Styxhexenhammer666: Ethno Nationalism, Meme Magick, and Democracy – Transcript

Video And Audio Available Here.

Tara: Welcome back to the Reality Calls Show. Today, I am interviewing Tarl Warwick, whose YouTube channel is Styxhexenhammer666. You probably have heard of him and I’ve had a lot of requests to interview him. So, here he is.

We’re going to be talking mainly about politics and also some of what you would call the occult and things like that. I think one of the main points that a lot of people want to ask me to ask you about is what your views are regarding ethno-nationalism and civic-nationalism, independently.

Tarl: Well, I’m not surprised that they would want to ask me about ethno-nationalism; I get people referring to that quite a bit. I don’t oppose any form of nationalism. I see the same sort of subjective morality that many – even ethno-nationalists – see as a negative thing, still at play in the world and, as a civic-nationalist, I say I believe in Americanism, because, you know, I’m born in the United States and I live in the United States.

I believe in that sort of cultural belief system, but I don’t have anything against ethno-nationalism – my point about ethno-nationalism is that it’s often too easily co-opted by people who are actually total leftists, they’re social Marxists, or literal communists.

And what they do is they is come in and dress as Nazis and they’ll fly a swastika and they’ll say “sieg heil, sieg heil”, kill all the minorities or something like that.

And then when actual ethno-nationalists, who have common sense, say “well that’s not what ethno-nationalism is actually about – it’s about people’s need to preserve their cultures and their different lineages and including people who are from Black African tribes, and who have their own culture; well some European groups also have their own cultures, and these groups should preserve themselves.” That’s ethno-nationalism. I have no problem with that.

But then they get co-opted so often by these other groups of agents provocateurs, or trolls, and, in some cases, literally hateful individuals. It’s not worth talking about supporting ethno-nationalist movements, because they’re so easily frayed apart by that sort of rhetoric.

Civic-nationalism, though, is more stable. The civic-nationalist answer, for some countries, is basically the same as ethno-nationalism anyway, only operating from a different set of criteria. You’re saying we preserve the culture, but for most states in the world the culture and the ethnicity or the race are inseparable anyway.

You go to some part of– again, you go to Africa, you’re going to find that people there are racially more-or-less homogenous, which fits in with the racial nationalism, but their culture is also inseparable from that tribal lineage, and so it comes to the same end result – it doesn’t matter which model they actually utilize, they’re going to have the same result.

The same would be true in Europe. A civic-nationalist in Europe is going off of centuries of tradition, whatever that tradition happens to be, within that ethnic culture. And the two are exactly the same thing, so my statement to ethno-nationalists is: the tendency of ethno-nationalist fronts is to be dissolved over time because you’re going to get infiltrated by people who themselves in many cases aren’t even ethno-nationalists.

The system itself – real ethno-nationalism – is fine; I have no problem with it. It doesn’t matter what ethnicity or race we’re talking about. But it’s going to be denigrated over time, especially when the corporate media in the western world really hate nationalism. They want globalism because they can make more money off it. It’s much easier for them to attack ethno-nationalism and civic-nationalism.

Tara: Well that’s definitely true. The problem is, of course, that they also have a sneaky way of attacking civic-nationalists – the “We’re all immigrants, let’s open the borders,” kind of rhetoric.

Tarl: Yeah, and, for most of human history, that was never a thing. The very concept of being built by immigrants, in the old world, never made sense. In the new world, it makes sense, but you’ve got to look back at what groups you’re actually talking about, what their values were culturally, as well, from their actual origins.

It’s like when people are attacking now Jon Tron. All he is, is a gamer. He’s not really a political youtuber or a political celebrity. But he weighs in and he says, “Oh well, I believe that we should preserve our culture, we should have a border wall,” etc. etc.

And when people attack him, they point out, “Oh yeah, well, a hundred years ago racial categorization was totally different” and “Oh, they didn’t see anything as a white race,” they said “Oh well we’re Irish, they’re Italian, or German or whatever and they were all separate and so racial conceptions have changed.”

Yes, that’s definitely true, but you’re talking about the views that people had a hundred years ago, number one. And number two, within the civic-nationalist structure, what you’re talking about is the building of a culture that has now become, in the Americas especially, a traditional cultural model.

The cultural Marxists and groups like that seek to overthrow it entirely. They don’t even like the inclusivity of the immigrant model that they themselves are espousing, in many cases. What they’re actually saying is they want to destroy the same culture that brought them there.

The idea of the salad bowl or the melting pot never really entered into people’s minds. Those cultures were considered different. They were considered different races. They used to say, about Irish immigrants, “Oh these Iberians, they’re actually of African origin and they’re all drunk and do terrible things and they’re Catholic and therefore heretical, they’re papists.” But at the same time they’ve congealed into a cultural core.

What they’re saying, what the left is saying, that the non-traditionalists, whether they’re opposed more to ethnic- or civic-nationalism or libertarianism, or any of these other offshoot movements, what they’re saying is that that same culture that became tolerant is, actually there is something wrong with them.

Then they talk about, look at what Steve King was tweeting out, “Oh well our future can’t be solved by foreign babies.” Now his critics came out and said “Oh well he’s like a clan member, he’s like a nazi” because he’s talking about those white babies to the exclusion of all others.

But he’s not, he’s also talking about native born Black and Asian and Hispanic children as well. And everyone completely glossed it over. We have a situation in which the left in the western world, “left” so called, most of them aren’t actual liberals, most are just neo-liberals.

Whether it is Europe or United States, they’re sort of destroying their own movement at the moment, and they don’t even realize how powerful nationalism and its various allies have really become, I think.

Tara: [sighs] Yeah, I mean, I know what you mean about saying that the Marxists have an ulterior motive. The problem is that most people don’t realize that.

So it’s almost as though we need to go one step further and be overtly ethno-nationalist in order to defend against this rhetoric and this kind of sneaky way of… that Marxists and globalists try to take our countries away from us basically.

Tarl: I would agree with that in spirit, but I would disagree in terms of strategy. Strategy’s not the same as morality. You get more flies with a teaspoon of sugar than with a gallon of vinegar, and the problem again with ethno-nationalism is that it gets co-opted by its more extreme elements or by outright agents provocateurs so easily that it never gains mainstream traction.

These people, they’ll call me a “cuck”, for example, for referring to myself as a civic-nationalist from time to time, or a libertarian nationalist, or whatever term that I happen to use because it’s elusive, it doesn’t really have everything in common with any of these single movements – it’s a sort of fusion that I use. They’ll call me a “cuck” for saying that, or they’ll say “Oh he’s weak on the Jewish Question” or whatever.

What I’m saying is that people, for decades and decades, have been saying “Yes, we must preserve the white race. Oh immigrants get out” and all of these other things, and nothing’s happened. White birth rates continue to decline. The proportion of the population in virtually every western country that’s white is declining.

Now, a leftist says, “well, okay, that’s good,” because “Oh, down with the white evil patriarchy and stuff.” The right wing, you know – the neo-cons – don’t care because they just want slave labor and they don’t care who the slaves are, and the neo-liberals are the same as long as they can abuse people.

The nationalists often say, “That is a terrible thing, because we want to preserve our culture,” but you’re not preserving our culture. You’ve never done anything to preserve Western culture. I am interested in preserving Western identity – the civilized, advanced developed world.

What form that takes doesn’t really matter as much. Part of it does go back to that century-ago different ethnic groups question. All of these different groups were considered separate, yet they did learn to live in peace, despite the fact that they had spent centuries killing one another.

And they weren’t considered part of the same racial group. Somebody who was Greek or Italian was not considered of the same race as someone from Sweden or the northern end of Germany or the British Isles or something like that, they were considered different races.

But simply complaining about “muh Marxism,” or “muh white genocide” isn’t helping anybody. It’s not accomplishing anything because the average centrist sees that, and it is very easy for somebody who is a literal Marxist to formulate counter arguments against that.

But if you’re saying “I want to preserve Western culture and I want to block immigration because I want to continue preserving that, enforced assimilation yes, few immigrants that’s fine, but they must assimilate and follow the law…” it’s very difficult for the left to argue against that.

And that’s where they’re losing. When you look at these upstart movements, in the US, Europe, wherever, they’re civic-nationalists or outright populist nativist groups. They’re not ethno-nationalists in the strictest sense.

The ethno-nationalists, if they have any power at all, it’s fringe power, it’s like the green movement or anything else, especially like in Europe, or the American communist party. The peak of ethno-nationalism in the US was back in the 1920s when they could get a hundred thousand clan members to march down Pennsylvania avenue.

They’ve gone into decline for almost a century now. It’s not going to help anybody. It didn’t help then, it’s not helping now. And ultimately what you do get is you do actually get racial violence because some of these people do take it to that extreme and they’re not just agents provocateurs, they actually believe in it.

And then you get people lynching a black person or beating up a Hispanic. How does that look? I don’t class that as morally right. I see it as a violation of people who, oftentimes, they’re American citizens too. I know some people might say “Well, they shouldn’t be. There shouldn’t be anchor babies and Blacks shouldn’t be…” I don’t really care.

They’re American, too. They’re part of my cultural core and that’s what I believe in. I watch the Doctor of Common Sense, and he’s black and he’s more redpilled on most of these issues than any of the actual skinheads I talk to.

He’s actually got good ideas, speaks coherently, number two, and also provides things that can actually work to improve our nation. I would think that improving your life would be a good thing regardless of all this other side-bickering.

And some of these people, like the social Marxists, or outright Nazis, whether they’re agents provocateurs or not, they can’t formulate effective arguments for actually stopping the problems that we exist under.

Tara: Okay, and which problems could those be?

Tarl: They identify as a problem white genocide or something. I’m saying, there are a lot of people in this country, not all of which are white, they don’t have jobs, or they have jobs, they’re under-employed. We’re constantly fighting wars for other countries.

We’re overtaxed beyond all possible recall. Our foreign affairs with regards to even our allies are totally screwed up. The world is getting more and more and more dangerous. And our government has been incapable of doing anything about any of these things.

Ultimately, some people say, the libertarian side of me says, “Get the government out of it because it’s obviously ineffective.” The other side of me says “implement policies of reform that actually allow the system to work regardless of whether it is being decreased or not.”

But simply complaining about this other group of people because they immigrated in large numbers as the cause of our problems, it doesn’t solve anything. It’s happened before and these same people are complaining again about the situation and not doing anything to solve it. And to me, they represent something that’s not that different from what we see in DC.

People spout off on ideology, but then they don’t actually provide a working fix for it. These people would say “Oh well, we can’t grant amnesty to anybody, we have to deport” you know, depending on who you ask it’s 10 million or up to 30 million people.

They don’t even know what that means, they wouldn’t know how to implement such a policy. They don’t even realize that it can’t be implemented. They will debate me all day on this topic. They’ll debate other civic-nationalists or libertarians on this topic and yet they never actually think of a proposal that wouldn’t either completely scrap the constitution and leave them vulnerable to more cultural Marxism over time as the government absorbs more power that it needs to do such a thing; or abuses people so badly that it leads to a revolution or a civil war.

Tara: And what do you think the primary… is that the primary core problem here or is it just like the deep state or the corrupt government– or what? Do you think that democracy or the republic is working? Are you a fan of it or do want to completely change it?

Tarl: I am a fan of the republican system of government. I think we don’t constrain it enough. I just wrote a booklet called “Improving the State,” which gives a rough sort of outline on my concepts here. I think we need to expand the constitution to further limit government.

Because here is something that the left and right should agree on: the left and the right both find things that the government has done in some form, label them abusive and say they’re bad, they’re immoral, they denigrate native culture on one end, the right-wing would say, or they hold back minorities, something the left would say.

But if you’ve limited and constrained government more, it doesn’t have the ability to abuse anyone regardless, that’s what I happen to support. That fits into civic-nationalism, I know, more in an American sense than a European sense.

In Europe you’ve got more of a tradition of centrality, more of a tradition of literal ethno-states anyway. In the Americas it’s a little bit different because of the founding.

As far as the deep state goes, the people who run the deep state, or the establishment, or globalism as it may be termed, they don’t care about anybody regardless of– they’re actually very diverse and multicultural. They don’t care who they’re abusing so as long as they’re abusing people. If you’re black, they’re going to abuse you. If you’re white, they’re going to abuse you.

The easiest way for them to get away with that is to actually continue to pit these groups against one another. The one thing that the self-proclaimed “commies” of our modern age actually say that makes any sense at all is that the people at the top are more than willing to watch the little “prols”, the little peasants fight. They’re right.

I completely disagree with them on why they would do this. I don’t think it’s some evil capitalism conspiracy. “Oh muh crapitalism always abusing the workers.” No, it has to do with centrality in a general sense. The government wants to intervene in markets. The government wants people to be slaves, because they’re easier to control.

It doesn’t really want entrepreneurs and small businesses to succeed. It makes less money doing so. When they fight trump, when you hear about the deep state, “Oh they’re fighting Trump, trying to stop populism, they hate nationalism” yeah that’s because it would be bad for their bottom line.

They’d still be making money, but they wouldn’t be making the vast fortunes that they make today by working across borders. We got people in our house of representatives with dual citizenship in Israel.

I don’t think that’s what our founders had in mind when they designed the legislature. I think that they expected people to have sole loyalty to the United States, honestly.

Tara: Yeah that would make sense. Someone asked: can modern society continue in its current form if we remove the last 15 years of leftist insanity or do we need a fundamental renewal rather than a makeover?

Tarl: You’d have to remove more than 15 years of insanity. You’d be going back to the Eisenhower or JFK era if you wanted things to go back to common sense, and you’d have to go further than that if you wanted to get rid of all the problems.

You’d actually have to go back to before the “gilded” age of the late 1800s. Our major problem economically is that our own success began to create monopolies. And then carpetbagging comes in, the government gets empowered to keep those monopolies going. The progressives then came in to break those monopolies apart, to break up the trust and pass anti-trust legislation.

And I think– I’ll disagree with some libertarians even here. I think Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. His ideas were very benevolent, but he went about solving them the wrong way.

The right way to go about it was simply monopoly and trust busting. Instead, he centralized the government further without realizing that those same corporate individuals he was breaking apart would then usurp the government itself and use it to break up smaller businesses that would compete with them.

Most of the problems fiscally that we have are the result of that era of time. Fast forward a decade so ago you get the more moralist era, and that’s where our social problems come from, because people get scared, they get hyper-religious.

They think marijuana will make you rape people and crash your car, they think that alcohol is a moral ill and causes society to be laid waste to. And once that moralism crept in, it took us a very long time to get any of it back inside the bottle. We end up spending through the nose, just to pass and maintain moral laws as well.

And if you want a free capitalistic society, you need to privatize virtually everything the government does. You need to shrink it back, I’d say 75-80% of its current size, maintain the military, return to civil defense, see the expansion of militias and so forth.

Like the Swiss-model military. You’d need more capitalism, got too many regulations, too high of taxes, we need to reform our taxes… the big one I think… the capstone of reforming our system as it is today is electoral reform.

Another thing– Bernie Sanders gets it right for all the wrong reasons. He says, “Oh we can get big money out of politics.” Yeah, but he doesn’t aim that at lobbies or bureaus he’s friendly with. We need to get it all out of politics.

There should be no super pacs, no corporate donations, or even business donations at large, no lobbying donations, no bureaucratic donations, certainly no foreign donations. Have a one person, one donation, cap total, with some public money available, ensuring that more than two parties can participate.

If we had such a system, there wouldn’t be any corporatism, because corporations would be powerless to influence politics at the federal or state level. And at the local level, who cares if they’re doing it at the local level, if people don’t like it they can very easily move in that situation.

When the whole government is taken over by a few mega corporations– “Walmart owns this senator and McDonald’s owns that representative and that governor over there”. Where are we supposed to move? You’d have to leave the country to escape it and those other countries are influenced by US policy too.

Tara: What do you think of the idea of direct democracy? Vox Day was suggesting something along the lines of people choosing on their smartphone about policy and that sort of thing directly. What do you think of that?

Tarl: Oh it’s a terrible idea. People would be so easily manipulated if that were to happen. If you did it electronically it would be worse. I don’t even think they should use electronic balloting in our election. We should go to paper ballot only. That’s the only thing that should be accepted.

There should never be any electronics involved. If you want to do an automatic electronic count, that’s fine, but there has to be also by-hand ballot counting if the result is even remotely close, probably by 10-15 points, quite a gap in certain political situations.

If people had the ability to use direct democracy for their decisions, you’d run into one major problem and that is how do you determine what exactly they’re able to vote on. Are you going to constrain it by a constitutional system? And then who makes the determination whether it adheres to that?

You could either end up with a situation where the same corrupt government just limits what people can vote on, so it doesn’t matter. Or, rather, you’re too lenient with the system, and suddenly people find themselves empowered to ban anything they want and spend public money on whatever program they want and it would be the same wedge-issue politics that we have now on steroids.

Because then one neighborhood and another neighborhood might get to fighting over, “We should get that money because we have trash in our streets, we want it cleaned up, we want that hundred grand to pay people to come and clean the garbage and clean the debris out.”

The other people say, “No no, no. Our water quality is too low. We need a new water filtration system. We need that money.” People would end up spending more and more– we’d probably end up under a socialist system.

So direct democracy would certainly make the system less efficient than it is now, ultimately. If it’s at the local level, it’s fine. If it’s some local ballot action, “Oh do we or do we not legalize marijuana” or “Do we or do we not build this statue”, yeah, ok, that only affects the local community.

Sometimes they’ll still make dumb decisions, sometimes a large minority will still get oppressed by a majority, but ultimately it’s local in its effects. But if you were to extend that nationally, oh my goodness, it’d be such a huge problem. You might see the northern states rob the south. The southern states get robbed or something like that.

Tara: On a different topic: do you believe the materialist science view of humans, that we are just flesh robots as people like Sam Harris and Scott Adams say?

Tarl: No. It’s a good operative definition for understanding human systems, because what we do is biological. But does it address the big question of why we’re here, if there’s any purpose or not? No, it doesn’t do any better a job of that than a mainstream religion in that sense.

I think that the more materialistic secular side of science is guilty of the same sins as organized religion. It’s become dogmatic. It doesn’t even want to ask questions anymore. Even within science, divorce of all spiritual context, it does the same thing.

Science says, in cahoots with the politicians giving them large amounts of money, “climate change is real, it is manmade, it is only manmade, and if you question it you’re a dumbass.” That’s not what science is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about questioning, building a hypothesis and finding evidence.

It’s not supposed to be about telling people that they’re dumb and they don’t know what to do and that they’re worthless because they question something. That’s the way science advances. It’s our understanding of the world that can only advance through asking those questions.

What scientists have done is turn that on its head and say “No, this is our assumption. Our assumption is right because we agree that it’s right for some reason, and if you don’t accept that, well you’re just backwards, you’re dumb.”

So we don’t have to listen to you, we don’t have to ask that question, even if there is a legitimate question to be asked. Even more so on a spiritual sense. An organized religion says “This god exists. If you question it, you’re punished or you’re dumb or there’s something wrong with you.”

Science has begun to say in the last few decades, unfortunately, “There is no god, there is no spirituality, every unexplained phenomenon is either mundane or a hoax, and if you question this you’re dumb and there is something wrong with you.” I just don’t agree with that.

I look back at the occult, in my own occult training, I look back at alchemy and say well they’re practicing primitive chemistry. What if primitive secular science had existed at that time? And they had said “No, there is no truth to alchemy. This can’t be done. We’re not even going to bother testing it because it’s just a bunch of hogwash.” It never would’ve developed chemistry.

A lot of these earlier atomic era scientists were extremely spiritual individuals. I don’t have a problem with the secular. I don’t have a problem with atheism, but, when it becomes dogmatic and proclaims the same positive claims that any religion does, that’s a problem… we should be questioning things.

It doesn’t need to form a dipole of spirituality. It should be the neutral party that simply analyzes everything and tries to make the ends meet as far as when it comes to the conclusion.

Tara: I think a good example of that is, Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book about the ten assumptions of science or something like that. You see that a lot of the things that they base all of their theories on are not actually as guaranteed as they’d like to make out.

Tarl: I think also science appears to have flown the coop on having any social responsibility. When we started to develop atomic warfare they were constantly spouting off spiritual things. “Oh Jesus Christ what have we done. Please pray for us poor sinners.”

I think it was Oppenheimer saying “Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds” when they did project Trinity. I think it was Oppenheimer. They were deeply spiritual. They understood that what they were doing was nuts. It basically violated their very view of reality at the time, even if we can quantify it more now.

Now they don’t really do that. They don’t say “Oh well we’re trying to make a better world.” They just say “Accept what we say, dumb people, you don’t know science.” They’ll even go after people that do understand science. I’m not talking about “Oh, I attended this Christian college and learned about biblical archeology.” I’m willing to criticize people for that sort of stuff too, because their claims are totally bunk. “Oh there are mummies in the Red Sea with chariots– oh, Noah’s ark.” Stuff like that which, I mean, it’s bunkum.

But then you’ve got people who are legitimate scientists, who have potentially closeted spiritual beliefs. They don’t want to be known as “that guy” in a lab I suppose who is still praising Jesus Christ or something like that.

But then the same leftist scientists, the same academics, the head academics or their political allies, at the same time they say “Oh it’s so wonderful that we have all these Islamic scientists moving into the United States, or the Western world at large.” It’s sort of this weird double standard I think.

Tara: Yeah– have you seen Graham Hancock’s work with the Egyptian pyramids?

Tarl: No I don’t believe so.

Tara: Okay, because one of the points that he makes is that the pyramids might actually be a lot older than we think they are. It’s just that the Egyptian government doesn’t allow scientists to properly examine the pyramids because they don’t want it to be demonstrated that the Quran is wrong about the timeline.

So… religion is getting in the way.

Tarl: I always did find it funny that the enormous stone pyramids that are supposedly newer are just as degraded as the supposedly far older mud brick ones. I would think they’d be less degraded over time, they’re made of much harder material.

I think there is something wrong with the archaeological timeline if we can go back to Tepe or Catalhuyuk or some of these remains. I’m just not sure they’ve got it quite right yet.

Tara: I think it’s because we’re not allowing scientists to properly examine the stone or also because, once in its in a book, that’s where it is dogma. You can’t really go and criticize other people who call you a crazy person. You lose your reputation as a scientist.

Tarl: All the academic grants they get, too.

Tara: Yeah, ego getting in the way. What are some of the most interesting findings you’ve made studying the occult, and how did it impact your worldview?

Tarl: Well I’ve told the tale about how I saw, well most people refer to it as a demon, I’m not sure I’d use that term or determine that it’s fully sentient. But when I was a small child I saw the figure generally referred to as Stolas, which is from the Ars Goetia, actually in my bedroom one night among other weird stuff that I saw.

And things like that that I can’t quite explain challenged what became for a while my entirely secular worldview. For years I was a hardline atheist and then a Satanist for a while as well. And by the way, so nobody has to ask me, I haven’t been a Satanist in half a decade.

They always ask me that question or they say “You’re a Satanist you should believe in Jesus too so you should worship him.” During that period of time though, I was remembering back to my younger years when I saw all of these strange things, I’m like “How can I actually be sure there’s no spirituality.”

Because I was combining, I think many atheists do this, they combine their lack of theism, their disbelief in a deity, especially some of the crazier deities with the truly weird and often self-defeating traits that they have.

They combine that with anti-spirituality, but then what I realized was that within the spiritual world, there was protoscience, there were all sorts of philosophies that actually made sense. And you don’t need to believe in a god to understand how these things operate.

I’m epitheistic still. I don’t really care about the issue, I got past it because I said I can’t prove there’s any deity. And even if I could prove there was a deity, I can’t really necessarily know anything about it. I’d have to assume. But I also can’t prove there’s no deity.

I can prove that some of them are inconsistent because of the dogma wrapped around them, but the basic idea of a god can’t be disproven. I can’t prove that negative. And so why do I even bother thinking about it? I’d rather delve into the spiritual side. And so I’ve studied alchemy. I’ve studied sort of the literary tradition of some of these books over time that are released as editions.

They are all very old. Some of them are a thousand years old or more, and I like to trace their lineages. I like to think how they might be interconnected. Like how all of the oracle works, the fortune telling works, how their primitive 18th century origins in their semi-modern form, up through– they changed completely in the early eighteen hundreds. They changed it again completely in the Victorian era.

They changed it again completely when the atomic era began and now we’ve sort of the modern fixation on the zodiac, often in simplified form. Tarot certainly to a greater degree than in the past. And I just think that it is an interesting mental exercise.

It’s also scientific in nature. You’re looking at history and science more than the occult just on its own, “Oh, you cast a bunch of spells.” I like the academic side of it at least as much as the truly spiritual side. Some of these works are academic. They’re talking about the history.

The history of Hinduism or, “Here is a concise history of these herbs or these demons.” And that side is of interest too and you don’t even need to be spiritual to want to study that sort of material if you’re looking at it as mythology, as even the ancients sometimes did their own pantheons.

They’d see it as mythical. They’d try to draw metaphors out of it to increase their wisdom even if they didn’t believe in an actual deity. And I don’t see any problem with that, honestly.

Tara: I had a similar experience to you actually when I was about five years old and there was also another witness to this but I won’t go into too much detail. It was like this tiny little ball of intense light… like about that big… but it wasn’t hard to look at. I don’t know what it was. Do you know what it was?

Tarl: I don’t know. I’d have to see such a thing. That’s another thing I do subjugate my occult study to my senses. I do try to rationalize it, otherwise you’d have to be really superstitious. It makes sense to try to rationalize things, and then what can’t be rationalized you can think about further in the more spiritual context.

Like, if you haven’t witnessed something it would be the same sin that science makes in a dogmatic fashion: there’s no god, there’s no spirituality. You can’t criticize that and see that as a excess, see that as a problem, at the same time that you indulge in the same behavior just on the opposite token.

“Oh well I saw something weird. I know what it was because this book told me what it was.” But you have to be able to witness it, and you have to imagine different possibilities for what that could be. Like maybe Bigfoot is a hominid, maybe Bigfoot is a total hoax and never existed in the first place.

Maybe there are orangutans that have evolved to a colder climate and they are running around the Pacific Northwest. I don’t know I never even been to the region to actually look for them, and I would have to go and do my own research.

I can’t rely upon just second hand accounts for that. I can make an educated guess. I can theorize what it could be, but unless I see something for myself– you know, it’s a moot point almost.

Tara: And the thing is I felt like we’re kind of living in a crazy situation. In the same way, when I talk about race realism, you’re aware of all the IQ differences. All of this science, and you’re not allowed to talk about it. It’s the same with spiritual sci-phenomena as well.

So if you do start experiencing telepathy or precognition or anything it’s kind of like you have to keep it to yourself otherwise people think you are crazy, or you can share it with other people who are completely wacky and off the wall.

Tarl: Yeah– I think social media is good for that though because it gives an outlet for things that are more fringe, and then I think it’s like what’s happened with the occult. We’re in an occult renaissance, it’s vastly expanding. Paganism is rapidly growing; even groups like wiccans and Satanists. Satanists are atheists, and wiccans – it’s not an authentic ancient tradition – are growing rapidly too.

I think the reason is– maybe 20 years ago when these movements were still around obviously there was nobody to talk to about them. You’d have to meet somebody through an organization. You’d have to get a newsletter and show up for maybe a yearly event. Now you can make YouTube videos and find other people of like mind and they amalgamate.

I think one risk of this is it forms echo chambers, politically, socially, and in a spiritual sense. But it does give people an outlet and what has happened is that other people who have never actually been confronted with real nationalist ideologies or libertarianism or with the occult or any of these things.

All of a sudden they can actually learn about it from people that they never otherwise would’ve heard from, because before they would’ve had to rise up through the corporate ranks to get a TV show or radio slot or something, or have the money to invest in something like that to begin with.

Now the investment is slight. A webcam and a laptop will suffice, and you can talk about whatever you want. I can put out a video on some random topic and somebody in Mongolia can watch it. Well that wasn’t even possible even like ten years ago.

Even in the early social media era it was so scant, it was so much different than it is now and it is rapidly picking up pace getting more and more intrinsic. It’s killing off the corporate media, it’s killing off the corporate entertainment industry and good riddance I say to both of them.

Tara: Are there any other taboo kind of areas of interest, such as the race realism thing or the occult? I feel like there are so many things you’re not supposed to talk about, and there’s like this kind of one version of reality that is certified as okay and approved by television. Is there anything else that people should be looking into that we’re not currently?

Tarl: I think everything is already being looked into. Even to the point where– someone like myself on the younger side, more open, I don’t really care what ideologies people have.

Sometimes it goes beyond what I’m comfortable with, like Salon with its garbage articles with that pro-pedophilia advocate and stuff like that. To the point at which there is apparently no longer any moral transgression that’s too great for it to find an actual audience.

Somebody could probably sit there, write up a post on some alt-media site on how they think murder should be legalized or they should have a purge night once a year or something and there would be people who would unironically support such a thing.

So for fringe ideologies, generally speaking, that are not really encouraging any moral wrongdoing as it would be seen by mainstream culture or by the occult culture, I mean it’s even more tolerated. It’s like par for the course.

Ten years ago it might’ve been kind of edgy, twenty years ago it was totally taboo, now it’s “Oh okay he’s talking about cannibalism. What else is new?”

Did you see the story about the CNN journalist there who met with the Aghori and ate some charred brain and then had poo flung at him? Like can you imagine if somebody from CNN had done that 10 years ago, would they have had a job when they got back to the office? I’m thinking not.

I think the call for them to remove themselves would’ve been so severe they would’ve been outright censored and they would’ve been out instantly. They wouldn’t even have been able to come back to the office. They would’ve gotten a phone call. “You’re fired. Don’t even bother packing your desk. We threw it all out the window.”

But now people say, “Oh the Aghori.” The leftists will say “Oh well that’s an interesting culture, you know, he didn’t really do anything wrong.” Other people are like “Yeah I know but I’ve seen shock sites and I use edgy websites where all sorts of weird stuff is posted. Is this really that out there? No not really and nobody cares.”

Oh some people are saying it’s disgraceful it’s disgusting and then end up getting beat down by people who say “Oh well, the Aghori were going to eat the dead body anyway. Who cares if he happens to be from CNN?”

And it’s all very interesting to watch people’s reaction to such things. Things that not that long ago, well within our lifetime would’ve been totally taboo where you would’ve probably been legally investigated for in all honesty.

When he got back to his office some FBI officers were waiting by to ask “Oh were you cannibalizing the dead? Did you have sex with a corpse or something like that?” Now nobody cares.

Tara: I have to say that I do think it was very disgusting. But I’m vegan so…

Tarl: I’m more worried about the prions from such a thing.

Tara: Exactly, all kind of diseases! And I hope they didn’t murder that man to eat his brain. I hope that that guy was already dead.

Tarl: Yeah I think they only eat corpses that are already rotting, actually.

Tara: Disgusting.

Tarl: It’s not exactly the most prime delicacy perhaps in India. Honestly, that ties into the occult, I actually respect the Aghori. I wouldn’t want to partake in most of their ritualism but I can respect the fact that they have liberated themselves totally from fear.

They sleep in graveyards and they get high and drink out of skulls and stuff like that. It’s certainly an edgy religious movement, but I can at least respect them for holding to those tenets I suppose.

Tara: Someone asked: is there devil worship among the radicals and the leftists?

Tarl: Uh– probably some. This is something that I got flagged for when I spoke about the pizzagate stuff. People thought I was saying that there’s no abuse within the upper echelons of our political elite and their various allies. That’s not what I’m saying.

What I’m saying is that the spirit cooking side of that crap is performance art by very bored individuals. It’s just like bohemian grove. It’s performance art. People go there, they whiz on trees, literally, as I think Nixon said, they have orgies, they get drunk, they live like they’re a college fraternity for a few days out of the year.

They don’t care if you find out that they’re doing these weird things because you’re going to chalk it up to devil worship and never actually bother to investigate why are these people acting like freaking lunatics when they’re the ones that are supposed to be designing our foreign policy and our fiscal policy? That’s the question they don’t want asked.

What I would say is that it would be difficult for them to be devil worshippers because it’s difficult for anybody to be a devil worshipper. If you believe in the sort of totally evil devil, you do also believe in the Christian god, or if you believe in some other variant of the devil usually whatever deity they’d have. You know, you’re worshipping Ahriman, or something like that.

But most self-proclaimed devil worshippers are not authentic in their beliefs. They don’t understand the bible any more than they understand any other spiritual scripture. They just listen to Black Sabbath and cut 666 in their hand or something like that.

And then Satanists are predominantly atheists and the luciferians are basically pagan. So I think that more of these people– the real god of the elite is the dollar, usually. The dollar or power itself, not really the devil.

Tara: Someone’s asking about the future of legacy media. How long will it survive? Who’s subsidizing it? What’s the future of journalism? That kind of thing.

Tarl: Well, at some point they’ll probably try to switch to social media only. It’s so expensive to run tv that at some point the decline in viewership there will make it no longer cost-effective. What they’ll do is host it on internet sites and it will be streamed to a tv. So it will be kind of like tv but it will be semi-interactive or something like that.

They’re starting it now. They’ve already tried to make this move. Look at Youtube’s streaming news bundle: 35 dollars a month for all of these various channels. They wouldn’t be doing that if they weren’t very worried about their bottom line on tv. They used to say “Oh the internet is sort of a joke. Nobody will ever take that seriously for political content.”

Youtube’s proven them wrong, Facebook, Twitter, all of these sites have proved that that is not a working model. Some of these radio broadcasters already put their stuff online.

Almost all of them have at least a main website, oftentimes an archive, sometimes you can stream it over the internet, and they’re making increasing amounts of money doing that, while not investing nearly as much as in the decreasing amount of attention that they’re getting on their other platforms.

The problem for the legacy media is that the people that they employ that have the name recognition still want those seven figure salaries that they’re getting. So they’re still going to have to pay through the nose.

Additionally the recording standards, the music that they use in their interludes, their advertising systems like as mainstream commercials, those all require a huge amount of money in an organization.

It’s not clear that with their current setup they can really maximize their efficiency the way someone who started out on social media can do. I look at my own channel. My audience is nowhere near the top rung of political analysis on youtube or anywhere else.

And yet at this point I have more of a presence than at least on Youtube than some of these networks do. And there are people that have more of a presence than all of them combined.

You look at PewDiePie who occasionally spews out something that’s vaguely political. He’s got more subscribers than FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Breitbart, and Drudge, all of these groups together have, and how were they supposed to really compete with this? It’s not just one person, it’s thousands, or tens of thousands of people that are supplying this analysis in eclectic form.

They can do it without a significant investment. They can make money doing it. The amount of money that they are making is often still well in advance of what they ever expected and yet they do not have to invest much back into what they are doing other than time.

I make videos everyday. I don’t really need to continue paying anything other than the Internet bill and electricity to keep doing what I’m doing, and it’s relatively sophisticated. And, for the investment, it is paying off way more than if I started a TV show.

I’d have to take out a loan, have a studio built, set everything up, hire a bunch of people and I probably wouldn’t reach as many folks as I’m reaching now. There are people with millions and millions of fans and with high name recognition, probably more than some of the pundits on mainstream TV.

Tara: Yeah I can personally barely name about two of them on mainstream TV. Do you think that we’re actually going to be holding them to a higher standard, like they’re going to have to be more honest, and do better research, because of the social media phenomenon of reporting?

Tarl: It’s hard to say. With newsprint they’re held to a different standard because it’s often local, or a local subsidiary of a national group or something. And with radio they have basically devolved into click-bait in many cases.

Who are the big names in radio? Shock jocks and people who have severe political bias and just spout off, maybe Limbaugh or Don Imus or something like that. Um, you could see television media do the same thing that radio did which is become vestigial, slowly decline in use and get more and more bad over time and sort of get disgraced.

It’s like, uh– who has a radio-only political interview anymore? Nobody. It probably hasn’t happened in decades. Nobody is going to go on a radio station, even a large one and supply some sort of critical soul, you know, you’re the only one that gets to post this interview segment.

They’ll go on TV, but increasingly they go on social media, even at our presidential debates here, they have it streaming on YouTube so that anybody can watch it. Probably more people are watching it there than on some of the major networks. They take questions from Facebook and Twitter and stuff like that.

The mainstream networks must be very, very paranoid about what’s going to happen before the next presidential election as they decline even further. Their viewership is dropping.

Part of it is trust-related, the problem is if they don’t generate the click-bait that causes them to be distrusted by the mainstream, they can’t draw in the increasing youth-share of the audience, which can already get their fear-porn online.

So it doesn’t matter if somebody is looking for something that’s real accurate news or whether they’re looking for a cheap thrill. They’re not going to find it on TV as easily as on the Internet. But it’s difficult to figure exactly what’s going to happen with the legacy media.

You can sort of predict that they are going to continue to decline, but what steps they take as that happens? At what point do they go completely ape-shit and start attacking social media more? I don’t know. I can’t say.

Tara: Someone asks: what are your thoughts on freemasonry and the illuminati?

Tarl: Well the illuminati died out a long time ago unless you count that fake website that occasionally posts spam around “Oh you can join the illuminati and become a millionaire.” As far as the freemasons, I’ve read some freemason literature and it’s actually pretty boring honestly. It’s a gentlemen’s club.

I read something the other day. Somebody was posting how the shriners actually would drink a college frat under the table and they got totally wasted and do crazy things; or terrible guests at a hotel or something.

If you read the actual masonic literature, you can get it off of Ebay quite easily, it’s honestly completely boring and I can’t see a group like that taking over the world. They’re in steep decline as well. Much like other older orders.

Very steep decline, sort of like the clan or something. They used to have millions of members and now I think it’d be hard-pressed to scrape together enough to fill in a single town.

They’re monotheists. As far as I know you simply have to believe in a deity to join them. But why would you want to? The sort of regulatory system, if you read their lodge constitutions, the regulations that they’ve actually built… what’s the purpose?

It’s basically, all you’re doing is some fundraising in your local community for an orphanage or something and that seems to be the whole point of the freemasons from the get go. And then people say “Oh well the Freemasons are evil they want to take over the world.”

Washington and some of these other major figures, that were proponents of severe liberty far beyond anything that we have today, were all a bunch of freemasons largely. Not exactly the most malevolent individuals that I can envision.

Tara: Okay and going back to magic actually. I just thought of a question that I wanted to ask you: Do you think that, when it comes to magic and changing reality and things like that, is it all about influencing consciousness?

Because a lot of it to me seems to be involving spirits or demons or whatever you want to call them, extra-dimensional entities or whatever you want to call them…. and just influencing your own consciousness or subconscious. Is it mainly just about controlling consciousness?

Tarl: Mainly I would say it’s about gaining self-control and then you get to change the way you’re operating, and it gives you the ability to control the way others view reality. Then when that new consensus is built, you are physically changing reality because you are endeavoring towards it.

As far as the demons and angels and fairies and stuff side, I do believe that there are all sorts of things that are beyond our current grasp to explain. I’ve witnessed some of them myself. I have seen a ghost.

I have seen what I call a UFO, not necessarily a flying saucer but a flying object that I couldn’t identify at the time. And I have seen a demon and other things in my life. But that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with manipulating reality.

The way to manipulate reality is ultimately through memetics and propaganda. You have to first have self-control and self-awareness because otherwise you’re going to fail at it.

Once you gain that through whatever means you’re gaining, you can cause others to view the world differently. You can destroy other people’s propaganda much more easily. You can propagandize for malevolent or benevolent purposes. I choose the latter because I believe in liberty and freedom and so forth.

Some of these other people who spew propaganda want to abuse and enslave people. It’s like all this atomic era stuff. Look at the communist movements in the Soviet Union, “Oh, more bread for the motherland; oh more bread for the military and the government; you’re still going to starve you stupid peasant.”

But you can affect the way people see reality and once you’ve done that and once they begin to see it differently, they see through the veil of confusion that’s around them constantly. That’s magic in the most literal sense. It’s manipulating reality.

Because we have to realize, many, many more things are possible in this world than most people think are possible. Even things that are mundane, “Oh well we can’t establish a Mars colony” – bull crap, of course we can. It’s already within our physical capabilities. All that needs to exist is the will to do so.

“Oh we can’t have flying cars because of economic reasons,” of course we can. Develop new technology. And this is another example where technology really overlaps with the occult.

The occult says, yeah you can do this, you simply have to build a consensus of reality where there is enough drive to even bother doing this, but we’re stagnating because the consensus reality right now is still largely controlled by people who don’t really think big things.

They don’t have grand ideas. They don’t feel optimistic about the world. They don’t want to build a Utopia in which man is sort of transformed beyond the mundane. What they want is a world in which most people are oppressed. They want slaves or servants. They want to maintain poverty. They’re honestly human scum for the most part.

And so that is the reality they’ve imparted to people but now that reality is being fractured because the dissemination of information is migrating into a decentralized system like what we’re doing right now. It’s online. We didn’t need a cable company to give us permission to talk, we didn’t’ need a radio station, it’s basically free. And anybody can do this sort of thing. And it changes people’s conception of reality.

Tara: So of course you have persuasion and propaganda and that kind of psychological manipulation…now I can understand how that can be considered a form of magic, but is that all there is to it or is there some extra thing happening?

Tarl: No that’s just the pragmatic end of it that makes more sense to use. All this other spiritual study, science won’t even bother to investigate these phenomena because it assumes that they’re all false. There’s no such thing as spirits, there’s no such thing as demons, there’s no other dimensions, no anything.

The world that we see around us in physical form is all there is. Everything is just a soup of atoms that happened to arrange themselves by pure coincidence and that’s all there will ever be. We can’t even begin to investigate truly these other phenomena without either going rogue and being branded a lunatic or without first changing the consensus of reality experienced by the average person in their day-to-day lives.

Right now they think the reason for their existence is they go to school to get a job, they go to their job and slave away for years in order to retire and then when they’re old and on their deathbed, they look back on that life and they regret everything. They’re miserable.

It doesn’t matter. They can rise to the upper middle class and they have a nicer car to drive to their enslavement plan and they have a nicer house to come back to once they are too tired to do anything in it. They have a bigger lawn that they still have to mow to please the neighbors. And that’s their view of reality. And to me that’s insanity.

It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It would be better to go and live with the Yanomami or the Maasai people in some deep third world un-contacted tribe, drinking cow blood or spending all day chewing hallucinogens. It would be better to do that and die when you’re 40 than to never have lived at all in my opinion. To be a true thought slave.

Tara: I definitely agree with you that people don’t really know why we’re here or what we’re doing or anything like that, and for me that is so frustrating — I’m surrounded by people who are going about doing their thing and none of them know why they’re here or what they’re doing or how the world works or anything– And most people don’t even seem very interested in this really important topic. Have you gained any insight into answering any of those questions?

Tarl: I don’t see it as important to answer them so much as just to have fun exploring them. I would rather experiment and think about things and theorize and then perhaps test those hypotheses and theories rather than try to arrive at an end result. This is what keeps me from gravitating into a mainstream religion.

They say “We have the one way to heaven. One way to live your life. Once you get here, that’s it, you stagnate for all of eternity.” Even their heaven is stagnant. “Oh yeah you get here, you go be with god and everything is always the same. There is no change at all. You’ll live in this big golden cube with this massive tree in the twelve rock wall and stuff like that, hundred and forty four cubits or something high.”

That’s their conception of heaven; to me that sounds like hell. There’s nothing of interest. Once you’ve explored all that, yeah, you’re living in a massive golden cube, that’s pretty cool. Once you explore everything in that cube it’s going to get a little bit boring. Even if it takes you a million years, you’re talking about eternity.

So I don’t want to stagnate. I would rather believe in reincarnation, for which I admit I have no actual proof exists. I’d much rather believe in that and hope it’s more truth than any of these afterlife conceptions.

As far as the secular conceptions of “Oh you’re nothing after you die.” Oh that’s okay cause I won’t there to be bored because I won’t witness it. But organized religions, they say that “Ours is the only way”. I look at them as stepping-stones.

I go into one of them, I read a dogma, listen to some opinions and so forth. And I try to coincide that with other stuff that I’ve already experienced and then I move on and I find something else. I do this with the literature too.

I’m not going to be a purist and say “Oh well I’m only interested in alchemy,” or “I’m only into diabolic magic,” or “I will only tolerate Christian mysticism.” I’d rather study them all and see where they interconnect.

I am of the belief that, where you have connections between otherwise separate things, you’re seeing something important and you should really ruminate on that connection, because the connection might not be just a coincidence. And if you’re talking about spirituality, it might be of literal divine importance. So that’s really what I operate from.

Tara: And last question, what kind of memes are you putting out at the moment?

Tarl: I don’t really construct them myself. I mostly save them from other people, honestly. Well, I’m not very good with actually manipulating images. I don’t even know how to use photoshop or anything.

Tara: Oh when I said memes, I didn’t mean– the original word “meme” just means an idea that evolves in a viral way.

Tarl: Oh I thought you meant Pepe pictures and stuff like that. Well as far as the ideas I put out I hammer it home constantly. The corporate media is not your friend. I don’t know why the left likes them because they’re a corporation. The same kind they usually excoriate.

The right wing shouldn’t be in support of all these warmongering idiots like John McCain. Makes no sense. Nationalism is not evil and it’s not racist. It doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with race and the left is collapsing in on itself.

They’re making the same mistakes that the moral right wing did at the end of the satanic panic before they laid waste to themselves by over stretching.

Tara: Fantastic, thank you very much for this interview. Thanks everyone for listening to Reality Calls Show and I’m just going to ask: Where can people find you?

Tarl: The easiest place to go is: Styxhexenhammer666 on YouTube.