All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
51:34
The Janusz Korwin-Mikke Interview
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm here with John Cohen Mickey, an ex-European MP, Polish MEP.
Nice to meet you.
Thank you for joining me.
Well, let's ask, why did you resign from the European Union?
Because I have been bored.
I want my young young friend to take my place in my place.
You must take chances and offer the chances to the young man.
And moreover, I think in the next elections, every afternoon, next year, she boasts me the European parliament got famous and so on.
I can live without European money.
Right, okay.
So do you think that your younger compatriots will do as good a job?
Yes, because I have been bored and he's not bored yet.
Right, okay.
So let's um let's talk about your views on the European Union because there are gonna be people so we're recording Is it alive?
No?
Well.
Is it alive?
We're going to have to start again.
I just wanted to say that.
Sorry, Oliver.
So yeah, there are going to be people watching this who aren't really aware of your views on the European Union.
Would you like to tell people what you think of it?
Well, European Union, in the beginning, it was just a European community of steel and coal, which is just a normal free market.
Then it was being turned into CE.
It was free market for everything, a very good institution.
But then it was overtaken by the left conspirators from the left.
It was a complot.
In the year 60s or 70s, Rudy Dutschke, he was a guru of German left.
There was a trivial situation in Europe.
The Rotterdam Effects Young has been kidnapping entrepreneurs, bankers and so on.
Brigate Ross in Italy had even kidnapped the Prime Minister Ardomoro and they killed him.
But happily they have been halted.
And then Rudy Dutschke said, stop this childish games.
Stop attack the police.
Inscribed for the policeman.
Stop attacking the European Union.
Inscribe to the European.
Stop attacking the oppressive states.
Games the clerk of the states.
And slowly, slowly they were supporting each other.
It is very dangerous.
If there is in the organization, there are two, three, four men who are cladistin in a cultural way to themselves.
It's very dangerous.
They very easily overtake the power.
And those conspirators got the power in the European Union.
They are slowly, slowly, slowly turning into Union of Soviet European Republics.
Well, even there was a European Community, which was a federation of states.
Now it is European Union, which is a state.
It's a state, federal state.
And they want to turn it after Brexit, because the Great Britain was against.
After the Brexit, they want to turn it into the unified state.
And you must understand.
Perhaps you don't know.
But those conspirators make it a complicated, they wanted Brexit.
You perhaps don't remember, but two weeks before the referendum they announced it, which is absolutely false, that all Turks will get the passport to the European Union.
It was not true, but it was a decisive mom moment when the Great Britain turned anti-European.
So do you think they announced that to try and encourage the British to leave the European Union?
They wanted Brexit because with Great Britain and Poland it was very difficult to turn the European Union in the unified state.
But without Great Britain it is much easier.
Yeah because we've been a bastion against sort of furthering integration, haven't we?
Yes.
So they want a full integration.
Well it is not I don't understand the situation in the present European Commission but in the previous Commission it is 80% of the post will be by communists but also with the Trotskyists, the Trotskyists, Baron Ashton from Great Britain was a member of the British Communist Party.
Mr. president of Belgium, I remember his name, he was from the family of communists and Belgian communists are to the left of the Maoists.
Oh really?
They're to the left of the Maoists.
The commissaire from Greece, she was being expelled from the Communist Party for the leftist views, two leftist views.
Two communists for the communists.
Yes, they were two communists for the communists.
So now it's a bit better, a bit better, but they were on the verge of building a communist state.
Now it is a very strong fight inside the European Union.
Right, okay, because I mean it's very obviously becoming increasingly socialist.
I mean the whole project is about wealth.
It is socialist.
It's only a problem whether they turn communist or not.
No, Charles Marx has said 200 years ago that socialists will be first built in the most developed countries in the world.
This is true.
The Soviet Union, Poland, China, it was misunderstanding.
It's communist, not socialist.
Here is building socialists.
In Poland there was that proverb that it is a scientific who is now living in Great Britain, he says that it cannot be scientific because if the society would do it, he would begin with the experiment of Ratsov or Dogs or something like that.
And if it was scientific, surely after the number of failed experiments you would probably conclude that it doesn't work.
It doesn't work anything.
There is an old proverb that if they would build socialism on the Sahara, there would be lack of occupation for traditional lack of lack of science.
What is it about socialism that you think is so appealing to people in Europe?
Because I mean when you have massively wealthy countries where we have huge middle classes, we've got very small number of actually poor people and there's a great deal of class mobility.
Why are they crying out for socialism?
You are pragmatic and I am a dogmatic and I try to give a dogmatic answer.
No, not a problem of class.
But socialism, they are accusing socialism of Maoism or murdering millions of people and so on and so on.
It's not the problem with socialism.
If you, I tell some wholly thing, if you will kill half of the nation, it doesn't destroy the nation.
Usually it is a weaker one which is being killed, a more smart one, more wise man.
So the nation after such an experiment is wiser, stronger and so on.
Right.
Selection.
The most important is that if you make the the nation weak, if you support everybody, if you give money to those who shouldn't give this money, you are destroying the nation.
I even told once in Poland, I repeating it very, if some anti-Semite wants to destroy Israel, we shouldn't shoot to them.
No, no, no.
We should give every Israeli, Israelis, five thousand pounds a month.
After two generations, the Israelites destroyed.
So this is more dangerous.
It is not an state.
No, just imagine a good mother.
Mother has a child who is a boy who is five years, ten years, fifteen years, twenty and so on.
He's in a 14.
Mama is taking care of him.
He's looking at the sound cars and diagonal streets by booze and spoiling your child.
Yes, and looking of the girls which he meeting with and so on.
She's destroying this man.
She has a good face.
She wants good for him.
She doesn't understand.
She's destroying him.
And that's exactly what those who want to build this non-state, welfare state, are doing with the nations in Europe.
Well, I actually completely agree with you actually.
And I think that's a great analogy as well.
Because it's like a long-known truism that you have to let children be on their own and grow and make their own mistakes and earn their own way in life.
And it is very different.
Because the father always says, oh, you can be cut, you get burned, okay, and mother says, don't do that, don't do that.
Of course, he does everything.
There is no punishment for that.
So the man's decision is let 90% and severe punishment for this 10% with 19 mommy is forbidding everything.
There's no punishment.
So in Europe, it was the second way of dealing with people.
It is destroying.
I actually really agree with you on that.
And one of the things that I have a problem with it is it makes people timid.
It makes them timid.
It makes them afraid of new things.
Oh, I tell you.
No, no, no.
It is very deliberate, deliberate action.
In Europe, well, let's begin with the beginning.
It will be a bit long, can I?
Yeah, no, go ahead, please.
There were European values, European values, and the values of the European Union are exactly the opposite.
What was good in Europe is bad in the European Union and so on.
Exactly opposite.
So with the European values, we conquered all the world.
With Union values, the world is colonizing us now.
Exactly.
You know, I was told that 200 years ago, Europeans were selling the percolas to the Negroes in Africa.
Should I say Africans?
No, I'm saying Negroes.
You use whatever language you want, it's more expensive.
And now I've been on the beach in Italy last year, and I see the Negro was selling percolas to Europeans.
Exactly opposite.
But it is not important.
Most important.
That one of those values was that the children belong to the parents.
And it was the father who decided what he is told to his child.
The father who decides.
Why?
Because those children had to support his parents on the old age.
So you had to have children and plenty of children, five, six.
You had to give them a good education to earn money.
And you shouldn't make them harm because in the old age they would revenge, make revenge on them.
So the family has been connected with a very strong economic tie.
Now, this tie is being broken.
Why should I have child when being old I get the state emeritus?
And pension.
State pension.
Why should they have a child?
They have not money for child, because the main paid for pay for merchant pension.
So the number of children diminishes.
You can see a correlation between the security, security and negative number of children.
That's interesting because most people normally chalk that up to prosperity itself, not necessarily social programs.
Most people are under the impression that when you become wealthy, you want less children.
But that's an interesting idea that you have that specifically ascribed to the social programmes because you can go back to the sort of imperial era in Britain and the aristocratic families had dozens of children.
No, no, but the poor people, the proletariat, it is the one who has only plaused.
So, you must understand one thing.
That in Europe, the children belonged to the parents.
It is the father who decided.
And now the child belongs to the state.
I was shocked.
Two years ago, a democratic politician America has said openly that the children belong to the state.
But two weeks ago, two weeks ago, Mrs. Teresa May, the Prime Minister of Her Majesty's government, has said the same.
In the case of the Alfred events.
They do do that.
Child protective services will come for your children if you have the wrong political opinions.
And, and, and.
In the slavery state, it's normal.
The child of a slave belongs to this owner.
No, when I have a beach, I'm talking and they have puppies.
Puppies.
Puppies belong to you.
Who is to vaccinate the puppies?
The beach?
Okay, owner.
If you have a child, who decides whether to vaccinate or not?
Your owner.
You are a slave.
You must understand.
You are a slave, not a free man.
You are a slave?
Because your child doesn't belong to you.
And that's the second reason why people don't have children.
Because not this.
Why should I have children?
The only moment when the child is mine is when my child broke the window.
So I must pay for it.
Then it's your responsibility.
But I mean, you raise a good point.
And it's one of those things that it's going to be very difficult to have this conversation out of context with someone else in Britain to explain that, look, exactly as you say, you know, if you don't actually own your children and someone else does and they get to make decisions for your children, how are you different from a slave?
And they'll say, well, look at the wealth we have around us.
Ultimately, they're saying we have a lovely gilded cage.
You must understand.
In Rome, plenty of slaves had more money than the owner.
Oh yeah, yeah, I'm aware.
In Rome, the slave had to pay 90% of the money he earned outside of the house to his owner.
But in Europe, the taxes are 83%.
And so on.
Of course, you are told that he's only 83 and he roamed as 90%.
But for this 90%, the owner must give him food, shelter, and food.
And in Europe, not so.
So the situation of slave in Rome was much better.
But tell you, do you know what is the greatest difference between the slave and the free man?
Tell me.
Tell me.
The slave on the state of Rome, who was even well dressed, but he was not allowed to wear weapons.
It is the greatest difference between...
You know, when Americans occupied Iraq, but they don't take the arms from the Iraqi.
For Americans, it was just unsycado to take money from the free men.
You know, every Arab had his gun and in Europe our owners have taken the...
Why the?
Why?
Because they are afraid of the revolt of the people.
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
Because they're not accountable to any particular group of people.
That's what annoys me more than anything in Europe, is you've got the commission which doesn't have, they act like a government, but they don't have a demos, a people, that they are voted in by.
They're not held accountable.
I mean, maybe it's because I'm English, but I find that intolerable.
I can't stand it.
But the way you frame that just then, I mean, you're not wrong, but it seems like a dramatic characterization.
Yeah.
But it gives some more dramatic.
It was the father who decided what the child is being taught in this.
Now the state who decides.
Of course it's natural because in the slavery state, this child of the slave works not for his father, but for the state.
So it is the slave owner who decides what he's going to taught.
In Germany, it's actually illegal to do homeschooling, isn't it?
Yeah, but because the bill was edited in 1938.
Really, yes.
It is still valid.
But there was a very important feature.
There was no co-education.
Only in very primitive societies there is no death penalty and there is co-education.
When there is a sorcerer, somebody in this tribe, there is no co-education.
Because there is a kind of culture.
The progress is in differentiation, not in unification.
So there was no co-education.
And what was taught the boys?
The most important things.
The boy must be aggressive.
The boy must fight.
He must fight for honor, for truth, for faith, for fatherland, for women, for children.
He must fight.
He must fight.
He was the obligation.
The burden of the white man is to fight.
And in the European Union, of course, it is just the opposite.
Even in the prep schools, the children are forbidden to be aggressive.
Why?
Because the owners are afraid of the revolt of the slaves.
The slave must be timid, must be aggressive.
You're making me hate my government.
it is exactly it is well sold this system is perfectly perfectly scammed perfectly well i mean this is something that is a genuine problem in the west the feminization of boys i I mean, there was a, I think it was a New York Times article the other day that they were proclaiming the century of what they call the twink, which is a very skinny, very effeminate man.
Fertility rates are dropping because sperm rates are dropping.
I mean, obviously the good corollary is this violent crime is going down.
But this is another reason for introducing the co-education because the men, when you are with somebody, you are like I don't know the English programmes.
I'm sure there is the same thing in Polish.
So if the boys are being with girls, they are assimilating to the girls.
Yes.
They are even more feminine than the girls sometimes.
But who will defend the slave owners when it comes to Muslims or of anybody else?
Who will defend them?
No, they say Rudder Kipling.
Kipling versus who says, it's Tommy here and Tommy there and go away you brute.
But he's the savior of the country when guns begin to shoot.
Well that's, I mean that's honestly one of the major concerns about the undermining of masculinity in Western societies.
Because I mean ultimately if we carry on the trajectory that we are, all of the impressive military equipment in the world won't make a man who is prepared to stand at the guns and actually fire them.
But I tell you something.
The boys are being taught something very, very important.
That risk is bad.
It is security which is most important.
But it is told that the highest value is the man's life.
You cannot have any civilization with such a principle.
Because if the highest value is men's lives, I can take the child, put the knife to his throat and say, give me a billion of dollars.
If it is the highest value, it is more valued than the small billion of dollars.
So the result was that there was an interview given by the king's soldiers of Kingdom of Daniel, the chief of the trade unions of the soldier of Kingdom of Danes.
And on the press conference, he said that in case of war, the first duty of the soldier is to hold the white flag.
If you have a principle that the highest value is human life, then obviously the only way to avoid the loss of human life is to surrender.
Of course, yeah.
So how can you teach people such idiotism?
It's actually quite amazing when you put it like this, because I can understand why they would say that the highest value should be human life.
I can understand why they said this, because they want to create a sort of tolerant, liberal society that doesn't produce violence and insurrection and things like this.
I can understand why they would say that.
But I think you're definitely correct that there is something essential about the human being, a man particularly, that is being drained away by that.
I mean, I, for example, I never complain when any of my, you know, when I was a child, my father was always okay to let me fight other boys.
He was always okay, my mum, it drove my mum crazy, but my dad was fine with it.
And I never understood it until I became a father myself and thought, actually, no, let him have a fight, you know, let them sort it out themselves.
You know, they've got to learn.
The man turns conservative when he has a doctor.
I do get called a right-winger these days, I have to say.
But it's interesting how we're talking, we're not really talking policy anymore, we're talking about the fundamental values on which our society is built.
That's the most relevant conversation which we have at the Pete.
They are exactly opposite to the European values.
But there is a very, very strong logical conclusion.
If the European values are best, they're the best because we can conquer the best.
So if the European Union values are that opposite, they are the worst.
So the values of the Negro tribe, of Arabs, are better than Union.
I agree.
So I thought at the meeting of Edinburgh, I prefer occupation by Muslims to the occupation by the European Union.
Well, okay, okay.
That's a great statement.
Suppose we are fit for the occupation of the European Union.
I agree, I'm totally opposed to the European Union.
I just like to hear it.
They can Muslims.
There will be no paradox of homosexual paradox.
The murderers, they had cut the next day.
There will be no VAT tax which contributed to the Quran.
There will be no income tax against Quran.
There will be no cities against Quran.
There will be no buyer sell tax to the Quran.
The economy would flourish.
Look, the Spain, under the occupation of Arabs, because in the 9th century there is a late global warming and the Arabs occupied Spain and half of France.
And the Spain was flourishing under the occupation.
That's very true.
Flourishing.
And moreover, the Christian faith was flourishing under the modern occupation.
But now, under the occupation of the European Union, the Christian faith is just fading out.
So from every point of view, it is better to be under the occupation of Muslims than the occupation of the European Union.
Well, I mean, I'm not a Christian, so I'm not gonna.
I'm not bothered about the Christian faith, but I understand where you're going with this.
One thing, you're gonna look on that.
But what's understanding one thing?
Go.
You cannot beat an occasion, of course.
But I will be in Saudi Arabia.
And I was told by an Arab: if you want, that your wife would teach you, and the children don't listen to you, just tell them that the God doesn't exist.
So the Arabs, perhaps they don't believe in God.
But they pretend, because they want, they listen to the faithfulness.
Yeah, the children to listen to them.
So it is very important.
It is very important.
And moreover, if one boy is fighting with another and he believes that if he dies, it will be in heaven, so he fight.
If he is afraid of losing his precious life, he will not fight.
So that's why all the states, all the countries which believed in the life better world, were winning against the Athenians countries.
See, I do find that very interesting because I'm aware from talking to various people and reading various things that strength is very well recognized in the Arab world.
It's something they treat as an important value.
And I honestly think that the lack of fortitude and strength that the West shows is one of the reasons that they feel they can take advantage of us.
Well, there are the people who are very rich and they want to do something with this money.
And they want to make us good.
And there is a Polish proverb, I don't know what is the English counterpart, that if somebody wants to help you, just fly away as possible.
Right, okay.
So they are trying to make us good.
They are crippling us with this nanny state and so on and so on.
They want us good, really.
But still, they are keeping us.
But it's not necessarily virtue, is it?
That's the difference.
Being good is not necessarily the same as being virtuous.
Being good is often what, like, I suppose you would say, a slave master would say to their slave.
But a virtuous man is demonstrated by his action, isn't he?
Well, just the slave in the Roman times.
Nobody ordered the slave when he was riding horse to pin himself to the horse with the seat belt because if he can fall and lose his precious life, the owner paid for him, paid for him six times for the ox.
Six times better than the ox.
Very precious.
So he should take care of him.
He was free not to have a seatbelt.
Now I have, in the European Union, I have to put a seatbelt in my own car.
Understand?
It is shocking.
Just imagine a free man.
Free man.
My example is D'Artagnan.
No, Monsieur D'Artagnan, Monsieur D'Artagnan, you must pin himself to your horse because you can die if you fall down on the horse.
So he would laugh.
And if somebody would insist, he would take his spade and kill you.
Because he was a free man.
In Europe, in Europe, the people are slaves and they do what they are told.
No, just imagine a German 100 years ago.
Somebody comes to him and says, you must take your child, your boy, to school, and in school he would be taught homosexuals, which is in Germany there.
So he would take, he can kill those men, at least make some girls.
Now, this German Potentik gives this boy, if his owner wants him to do it, he's doing it.
That's why I hate the European Union.
It has turned the proud Europeans into the slaves.
Into Timmy slaves.
And that's why.
No, a good Russian hate the Soviet Union.
A good German hate is said, right?
A good European must hate European Union.
I am a good European.
Well, I tell you, I completely agree with you on that one.
I think that's a fabulous Facebook.
Seatbelt.
I can't say that what you're saying isn't true.
Because it is.
There is a truth to what you're saying and I agree with you that there should be a return to a more evaluation of masculinity.
I think that masculinity should be valued.
I do think so, but I, for example, I still think seat belts are a good idea.
What?
Seatbelts.
Seatbelts.
I still think they're a good idea because they save lives.
But it is your problem.
That's true.
It is you who lose your precious life.
Why should the government make us wear the seatbelt?
You should choose to wear the seatbelt for yourself.
By the way, if you want to be precise, the passengers should seatbelt.
But in Poland, it was the Congress Liberal Democratic Congress who got power to power by Mr. Vawensa, who was the agent of Political Police, by the way.
And he got the power.
And the first bill they introduced was the bill to have the seatbelts obligatory.
And I was a member of Polish parliament and I said, open.
If you introduce this, the number of deaths in the car accidents will be greater.
There was an uproar of laughs.
And next day, next year, the number of deaths of this carbon was greater.
Why?
Very easy.
No.
If you are in the Tivoli, you are driving the car, you are shouting with the other cars and so on.
If you feel safe, you can drive more quickly than usual.
If I know I am safe in the seatbelts, so I drive quicker.
Because I would be afraid of losing my life at 80 miles per hour.
And with the seatbelts, I'm not afraid.
And so with the 100 bills.
So the number of the drivers who dies is smaller, but the number of the passers-by is greater.
Really?
But I guess I'll have to check that, because I've never heard that.
I mean, it certainly has a lot of reasons.
I was working with the Institute of Road Transport for some time after 1968 in Poland.
And I can tell you another thing that is shocking.
Oh, yeah, clearly.
That introducing the limits of the speed also makes the number of the cars inaugurated.
And why is that?
So if you are going from London to, I know, Scottish finance, if you are going quickly, it takes three hours.
If you are going slowly, it's seven hours.
The majority of accidents in the last plus hour of riding because you are tired.
And it's very important.
And moreover, 80% of the accident is being caused by the 20% of the poor drivers and poor cars.
If you are driving quickly, you can eliminate the worst drivers because to transport the same amount of the goods and passengers, the number of cars is smaller.
So it eliminates the worst drivers and worse cars.
See, now I like the way you're approaching these problems because I think that there's a distinct problem with the mindset of the social planner, as in the person who like says we can, the example of seatbelts is a great one actually.
If we make everyone wear a seatbelt, then theoretically we'll reduce the number of accidents.
And that's the mindset of a social planner.
They see society.
When this bill in Poland has been introduced, it will be introduced.
And they believed that the number of death accidents with modern do the insurance companies lower the papers?
No.
Of course they don't.
They did not.
Rightly so, because the number was greater.
But getting mentioned, like, it's interesting, like, the mindset, though, because you're taking a very bottom-up mindset, as in the people themselves should take responsibility for themselves, completely.
Their families.
Yeah, and then they are the ones with whom the burden is placed.
It's not the government, you know.
So if you wear your seatbelt and you get into an accident, then you'll probably be okay.
But if the other fellow didn't, that's his responsibility.
It's not the government's responsibility to prevent that from happening.
But if it is the government's proceedings, then of course the government demands me to do two things.
Then they're going to, yeah, and more and more and more.
I'll give you another example.
I was reading Agata Christi's books.
One of them, an old lady, goes to the pharmacy and is buying a pound of such a poison.
Arsenic.
Oh, arsenic.
Arsenic, yeah, arsenic.
Poison.
Does he want to kill the rats in her cellar?
And somebody is stealing some.
No, this arsenic is killing somebody.
A hundred years ago, eight years ago, you could go to the pharmacy and buy a pound of calcium.
Why you cannot do that?
Because there is no death penalty.
If there is a death penalty, if somebody put poison on anybody, because he was not sure he will be hanged.
Now, Mr. Andrew Brebig can kill seven persons in Sweden or Norway or anything else.
He only wants to have an MP4 in his cell.
Oh yeah, yeah, he's in Norwegian jails.
There is no death penalty.
The markets are not afraid.
Well, okay, but there are studies that show that the death penalty isn't really a deterrent.
So it is.
Is it?
I tell you an example.
From World.
A year ago, a man has been expelled from the prison.
I say expelled because he wanted to be in prison.
Prison is a socialist invention.
In prison, you have everything, on time, three times a day, a meal, a change of the clothes, a walk half an hour a day, everything is issued.
Total security.
It's a typical socialist.
It is prison.
Unfortunately, he's been expelled because his term was ended.
He wanted to return.
He went to the first woman on the street, take a knife, cut her throat, kill her, and then came to the prison.
In this prison, he was a very precious prisoner because murderers are very high.
Hierarchy of the prisoners.
So, those who take, to abolish the death penalty, have the blood of the swimming of the hands.
They are murderers.
Who abolished the death penalty has bloody hands.
Blood of the victims who had been murdered, were not murdered if there was a death penalty.
But that's one example that doesn't necessarily disprove a trend though.
I mean, I get the feeling that a lot of murderers don't think they're going to get it.
I've been several times in the prison.
And I am thinking under my room.
And one of the inmates next day is being conduced.
And another inmate comes to him and says, Can you do this?
And he says, I can do this because for this two years, I will not do this because for this it's five years.
And he says death penalty he would not do this.
Well, there are at least part of the murderers who are afraid of them.
I agree.
I mean, career criminal types who commit crimes for a living, they would undoubtedly be tested.
I think for murderers, not for killing, quite for differers.
Murderer, who purposely kicked somebody.
If he is a combo, he can code the death penalty into his account.
But, I mean, there is no way we're ever going to be able to persuade people of any of these things.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I think we're too far.
Like, nobody's going to agree.
Everyone's going to say, well, that sounds terrible.
That sounds rough.
We can't make people do these things.
We can't make people take responsibility for their lives.
We can't let boys fight.
They might get hurt.
You know, they'll say things like that.
I mean, what do you say to that?
Yeah.
There is a clip in the internet from China.
Yeah.
When a lady, a trainer, training is a boy, he's six months old, and throws it into water, he just began to breathe.
And 80% of the internet is shocked.
Yeah, it is possible.
How you can increase this in this way.
But the children can swim.
If you don't believe that we are born to swim, just look at the hair here.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, this way.
Because we are in the water, water creatures.
In the easy phase of the evolution, we will be swimming in the water.
That's the one of the hairs.
And another girl can breathe, but must be told.
But I have a family of the nightingales.
Father, mother, and seven small nightingals.
They are sitting on the branch of the tree.
They are afraid.
And it is the duty of the father to throw them down from the blood.
They know how to fight.
So they can fly up.
Yes.
You must.
Living in the free market is much easier than flying.
I mean, there's definitely an argument for, I guess you could call it tough love.
It's an English phrase, tough love.
As in, sometimes you have to do what's not immediately gratifying, but in the long run, is good for you.
Builds you character, Helps you overcome problems.
Learning this to do itself makes you stronger.
Exactly, exactly.
But I mean, maybe I've just been living in the West for too long and I just.
I can't see how you're going to sell it.
It's really annoying because I really like what you're saying.
I like the ethos of what you're saying.
You must understand.
If we don't return to the European value, it is the Muslims who will win.
Because you know, the Muslim boy has a kind of ceremony, being eight or nine, he must kill a sheep, he must kill a lamb, lame.
But just on the memory of Isaac, the Isaac said, we must kill the boy.
And European Europeans cannot kill a fish.
So they must win.
In Europe, the boys are told you cannot answer with aggression against aggression.
You must negotiate, have a dialogue.
Last September in Germany, Peru went with their tent in the forest.
And came a Muslim Negro, by the way, taken the girl with the head, raped her.
This boy tried to negotiate with him and even a dialogue.
Unfortunately, he just raped him away.
Wow, he wasn't interested in a dialogue.
I can't believe it.
So, the Muslims, in Moscow, they are saying that our daughters and granddaughters will be their harems and they will be, as I said, more.
They will be satisfied.
As George Bernard shows, he said that the real woman won't prefer to be the first wife of a real man than a first wife of somebody without balls.
And that's probably true.
And what is this man useful for this lady to be raped?
I mean, this, I mean, I can't think of a better way of underlining the catastrophic loss of masculinity in Europe than to try and negotiate with a rapist in the middle of the rape.
I mean, that is.
I mean, what kind of person doesn't fight the rapist off?
You cannot decide because the aggression is something bad.
I guess we've demonstrated that it's not always bad.
I guess it's about when you use it.
I agree, it's not always bad.
But you've got to understand your.
The reason what you say is it seems outlandish here is because we have been conditioned for decades.
To fight, to fight with a bad man, bad aggressive man, you need a good aggressive man.
That's true, you absolutely do.
And I mean against bad men with guns, it must have a good man with gun.
That's true.
That's very true.
And it is a cult is a great level because a woman can defend herself against a man.
Without a gun, she is helpless.
Absolutely.
I mean, I'm not against firearms personally.
So, I mean, this.
It's not worth getting into the debate, to be honest.
But I'm not against the ownership of firearms.
So I'm not.
I agree with you, but the things that you're suggesting would require such a radical restructuring of the world view in our society.
Yeah, it would be.
It would be a revolution.
Counter-revolution.
but I like I definitely like the idea Fabian society and other thinkers of the left has told us that the revolution is a long thing.
It must have a slow, creeping, creeping revolution.
They say 1% of taxes must be 100%.
Now we must have a revolution.
It is the kind of what is take down.
You cannot do it in partly.
You must do it.
You must counter-revolution.
Return to normality.
But I tell you, in Poland, the communists, there was a real priority of the working class.
Every speaker, the class returns, but where he cut.
But he returned to this factory and he ordered this ruling class exactly the same.
He's here.
You can hear in the European Parliament the man who is saying that the women are equal, equal temporary.
He returns to his home and has children make dinner and of course makes dinner because they are not.
So it is only in the verbal structure.
So it is enough that the TV will stop to input of us new patterns and in two weeks it will return to normality.
There's no problem.
It's only as the famous socialist Dr. Joseph Gebels has said that it is enough to repeat 100 times a lie against truth.
So they are telling you for example that democracy is good.
They are repeating it 100 times a day and the people believe that the system with two bombs has twice as more politics voices than the professor of the university.
It's absolute, but after repeating it 100 times, people begin to believe in it.
Democracy is absolute.
Europe has been conquering all the world but all monarchies.
All monarchies, there were no democracy.
That's true.
No democracy.
We have a true example of democracy, Athens, who introduced democracy.
It lost to the Macedonia in terrible, but all the leaders of the political parties have been in the pocket of King Philip of Macedonia.
That's true, yeah.
No, no, that's true.
As an example was Poland.
Another example was democracy.
We have two kingdoms, Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania.
They've been united into Republic.
There was no hereditary king.
The king was like first secretary in the Soviet Union.
Exactly.
And this very big country, very big state, lost terribly.
Nobody fights.
Nobody fights when the three powers, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, there's been gravity.
Nobody fighted against it.
Nobody wanted to defend the republic.
It was, in all the Europe, they've been laughing at this point of Poland.
OK, so then, why do you think that is?
Because the Romans fought and defended their republic until they eventually became an empire.
So the Romans.
So it can't be, it's not republicanism or democracy itself, is it?
It's something about, I don't know, I mean, what do you think?
How do you square that?
The Republic in Rome has been very quickly turned into Caesarism.
But Caesarism is not kingdom.
It is like in Soviet Union, the first secretary of Caesar.
So I'm against Caesarism.
I am for monarchy.
You're for monarchy?
I am for monarchy and I don't believe in Queen Elizabeth.
I met her in Poland.
How did you?
I met Prince Charles also.
I don't believe in it.
But perhaps Prince William will change something.
Well, I'm not pro-monarchy, but I understand where you're going with that.
I don't think he will.
I think he's...
Don't believe in majority.
Majority is always stupid.
In Poland and in other European countries, 70% of people cannot understand the timetable of the buses on the stop.
It is true that the majority are stupid, but the I okay, so making the case for democracy.
Democracy is about preventing tyranny.
This is, I think, one of the key things that we learned from the European continent, is that tyranny can spring up almost overnight.
But the tyrants, the single tyrants, can be stupid or wise, but majority is always stupid.
But to become a tyrant, to become a king, you must have some features.
You must have some virtues.
Strong, wise, or something like that.
To become a voter, not to have to do that.
Well, yeah, but you say that, but we've had plenty of kings who have been anything but strong and wise, you know, and they've been weak and indolent and they've fritted away everything that we've had in the past.
So it's a.
I mean, I don't think monarchy is better than democracy, but I agree that democracy has plenty of flaws.
And I tell you why you have democracy now.
Because you have no problems.
That's true.
If you are on the vessel and there is no problem, no storm on anything.
And the captain gets drunk and got that dumb.
Then even the passengers, female passengers can vote for the new captain.
Of course, the most handsome will be two.
Of course, yeah, yeah.
But if there is a storm on the horizon, and the rifle stops democracies.
The women hiding the backs of the men, boys do something.
The first officer master.
And the democracy is there.
We have no problems now.
And that's why you're democracy.
And I tell you something more.
Suppose you are flying with 200 people in the plane.
And there is a proposition to make a democracy.
If you laugh, the pilot writer took plan, then it's stopping the author.
Would anybody agree for democracy on the plane?
Of course not.
Why?
The answer is given by the most important philosopher from the 20th century, Nicolaus Davina, who said people would much more effectively strike themselves in the finger with a hammer if the pain was after one year.
Yeah, they would.
So the catastrophe of the plane would be in 15 minutes.
The catastrophe of the state is after 200 years.
So people agree for the democracy in the state.
You are absolutely correct that democracies exist as democracies when it's not a time of crisis.
I mean the World War II is a great example.
I mean Britain had to like re-democratize itself after the war because all of the effort needs to be put into defeating the Germans.
But we have to explore San Marino and Switzerland.
When democracy works.
Yeah, well I agree.
I mean I love the fact that the Swiss can the the the public can initiate referenda which is public not not democracy.
Yes.
Yeah yeah but the the fact that the public have that kind of power of the state.
Somebody has told in in America in 1848 that the Republic will survive until somebody will discover that the government can bribe the people with their own money.
Yes.
People can vote for their own money.
Yeah, no you're absolutely right.
So what do you think about the future of Europe?
Do you think we're gonna get conquered by Muslims?
I I think that if monarchy will return.
I think we should think monarchy will return monarchy or the Sultanate.
Sultanate.
Either this or that.
Yeah, well that's an interesting uh interesting proposition.
Um I would prefer monarchy given the option.
I I would prefer the European monarchy had I had the choice.
Yeah, not the Union.
Yeah, yeah, well we of course yeah.
But um god forbid we get a sultanate I suppose.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
▲
Export Selection