Classic Nikoley Rant: Fauci, Spain, Racism, and Climate
Last-minute reprieve. According to my own stated rules, posts published M-F are public and free; S-S are for paid members. It’s Saturday here in Thailand. When I finished, I says to myself, NO. This rant is just preaching to the choir. My hundreds of members are super-smart and high-IQ. And conservative. This will not do. No, I need a lot more people to feel stupid to the core of their bones and lose sleep. You’re welcome.
I’ve got four things to rant about today. First off, unlike 99% of conservatives, I wasn’t impressed in the slightest by that Senate Circus with Fauci. I’ll get into exactly why in a moment. It was tantamount to the exuberance over Saturday morning cartoons for kids in the 60s.
Second, there’s the monkey invasion unfolding in Spain right now, and I’ve got some things to say about that.
Third is an idea that’s been brewing in me for 25 years. I started chewing on it back then, wrote about it on my blog 21 years ago, and now I’m finally seeing some movement on the topic of bogus racism accusations.
Finally, I’m thinking—and hoping—that the entire climate scam that’s been running for decades might be on its way down. Maybe, just maybe, people are wising up to the fact that they’ve been completely scammed the whole time.
Let’s get into it.
Fauci
OK, let me clear the air first about Fauci. On this blog during the whole Covidiocy. During that time, primarily in 2020, 2021, and into 2022, I wrote 98 blog posts. A careful accounting would demonstrate that I was right about every single thing. It was a massive global crime that in large part was orchestrated by Megela, uh, Fauci. There is no hell hot enough.
As pleased as I am to have everything that has come out in Senator Rand Paul’s substantive report and the dumping of lots of documents, including Fauci’s own diary—that demonstrates without a doubt he was a complete scammer during this whole thing—a criminal in the worst possible way, right up there with Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, just as bad and just as worthy of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in the fair and traditional Western way.
But that’s likely not going to happen, and I’ll revisit this after I get to what I’m going to post here right now.
I’m just not impressed by that Senate circus. Like I said in my intro, it was like kids exuberant for Christmas or Saturday morning cartoons. It was just ridiculous, I thought.
Now let me get some quotes from none other than Matt Walsh. There are two X posts in particular that expressed my sense to a T. Or, in a nutshell, if you prefer.
Wow did you hear what those Republican congressmen said to that bad guy in the hearing? Lol man they really ripped him apart. It was so awesome. What’s that? Oh no the bad guy won’t be arrested or charged with any crime or suffer any consequences of any kind at all. No, there will be no follow up on the hearing, no relevant legislation passed in response to it, no changes of any kind made at all ever. But did you see that viral clip of that one senator? He even used a cuss word! A real cuss word! He’s so tough and brave. I’m so impressed. Aren’t you?
And…
I’m not impressed with these hearings where Republicans traipse some corrupt scumbag out and yell at him for three hours. Yeah, he’s a corrupt scumbag. I agree. So why isn’t he under arrest? Why isn’t he facing any real consequences? Why aren’t you actually doing anything?
Here’s what I posted.
In the comments to that X post, I reached out to Grok, the AI, and had a discussion about the propriety of a Fauci pardon. I did so because, in my judgment, handing him a blanket [auto-pen] pardon back to 2014 for anything and everything violates the spirit and intent of what a pardon is supposed to be. There ought to be some specific knowledge or process around particular crimes in mind when you grant one. There was nothing at the time that pardon was issued. He was largely considered the hero of the world. Why did he need a pardon, then? To protect the 85-year-old, or associates and institutions?
A blanket pardon for whatever the hell might have gone down isn’t just some minor overreach. It places a man completely and totally above the law. I can’t believe that’s what the concept of pardoning someone was ever meant to accomplish. You pardon a person for something concrete, not with a wave of the hand that says “fine, whatever you did during this period is forgiven, even if they dig up dead babies in your backyard.”
If Republicans had real balls—which I have never seen evidence of in my 65 years—then they would simply indict him, prosecute him, and let him defend that pardon all the way to SCOTUS.
Spain
This one saddens me because I have been to Spain twice in my life and loved every second. The first time was around 2006, when my then-wife and I did an auto tour of Europe. Part of that was driving down to Barcelona, then hugging the Mediterranean coast all the way around through France and Italy and back up to Paris, where we flew out. It was basically a three-week, 6,000 km tour. We really enjoyed the Spain part, as well as the French and Italian stretches. I got a real taste of the wonder of the Mediterranean and its food culture. Different in every country, but all built on the same fundamentals: good, fresh food done right. Also, I lived in Toulon, France on the Med coast for two years previously. So, I knew my way around.
The second time, I went to meet an old Navy buddy who had been living in Spain for maybe 20 years. We hooked up and hiked the SE Spain Alpujarras region for a week (ancient Moorish/Muslim). Ten kilometers a day through the hills, village to village, finding a place to sleep each night, knocking back great meals at local restaurants, and drinking ice-cold beer on tap in chilled mugs. I loved that trip too.
So when I saw the news yesterday, it hit different. Spain is just throwing the doors open to thousands upon thousands of military-aged men—no women, no children, just men—from Morocco and northern Africa in general. They’re flooding in by the drove. It reminded me of how, just a week or two ago, President Donald Trump essentially said “fuck Spain.” And you know what? He’s right again.
That kind of behavior—letting people storm the country, desecrate it, and put the citizens who were born there, some of them decades and decades ago, on the back foot—is pure lunacy. Now their villages are going to get flooded with sixth-century, dirt-scratching, rapist savages. Let’s not kid ourselves. That’s Europe’s biggest problem right now.
The funniest part, if you can call it that, is they’re doing this right on the cusp of massive advances in robotics. There’s China, Elon Musk’s Optimus operation, Google, and whoever else in the game. The video clips already show technology that’s flat-out astonishing. I’ll admit I was wrong a few years back when people talked about AI supplanting jobs. I figured it would take forever to get robots with the dexterity of a decent tradesman—construction, plumbing, electrical work, rough carpentry, all of it—because of how much variation there is in real-world work. What I’m seeing now tells me we’re right on the horizon of exactly that.
So here’s the obvious question for Spain and the rest of Europe: why import cheap labor when, within a few years, everything those guys can do—even the ones who actually want to work—will be done cheaper and far better by robots? The European bet seems to be that if you just let them all in, some percentage will work and contribute while the rest go on the public dole and rape girls. That’s really the gist of it. We’ll see how that gamble plays out when the machines show up and make the whole exercise pointless.
“Racism”
I’ve forever been impatient with this common notion over the last few decades: if you express any disdain, disagreement, dislike, revolt, or whatever against the practices, behaviors, or ideas of people—and those people happen to be predominantly of a different race other than white—then you’re a racist. I’ve been turning this over in my head for 25 years now.
I’ll give you a link to a post I wrote 21 years ago that lays out all the distinctions, and it’s elegantly short. The plain fact is that only a minuscule percentage of white people—extremely fringe, really—are actually racist in the strict sense. That is, they oppose someone solely because of skin color. Most white people are what I call culturists. They believe some cultures and subcultures are better than others, and some are downright bad. It has nothing to do with skin color as such. It’s about the general patterns of behavior, practices, and rituals that dominate within a given group. The racial overlap is incidental, not essential.
I’ve watched this distinction get zero traction for two decades. The vast majority of people simply do not possess the intellectual capacity to separate race from culture. They can’t make the cut, so they roll their eyes and move on. That’s been my consistent experience.
Then something interesting happened. John Cleese—the Monty Python guy—starts posting the same essential point on X. I had Grok compare his recent statements directly against my post from 21 years ago. The objective overlap was striking.
The core distinction is nearly identical.
Your May 2005 post and Cleese’s recent statements (especially the late-July 2026 ones) land on the same foundational point with remarkable precision.
The Shared Core
Both of you draw a hard line between race and culture:
- Race is not chosen and cannot be changed.
- Culture is chosen (or at least can be abandoned and replaced).
- Therefore judging cultures hierarchically is legitimate and morally coherent in a way that racial hierarchy is not.
You wrote in 2005:
“It’s nothing like the prejudgment inherent in racism: culture does not depend on race. A person of any race can be born into any culture, but can later leave and adopt any other culture.”
Cleese, July 2026:
“You can choose your culture, but not your race. BIG difference. We can criticise cultures, but it would be meaningless and stupid to criticise races.”
And:
“I’m not a racist. I’m a culturalist. I believe some cultures are superior to others.”
You coined “culturism” and defined it as the judging of cultures as superior/inferior and the establishment of a moral hierarchy among them. Cleese is using “culturalist” for exactly the same distinction. The conceptual move is the same.
Both of you also reject the idea that this judgment is driven by hate. You framed it as rational evaluation against a standard (conscious human life). Cleese frames it as “moral preferences” and explicitly says hate does not enter into it.
Where You Align on Substance
Both apply the distinction most sharply to certain Middle Eastern/Islamic cultural patterns involving the treatment of women, children, dissent, and violence. Cleese’s list (stoning, FGM/clitorectomies, wife-beating, pederasty, beheading opponents, male ego inflation) is more concrete and contemporary. Yours was broader but included the same direction of judgment (“certain Middle-Eastern sub-cultures” as predominantly evil; greater Arab culture as generally ignorant and primitive).
Both of you insist that individuals can exit toxic cultures, so the criticism is not fatalistic or deterministic.
Key Differences
1. Philosophical framing vs. polemical application
Your 2005 piece is definitional and systematic. You were building a concept, tying it to a standard of value, and situating idealized American culture as the absorptive superior one that takes the best from others. You also turned the lens inward on American subcultures (ghetto culture as stupid and self-destructive; redneck culture as ignorant and trashy) and referenced Sowell’s cultural analysis of black American patterns.
Cleese is operating in a more reactive, political register. His statements come in defense of supporting Rupert Lowe / Restore Britain and in response to accusations of racism over criticism of mass migration, Islamism, and the failure of multiculturalism in Britain. He is less interested in abstract hierarchy-building and more in drawing a bright line against specific practices he sees as incompatible with a liberal society.
2. Scope of the hierarchy
You were willing to rank cultures (and subcultures) quite freely, including Western ones. Cleese’s public emphasis is almost entirely on the contrast between Western/British norms and certain non-Western (especially Islamic) ones. He does not, in these recent posts, spend time ranking American or British subcultures against each other.
3. Attitude toward “diversity” and “multiculturalism”
You explicitly valued cultural diversity within a superior host culture that can absorb the best elements. Cleese has been more consistently hostile to the ideology of multiculturalism as it has actually operated in Britain — arguing that it has meant one culture demanding respect while showing none in return, and that this is the opposite of genuine multiculturalism.
4. Tone and context
Yours was the product of several years of private thought, written in a relatively early blog era when the Overton window still allowed more direct cultural ranking. Cleese is saying it in 2026 under heavy social and media pressure, after years of being called racist for milder versions of the same point (he was already using “culturalist” language in 2019). His delivery is more defensive and compressed.
Bottom line
You got there first, and with more philosophical clarity and broader application. Cleese has arrived at the same critical distinction — culture is chosen and therefore fair game for moral hierarchy; race is not — and is deploying it under different conditions and with a sharper focus on the specific cultural conflict currently dominating British politics.
The amazement is justified. The underlying insight is the same.
I know I’m talking to the wall, because that’s been my experience for two decades. Almost nobody will engage me on this very critical distinction between race and culture. Yet it’s entirely critical.
For decades now the left and Democrats have chanted the same mindless mantra: racism, racism, racism, racism, racist. They’re fucking morons. They’ll never grasp the distinction.
Conservatives can, if they bother to try. So read this closely. Learn it. Start talking about it and sharing it instead of the usual feeble protest that you’re “not a racist.” That’s not the point. The distinction is simple: race is something no one chooses. Culture is something people do choose. Everyone conflates the two, including conservatives, because they’re too fucking stupid to think.
Climate
Here, in closing, I’m simply going to link a post from an actual climate scientist and not a whore.
As with the Covidiocy thing, which I never bought into for one microsecond—not even a little bit—I’m talking about all of it, “CLIMATE!!!” Every single aspect was a lie, Covid and Climate. The so-called vaccines were a complete fraud, and everybody involved in that should be stripped of every single penny of whatever assets they have globally, if not thrown in jail for the rest of their lives (after a fair trial).
The same goes for the whole global warming scam, which then morphed into “climate change” so that it’s heads I win, tails you lose. Of course the climate changes. Anyone north of the equator—even on the equator—experiences dry seasons and wet seasons, rainy seasons. Up north, you have four seasons. The climate always changes, and some years are different than others. But the entire thing has been a complete fraud, and I have never bought into it since I first started hearing about it sometime in the 1980s. I’ve never been that fucking stupid.
Anyone who gives any credence to this whole big fraud is an absolute moron fucktard.
Here’s how I quote-retweeted that X post, and I’ll close there.
My problem for a LONG TIME is eye rolls.
The SUN is the 99.9999999999999% driving climate.
There is nothing anyone can do about that, ever.
Not even Elon’s rocket ships.
All climate people: sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
You cannot hate ALL “climate scientists” enough.
Don’t be stupid and NEVER go full retard.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Regarding culturalism, strong culture create high trust societies (El Gato Malo discusses this alot). When you import low trust people from low trust cultures into high trust societies, it creates chaos. Regarding the racism, climate change, and Covid cults, it’s all one cult. The same people, over and over, trying to scare or guilt us into whatever behavior they want. It would be laughable except half or more of the people buy in.
Excellent point about culture being choice based, and making the distinction.
Great post and worth saving.
I have you to thank for the ‘culturist’ distinction and I’ve used it as my mental framework these many years. It’s invincible as a thinking tool.
Cheers
The silence on Jimmy Moore is still deafening around here.
Are you fucking stupid?
I think so. Still harping about Moore after all these years? Do you have a fucking life? I blogged about it, even wrote a download back when his sentencing happened. There is no fucking need to write anything more about it.
Fuck off, you monumental pain in the ass.