first. So I think some people have read into the name “Radical Liberation” more than they should. It might be interesting to folks to know that I chose the name “Radical Liberation” before I knew anything about Libertarianism. So I actually chose that a long time ago. And it might be better to put the emphasis on the word “radical” [chuckling].

Woes: Yeah. I think I get your meaning.

RadLib: Yeah. So it really I chose the name originally coming from a spiritual point of view. The verse that comes to mind is:

“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed!”

So when I was thinking about Radical Liberation, it didn’t even have to do with politics, originally.

Woes: Right. Okay.

RadLib: So having said that, I did get more, and more, interested in what I’d call the classical liberal libertarian tradition which I see as very old. When I think about this tradition, I don’t think about the libertarian party, shall we say. [chuckling] So I was never a Leftist, or what people call a “modal libertarian”, or a “walbert”.

I’m actually a second generation Right-winger, I guess you could say. My dad campaigned for Barry Goldwater.

Woes: Oh! In the 60s!

RadLib: Yeah, right.

Woes: The late 60s.

RadLib: And he’s passed now, a couple years ago. But, and I didn’t have a chance to ask him. But I remember him telling a story about him being at a meeting of a certain organization that starts with the same letter acronym, or it’s initials are the same letter three times [KKK]! And I never did find out why he was at that meeting.

But anyway [chuckling] he just told it as a funny story, because he had a lot of great funny stories. My father gave up politics for the ministry. And specifically, and I’ll talk about this more later, he became a missionary to the jews.

He was trained by the fellow who went on, Moishe Rosen, who went on to found, Jews for Jesus. So my world growing up was, in part, what we call “messianic jews”. Jewish people who had come to believe in Jesus, but retained their jewish identity. So that is an interesting, I think, background to be right to be talking to nationalists. And so forth.

Woes: Right! And so was your father jewish?

RadLib: No! My family’s not jewish. In fact, hopefully this isn’t sucking up to you as a Scottish person. But the name “Carson”, near as I can tell, traces to “Kirkebree”?

Woes: Okay, yes. It would be pronounced, probably “Cardberry”.

RadLib: Oh, I’m sorry am I getting the wrong. I was told as “Kirkebree”. That’s right in the south.

Woes: All right, okay. I’ve not heard of it. But I will be, …

RadLib: Oh you don’t know, yeah.

Woes: Oh Carpe?

RadLib: Kirkbridge. Okay, sorry.

Woes: Yeah, okay yeah.

RadLib: Yeah, anyway. So Carson is a Scottish name. And then on my mother’s side we have McFarland, back there somewhere. So I’ve got some Scottish in there. So anyway, yeah, I’m, you know, English and Scottish. And that sort of thing by ancestry. No! No! My father was a missionary to the jews. He wasn’t himself jewish.

Woes: So what does that mean:

“A missionary to the jews?”

RadLib: Well, Saint Paul was a missionary to the jews, right. And then to the gentiles.

Woes: Yeah. But I mean this is something that is perhaps more familiar to American viewers than to British viewers. I think it would be fair to say that jews are a more prominent part of American society, at every level, than they are in Britain. I think British people know very little about the jews, or judaism. Whereas I think Americans are just naturally more familiar with them. So could you describe what it means to be a missionary to the jews?

[05:08]

RadLib: Yeah. So it means that Christian missionaries, you know, go to Africa. And so on and so forth. Right? He was a missionary to jews.

Woes: So does that mean that he was trying to convert them to Christianity?

RadLib: Yes.

Woes: All right. Okay. So I wonder. Because the phrasing could mean that they he was serving them, because there is the thing about American Evangelist Christians who see themselves as subservient to the jews.

RadLib: Right. Yeah. You could say that I grew up in “Christian zionism Central”, from that point of view, in terms of reflexive support for Israel. And so forth. And in fact, by the way, getting into Libertarianism is one of the things that sort of red pilled me on Israel. Which was quite interesting for me, coming from my background.

Woes: Yeah, indeed!

RadLib: Yeah. So I learnt about the story of Israel and Palestine from the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Very important paper in the 70s. Where it showed how much of the land was owned right before the state of Israel became a thing. How much was owned by jews, and how much was not. And it’s quite a shocking graphic if you’ve grown up on zionist propaganda [chuckling]!

Woes: Oh yeah, I think I can imagine that. The landmark the areas owned by jews is massively grown ever since it was in 1945?

RadLib:1948, or something like that.

Woes: Yeah, it’s quite incredible.

RadLib: Yeah. So, real quick before I leave off on sort of the Right wing background, so to speak. I guess it’s no surprise given that background, that I was attracted to the Mises Institute, which has kind of been my ideological home for decades now. Where they’re known for their economics.

But people who know them as, you know, libertarians, or something don’t realize how deep they are into revisionist history. They wouldn’t know that, …

Well I first learnt about the Southern Poverty Law Center, because I heard that the Mises Institute was put on their Hate Map, or whatever.

Woes: It’s amazing how many people hear about the SPLC in the first place, because it picks a fight with them.

RadLib: Yeah! Right! And, in fact, I want to mention just a slight, not personal connection, but sort of one of the reasons that you are on my mental map is, because I watched your speech about Hope Not Hate. And since I had that little bit of background on the SPLC, I was really pleased with your speech on Hope Not Hate. Which I think it’s fair to say I don’t want to be too prejudicial and throw everybody in a bucket. But it seems to me that Hope Not Hate, Anti-Defamation League, SPLC, Southern Poverty Law Center, they’re of a breed, I think.

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: Yes.

Woes: I mean, I don’t think it’s as absolute as it is in the case of the SPLC and the ADL. But, yes undoubtedly there’s a large tribal influence on Hope Not Hate. Yes.

RadLib: Well they operate in a similar way, I guess what I’m saying.

Woes: Oh yes! Absolutely they do!

RadLib: The smearing and the, …

Woes: Yeah, their main function is to demonize people, to smear, to sabotage. They’re a disgraceful organization!

RadLib: Right. And if I can just take an opportunity to mention it. I think it’s on Odysee now, Woes, that your speech on Hope Not Hate?

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: Yeah! If you have not seen his speech on Hope Not Hate. And you don’t know much about Hope Not Hate, or you’ve just seen them being mean in the papers to your friends, or something, I really recommend taking the time to watch his speeches. Really excellent! Well researched! I think you had help on it, right?

Woes: Yeah, it was a bit of a group effort. I mean, I wrote it, but other people helped me out with research, and editing, and filming. So that was quite a unique project, because I tend to do everything myself. But with that I decided to branch out and see what could be achieved by involving other people. And I’m really proud of the resulting video.

RadLib: It’s outstanding! And it can help people understand who might think, you know. The only reason you wouldn’t like Hope Not Hate, or ADL, or SPLC, is like, because you’re a Nazi, or something! I think by the time you finish watching Woes of speech, you would be cured of any such thinking!

[10:02]

Woes: I hope so!

RadLib: They’re just terrible! They’re just terrible, and they should be stopped, you know!

Woes: Yeah. Thank you for saying that, because that was the purpose of the speech. It was to give people who might otherwise think that Hope Not Hate is quite an innocent, and benign organization, an insight into how nasty, and cruel, and dishonest, an organization it actually is!

RadLib: Exactly!

Woes: That was the purpose. Because they spend all their time demonizing and attacking other people. So I thought:

“Well they can have some of their own damn medicine back!”

RadLib: Yeah, exactly! Right. Except yours was probably a lot more fair to them than they are to us! [chuckling]

Woes: I would say so! Yeah. Their ability to twist things to create a certain impression is quite remarkable. But then again that could also be said of journalists in general.

RadLib: Right. Yeah. And they feed this stuff to the journalists, right. And the journalists basically just duplicate what ADL, SPLC, Hope Not Hate, … They do their little reports, the journalists just echo it. And then Silicon Valley kicks us off everything. That’s how it works. But anyway. So other things about me. I’ll do these real fast. And we’ll come back to some things.

So I have eight children. A lot of people know that about me, with my lovely wife. We had them fast! People think that it’s the number of children. No it’s not. It’s the velocity! It’s the births per year rate. That’s what makes it challenging. And we had eight children in 11 years. So it was quite the journey. And we’re still on it. Our youngest are six-year-old twins. Red-headed twins, by the way, speaking again to that Scottish ancestry perhaps [chuckling]!

Woes: I’ve [chuckling] got to say it’s a very impressive achievement. And I congratulate you.

RadLib: Yeah, thank you. Well it’s a joy and a blessing. I’m so glad about them. And that’s part of the reason I mentioned that I have eight children is, because I’m thrilled! I mean, I didn’t know if I’d ever get married, you know. Now here I am with eight children.

Anyway, another interesting thing is that I worked with black children from the inner city in North St Louis – I’m in the St Louis area – for 10 years through a ministry of my church. My mother worked with children from that sort of ghetto area for 24 years. So that’s an interesting background.

Furthermore, on the African-American front, I was the last student of a local blues jazz musician named Pop Sport [sp]. And his daughter, in fact, gave me his keyboard when he died. So that’s kind of interesting.

Woes: I mean, obviously the arena of race relations is a massive one. Especially in the American context. Is there anything, I mean, how would you say that that shaped to your world view? Obviously try to keep it fairly concise. But you can speak for as long as you want really.

RadLib: Yeah, well you’ve heard of Thomas Sowell, I’m sure.

Woes: Oh yes.

RadLib: Yeah, well while I’m doing this ministry with these children, and learning about their life experience in the north St Louis. And the reason we were working in this neighbourhood in particular is because I think that area had the highest murder rate in the city. So it’s a place that clearly needed some help.

Woes: Yeah. Just let me interject with a film reference. Because people expect that off me. And I don’t want to let them down. I know that escape from New York was filmed in East St Louis. I don’t know if there’s any connection here in terms of their proximity. Because there had been a huge fire five years before. I think in 1976 that just devastated whole blocks of the city of east Louis. So it looked like a post-apocalyptic cityscape [chuckling]!

RadLib: I did not know this! I didn’t know that myself! Did not know that’s where they filmed. But I’m glad you brought that up, because I can share a little story from that ministry. One of our pastors was teaching on Psalm 23. And he got to the part where it talks about the “Valley of the shadow of death”. And he said:

“So what do you guys think ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ means?”

And one of the young black men from North St Louis raised his hand and said:

“East St Louis.”

So that gives you [chuckling] an idea! I always work in a rough area and those people think East St Louis is rough! So you could always go deeper [laughing]. But anyway, I guess I would say that at the same time as I was doing this ministry I was also reading all this stuff, like Thomas Sowell.

And so that gave me some perspective on what I was learning through my students, and their families, and everything, what I was seeing. And then he was describing sort of how it got to be the way it was. So I don’t know what influence it had on me exactly. Except to say that for me political economy which is sort of my area that I’m published in, and that I do my show in.

Political economy is not a dry lifeless thing. It’s these things that the State does. They have body counts, you know. They have people living in misery, whose grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, were not living in misery. All of us now. But back then it was sort of more the ghetto that seem to be really feeling the impacts of a lot of these things.

[15:46]

So yeah. So when I think about these government programs that I view as having been at least part of the problem of what’s going on in the inner city, I’m thinking about people I know. I have a goddaughter who’s in the inner city. One of my students named my wife and I, god parents to her. So to me it’s very human all of this.

Woes: Yeah. And I think it’s not unusual actually for people who end up with certain views about things. Views about race. And so on. To have had personal experience. One of the cliches that the likes of the SPLC will throw around, is that only ignorant people with little experience of diversity, are against diversity!

RadLib: Right.

Woes: And where. I think that’s often the polar opposite of the truth. Where it’s people who have never experienced it that think it must be wonderful.

RadLib: Right. Have sort of a fantasy, … Yeah, Sowell talks about this sort of thing. We’re being subjected to the fantasies of Left-wing, social Democrats, or whatever.

Woes: And university students who think that all black people are like their black fellow student on a humanities degree. When, of course, that is not what diversity means for the [chuckling] vast majority of people!

RadLib: Right. Now having said that, by the way, that was what I did then. In recent times we’ve moved to an area that is basically where the St Louis black middle class lives. Not exactly our street, but sort of our surrounding area is all the black middle class.

And, of course, as you might expect, they’re quite different from the culture you hear about in rap songs [chuckling]. And it seems to me they’re almost invisible. I’m sure in America you hardly know that there’s this massive black middle class who aren’t going around shooting things up, you know.

Woes: I don’t know, maybe you listen to different rap music from what I do! [laughing]

RadLib: Actually, Academic Agent, I rely on him on rap music! My last rap music was back in the, before it was called rap, it was called hip-hop.

Woes: Oh yes!

RadLib: Early 80s. White Lines would be a song from that era?

Woes: Yes!

RadLib: That’s more my era [chuckling]

Woes: Yeah. Who did that? I’ve forgotten who did that song? I don’t know all I remember is:

“Down in the village. So you might think it’s silly. You can’t tell the men from the women sometimes.”

Woes: Yeah. I know this! I know the song. I know it quite well. But I can’t remember who did it.

RadLib: And they were just like screaming at us in the chat, I’m sure.

Woes: Yeah, it’s yeah. I know the one. And yeah, of course, it’s an amusing era. But anyway, that’s another thing.

RadLib: Yeah, I was born in 1969, by the way. So I’m a little older than most people take me to be, looking at me.

Woes: Yes. Okay. All right.

RadLib: So I guess a couple other things tying into sort of moving towards the political stuff that we tend to talk about here. My research area actually is “demicide”. That is the fancy academic term for mass murder by states. So would include genocide. But also, you know, killing the commies killing the Kulaks, right. That would be democide, even if it doesn’t count as genocide for some reason. I don’t know why it wouldn’t. They were all basically Christian Ukrainians.

But anyway. So I’m actually published. I have an article in the peer-reviewed journal on that topic. And that remains – I haven’t been digging deep into it lately. But it remains a topic I plan to return to. And I spent a lot of time researching when I was young.

I have one of our South African YouTuber friends, has been asking me to come on, and apply some of my analysis to their situation. Because it’s starting to look a little worrisome for the Boers in South Africa.

Woes: Yes, indeed.

RadLib: Yeah, and I’m concerned, based on what I know, which isn’t enough.

[20:00]

Bringing us to the dissident Right, I guess it’s worth mentioning. And it’s gonna sound like I’m trying to big myself up. But there’s a reason I’m bringing this up. I did predict 9/11. And I wouldn’t have even remembered I did it, except that while it was happening, and we where the work cafeteria watching planes go into the towers, a co-worker came by and leaned down and said:

“You said something like this would happen.”

And because he said that. And you remember 9/11. It’s like:

“Where were you when JFK was shot?”

Right? It’s that kind of day. I remember him saying that. And so I know that I actually, more, or less, predicted it. And that sort of brings me here.

I had a Chapter One, of my sort of political interests which was writing for LewRockwell.com. Do about that Woes?

Woes: Yes. And I actually have another person who wrote for lewrrockwell.com, is going to be appearing. I don’t know how to pronounce her name, “Britti” cs.

RadLib: Yes. Yeah Brittany.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: Brittany’s appearing, because she’s my friend.

Woes: Oh, of course! Yes, she mentioned she knew you. I’d forgotten that.

RadLib: That’s right. She saw that I was doing it and she thought she’d try to sign on. So thanks for having her. She’s great.

Woes: Okay.

RadLib: Yeah. But anyway. So yeah, my first sort of bout of being involved with politics was with the Mises Institute with lewrockwell.com. I didn’t write for antiwar.com, but considered myself a friend of Justin Raimondos at Anti-war. I did write about the invasion, against the invasion of Iraq. And so forth. At that time. It’s all still there on lourockwell.com, articles by me. And a few really good ones by my wife.

And so how did I predict 9/11? And that’ll bring me to sort of my second round.

Woes: That was going to be my first question, yeah:

“How did you predict it?”

[22:00]

RadLib: Right. Well again, maybe this is a US, UK, difference here, or US and outside of US. But Americans really don’t know what’s going on in the rest of the world, generally [chuckling]. And I defend my fellow Americans in this way. Having visited Europe several times. The scale is just so different.

I mean, I remember going to London and seeing the City of London, and learning that it was one square mile! Like everything you’d ever heard of it is like in that one square mile, you know, Big Ben, Parliament. It’s all in one square mile. And it’s just mind-boggling for an American! Because we are on such a vast scale!

I drive to Chicago – it’s about four and a half to five hours – every year to bring my eight-year-old to visit my best friend and his eight-year-old. And every year they come and they visit me. And this is, to us, this is like driving down the street, right. In England you drive five hours. And it’s like you’re going across the Sahara, or something, right?

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: So the scale is just totally, … Let me just say this. Because I think this actually came, … Did this come up in a previous Millenniyule? I was saying to someone the other day, … Oh yes! It was a private thing. Yeah, I was saying to someone the other day, that it’s easy for the people in Britain and elsewhere to castigate Americans for not knowing about the rest of the world. But in truth America is a massive world into itself.

Woes: Yeak!

Woes: It’s a very complex beast, thousands of different pockets, thousands of different bits within it, that one could know about, or hear about and, you know, cities, states, forests, deserts, rivers, mountain ranges, towns, universities. All of these different things that people could have heard of and they’ll know somebody who’s going there, the next year. They’ll know someone who was there five years ago. They might go this year. And America is huge!

And it has all these different climates, and all different terrains. So it’s actually quite a lot to ask of someone to know about all of that, and to know about the rest of the world, as well!

RadLib: You got me exactly right. Yeah. So I was born in south Florida. I was born outside of Miami. And I regularly went to visit my grandparents. And my cousins. Drove there. It’s, I think, 17-hour drive. Now if you drive for 17 hours on the Continent, I mean, where would this get you? From Belgium to Italy? To the bottom of Italy? I don’t know [Woes laughing]. You’d cover a lot of territory, right? Yeah, just to give you the idea of scale.

So yeah, I sort of defend my fellow Americans in that regard. Having said that, because of my interest in anti-imperialism, the anti-war, libertarian anti-war stance, antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell.com, I knew what the US Empire was up to. And so what happened was I was actually feeling something, because I was reading about what was happening, the sanctions on Iraq, for example, that were happening prior to 9/11. And Madeleine Albright saying that:

“500,000 children dying from the sanctions was worth it.”

That’s something that many Americans didn’t even know she said that. But my understanding is that her words rang through the Muslim world, or the Arab world, at least. And you can imagine how that made people feel.

So I was aware of what was happening. And so that’s how I essentially predicted 9/11. I could just feel the anger rising. And I could feel it. In fact, by the way, I wasn’t the only one. A good friend of mine was actually working in the financial district in Manhattan. The very place where 9/11 happened. He felt something coming too, and moved to Australia before 9/11. He had been there earlier in 2001, I think. So I wasn’t the only one who could see it coming.

So anyway, I say all that to explain sort of Chapter Two for me. Which is that we had all these children very fast. I kind of dropped away from being involved in politics and stuff. Because we were just having baby after baby. And then just a couple years ago we started to get a little sip of air above the water! We’re not above the water yet. But we’re starting to get breaths from just dealing with babies all the time.

And I thought about getting involved, and engaged in political stuff again. And I thought, you know, I think I might give this YouTube thing a try. I really like the community I see. This is going back a couple years before everyone got kicked off, right?

Woes: Yeah, I was thinking like, “a lamb to the slaughter”.

RadLib: Yeah, exactly! [chuckling] But I really liked that people were talking to each other at least back then. Across sort of labels and political divides.

Woes: It was wonderful! It was great it!

RadLib: Yeah, it was healthy, it seemed to me. There was healthy dialogue going on. And that’s why they stopped it [chuckling]!

[27:14]

Woes: Yeah. I think it’s exactly the case. I think that there was a nice sense that we can talk without the teacher listening in and telling us what we should be saying to each other! And what we’d feel about each other.

RadLib: And who should talk to who.

Woes: Exactly!

RadLib: You didn’t feel like these artificial barriers of:

“Well I’m not allowed to talk to them, because I’m Right and they’re Left, or whatever it is.”

Woes: Exactly, exactly! And one of the most bizarre episodes in my YouTube career was a stream that I did with an antifa professor, Mike Isaacson. Which was [laughing], I mean, we didn’t agree on anything! We didn’t find any common ground. But it was quite it was very strange indeed.

RadLib: Yeah, but you talked.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: Right. So anyway, I decided to get back into the game and try a YouTube channel. And with the help of Academic Agent, who’s been a real friend to me, I was able to start to build an audience and everything. And so I’m sort of working on that now. Radical Liberation on YouTube. Check it out.

Woes: That was how I discovered you in the first place. It was from your appearances on his stream.

RadLib: Right. But I was feeling something again, like I did before 9/11. You know, I mentioned that rising anger I felt. And this time though I was feeling it from, I guess we’d call it the dissident Right. And so cs.

Woes: And what was that anger generated by?

RadLib: Well I didn’t know. That’s part of the reason I just started paying attention. Listening to Morgoth, and etc, you know, who I feel like I’ve become friends with by now. But trying to hear what people were concerned about. And I learnt some things. I didn’t know anything about the whole grooming gang mess.

Woes: I remember trying to tell an American about it on Facebook when it came out, you know, back late 2014. And he simply wouldn’t believe me. Because, I mean, I even showed him news articles. He said:

“Oh no! This must be exaggerated! It can’t be real. This is going to be shock stories. It’s just too outrageous! It’s too ridiculous! No society would allow this to happen. No government, no police force, you’re telling me racist horror stories!”

RadLib: Right.

Woes: Just wouldn’t believe it, because it is so incredible and awesome!

RadLib: Yeah. And I have a problem with people using language in weaselly ways. Like the US military talks about “collateral damage”, right? When they’ve slaughtered an innocent family! So I have trouble with that term “grooming gang”. Even as I bring up the term it makes me wince! I prefer mass ethnic rape. Which is a pretty blunt way to put it. But I think it’s accurate.

[30:11]

Woes: Yeah. I mean, if we’re talking about the mass rape, grooming, of White girls by Pakistani Muslims, then, of course, there’s an ethnic dimension to that! Whether it’s intended, or not! Whether it’s conscious, or not. Although, of course, it is, because how could you not be conscious of it?

RadLib: We’ve heard the testimony from the young ladies saying what was said to them.

Woes: Yes. Exactly. So, of course, it’s, … And this is one thing that I always struggled with White people, British people, they would say:

“Why does it matter? You only care about this, because they’re Pakistanis. It doesn’t make any difference, that they’re brown instead of White.”

And I said:

“No it does, because it’s a racial divide. It’s an ethnic insult, as much as it’s an assault on those individual girls, it’s also a group violation.”

And as everyone would understand that perfectly well if the perpetrators were White. So and I’m not going to go, … And imagine if the races were reversed. But it is true that everyone would! There’d be no mystery about why the race matters then.

RadLib: Right. So perhaps you can see coming from my interests in mass murder by States, right. Where I was focused on a group being targeted, right? Like the Kulaks being targeted by Stalin.

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: In the Holodomor, as they now call it. And, by the way, I wrote a poem about it and showed it to a survivor of that. And she said she put it up on her wall. Which was probably the best moment of my life. [chuckling]

But anyway so, you know, I’m thinking about groups being victimized by states. I’m looking for these patterns where the State sort of disarms the victim group in various ways. Makes them defenseless. And then either State functionaries themselves, or even sometimes just other people are allowed to sort of be predators on the victim group.

So this is a pattern in my head right. And then I get interested in like but you know why are these distant people so upset. And I learn about the mass ethnic crimes, the so-called grooming gangs. And I’m like:

“Oh okay.”

And so for me I’m not coming at this necessarily as like I’m a White guy, you know? It’s more that I’m a scholar of mass murder by States, or mass victimization by States, if you will. And here’s another case of it. And then having said all that the fact that say my own daughters could be subject to this kind of thing, well it brings some personal angle to it right?

Woes: Of course.

RadLib: Yes!

Woes: And this is actually something that I think is missing, or missed by a lot of middle-class people in Britain. They think well this would never happen to my daughters, because we don’t live in an area. So I don’t need to think about this. And I can even actively deny it. Which is obviously a disgusting attitude!

RadLib: Yeah, right. And so why shouldn’t I just as I have written about and advocated for various victim groups who have been targets, why shouldn’t I be an advocate for lower class White girls, or whatever, or Kyle Rittenhouse right, or whoever it is. For some reason for some people the fact that the victims are White means that it’s okay. Or you shouldn’t talk about it, or something. And I just that just goes right over my head. I just don’t get that.

Woes: Well, it’s yeah, of course, and I suspect that a hundred years ago those same people would have had a completely different attitude. I think this is to do with the conditioning that specifically White people have been targeted with since then. Over the last 80 years, or. So as such, the end result being that the worst thing they could be is “racist”, but also caring about their own race, or even recognizing their own race, is a racist thing to do!

RadLib: Right.

Woes: It’s like an abusive partner can psychologically conditioning his partner, his victim, so that she will just accept any abuse from him whatsoever! Again, it’s evil!

[35:00]

RadLib: Yeah. And I don’t accept it. So another personal angle to bring in here that connects to all this is that I’ve always been part of a radical fringe, my whole life! See that’s what I said. Because that’s the radical part of Radical Liberation right?

Woes: Yes I see, because it’s interesting, because you come across as very, if you don’t mind me saying so, well balanced [chuckling]! You don’t come across as the kind of person who tends to be into radical politics, or fringe politics. You seem I wouldn’t say conventional exactly, but not mad, or anything.

RadLib: Right. Well I try not to be. I’m a lot less mad than I once was that’s for sure! A lot less insane than I once was! But no, no, that, yeah, that’s right. For me this is normal. So like I said my father was a missionary to the jews in an area that was very jewish. I went to a both a high school and a university that were 40% jewish. I was passing out tracts when I was eight years old on the street, you know, doing street activism, right?

Woes: What? Oh tracts!

RadLib: Gospel. Reaching out to people with the gospel right. And I was being persecuted in high school for talking to jews about Jesus.

So for me being out of the mainstream is just normal, whether from the point of view of being part of Christianity I was part of which is, by the way, totally orthodox in its beliefs. It’s just most Christians don’t reach out to jews. And we did. And that was considered edgy, you know. Whether it’s part of that, or whether being a libertarian anarchist, or as I’m very tempted to change to on my Twitter profile, a “medieval anarchist”, is probably better for these circles for people to understand where I’m coming from.

But anyway, or whether as an anarchist, or now hanging out with dissident Right folks, to me being on a bit of the fringe, though not crazy [chuckling] has been my whole life.

In fact Woes, when I was young I was worried that I was part of like a cult, or something for some reason. Maybe somebody teased me at school. I don’t know. And so I went to my mom and I said:

“Mom are we fanatics?”

And she said, I thought this was very useful, she said:

“No. A fanatic is someone who has like the one thing and they can’t talk about anything else.”

They’re, you know, “monomaniacal” is the word I would use now. That’s what she described. She said:

“We’re zealots! We’re zealous for the gospel.!”

And so I’ve always liked that. The fanatics are the ones who as Frodi has been talking about, kind of ruin it for all of us! [chuckling] Right?

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: When he was saying:

“We just need some normal people!”

Anyway. So it’s the fanatics who ruin it for the rest of us. But to be zealous for justice. Like in the case of this mass ethnic rape stuff. To be zealous for justice in that. I don’t think there’s anything wrong, or weird, or crazy about that it’s only the natural godly response to something so horrifying.

Woes: To be honest I think that our opponents on the Left are zealous, but also furthermore the situation in the world today is so perverse that those who are not zealous. Those who are in the centre and milk toast, I think are rather mistaken. I think they’re rather deluded!

RadLib: Yeah.

Woes: I think if you see the way the world is today how could you not be zealous about something, in some kind of new direction, or even just the need for a radical new direction. As has been said about certain centrist YouTubers, their ideas are not radical, they’re not nearly radical enough! They don’t even recognize the scope and gravity of the problem!

RadLib: Right.

Woes: So going back to 95, or 2005, is not enough! We need a deep rethinking of our society and the way we live.

RadLib: Right. Radical means to the root, right?

Woes: Indeed!

RadLib: Yeah. That’s more where I’m coming from. We’ve got big problems! Now how is it that people don’t see them? And how is it that I do? Well one other thing to share about myself is that in high school, when I was say 15, I decided to stop reading the news. And I never went back.

[40:00]

So I actually don’t consume like CNN, and NPR, which is sort of the equivalent of the BBC news in the UK. And haven’t for well, what would that be 35 years now. And as Jacques Ellul talks about in Propaganda, to keep people going with the current sort of line of the day, you have to be constantly peppering them with the propaganda. And if they unplug from that propaganda it doesn’t take too long for them to notice:

“Wait a second! You were saying like the opposite just like a month ago!”

Right?

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: So you have to stay plugged in to be able to kind of keep believing whatever it is they’re feeding us five minutes ago.

Woes: Yeah. Because the sheer volume of stuff that’s coming in, it’s too much for your minds to marshal. And therefore you can’t detect the contradictions.

Obviously we’ve seen this recently with Covid, where the numbers change by the day. The implications of those numbers changed by the day. It’s just quite incredible. I think people are kept in a sort of hamster wheel. And, of course, this is where the jokey cliche about the Amish comes in:

“Why aren’t the Amish affected by Covid? Because they don’t have TV!”

And I don’t know if that’s true, or not. But we can certainly imagine how it could be true.

RadLib: Right well certainly they wouldn’t have the climate of fear that is a constant push of the media. And not to get back into the PhilosophiCat thing, but, you know, AA ’s [Academic Agent] been talking about that. And I would say this that, right now it’s Covid and lockdown. I could see them changing to something else.

Because I’ve been watching this for decades now. I could see them changing to something else within a month, or a year. But what would remain constant? Fear! That is the running theme that I see through the weapons of mass destruction campaign from the neocons, right? To get the invasion of Iraq, etc., etc, etc!

Whatever it is, there is some bogeyman of the day. There is something you’re supposed to be afraid of and the media the lackey media as I like to call them, their function is to make sure that whatever it is you’re supposed to be afraid of, they are hitting you with that 24-7 until you submit and you submit to the fear.

Woes: See I think there are two versions of this that have gone on simultaneously with the “War on Terror”, or the “War Against Terror”, [it’s really a “War OF Terror”] I always forget that the acronym is TWAT. There was firstly there’s the fear of Islam and fundamentalist Islam. But then there’s also the fear of being “racist” as a result of fearing fundamentalist Islam! So they get you worried about fundamentals Islam. But then also worried about being racist!

RadLib: Yes! They get you coming and going!

Woes: Yeah! Kept on this constant oscillation between one thing and the other. Which is obviously quite dementing!

With Covid, obviously this is the perfect thing for them to use as a vehicle for fear. And this is one thing I wanted to say. That this is a cliche of, … And I’ve said this on my own. And I know that you listen to the Gram broadcast that I do.

In one of those I pointed this out. That it’s a cliche that governments rule, and tyrants, rule by fear! They rule by getting the populace to be afraid of something. An enemy that everyone can hate. But that’s exactly what’s happened now! In the most obvious way!

RadLib: [words unclear] before you.

Woes: Exactly! In the most obvious and crass way! Yeah they’ve got a population really very frightened. And people who believe in it all, must have had a terrible two years. I mean, I don’t know how many people there still are who really believe in it all.

RadLib: Right.

Woes: But, at this point, maybe that number is diminishing. But certainly throughout 2020, I think a large percentage of the British public were literally living in fear throughout that year.

RadLib: Back on TV, or the media consumption issue I just wanted to share something from Lew Rockwell. The founder of the Mises Institute. Someone came to him and was talking about how they’re just to use our lingo now, “Black Pilled”. This is before anyone said that kind of thing. But that’s what they were expressing. They were just so down. And he said:

“Do you watch TV?”

He said:

“Well yeah.”

And he said:

“Why don’t you try stopping?”

And it was interesting his reasoning for this is slightly different than why I stopped. I had my TV shot, by the way.

[45:01]

Woes: What? Shot with a gun?

RadLib: Yeah. I’m an American Woes, you know! That’s how we do things. Anyway, yeah, I kept it on display. It was one of those big old style cabinet TVs, like from the 50s, or something, and I had it on display, because it sort of had a nice webbing [?]

Woes: Oh yeah!

RadLib: So I had it on display in my apartment. This was before I got married. Of course, there’s no shot TVs, with my wife around.

So his reasoning on the TV is, he said:

“With such a big world with billions of people, there’s always something bad going on, something crass going on. Well, what the TV seems to do is find those things and shove them in your face, so that it feels like that is what life is.”

Right?

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: Or we might say these days what life is being afraid. He was talking more about just crass behaviour being shoved in your face all the time, and things like this. He said:

“You know, turn off the TV. And talk to your neighbours. And be in like real life. And you’ll find that a lot of people are just living their life. And they’re not what gets depicted on the television.”

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: I remember a friend from south India, from Kerala. He came to the United States. And he called back to his family. And he said:

“There were two things that shocked him.”

Based on the perception of America he had from the media, I guess. He said:

“Number one, people aren’t shooting each other in the streets! Number two, there’s churches on every corner and on Sunday they’re packed!”

He had no idea that America was like a Christian, you know, had a bunch of Christians in it.

Woes: Yes, yes. I can imagine, I can imagine. I think that again a lot of Europeans have this notion of everyone’s just walking around with a gun. And any minor disagreement in a shop will result in a standoff. Obviously that’s ridiculous [laughing]!

RadLib: Right. Hey quick shill for my channel! We did a show on The Not So Wild Wild West, because even the so-called Wild West wasn’t even like that. That is just a Hollywood invention. They lie about everything!

Woes: Well. [laughing] And, of course, that era of Hollywood, the wild west genre, that’s from a Hollywood that was much more sympathetic to White America than the Hollywood well even the 90s, let alone the 2020s!

RadLib: Right! I mean, back then the wild west was violent, depicted as violent. But it wasn’t necessarily depicted as racist, right. Now, they’re gonna add, …

Woes: Or transphobic! [Laughter] Well. Yeah. I mean, there are obviously lots of questions that arise from your life story. One thing I would ask about 9/11 is, because you didn’t say how you predicted it. You said there were you felt anger.

RadLib: Yeah, when I think back it really was, and I’m amazed to say this, because I was emotionally shut down most of my life until recently. But I was like being emotionally “attuned” is the term. When you start to feel what other people are feeling. That’s what was effectively happening. I think back. And that’s really how I saw it coming is I could just feel the anger rising. And I just felt like, if I was feeling what they were feeling, I might really do something big!

Woes: Right. Yeah I’ve remembered what it was that I wanted to ask you sorry, because you did explain that. It was that, do you think America in the 90s had become, or by the end of the 90s. Do you think it had become too arrogant a superpower?

RadLib: Well again, I go back to Americans just really being parochial in a sense if you can consider a country as big as the United States being parochial. I regularly use the term the “US Empire”.

And part of the reason I use the term is because I think it’s, right? But the other reason is, because I say it, because I know there’s some Americans it’s going to get them to think, because we don’t talk about the US Empire within the US.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: And they literally don’t know what the American government is up to outside the borders of the United States, as a general thing.

[50:00]

Woes: Yeah. There’s a separation between the entity of the empire and the entity of the nation which births that empire. I think it was the same in Britain. I mean, a lot of people most ordinary people in Britain would never experience the Empire, you know, during the 19th century. They would obviously know of it and including by name, unlike modern Americans, but it wouldn’t be a part of their daily lives. It would be a fact of their existence, but not a part of their daily life. The nation is one thing, the Empire is another thing.

RadLib: Yep. I wouldn’t describe Americans as “in denial” about the Empire. Because that would imply that really deep down they know. And they’re just denying it. No.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: They just don’t know.

Woes: Yeah. I wasn’t trying to imply that. I think with America you’ve got this situation where their interests aren’t even part of the empire, they’re part of the Empire’s activities.

Whereas with Britain you could say well it’s helping us with trade, it’s helping us with getting this resource. And we are exporting our culture to the rest of the world in some sense. We’re also learning a great deal from the rest of the world and bringing that knowledge back to Britain. None of that really applies with America does it?

RadLib: Right. Justin Raimondo passed now, unfortunately, from antiwar.com. He would always say:

“The American Empire, where everything goes out and nothing comes in!”

[Laughter]. In other words, I’m agreeing with you. You know, people don’t feel like:

“Wow! I’m so glad that the American Empire’s there, because XYZ.”

They wouldn’t know how to finish that sentence. Because they just don’t even think about it. And they wouldn’t know what it would be doing for them except “defending our freedoms” , or “you’ve got to fight them there, else they’ll be here”. Vague slogans that if you ask them:

“What are you talking about?”

They wouldn’t even be able to get past the slogan, you know?

Woes: Yes. Yes. It’s something that they’ve heard. Of course, that thing about defending our freedom. And I remember George W Bush saying that in the aftermath of 9/11. That:

“They’re attacking us, because they hate our freedoms!”

And, of course, that’s ironic, because it was drivel anyway. But it’s ironic to think of it now 20 years later, because well we’re not as free as we were then. Our freedoms have all have all been curtailed in those 20 years. Such that I can imagine some camel riding tribesmen in cave in Afghanistan thinking of what the modern Western citizen and thinking:

“Why did they put up with that? Why did they put up with that life that they have over there, with their kid being raised with gay indoctrination at school!”

I mean, I can easily imagine them thinking that they are actually more free than us, at this point. And I’m not saying this to just be sort of clever clever. I think there is an element of truth to that.

RadLib: Yeah. Yeah, well I’m gonna have to stick it out, because I haven’t heard from the lord very much. But one time I did, very clearlyc is my church was a church that sent a lot of missionaries out. And so forth. All over the world. And so some missionary was giving a presentation. And so I prayed. And I was like:

“God, is this being a missionary? I’m open to doing it if that’s what I’m supposed to do.”

And he said:

“No.”

And my feeling from that was not just that, like it wasn’t a feeling of like:

“Oh good! I don’t have to be a missionary.”

It was more like:

“No. I’m calling you to stay in the US, and it might not be fun!”

[chuckling] And that was 40 years ago that I felt that. I think it makes more sense now that that feeling I had back then that being called to stay here and not to leave, might be a grim mission. It might not have made much sense to me at the time I just felt it.

But now it makes a lot more sense. If we keep going the way we’re going then staying in the US, you know! It’s going to be a hard go!

Woes: Yes, indeed. And I think that’s, … See it’s interesting, because in late 2018, I think it was, I had a particular YouTuber on Millennial. I wouldn’t name who it was. Because I don’t want to, … Well it doesn’t really matter who it was. And he said:

“Yes we need to organize a protest around Parliament, in Westminster, in London, and put our demands to them.”

And I said to him:

“But what are our demands?”

And this is pre-Covid, pre-everything, pre-lockdown, all this. And I said:

“But what are our demands?”

And he didn’t know. And I didn’t know! We just knew that there was some cause for discontent, or there was something was emerging, so something was about to emerge! Our society has taken some kind of turning. There was an atmosphere of discontent. But it was not yet manifest. It was not yet directed.

[55:10]

And then, of course, Covid came a year later a year and a half later. And suddenly it makes sense why there was this atmosphere of discontent in 2018, and 19. Which a lot of people didn’t pick up on. I did pick up in it. I did not predict Covid! I absolutely I’m not going to clean credit for that!

RadLib: Yeah, none of us.

Woes: None of us did! But there was a sense of a vacuum, like we were between eras. And I actually was planning on, … I remember one of those many videos that I planned during my hiatus, and never made. One of them was called Between Two Paradigms, or Between Paradigms. And it was about that. It was making this point that nothing seems to be happening. We seem to be at the eye of a storm, and nothing is happening. But there is a sense of danger and impending, …

And another video that I planned was The Widening Gyre, which was a reference to the, I think it’s Keats poem. I can’t remember who wrote it, now. But there was that sense of things, like anything could be about to happen.

RadLib: Yeah.

Woes: And yeah, that’s now come to pass. But the point I was making was at the time, we didn’t know why we felt this discontent. Apart from all the usual complaints about the modern world, you know, LGBT, mass immigration, multiculturalism, feminism.

But that wasn’t quite the point. It was more a sense of a direct threat to liberty. A direct threat to the individual that. But, as I say, it hadn’t manifest yet. So it was interesting at that point we didn’t know what the complaint actually was. But now it’s become much more obvious. Right in your face, you know.

RadLib: Yeah. And I don’t necessarily have to believe that it was all a grand four dimensional plan, right? But it does seem like a lot of things start to fall in place. That you look back and you go:

“Ah! Okay!”

This is like a culmination of things that had been developing.

Woes: Yes. And it took us by surprise but the very perceptive person could have perhaps predicted it.

RadLib: Yeah. Right. Well libertarians did in a way. So I would say that working the medieval anarchist angle here. I really think we’re maybe, not in the end stages, but part of what we’re seeing culmination of goes quite a ways back.

Which is that the era that I would look back to as Christendom, you know, as sort of the birthplace of the things that we celebrate about the West, you know, art and science and universities. And all these things that, before they were totally pozzed, were amazing, right.

There was a shift from the medieval situation which was a lot of small polities, city-states, bishoprics. A favourite of mine is Salzburg Austria. It was a bishopric. It was a seat of a bishop and basically that city was a little political entity right. And there are places like this all over Europe. You see maps from back then they’re just little quilts, patchwork quilts.

But over the last several hundred years there was just more, and more, consolidation, with localities being crushed in favour of a more, and more, centralized organization.

For some reason the Bretons are on my mind. Oh! I know why! Someone was sharing us, Semigogue was sharing us a song from the Bretons praising the coming of an English Lord to help them fight against the French.

There were all these peoples, ethnic groups I guess we could say. European ethnicities that had identity, that had their own language in many cases.

And they all started to get ground down over the last several hundred years in favour of more uniform identities that were going across larger, and larger geographic areas.

Woes: Yes. Amalgamation.

RadLib: Amalgamation, consolidation, centralization, whatever you want to call it. But the trend is away from the local, away from a smaller, more humble, more human, community to something that is more abstract, harder to get your hand around. Harder to feel like you’re participating in any meaningful way. Like:

“What do I have to do with what the US government does?”

Even as a politically interested person, I just feel like a dot, compared to what’s going on with the US government. I don’t feel I have any sway over the fate of my community.

[60:21]

Woes: Yes. And this cannot be a healthy situation.

RadLib: It doesn’t seem right [chuckling]!

Woes: For an intelligent men to feel that they have no agency, no influence on their own society. I can understand, you know, this might sound bad. I can understand an unintelligent prole, a dumpling, not having influence. Fine! I don’t want the village idiot having a vote.

But when but when decent, and intelligent, and sensible, men feel that they even are just meaningless subjects of globalist powers, powers that they cannot see, that they cannot negotiate with that they cannot even comprehend, that must be a deeply unhealthy situation! And one that is bound to create all sorts of dysfunction.

RadLib: Right. And for a while there it seemed like the nation state was sort of a terminus. Well sure, you know, all these local identities were crushed in the in favour of France, or the United States, or the United Kingdom, or whatever. But then it stops, right?

Well as Morgoth has been pointing out lately. No! It’s not stopping, because now government, like national government, is being replaced with “governance”! International NGO style governance.

Woes: Yes. My previous guest Mark Malone went into this distinction. Yeah very good stuff. And, of course, Morgoth’s own video I think probably the best video he’s done this year was about The Whale and the, … Oh god I can’t remember, …

RadLib: The Elephant and the Whale?

Woes: Yeah! Yes that’s it. The Elephant and the Whale. That was a very good characterization of the dynamics of power.

RadLib: Right. So you see why you see why I’m bringing it up, because I’m talking about an arc that’s been going on for several hundred years. And I’m saying that it’s continuing. We’re watching before our eyes it go into another stage where it seemed to stabilize at the nation state, in say the 20th century. Because remember Italy and Germany, for example, were not even consolidated until the 19th century. That’s really quite recent, right.

Woes: Yeah, I think it was 1870 for Germany, I can’t remember.

RadLib: Exactly. So, you know, we just had about a hundred years, or so, of the nation state being like a somewhat stable point. And we’re already going to the next stage now. Which is this web of international governance where you just have no idea who’s in charge anymore! It’s really murky! I mean, maybe it’s Klaus Schwab? I don’t know. But it’s like people like him, or something.

Woes: Yeah. I would imagine it is people like him. But yeah, that’s another issue altogether. Either way it’s people who would never listen to you and me. It’s people that they wouldn’t watch our YouTube channels. I mean, that they wouldn’t take us seriously as people. It’s individuals who are operating at a very different level.

And I’m fine with the concept of people at a high level in society who are observing society from a different height. Fine! But that has to be moderated with sanity. And I don’t think that Klaus Schwab’s thinking.

RadLib: Yeah, so something you’ll see if you follow me on Twitter is that I regularly talk about the insane centre. The insane mainstream. And I’m playing off of, shoot? Mills? The scholar anyway. He talked about “crackpot realism”. T Wright Mills. That’s it. Crackpot realism. And Murray Rothbard brought this up in regards to the Cold Warriors who would game out, how we could win a nuclear war with Russia. Which was famously lampooned in Dr Stranglove.

What he was lampooning there was absolutely real! I’ve met one of these people. And they’re just insane! But they sound very scholarly, you know, they’re like you said, thinking on a high level. The world is like this chess board.

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: But they’re nuts!

Woes: Yeah. Because the world might be a chessboard to them, but each of the pieces is meaningless. It’s just a mathematical factor.

RadLib: Yes! Yes! Yeah, it feels inhuman the way they relate to the rest of the world. They see us as pawns to be played, as opposed to fellow men, you know, fellow persons.

Woes: Yes, exactly. I think this is one of the prerequisites for a healthy society, that the elite have to have some kind of connection, sorry, they have to feel even if they don’t have a real connection, they have to feel a connection, with the rest of the citizenry!

Because otherwise you end up with this exact situation that we have now. Where I don’t believe that Bill Gates gives a toss about me, or my culture, or my city, or my people, anything whatsoever about me! So why should I trust him?

RadLib: Yeah. I mean, on a simple scale, you know, someone loses their small business, because of the lockdown right. They don’t have customers, because customers aren’t literally allowed to come to their place of business. And they lose their small business. And it’s what they poured their money and their time into building.

Woes: Yes. Their life. It could be their life’s work.

RadLib: And we think have we ever felt compassion from the Fauchies?

Woes: Indeed!

RadLib: About these sorts of things? I don’t think so.

Woes: Which is especially galling! Because I think that this has all happened unnecessarily! I think that the whole Covid thing, it didn’t need to go into lockdown. So those small businesses, family businesses, inherited family businesses going back generations in many cases, didn’t need to shut down! We have lost all of these things! These fruits of human labour without any good reason! It did not need to happen!

I mean, I know business I’ve seen, like in my own hometown, in my home city, in the city where I live now, that have disappeared! And they’ll never come back, you know, that’s it! But meantime Amazon have got richer!

RadLib: Yeah.

Woes: And all these other tech companies have got have got welfare. So there’s this awful sense that it all happened without good reason. But also, as you say, the sense that the people responsible don’t even feel, well guilty. I mean, they feel nothing! Bill Gates seems to be having a whale of a time! All of them are, … Well [laughing] no pun intended!

And also the politicians. And this is another part of it. People like Justin Trudeau, that awful Jacinda Ardern.

RadLib: Yeah, I know who you mean.

Woes: And the awful politicians in Australia. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, these horrendous people! Again in Germany and Sweden, all of them, they seem to despise the publics to whom they communicate on the TV and in their speeches! There doesn’t seem to be any actual, genuine, concern. I mean, when they’re saying:

“We have to do this, because of this threat.”

They don’t actually seem concerned! This is one of the reasons why it’s a bit of a, I won’t use an impolite word. But it’s a bit of a confusing thing. That they’re saying this, while not even sounding concerned. Where you’d think if it were a real pandemic, in a real emergency, they would sound scared! And yet they don’t!

RadLib: Right. And they party while they’re supposedly so afraid.

Woes: Well, exactly!

RadLib: Perfect give away!

Woes: Yeah, exactly! And you can’t help thinking of the communist, the cliche that the Bolsheviks were having banquets, while the peasants were starving! And just dying out from starvation. The Politburo, and so on, the high up Commissars, were just having a great time. It’s this sort of brazen corruption!

RadLib: You think of that moment from the 2016 election. I remember my wife was really struck by it when Hillary Clinton did the basket of deplorables line. And my wife said:

“It’s over!”

She said that she’s gonna lose. I mean, you can’t just call the voters “deplorables”, and win an election, you know.

But anyway, you know, I hadn’t thought about it till now. I always thought about that as revealing about Hillary Clinton. But I think she was really revealing about her whole sort of set, you know, her whole class. And Obama had a similar thing. What do he say:

“Those ignorant people with their guns and their Bibles.”

Or something like that. Which describes, by the way, like all the Christians I know in the country. [Woes laughing loudly] And I know a lot of them! So I mean, they’re expressing contempt not for some narrow, niche, fringe, radical, group. They’re expressing contempt for basically the people of their country.

[70:18]

Woes: And certainly the backbone of their country. The people who do the boring jobs that no one hears about, because they’re not glamorous.

And this is what I was saying earlier, a healthy society requires an elite that have some kind of connection, or feel a connection, a warmth towards the common folk. Because otherwise you’re going to have this kind of thing.

You’re going to have them decreeing that your five-year-old daughter can’t see her granny at Christmas. And there’s no one to complain to! And if you don’t like it, tough! You’re selfish, and evil, actually for complaining about it! Oh god! I don’t want to fed bust on my own channel!

RadLib: Right, exactly! So, you know, Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom. There’s a chapter of it that I recommend to everyone. Chapter 10. It’s called Why the Worst Get on Top. And he describes why in the social Democratic system. Like we all live under now, you’re not going to get the honest people in positions of powerful political leadership. You’re going to get people who are liars, and corrupt. And he explains exactly why. It’s really worth reading.

Even having read that all that time ago I don’t know that I was prepared for what I see, for example, with Vice President Kamala Harris. I think she’s a psychopath. I mean, she’s not just like cs.

Woes: , … Another psychopath [laughing]!

RadLib: She’s not just a person who’s a little bit corrupt, or something. Like she’s not normal like she tries to be normal, and it gives you that uncanny valley experience.

Woes: Yeah, that’s the feeling I have with Hillary Clinton.

RadLib: Yeah, it’s like stop smiling please! You’re creeping me out!

Woes: Yes. Exactly! The crazy eyes as well and that over friendliness. Yeah, you see this with Kamala for sure. But you see it with a lot of them. I mean, just again, … But yes, I know what you mean.

I think that there are undoubtedly democracy seems to make this very possible. I suspect, and, of course, sociopaths psychopaths are always going to be attracted to power centres. That makes sense. But I suspect that in a monarchy, or an aristocracy it’s much harder for them to get a foothold. And there will, because, well I don’t really need to go into that as a tangent. I think that democracy just gives them a thousand Avenues by which to, well, lie.

RadLib: Right.

Woes: And to curry favour and to gain on undue power.

RadLib: I’m assuming you’re doing this so that you can segue so beautifully into another show for my channel! So a recent series we did was on Democracy versus Monarchy.

Woes: Oh!

RadLib: And we drew on Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Hans Hermann Hoppe, who famously criticized democracy. And I actually had the pleasure of meeting Kuehnelt right near the end of his life, which was amazing! It was like getting a little taste of the 19th century, or something. 19th century century Austria. I could feel that, how do I put it nicely? We’re all lesser men than he was [chuckling]! He came from a civilization that’s been destroyed, you know.

But anyway. And in this series we very carefully go through his critique of democracy. First of all. And then he says:

“Well okay, you could say that all this stuff is true of democracy. Let’s say you agree with me so far. But you could still say it’s the worst system, except for all the others.”

Or some crap like that, right? He says.:

“So let’s compare it to some other system. And how about one that we have a lot of experience with?”

And so he talks about monarchy, because, of course, we had monarchy and Christendom for hundreds and hundreds of years. So we have plenty of track record to look at. And yes, indeed like Hoppe. Hoppe was influenced by him. He concludes that monarchy is a superior system to democracy. Worth noting that I, like Hoppe, like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we’re all anarchists.

So we don’t think monarchy is the best system of all possible systems, just better than democracy. At least you have, for example, going to the psychopathic aspect, you have the personal responsibility, right.

If the King’s screwing you over, that jerk is the one screwing you over, right? Whereas now, especially as we go from government to governance, you just have the sense that like the amorphous blob is screwing you over! And you’re not exactly even sure who to blame for it.

[75:33]

Woes: Well, you got no idea who to blame for it!

RadLib: Yeah!

Woes: None! And I use the analogy of, … And I know that I’ve had this reputation for being obsessed with my own Twitter ban. I’m not anymore! It was three years ago. I’m very much over it! Don’t worry!

RadLib: You’re on stage seven of the stages of grief [Laughter]!

Woes: Maybe five and a half. [chuckling] But yeah, I am over it. It’s just that this particular analogy I think is useful. And it was that when I appealed to Twitter, the email that I got back was signed “Twitter”. It wasn’t signed with the name of an individual employee. And I see that as a portend of how governance will be. Where you’re just up against the machine. And you’ve got no idea what goes on behind the curtain. None whatsoever!

Just like we’ve got no idea how YouTube, what the hell goes on at YouTube? Who makes the decisions? By what Protocols do they make decisions? Who was responsible for what? No one, you and I, will never know that! It’s impossible to track. And indeed I wouldn’t be surprised if they just delete the evidence of decision making processes after it’s done. So that no one will ever know.

RadLib: Right.

Woes: So it’s all quite Kafka-esque.

RadLib: I was going to say. So Kafka ends up being the dystopian author that got it right, yeah?

Woes: Yeah! [laughing] Well, it is the old venn diagram with Brave New World, 1984, Soylent Green [laughing], …

RadLib: And Kafka.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: But yeah, that sense of bad things are happening to me, bad things are happening in my community, bad things are happening to my children. And I don’t even know where to start, to do something about it, right?

Woes: Yeah. Well, I think that’s perhaps what we’re here to try to identify.

RadLib: Yeah. So let me turn from the negative to the positive, and just talk about what we’ve done.

Woes: All right, just before you start. I didn’t mean within the scope of this particular stream. I just mean that what we do in general is that we’re obviously identifying the problems. But hopefully beyond that, we’re also going to identify a way forward. But anyway yeah.

RadLib: So I just thought I’d make some comments, personal comments. And I’m not the sort to say:

“I’ve done it this way. And so everybody else should!”

I just thought it can’t hurt to just describe a little bit of what we’ve done. And not only, because it hopefully is interesting. But also, because we try to provide resources on my channel to support it. And we’re going to be providing more.

So my wife is a trained therapist, a marriage and family therapist. She was in private practice until two weeks before our first child was born. And then she stopped, to be home with the children, and homeschool them. And so she’s given birth in some cases, home births, to all these babies, and is schooling them, and has been schooling them all this time.

Because in our case we had so many children we ended up moving to a property with four and a half acres. Where we have chickens, and ducks, and quail, and goats, and a pony on the way, any day now.

So we are able to create a little island of our own here. And where we’re not worried about say, school shootings! I’m just amazed everybody still sends their kids to government schools after all these school shootings. But anyway, do what you gotta do!

But we’re not subject to the latest round of propaganda that they’re giving the kids. I’ve even heard, I think this was in the US, right? Where they were saying:

“Hey! If you let us vaccinate you, then we’ll give you pizza!”

Or something, like going around the parent’s back and vaccinating children.

Woes: Yeah, it’s unbelievable! It’s the kind of thing that in the same society, you know, somebody would be in prison for a very long time for that.

RadLib: Yeah, exactly! Right. Just amazing! And so my wife and I were in agreement of, you know, independently had made this conclusion before we got married, that we would want to homeschool our children, if we had any. So I think that helps us unplug a bit. We don’t do broadcast television. We do have, … What do you call it? Cable cutter type solutions, where you can dial up a movie you want to watch and watch it. But we don’t have just a TV channel going.

[80:25]

Woes: Oh, I thank god! It’s funny, whenever I, and I should be careful, because maybe some of my viewers do that. But, whenever I’m in someone’s house. And they have just the TV’s just on, you know, oh, it’s awful! Because you can’t not look at the TV! It’s like there’s this hypnotic. It’s sort of it draws your eyes to it. And, of course, it’s just believing drivel!

RadLib: And propaganda!

Woes: Oh yeah! That, as well.

RadLib: Yeah. So we put a great emphasis, … Part of the reason we moved, besides having 10 of us in 1100 square feet, is that we’re really concerned that there was space for people to get away from such a big family, and go off in a corner and read, or, we have two daughters who have an art studio here. Yeah. This is part of the downside of you not being on Twitter. I bet you’d love my daughter’s paintings!

But anyway! So we’re really concerned about – we’re both introverts, maybe that’s part of the reason why – but very concerned about there being space for our children to develop their interests and their personality.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: So anyway, that’s sort of I guess our response to some of the things we’ve been discussing. And it’s just at the family level. We haven’t formed a “compound” with other families, or anything like that, as the government would call it when they destroy it! But I feel like these choices have been beneficial.

And it’s very interesting for us – my wife and I both went to government school. It’s very interesting for us to tell stories from our time at school to our children, or for them to get stories from their friends who are in a government school, and to see their reactions. Which basically are normal human reactions if you didn’t just grow up thinking that this was insanity was normal right?

RadLib: Yes.

RadLib: Yes! They’re just like:

“What? What happened? You put up with that?”

They just can’t believe it! It just seems crazy to them, what to us, was just our childhood, our normal childhood, “normal”.

Woes: I mean, when I look back on school, especially at the end, I absolutely hated it! And I really just didn’t belong. It was completely unnatural for me to still be at school. From the age of 15 onwards I desperately needed to get out of it! But well, actually earlier than that really. Anyway it doesn’t matter.

When I look back on. It just seems such an artificial and artificially stifling as well! Even within the context of the school it could have been less stifling than it was [chuckling]! It’s so absurd!

RadLib: So in terms of providing resources for those who want to follow some of these paths, my wife and I have done, two streams on homeschooling. And there is some talk sort of, philosophical kind, of talk about like, why did she decided to homeschool and everything.

But it’s also very nuts and bolts, you know, really talks about how do you homeschool. And it addresses people’s concerns about socialization and all that kind of stuff that people who are thinking about it, need to have those questions answered, right? And so we try to answer them as best we can.

We’re actually planning on a part three. Because so many people have been going to homeschooling, at least in the US. I don’t know if that’s happening in the UK. But it’s been a heavy trend.

Woes: Put it this way, I think that the last two years, with all that’s been going on, I think that will have driven a lot of people, parents to towards thinking that thry could they do homeschooling. Because obviously society in general is becoming so cold, and formalized. I mean, the wearing the masks, you know, little children having to do that, and social distance each other. It’s so perverse!

RadLib: Yeah, right. The big selling point they had left supposedly, was that you’ll get socialization, if you go to the schools well now you’re, … Like I’ve seen the pictures of the lunchroom where they’re 12 feet away from each other, whatever! I’m not sure you’re even getting socialization anymore, at least not anything we recognize as socialization.

Woes: No! There have been quite a few good memes based around that when there’s some children wearing the mask, sitting 12 feet away from each other. And yeah, the disinfecting thing is right there. And it’s like:

“Oh my god?”

What kind of notion of other people and your relationship to other people are you going to develop in that environment? It seems almost tailor-made to make people well, to make them develop hang-ups.

[85:28]

RadLib: Yeah, so the reason my mind jumped to our streams is because that’s one of the things we emphasize there. That we feel like, you don’t have to teach children to be curious about the world. They are curious about the world! They’re born curious about the world! Anyone who’s been around a small child sees that, right? They’re looking at the world with wonder and awe.

It’s the schooling in our experience, like the government schooling, that drives the curiosity out of kids. And makes learning seem like, I don’t know, something geeks do.

Woes: Yeah.

RadLib: As opposed to something that is your own passion and that you start to develop an interest. And you want to understand certain aspects of the world. You want to answer certain questions. And so you start digging into it for yourself.

I just happen for whatever reason probably, because my family right, I just happened to be that way despite being in government school. And I would literally have a book I was reading hidden inside my textbook. I’d hold my textbook up and I’d have another book inside it that I would be reading during class! [chuckling] I was so thirsty to learn.

Woes: But it is lovely that that survived. That it wasn’t crushed!

RadLib: Right. But you’ve seen it how the curiosity gets driven out!

Woes: Oh yeah! Yes it happened to me as well. But I mean, yeah, I could tell anecdotes about that. But I think people understand. So I think that the home schooling is a very good idea, very helpful, for you to be doing that. Because I think people value an example to follow, or an example to be inspired by, far more than people just telling them to do this. Sort of imploring them to do it.

RadLib: Yeah exactly! I was on another stream recently and somebody responded to it and said, and we didn’t even talk about homeschooling I don’t think. But he said:

“I’ve pulled my children out of the school, because of watching this stream!”

And so [chuckling] I wrote back to him. It was on Twitter. And so I replied to him and I said:

“Here we have some streams on homeschooling.”

And then I told my wife. And she asked me to offer to him that if he had any questions she would answer them.

Woes: That’s great!

RadLib: So we’re not just doing a quick video on it. We really intend to be a resource where we can help people.

Woes: That’s great! You said that you’ve got your house. And it’s not a big society sort of project. It’s just the scope of your own life, your own family. But I think that is honestly a very admirable goal to have. Because historically the idea for, especially for a man, of having his own house and having his own home where his family are safe and secure and where things are as he wants them to be, his environment is tailored for him and his loved ones, that is a very laudable goal! And I think that it’s part of, and yet another aspect of, the sickness of the modern world is that people no longer think of their homes in that sense. They think of them as an investment, temporary thing. And then I’ll move somewhere else.

And if it’s the modern home in a city, then there’s very little in the way of customization that you can do. So it’s more like a cell, than a home. And for me personally, recently I found myself really thinking about how much I would love to just live in a cottage in the countryside, where I wouldn’t have to think about the rest of the world. That would be lovely! So actually, that reminds me I should really shill for donations far more often than I am doing!

RadLib: Yeah!

Woes: I’ll never get that cottage if I don’t shill for donations!

RadLib: Support Woes!

Woes: [chuckling] So if people, … Like I only did it once at the start in the first stream. If people would like to donate and support me and, you know, help me get a bit farther, closer to that cottage, then there are multiple ways you can do that at Millennialwoes.com slash donate Millennials.com slash crypto. And also there is a Bitcoin lightning address. But on the donation page there are many different Avenues by which you can support me. So if you value my work, and Millennial itself, then please do that! That would be very much appreciated!

[90:16]

RadLib: So on the home thing, I came by this the hard the hard way, you might say. And I’m going to say something that’s negative about my parents but who are both past now. But they said it about themselves. So I’m not saying anything inappropriate. My parents were really devoted to Christian ministry. I grew up with Bible studies and discussions going on in my home until two in the morning. And I’m in my bedroom keeping the door open. So I can keep listening, because they’re talking about like interesting stuff! It’s sort of a rather intellectual environment, I guess you could say.

But, you know, later they really saw that they had not had a good enough boundary around the family, and around the home. And I think that’s what you were speaking to.

And I think that’s something my wife and I both feel strongly about. We do want to help people, we do want to minister to others where we can, and help others.

But it would be inappropriate for that to come at the cost of our marriage, our children, our the safety, and sanctity of our home and our land, right?

Woes: Of course.

RadLib: So finding that balance I think for me has been an important personal journey. The balance between wanting to be helpful. I mean, I grew up in a ministry family. So, it’s just in my bones to be that way, right. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

But that has to be balanced with taking care of your own. And the Bible talks about that. Paul says:

“If you don’t take care of your family, then you’re worse than a heathen!”

Or whatever.

Woes: A politician! [laughing]

RadLib: Yeah, right. Exactly!

Woes: You’re [chuckling] worse than a journalist!

RadLib: Yeah, right. Back then it’s Jesus hangs out with the prostitutes and the tax collectors. Now it’s Jesus hangs out with journalists! [Woes laughing] You know what’s up? What’s going on with him?

Woes: Well. I mean, I get the feeling that we could talk for hours, and hours! And I knew it would be like this. I was sure that when you and I, … Because this is the first time we’ve ever spoken. And I was sure that when I do finally speak to RadLib, it will be a very easy and enjoyable conversation, with all sorts of tangents that we could go on. And so I hope that we speak again.

RadLib: Yeah.

Woes: Soon. But I think, … Oh actually, I nearly forgot to do the questions. But I think we should probably wrap it up at that point. I’m paranoid that my computer is going to crash again, or that the internet is going to cut out again. So I want to not tempt fate by going on too long.

Okay here’s one person. I think this was posted quite a long time ago and it was when you were talking about that you’ve got eight children. And he says:

“RadLib is the hero who shall personally lead the repopulation of the West!”

[Laughing] You have a fan there!

And another person asks, Hominid, he asks:

“RadLib. What do you see in store for the US by the end of this century? Do you think it will even still exist?”

That’s a big question.

RadLib: Yeah, I don’t know. I’m a big secessionist as you can imagine from everything I’ve said. I would love it if we could reverse the homogenization process, and go back. And I’m not picky. It doesn’t have to be de jure, it can be de facto, right?

Like let it still be called the United States, while on the ground reality, towns, communities, cities, are kind of doing their own thing. And just sort of being ignored by the central government while they do their own thing. That would be great!

I personally don’t want another war between the States. Don’t need the eternal Yankee to do their thing again. [chuckling] But I don’t look forward to some kind of big conflict. I hope it doesn’t come. I hope like I said, I hope my hope. And I don’t think it’s a completely unrealistic hope.

My hope is that, as we’re already seeing, localities start to go their own way. Just as has been happening with the legalization of marijuana. As has been happening with vaccine mandates more recently as, you know, Woes, right? Like Florida just hasn’t been doing the same thing as other states.

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: So to me this is all to the good. Don’t stop at the State level, bring it down to the community, the locality. Let everybody go their own way, and see how things work out. Learn from each other. And don’t be upset that other people are doing things differently. That’s my beautiful vision for my country [Laughing]!

[95:23]

Woes: Yeah. Another example of that would be the Texas abortion debacle from a few months ago. I think that liberals, progresses, were outraged at that the idea of our state doing something that was not in accordance with the doctrine of Kamala Harris. Just couldn’t believe that this would happen. Yeah, okay there’s one other question:

“Would the black communities from Saint Louis ghettos be better off in a black secessionist state?”

And I’m guessing you would say they would be.

RadLib: Yeah, that’s interesting. Just recently, at the gym, I’ve been chatting with a older gentleman who’s Nation of Islam. This is some so-called black Muslims, like Malcolm X, type stuff. You might be familiar with.

Woes: Yeah. And yes, I am familiar with that.

RadLib: And it’s really interesting about them. Like Marcus Garvey was in talks with the KKK at one point. In other words, you would think these would be people like blacks, who hate Whites, and Whites who hate blacks, when actually they were finding common ground, because they’re like:

“You want to have your community. And I want to have mine. Great! Let’s do it!”

[chuckling] So anyway, I would say that, … Okay, well again shilling for my show. We did a series on the History of Black Americans. And one of the parts that might surprise people the most, is the middle. We did the bit on slavery. We did the bit on the disaster that’s happened since, say the civil rights era, roughly, and great society programs, and all that it’s the middle part that no one knows about.

What happened in the hundred years between the end of slavery in the United States and Martin Luther King, and the Civil Rights Movement? Like no one really knows what was happening with black Americans. They were just I don’t know being lynched, or something, right?

But that’s not true at all. In fact, they were making great progress. And they were building their own communities. And my Nation of Islam friend, that is actually his area of interest. Is learning more about those black communities and trying to bring them back. Old black towns, and stuff like that. And he agrees with me that the era since the civil rights era, has been destructive to the black family, to black communities.

Woes: Yes. I mean, it clearly has been. Something that was talked about as an emancipation of, an improvement for the black American, has just been devastating!

RadLib: I got to get my favourite phrasing in, was “stalking horse”. Okay, I learnt this from a [word unclear]. Blacks and now LGBT, etc., right, they’re the stalking horse for some other agenda.

A stalking horse in hunting is where you hide behind the horse. So that the deer can’t see you, or whatever. So what’s behind the stalking horse? Well, it seems to be coming more, and more, blatant. Some kind of powerful cabal, or something. I don’t know, globalist cabal. What they use as a stalking horse though, we’ll get our anger directed at that stalking horse.

But I’ve noticed that the stalking horse doesn’t tend to come out very well, after all said and done, have black Americans benefited from being the cause celebrate of the American social Democrats for a couple decades? I don’t think so. I think their families are falling apart. And it’s a bad situation for American blacks, because of those interventions, you know, supposedly for their own good.

Woes: Well, absolutely! And I said similar thing has happened in Britain, as well. We have welfare that was supposed to “save” the White working class, post-industrial decline, has actually devastated them and created, you know, dead-end towns where there’s drugs and violence!

RadLib: Yeah.

Woes: Gangs, this is the stuff.

RadLib: Theodore Dalrymple writes about.

Woes: Absolutely! And I was a huge fan of his ten years ago. When I started the channel I did quite a lot of readings of his essays, back in the day. I think it’s more complicated than, I personally think it’s more complicated than he admits. And that would be outside the scope of this.

[100:03]

But I think in a post-industrial society you shouldn’t be surprised that the less intelligent don’t have much to do. And so I think this is one of my gripes with libertarians is that they seem to have a sort of autism about this. Where they think:

“Well, the less intelligent should just move to another town! Or learn an new trade! Learn a skill!”

It’s really not that simple, especially within the British context. But I think, because of the class system, which frankly is quite oppressive. But also I think the human stock that we’re talking about has less agency, than the American equivalent. So yeah, it’s a complicated situation.

But I do think that welfare in the way that it has been administered has been disastrous! Now that’s not to say that that it would always be like that. And also I think that given as I say the way that society is going there probably is going to need to be a welfare system of some kind.

But giving people money for nothing, and just stay at home and despair, and vegetate, and whatever, it’s obviously not going to turn out well. You’re going to end up with generations of well very degraded people.

RadLib: We have to be thinking long term. I mean, that’s how our forefathers were right.

Woes: Yes.

RadLib: They were thinking about building in terms of their family, building in terms of their community, building in terms of their buildings, building for the long haul. And these things that are easy like living on the dole, easy in the short term. But is that really going to get you in the direction of where you want your children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren, to be? Where you want your community to be.

So I think that’s an acid test for a lot of this stuff. But where does it point us in the long term, these moves?

Woes: And also at the societal levels this is where we’re talking about with sociopaths, and democracy, versus monarchy, and aristocracy. They always think far more long-term than democracy. The politicians are thinking about the next five years. And what bullshit schemes they can come up with to buy the votes of a gullible electorate for this next upcoming election. And who cares about the long term?

RadLib: Right.

Woes: Again, it’s another argument in favour of some other, …

RadLib: Well, this is one of Hoppe’s biggest arguments, is the time preference argument, to use the jargon. That the politician is thinking about the next election, and the monarch, or maybe even better, the Royal Family, has this sort of longer-term view that they don’t want to screw up the deal for their family.

Woes: Exactly, exactly. So I think that a society with a more longer term view would implement a welfare system that was less likely to just degrade it’s recipients in the long term!

RadLib: Oh. And we had it! We had it. I mean, there’s a book on this, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State by David Beito. [From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967] And he explains how in the 19th century. And I’m sure this was true in Britain as well. 19th century and before, there were, you know, fraternal organizations. Sometimes it was people who worked in your same industry, sometimes it was a religious, even an ethnic organization. Fellow Catholics, or fellow blacks, you would back each other up in times of trouble, right?

But the nature of the these organizations was that they didn’t really want people who were just going to live off of them, right? You were supporting each other, but you were accountable to each other, as well.

So that got destroyed by the Welfare State in the late 19th, and then going into the 20th century. But there’s nothing wrong with that model. And we can just quietly go back to it, on our own.

Woes: Yeah. I mean, my question about that is I can imagine it paying for the health care of the 19th century. But would it pay for the kind of complex, much more sophisticated, healthcare of today? But then that’s another thing altogether. Obviously yet another huge debate that could be had, and should be had. And I’m not I’ve no doubt will be had, at some point okay.

Well, let’s end it there. I don’t think there are any other questions. Let me just do one last check. No. That seems to be it.

Okay. So well this has been great. So thank you very much RadLib, of Radical Liberation. People can find your, the link will be there to your channel.

[105:26]

RadLib: Yeah. I should mention there’s a YouTube channel. I am also on Telegram. Twitter I’ve been mentioning. But I’m also on Telegram. I haven’t been doing as much with it except for announcing my show, which could be useful, But I’m kind of thinking I should start doing more with it, because of the way things are going on Twitter. So yeah, I’m gonna start trying to pay more attention to my Telegram channel.

Woes: Yeah PhilosophiCat was saying the same thing to me. Yeah, exactly the same thing to me, just yesterday. So yeah, I think that everyone should. I mean, Telegram really is, … I love it! I don’t want to speak too soon, I might get banned from it tomorrow [laughing]!

RadLib: Right. They keep chasing us from one thing to another.

Woes: Today at least, I love it. So I would recommend that people get on there. And yeah, I hope you do pursue that. I think it would be helpful. Well, thank you very much for appearing on Millenniyule 2021

RadLib: All right! Merry Christmas everyone!

Woes: Okay. And i’ll be back tomorrow night hopefully. The reason I haven’t had my webcam on in this stream is my internet seems to be unreliable tonight. That’s the only reason.

I’ll be back tomorrow night with another four streams, starting with Ed Dutton, The Jolly Heretic. Then Hildebrand Szillard. And he is from the Edgelord Investor, which is a Telegram channel. And then Jim Goad. And then Chris Dangerfield.

So that should be a very mixed, a very varied set there. And I will see you then. And hopefully you’ll see me as well. And thank you for tuning in! Again thank you RadLib. And I’ll see you all later on. Bye bye for now.

[107:14]

————

Millennial Woes has created many things. And this is your chance to own one of them! A unique piece of work hand crafted by the vile vlogger, to commemorate Millennial 2021.

Millenniyule 2021 commemoration

A hundred hours of highly skilled labour went into producing this animated vector graphic, which can be magnified to any size.

In the iconic Millennial Woes font, it glistens and responds to your touch. And at the centre of it all, a figure representative of 2021, the White Stag!

Symbolizing endurance, discovery, and rejuvenation!

This one-of-a-kind creation is up for sale as an NFT. Follow the link below. And it can be yours forever! This is your only chance!

[108:16]

Millenniyule 2021 – 60 – Mark Collett

[Add. image — The badge of the dreaded jewish run CHEKA.]

The Jewish controlled media uses the word “Holocaust” (with a capital H) today in reference to what purportedly happened to Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany during World War II. But the real holocaust of the twentieth century was that which the Jews inflicted upon the Russian people during and after the Russian Revolution of 1917. This was one of the bloodiest episodes in history during which vast millions of Russian Christians were murdered. The aim of the new Jewish overlords was to completely eliminate the upper classes, or the possessing classes, collectively known as the bourgeoisie, including men, women and children. The most intelligent, most able, most high achieving segment of the population was wiped out, leaving a population of ignorant workers and peasants. Even the Czar and his family were murdered by the Jews.

In order to bring about their new Marxist Utopia, the old Russian culture would have to be completely deracinated and replaced by the new Marxist culture. By the time the Bolshevik Jews completed the extermination of these classes, the “old” Russia portrayed in the novels of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Chekov and Gorky simply did not exist anymore.

After gaining control of the state, the Jews began to extend their control to every corner of the Russian government and of Russian society. In order to overcome opposition and to subdue the Russian population, a secret police organization was established in December, 1917, called the “Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage,” known by its acronym, “Cheka.” At this time, a half dozen other political parties were in existence, in addition to the Bolshevik party, all of which were also controlled by Jews. One of them was the Socialist Revolutionary Party, or the Left S.R. party. When the Left S.R. party revolted against the Bolsheviks, the Cheka rounded 350 of them up and summarily shot them. Ironically, most of the members of the S.R. party were also Jews.

On August 17, 1918 a young military cadet assassinated the Jewish head of the Petrograd Cheka, Moisei Uritsky, in retaliation for the execution of his friend and fellow cadet. Soon afterwards, on August 28, 1918, the Jewess, Fanya Kaplan, a member of the Left S.R. Party, incensed over the execution of her fellow party members by the Cheka, nearly succeeded in assassinating Lenin. In reaction to these two events, the Bolsheviks began a bloody wave of persecutions which became known as the “Red Terror.”

The Red Terror was set in motion within hours of the attempted assassination of Lenin by the Jewish Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, Yakov Sverdlov, in an official decree. The decree called for;

“a merciless mass terror against all the enemies of the revolution.”

All political parties were banned, and some 800 members of the Soviet Socialist Parties, both the Left S.R. and the Right S.R., were rounded up and shot. In addition, 6,300 other political enemies were also reported to have been shot within the first year, though this number is almost certainly greatly understated.

Yakov Sverdlov, the Jewish Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, initiated the “Red Terror.” He also ordered the murder of the Czar and his family.

An unrestrained orgy of rape, torture, summary executions and murder all over Russia on an unheard of scale then ensued, carried out by the Cheka. Whole populations were liquidated, including independent farmers known as Kulaks, ethnic minorities, the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the landed gentry, senior military officers, intellectuals, artists, clergy, opposition members and anyone who aroused the slightest suspicion. Bolshevik leaders openly proclaimed that the Red Terror was necessary for the extermination of entire social groups, especially the former “ruling classes,” in order to make way for the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

The Jew, Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka, explained in the newspaper, “Red Terror”:

“We are engaged in exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.”

The Cheka grew rapidly and became a very large, very cruel state security organization. It’s organizational structure was changed several times over the following years, as was its name, from Cheka to GPU, to NKVD, and finally to KGB, but its mission remained essentially the same. Cheka offices were set up in every city and town. By 1921 a single branch of the Cheka called, “The troops for the internal Defense of the Republic,” numbering 200,000, was given the responsibility of policing and actually running the massive Gulag system of labor camps.

There is no way to know the precise number of deaths the Cheka was responsible for, but it surely ran into the scores of millions. This would include victims of forced collectivization, the forced famine, of which more later, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death in the Gulag.

Harvard historian Richard Pipes (himself a Jew), in his book “The Russian Revolution” (1990), verifies that;

 

“… three quarters of the staff [of the Cheka] were Jews, many of them riff raff, incapable of any other work, cut off from the Jewish community, although careful to spare fellow Jews.”

Cheka head, Felix Dzerzhinski

Russian poet and writer, Vladimir Soloukhin, in “Bloodlust of Bolshevism” wrote that fifty percent of the Cheka were Jews with Jewish names, while twenty five percent were Jews who had taken Russian names. The remaining twenty five percent was made up of Letts (Latvians), Poles, Georgians, and other minorities, but very few members of the Cheka were ethnic Russians. Moreover, of the non-Jewish members, a significant number of them had Jewish wives. Conclusion?

The Cheka was a Jewish organization, formed as the enforcement branch of the now Jewish controlled state. These Cheka members had no compunctions about killing Russians, as they were not ethnic Russians themselves. In fact, they harbored a deep, burning hatred for the Russians and eagerly looked forward to the opportunity for revenge.

Every single one of those in supervisory positions in the Cheka were Jews. The first head of the Cheka was Moses Uritsky, a Jew, who was soon assassinated. His successor was a Polish Communist revolutionary from a noble family named Felix Dzerzhinski. Dzerzhinski was a non-practicing Roman Catholic, but was what has been called a “Jewified non-Jew.” Some sources say he was half Jew. He spoke Yiddish and his family spoke Yiddish, so he may well have been. Dzerzhinski’s second in command was the Jew, I.S. Unschlicht. The torture branch of the Cheka was controlled over the years by Genrik Yagoda and Yuri Andropov, both Jews, and finally by Lavrenti Beria who was also not Russian, but Georgian, as was his boss Stalin.

About the Cheka, Felix Dzerzhinski was quoted as saying:

“The Cheka is not a court. We stand for organized terror. The Cheka is obligated to defend the revolution and conquer the enemy even if it’s sword by chance sometimes falls upon the heads of the innocent.”

Creation of the Gulag

top

Matvei Berman and Natalfy Frenkel, both Jews and both members of the Cheka, created the infamous Gulag, which was the largest concentration camp system and the most horrendous slave labor system in history in which millions of Russian Christians were slaughtered. The Nazi system of concentration camps and slave labor camps which came later was miniscule by comparison, yet, the term “concentration camp” is universally associated, not with Communist Russia under the Jews,  but with Nazi Germany. Everybody knows about Auschwitz today, but who has ever heard of Kolyma, Magadan, the Solovetsky Islands, or the great centers of massive death in Siberia? Only those who have read the works of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. There is no mention of them in the mainstream media. Yet, exponentially more people died in those camps than died at Auschwitz, or all of the Nazi camps combined. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that all the camps were commanded by Jews with names like, Rappoport, Soltz, and Spiegelglas.

These three men in [Left to right: Genrik Yagoda, Lavrenti Beria and Yuri Andropov] succession ran the torture branch of the Cheka [and its successor organizations] over the years, and were responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians. Yagoda and Andropov were Jewish. Beria was a Georgian, as Stalin was, and one of the few top Cheka leaders who was not a Jew. Beria later became head of the NKVD. 

But international Jewry has gone to great lengths to make sure that this kind of information does not become common knowledge. When Solzhenitsyn’s books, the “Gulag Archipelago,” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” among others, were published back during the Cold War, Solzhenitsyn not only received the Nobel Prize, but also world acclaim for exposing the brutality and inhumanity of the Soviet system, though the Jewish role in it was never emphasized. All of his books were published in several languages, including English, and were highly promoted both in Britain and the United States.

Not so, his latest book, “Two Hundred Years Together,” first published in Russia in 2003, which is about the 200 years the Jews lived in Russia amongst the Russian people. In this book, Solzhenitsyn exposes the Jewish nature of the Russian Revolution and identifies the Jews as the perpetrators of the mass murder of scores of millions of Russian Christians during the revolution and afterwards. This book, unlike all his others, has yet to be published in English, and no interest has yet been shown by any publishing house in doing so. Jews control the publishing industry in the English speaking world and they have no intention of publishing this book in English. Moreover, they have exerted extreme pressure to prevent non-Jewish publishers from doing so. This kind of information is taboo today and its suppression is strictly enforced.

Nevertheless, facts are facts, and sooner or later, someone will translate this book into English. Some parts of it have already been translated into English and posted on the Internet.

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

top

On July 17, 1918, the Czar and his family were murdered by a group of Jewish Bolsheviks. After the Czar’s abdication, the Bolsheviks took him and his family to the Ural Mountain town of Ekaterinburg where they remained for several months as political prisoners, living in a house under guard by the Cheka. The Czar, his wife Alexandra, their 14 year old son Alexis, their four daughters, their doctor, their cook and two other attendants were finally taken to the cellar of the house and shot. The bodies were then wrapped in sheets and dumped into a remote mine shaft.

They were later retrieved when word got out about their murders. The Czar’s face was smashed in an effort to make it unrecognizable. They tried burning the bodies but that took too long. They then doused the bodies with sulfuric acid and buried them in a shallow grave in a forest outside the city. The murderers were Yakov (Yankel) Yurowsky, Alexander Belobarodov and Filip Goloschtschokin, all Jews. The execution of the Czar and his family was ordered by the Jewish Chairman of the Soviet Central Executive, Yakov Sverdlov (real name Yankel Solomon). The Jews had finally achieved their aim. They brought down the Czarist regime with their revolution, and now they had killed the hated Czar, himself.

[Image — click to enlarge] Czar Nicholas II and his family

Yakov Sverdlov (real name Yankle Solomon) (L), Jewish Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, ordered the execution of the Czar and his family. Yakov Yurowsky (real name Yankle) (R) Jewish head of the Cheka squad which carried out the murders. All involved were Jews.  

A group of Cheka agents standing by an armored car in St. Petersburg. Note the all-leather garb. The unofficial uniform of Cheka agents was all leather — boots, pants, jackets, gloves and hats — causing them, according to one observer, to resemble a fetish club. The style was called “glisten and squeak.” Almost all were Jews; most nothing more than brutish thugs recruited from the shtetls, who enjoyed nothing more than torturing and killing Christian Russians.

As discussed previously, long lists of groups were designated for slaughter. Hundreds of thousands of Cossacks were rounded up and killed. The order was to kill every single one of them, and those who escaped initial roundups were tracked down and killed like animals. The same for the aristocracy. 200,000 members of the clergy — priests, monks and nuns — were systematically murdered in a horrific orgy of “bestial tortures.” They were reportedly scalped, strangled, drowned, crucified, and subjected to any other horrific death their murderers could dream up. Czarist officers were forced aboard sealed barges by the hundreds, the barges were then towed out to sea and sunk with all aboard drowning.

Two typical Cheka agents armed to the teeth.

Two more typical Cheka agents, these with obvious Jewish faces.

The Jews now controlled everything and were free to indulge their most cherished revenge fantasies against the hated, though now helpless Russians. Local branches of the Cheka, comprised mainly of Jews, many of the lowest kind, and many of them violent, sadistic psychopaths, had total autonomy and were not required to report to anyone in carrying out this nightmare of torture and slaughter. Any Cheka member was completely free, without fear of censure or punishment, to kill, rape or torture anyone he chose (outside the government, that is), and he could do it in the most sadistic manner imaginable. They not only were not required to justify it, they were encouraged by the highest leaders, including Lenin himself, to show no mercy and to kill as many as possible. The Cheka was an incredibly brutal organization, with standing orders to execute at will.

What distinguished killings by the Cheka, according to one observer, was that they were “rage-fueled.” The Cheka agents didn’t just kill “class enemies,” they went at them in orgiastic frenzies, beating, stabbing, chopping and mutilated them — including men, women and children. An article in “Defender Magazine,” of October, 1933 describes their orgy of killing:

 

“Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their hands or by their feet and left hanging until they died of exhaustion… Others had hot lead poured in their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death… Pregnant women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies.”

During the second half of 1919, the Red Army was driven out of the Ukraine by the White Army. A number of investigations of the mass murders were then carried out by special commissions under the White Army’s occupation, one of which was the “Rohrbach Commission of Enquiry.” There were numerous places of public execution during the Red Army occupation. After the city of Kiev was taken by the White Army in August, 1919, Paul Rohrbach was sent by the British government to conduct an investigation. When the members of the Rohrbach Commission entered the execution hall of the Cheka of Kiev, they found:

“The whole cement floor was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches and had stopped flowing [coagulated]. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull with tufts of hair and other human remains. All of the walls were riddled with thousands of bullets and bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters [10 inches] wide by 25 centimeters deep [10 inches] and about 10 meters [33 ft.] long was along its length full to the top with blood. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.”

In his book, “The Secret Powers Behind Revolution,” French author Vicomte Leon de Poncins, published in the 1920s, wrote:

“The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the Cheka to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest, etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka.”

In his book, “The Blood-Lust of Bolshevism,” Vladimir Soloukhin wrote that these Jewish Chekists;

“… were especially interested in handsome boys and pretty girls. These were the first to be killed. It was believed that there would be more intellectuals among attractive people.” He wrote that, “The Semites, jealous of white beauty, massacred beautiful whites … The Jewish Chekists favored murder with various torture methods.”

In his documentary film, “The Russia We Lost,” director Stanislav Govorukhin related how the priesthood in Kherson were crucified. The archbishop Andronnikov of Perm was tortured;

“ … his eyes were poked out, his ears and nose were cut off. In Kharkov the priest Dmitri was undressed. When he tried to make the sign of the cross, a Chekist cut off his right hand.”

“Several sources,” Govorukhin said, “tell how the Chekists in Kharkov placed victims in a row and nailed their hands to a table, cut around their wrists with a knife, pored boiling water over their hands and pulled the skin off. This was called ‘pulling off the glove.’ In other places, the victim’s head was placed on an anvil and slowly crushed with a steam hammer. Those due to undergo the same punishment the next day were forced to watch.”

“The eyes of church dignitaries were poked out, their tongues were cut off and they were buried alive. There were Chekists who used to cut open the stomachs of their victims, following which they pulled out a length of the small intestine and nailed it to a telegraph pole and, with a whip, forced the unlucky victim to run around the pole until the whole intestine had been unraveled and the victim died. The bishop of Voronezh was boiled alive in a big pot, after which the monks, with revolvers aimed at their heads, were forced to drink the soup.”

“Other Chekists crushed the heads of their victims with special head screws, or drilled them through with dental tools. The upper part of the skull was sawn off and the nearest in line was forced to eat the brains, following which the procedure would be repeated to the end of the line. The Chekists often arrested whole families and tortured the children before the eyes of their parents, and the wives before their husbands.”

Mikhail Voslensky, a former Soviet functionary, described some of the cruel methods used by Chekists in his book, “Nomenclature” (Nomenklatura), Stockholm, 1982:

“In Kharkov, people were scalped. In Voronezh, the torture victims were placed in barrels into which nails were hammered so that they stuck out on the inside, upon which the barrels were set rolling. A pentacle (usually a five-pointed star formerly used in magic) was burned into the foreheads of the victims. In Tsaritsyn and Kamyshin, the hands of victims were amputated with a saw. In Poltava and Kremenchug, the victims were impaled. In Odessa, they were roasted alive… or ripped to pieces. In Kiev, the victims were placed in coffins with a decomposing body and buried alive, only to be dug up again after half an hour.”