Welcome, Caribbean Rism, episode 35. I want to tell you that man is half ape. He's one half monkey, but it's important to know which ape it is. And I want to talk about origin of man, the nature of man, because so much in the end depends on what is man's true nature. And you can only discover this outside of the filthy human zoo called civilization. What was meant before civilization? And is there a civilization that does not delude and warp him into a gimp-like mannequin? I say this to you before. You only have in front of you the domesticated man, the man who approximates various of the domesticate beasts or, in some case, the verminous rat and others who haunt the landfills, and even worse. But for the most part, then the question becomes, if the wild type man exists now,

maybe in some way, if he's hidden, where do you see him? Can you find him in history somewhere? And what it takes to get to such a wild type man? How do you know what it is when you find him? This is an ancient question, and I've been rereading this week the book, The Ethnic Phenomenon by Pierre Vandenberg, who is a sociologist, half Belgian, half French academic, unfortunately, born in the Congo, and who is, I believe, he is intellectual inspiration of Steve Saylor, I say this before, and of much of the HPD so-called human biodiversity studies into human nature. all the people you read, Gregory Cochrane, J. Manon, all of this that is based off of evolutionary sociobiology. Now Vandenberghe is a sociologist, but in fact that is just a university department.

He has to work within the language and conventions of that academic sociology, or should I say theology, because this is how he gets paid. But in fact, he transcends that so-called discipline. The book combines history with Darwinian theory and with many direct observations that he makes of various tribes, especially in Africa, which is a territory that he knows very well. And those are the most interesting parts of the book. It would actually be best if scholars stopped the hemming and the hoeing, and they just present their direct fact-finding and their observations in a list form. The rest is really a waste of time theorizing, but this is a good book, and I want to talk to you about the beginning of this book on the show, and how Pierre Vandenberg described

very primitive societies and what he say about the ecology of human settlement among primitive because I'm interested in this question of what is man before the changes or even the corruption of civilization reduced man, before it reduced him to something less than he should be. Maybe also by comparing different primitive tribes you find out what is man in nature outside all of the variation of custom and tradition that changes from tribe to tribe. So when you subtract that, what you find is man in nature. But this question of the history of civilization, since at least the agricultural revolution, which we know agricultural revolution corrupted the skeletons of the mass of men, narrowed their jaws, many such things.

I talked this before, but many of you believe something quite similar, I know, because you like Ted Kaczynski and his famous phrase, the consequences of the industrial revolution were a disaster for the human race. This is what he say, but I always say to you, why not go back far beyond that? Because you might only be able to find uncorrupted and healthy men, for example, in the heroic stone age. And this what my friend Hakan, he want to bring back such stone age that would last until the end of our species. You know, if civilization fall apart completely, it might be very hard to get it restarted. For example, if the knowledge and the machinery for mining is lost and many such things, because many of the ore and the primary metal ore materials for so many things that we use is

no longer accessible at the surface level. You have to dig deep underground or undersea with machinery to find it, and these would not be accessible to stragglers, let's say, in the wake of total collapse, who wouldn't know how to build such machinery. So knowledge of metals might be completely lost. Many such... Anyway, of course, this might all remind you of Rousseau, the French compulsive masturbator and the philosopher Neat, Rousseau, who had some similar concerns and who believed that civilization corrupted man, who made him evil and immoral and unnatural, whereas before civilization in the state of nature, man was good. And through this deceit, Rousseau is the father of all of the modern left, including the Marxists,

although this may not seem so at first sight, but I talk about this in a moment. But what was man in the state of nature, a natural man to Rousseau? Well, let me put it briefly in my own impression. Here Rousseau, the French philosopher from 18th century, from before French Revolution, he was also inspiration for the terror of the French Revolution. I talk that in a moment. But Rousseau believed primeval man was a kind of orangutan-like, orangutan-like in his nature. That is, Orangutan is an ape that is a gentle, somewhat inquisitive, gentle ape with relatively plentiful resources in his jungle in Borneo. And the primeval man, according to Rousseau, finds himself in similar situation of relative plenty, just like Orangutan, let's say, before ecological despoilage.

And for the most part, this is important point, finds himself in plenty and finds himself solitary, alone, and for the most part then indifferent to others of his kind, is a solitary, not especially a social creature. Very weak social bonds between orangutans. Associations are practical and transient. For example, there is a mother-offspring bond, it exists of course, but beyond this there is not much social existence for orangutan. And this is a kind of a kind and thoughtful creature, you know. So Rousseau has a story about how civilization corrupted just such a creature, a case Rousseau make especially this in too long essay, Discourse on Origin of Inequality and Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. And you can find both of these online. You should read them. They're not too long.

And he make very early case here for primitivism. If you are an environmentalist, you like Ted Kaczynski, you should read these. Why not? You should read them. Whereas civilization is understood as a source of corruption, of alienation from our simple and original natures, and many people disagree, I know, with Rousseau from socio-biological perspective, from discipline, from Darwinian social science and evolutionary biology point of view, they disagree with Rousseau because they say Rousseau idealized vision of early life because he did not understand that our ancestors are chimpanzees, that these are our closest relatives. But the chimps, you see, are very social creatures, they are constantly joking for status, constantly

they are in state of civil war with different coalitions and factions always fighting for supremacy and also the chimp is a violent and even cannibal at times. So they say, you know Rousseau is wrong, Rousseau and people who follow Rousseau like Margaret Mead. They wrongly believe that humans are like the slut ape, the bonobo, who lives in relative peace and solves every conflict with just constant sexual intercourse and sex wars. Although this is still a very social animal, unlike Rousseau's primeval human. But you know, no, it is actually the chimp that we are most closely related to. So then Rousseau was wrong, so they say. But here I think, although I actually disagree with Rousseau for other reasons, I tell you

in a moment, these people who attack him have a usual arrogance of the biologist, the man who with the catalogue of monkeys that Schopenhauer mocks for being an arrogant idiot. This kind of man carries a catalog of different creatures, believes he understands mysteries of nature. Because, in fact, I don't think it's established that the chimpanzee is our closest relative among the apes. In fact, the other day, when I talk about the orangutan and his intelligence and kindness, someone kindly sent me an article, reminded me to show actual physical similarities between man and orangutan. Physical similarities having to do with the shape of the mouth, of the jaw, dental features and other physical morphology features that are shared between orangutan and human only

and not with any other ape, certainly not with the chimp. And the similarity between human and chimp is established by genetic studies only. And these authors of this article I'm talking about now is this guy Schwartz, he has this theory and he also wrote a book about it. He says the genetic link to the chimpanzee is false. It's based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes genetic distance in this case. You know, same as they tell you the variation in between races, within races larger than in between races, and this is a line that people like Levantine and these others repeat and Gould, but it's complete falsehood, it's a sleight of hand. And it's similar in this case how they try to build closeness, genetic closeness to the

chimpanzee, whereas in physical features, a man is closer to others, for example, orangutan. But this is similar, I'm not sure if on previous show I mentioned, but there is also out of America's theory that is similar to what I'm talking now where they say, you know, despite the genetic arguments with human chimpanzee and despite the fact that there are paleo remains in Africa and so on, there is actually a lot more link human behaviorally to the new world, to South American monkeys, than to African apes in terms of their social behavior. For example, vocalization, and specific extensive vocalizations for communications, and also especially lifelong pair bonding, monogamous pair bonding to raise children and so on,

that South American monkeys share with humans, but humans do not share with African apes. And other many such theories, so this is similar, but maybe even stronger, the orangutan that be our closest relative. And this could mean that we have come near ancestor with the Orang, and this brings up question of where such ancestor could be. And if you look, look, even aside from this, Africa, the out of Africa theory, even outside all of these speculations I'm telling you now, even in mainstream knowledge, out of Africa is looking less and less likely. And maybe even impossible. Now, in fact, the mainstream seems to be settling out of Saudi Arabia, out of Arabian Peninsula theory. But anyway, in support of Rousseau's position that man is an orangutan-like primeval nature,

I say to you these are rather unusual but, in my view, convincing theories. You can look a book by Schwartz, it's called The Red Ape or something like that, and then he wrote a later article in 2009 on top of this. I also say to you that out of Australia is the most exquisite connoisseurs of human antiquity believe in out of Australia theory. Quite aside from everything I've said so far regarding the links to the orangutan, there is a lot of evidence that humans evolved in Australia, that mankind evolved Australia and then migrated out of there. There is plenty of evidence from this, including article from 2000 called Mitochondrial DNA Sequences in Ancient Australians, Implications for Modern Human Origins. You can look up this title. It makes some unusual claims.

For example, I did not know that the oldest anatomically modern human DNA is in fact extracted from Australia, from a specimen called Lake Mungo 3. This is true. And again, the title of the article, Mitochondrial DNA Sequences in Ancient Australians. You can look this up from 2000. And in general, it's true that the oldest splits in human genetic tree lead to no longer existent Australian lineages. This is true. In other words, there is a remarkably varied human settlement of Australia from before anywhere else. Ancient Australia always peopled by so-called Aborigines, which were in fact a handful of very different races, including pygmies, which have always lived there since primordial times. Australia, they are in complete touch with the matrix that they call dream time.

You need to look this and learn it. There is interesting article I talk about another time which show a previous pygmy population of Australia that lived there long ago before the aborigines that you see now, that was wiped out by the people you think of as the abos, the current inhabitants before European colonization, the aborigines of today. And before them, there lived this pygmy population 60,000 years ago. And this article name is called The Extinction of the Australian Pygmies. It's by Keith Windshuttle, written in 2002, and it's horrible stories how the modern abbels, they have memory of wiping out this previous population. So whenever they find their cave paintings and rock paintings, they try to scratch them out to blot out the memory of this previous population.

But anyway, these are letter series about out of Australia were not made with the orangutan ling in mind, I tell you. So I mean to tell you that it gives further support to Rousseau's speculation that the ancestor of man, or maybe even then early man himself, may be a kind of solitary, gentle and idyllic ape like the orangutan from Australia, you know, similar to orangutan who lives in born near Australia and that is in fact the ancestor of modern man and is not the busybody violent social chimpanzee, that is not the relative of man. But then I return to you in a moment to talk exactly how Rousseau believes civilization corrupted this early noble savage. Because of what you mean by this, by corruption of civilization, this determines almost everything else. So, very good, I come back.

I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you I love you, I love you So I mentioned to you Noble Savage, which was image very popular before French Revolution. Much like the cult of the Muzhik, or the so-called peasant, the idyllic, bucolic existence of the peasant, this was very popular with Russian nobility before the Russian revolution. It's an unusual kind of phenomenon, but French nobles loved this idea of noble savage. And I've put both on this show and on Twitter an account before I put for you a short clip

from Remo opera in Gallant called Gallant Indies where you can see the popular vision of this kind of romantic, idyllic life was believed the primitives inhabit a kind of world without vain desires, a world with material needs that are easily met, a kind of bucolic existence in the forest without the anxiety of existence and so on. Image still very popular in our time. And of course, this is something people think I talk about in the book, although it is not. But it's a very attractive image, inspiration always for much art, some of it good, but you also see it now in the movie Evatard, for example. But this is something that I attack in my book, and I tell you why. Because I think in general, I think Rousseau and at least a kind of this thinking is the root of all the modern left.

And it has to do with what he means by the corruption, even more than how he understands the nature of man outside civilization. It's what he means by corruption, you can see just from the title of his essay, Discourse on Origin of Inequality Among So-Called Humans. So you see if your concern is how to explain the evil of inequality, and then also related to this, if you are upset, let's say, by domination, by coercion, by the use of force, if it upsets you that there are complicated or even simple hierarchies and social order, then this leads necessarily in a certain direction. And furthermore, Rousseau and many of his followers saw private property as in some ways the origin of these corruptions of civilization and of inequality itself.

So then you see where this leads, especially if you consider that Rousseau as also his various socialist and Marxist followers, because at bottom, Marx too is a Rousseau-er. But the civilization they opposed and that they wanted to overturn and that they considered so horribly corrupt is not the post-World War II or post-1960s one or the 1900s one where the left is ascendant and has already largely remade society. But it is rather the society of 1789 or of the 19th century or of 1917 Russia, which means the traditional Christian civilization they had in their time. And this is what they saw as evil and what they meant to overturn and to replace by different civilization. And furthermore, this is a problem.

They were not strict primitivists, including Rousseau, they did not mean to overturn this in order to return, as primitivists maybe in my camp might want to return to a kind of heroic stone age or a knightly feudalism. There is a second element, you see, to Rousseau's understanding of early men that is very important to his vision of primeval men as a kind of orangutan-like innocent, which is that in In being so innocent, this ape man, it is a very malleable creature. It is very changeable. This is what Rousseau believed about human nature, that it is almost infinitely corruptible and therefore changeable. If it's infinitely corruptible, it's also infinitely improvable. So if it is corrupted by civilization in these extremely complicated ways because it is in

fact malleable, its very simple native sentiments are changeable under the pressure of culture and political pressure and civilization. And so for Rousseau, as for his leftist followers, the purpose is to overthrow this corrupting unequal civilization that has alienated man from his nature. Yes, that is the point, but not in order to go back, but to remake man and to remake society into something entirely new. but perhaps in keeping with man's primordial equality. And in which, in fact, it would be a total and absolute society also, because the purpose wouldn't be to allow man to return to his private, dreamlike, orangutan state, but to subsume him completely and totally into a kind of neo-homogenous, equalist collective.

So you can see from all this how all strains of the left, not just Marxism, but also feminism, which similarly understands, for example, all of histories as a series of alienations of women from themselves because of unnatural domination by males, unnatural force, inequality and hierarchy imposed, and the unnatural superstructures or ideologies and religions that were designed to justify this inequality and alienation, this what feminism believes as a subspecies of Rousseauist leftism, all branches of the left share these features that lead necessarily to revolutionary programs, where you must overthrow and remake the source of this corruption and inequity. You must overthrow civilization, and that means traditional civilization, private property,

the religions and ideologies that they see as mere cynical ploys to justify this material social inequality, and so on and so forth. And of course, in the name of this revolution, it is justifiable to use the utmost violence and repression. So you set up educational Jacobin dictatorship. It's temporary, you see. So Robespierre can load up French Catholics from the Vendée on barges and sink them in lakes. This is during terror in French Revolution. Or in the Russia revolution, if you are a commie pinko, it is okay to starve and to murder millions of kulaks because they are misguided and unrelenting vestiges of that oppressive and corrupt hierarchical civilization of private property that you want to replace with one of equality, however you define it.

But you can understand easily so much of the left's mania in our time in the same way. For example, when they shudder at images of healthy 1950s-type white families, I mean, look, I mean, we know the real reason. A lot of it has to do with social and sexual resentment of, well, of various types, let me put it that way. But the way they justify it even to themselves is that this image of, let's say, the healthy Romney Mormon-type family is a symbol or embodiment of an oppressive and unequal hierarchical property-based society that uses force and deception or religion to justify itself. So they hate any image associated with that considering it a vestige of oppressive hierarchical society and at the same time they want, for example, to empty the jails.

This is one of the oldest desires of the left. So it's never a surprise when doctrinaire leftists today say they want to empty the jails. They say so almost without thinking and this goes back to these Rousseauist ideas or when they want to put the homeless above the tax paying workers or all of this. Even before this plague you could go to so many of the cities in the world, North America, South America, everywhere now you are accosted by homeless, they enter restaurants in some Some cities, they harass people, and I think there is police capacity to deal with them, but it's the leftist politicians and mayors who have a kind of veneration for the homeless and hatred of normal, what they consider bourgeois, stodgy, middle-class people, because the latter

are vestiges of this hierarchical society, and homeless are their version of the noble savage. back to this. And if they give in the same vein a break to non-Western traditional cultures, which as you know, non-Western traditional culture, for example, especially Muslim, they're in many ways even more hierarchical from a leftist point of view, obscurantist than any historical Western civilization. But look, I never said these people were well educated or consistent or anything. Marx, to give him credit, he saw Western capitalist imperialism as a way, an intermediary step to free mankind in general from all of these traditional forms of inequality. But the modern low-level leftist does not see it that way.

The Schumerite, the Obamaite, they only see things short-term, the Alinskyite, and in In the short term, it's like Steve Saylor says, who, whom? This is the famous Lenin question, who, whom? In other words, if they're the enemy of your enemy, you support them. So this is why in this innocent explanation for why the modern left, the Russoan frame of left, why they simultaneously want to destroy all traditional Western civilization and culture, But at the same time, they want to preserve or give a path to non-Western primitive, and that means really non-white, right? Primitive societies and tribes, which may very well be extremely violent, hierarchical, property loving, unequal, patriarchal, whatever, but they're given a path by the leftists,

either because they are seen as co-sufferers at the hands of Western domination, or because They're mistakenly seen as a form of idyllic primitive communism and hence perhaps you can put in there the 1.0, longhouse 1.0 to the longhouse 2.0 of the modern fag left of the world it is trying to fashion and so forth. This at least is the innocent explanation. There are also non-innocent psychological explanations of what the left really is. But so this is all to say that nearly all the left impulses can be traced back to Rousseau and to his vision of primitive man and even more than primitive man to his vision of what it is that constitutes the corruption of civilization, how civilization corrupted mankind.

And in all this you may remember maybe your friends who are into deep ecology, into petty Lin-Cola and others who are into Luddites or various kinds of primitivism on the right, including if I flatter myself my own book or what I see in other places, or also a philosophy of great philosopher like Nietzsche, or of men like Conrad Lorenz who are also worried about corrupting influence of civilization. But like I tell you this in the next segment, there is crucial difference here between these two kinds, our primitivism and theirs, which is that those on the right who look with suspicion at civilization or at technology, they have very different ideas in Rousseau about what it is that means corruption of man.

They do agree in a way, let me put it just now at the end, they do agree in a way on some specimens of particularly egregious civilizational corruption. Now that I think of it, I do agree, for example, that the urban vicious rat kind of human, the shopkeeper, or you might think the clerk, the bureaucrat, this kind of creature at DMV or in hospital, the administrative nurse or the guidance counselor that takes a pleasure in hurting you. Not like my friend Second City Bureaucrat, but the type he parodies, that both the so-and-leftist primitivist and the rightist primitivist mainly agree that this is the lowest type of creature ever to enter the world from the bowels of Hades, and that on account of this spiritual

faggotry and second curse of Sodom, it is required that God will burn the cities in a just rage. You know the kind of creature I'm talking about, the mover and the shaker, the operator, the Mandarin bureaucrat who is vicious, lying, vain, always moves with petty intrigues, takes pleasure in petty cruelties and inflicting violence on the weaker. In other words, the Han Chinese, well, and a few others, this is who I mean, the Han Chinese, others too. Ora Nietzsche at one point says he mentions the stock market Jew as quite possibly the most disgusting creature to have ever existed. Think Paul Singer. I think both Rousseau and right-wing primitivists can agree that such creature is completely unacceptable.

Absolutely. And refuse to have anything to do with this product of civilizational corruption. But beyond this, they disagree. Anyway, you know, it reminds me, unrelated to what I say so far, but Nietzsche's saying middle of some apologia for the Jews, which I think was always misunderstood. That's when he said that phrase about the stock market Jew. But because people think that just because Nietzsche has contempt for anti-Semites, which he does, Nietzsche hates the anti-Semites because they were the wig-tards of his time, okay? But a lot of people think that because he hates the anti-Semites, that therefore Nietzsche must love the Jews. But this is not really the case. It's possible to dislike both, you know. And Nietzsche does defend the Jews, but where he does make this defense,

there are, for example, a couple of passages in Beyond Good and Evil and Other Place. But he does so in context of creating a new European ruling caste, into which the Jews would be absorbed by miscegenation. In other words, they would be fucked out of existence. So this is, of course, quite inclusive on one hand, but on the other, it would be considered very anti-Semitic today, I think. And it reminds me also of a poster I once knew. His codename was Limit. Did I ever mention Limit to you? limit was posted at forum long ago, a paranoid schizophrenic of wonderful imagination. I cannot possibly condense his body of thought here, but he had complicated theories about how black people were encased in croc skin. He meant both the men and the women are encased in what he called croc skin.

In other words, that the skin of Negroes is all pubic skin on account of which they are only able to grow pubic hair, even on their scalps. And beyond this, he believes that Africa is under-populated, in other words that demographic claims about African populations are completely false, but that in fact Africa only contains about 40,000 people. This amazing claim he made, 40,000 people in all African continents, because, well he He thinks it's miscounted, but look, he continued, because this is the case, that the black case can therefore be fucked out of existence, and as a consequence of this poster limit, the schizophrenic, he came up with a slogan, and racism, and the black people, it's an amazing slogan, and racism, and the black people, I thought this could be Hillary Clinton's

campaign slogan in 2016, but he had a very, this sounds like sinister slogan, but he has a very positive message. He believed that racism was the only thing that stood in the way of the end of the black people, because racism stopped miscegenation, and if there are only 40,000 black people, it's an interesting idea from one of the most profound minds of our time. search limit if interested, but I'm afraid this poster he disappear now. I don't agree with him by the way, but I do think that the population figures in Africa are made up, and I don't know by how much, I don't know, but they are made up. The AIDS numbers are made up and the total population count is made up. Do you know how they count population?

But I think I say before, for example, in Somalia, they count population sometimes by estimating the number of people who habitually show up at the watering hole. It's all estimates. It's made up. It's numbers completely made up. Anyway, please go to break. I must have coffees. Please go break. The difference, if you think corruption of men means something other than what Rousseau says. You think, for example, what Conrad Lorentz worried. And Conrad Lorentz was a thinker who studied animal behavior. And he worried that men through civilization had partly domesticated himself, and that modern men showed many of the physical and spiritual deficiencies that domesticated animals show, as opposed to their wild types. And the right-wing primitivist, unlike Rousseau,

is concerned that civilization reduces man to this kind of pitiable, tame, domestic beast. And so it's not that civilization makes him violent, but that it makes him meek and tame. Not that it makes him unequal, but that it makes him equal and homogenous. That it makes claws and fang atrophy. That it gives dominion, maybe, to the mass of humans who never had such fangs or claws, but who were born cattle to begin with. Heraclitus, he says this, you can never get enough of this phrase. The best want one thing above all, overflowing fame among mortals, but the many want to stuff themselves like cattle and to pass on their doom. This is a good phrase. And I think ultimately the right-wing primitivists have the upper hand in this argument because they understand the truth about civilization

and about early man much better than Rousseau or left-wing hippie types do. And Camille Paglia, she has a good joke on this. She say, you know, when you open the door to nature thinking that you're going to get this lovey-dovey stuff, this kissing under flowering tree and sentimental peace stuff and this kind of lying with the lambs and innocent love, you are fooling yourself, because you're actually opening the door to what she calls the chthonic, or the titanic forces of Earth, what Nietzsche called the Dionysian, what is the titanic, violent, dark, demonic, true character of life and nature, red in murder. This is why you have early romantic poets like Wordsworth or Keats or others with very sentimental, innocent professions of patience and openness to nature.

But by the end of the 19th century, this turns into decadence. And I mean that in the high sense, this is a pugly idea, that you have a romantic movement start with this kind of light, sentimental, idyllic vision, but it ends, you move from innocent Russoan vision of love, and rather you move to dark, demonic images of Baudelaire, Huysmans, and of course many others. And of course then Nietzsche and those artists who followed him too, who write in similar kind of dark human nature, welling up from hellish depths, you see also in Robert Musil and others. You see a similar progression of this in the other arts, not just in literature. In music, maybe, maybe in classical music you see a similar thing with the kind of romanticism

in Schumann or Schubert at the beginning of the 19th century is a very special sound, but then it turns into the dark and weird world of Wagner and of the other composer who I keep posting from time to time of, Scriabin who has in the end very strange musics with names like Black Mass Sonata and such things towards the flame. You see this same progression of the arts. I think Paglia mostly right because the idea of innocent and idyllic nature is a pleasant delusion, but in fact nature is violent, murderous, cannibalistic, sexual passion in particular is demonic, and it's based on domination and submission. The Romans knew this. It's based on vampirism, on the terrifying blurring of boundaries, and on all kinds of uncanny things.

This is why Camille Paglia has excellent observation that the best parody of Rousseau's naive vision of nature, that you find this in Marquis de Sade, who is probably a schizophrenic, but who takes every single one of these pious epicurean delusions of Rousseau's about the calm innocence of nature, and who shows you what you really get when you open that door, Marquis de Sade. But for Paglia, who is a liberal in the old style, and for others like her, the purpose of government is then to restrain this unnatural brutality of man, which was also very much by the way a Schopenhauer view, where for someone like a right-wing primitivist by contrast is worried that this natural brutality is in fact the source of man's vitality, but

that it's being domesticated out of him, or that it's being domesticated out of him, whether selective breeding, or by cultural norms and practices, or otherwise by various religions that have made man tame, or in our day even by our diet, by the poisoning of our food and water, and by the ubiquity of estrogens. You know, they're talking now about estrogen patch treatment for so-called Wuhan flu. So you know, we will all be sissy trannies in ten years if we let Fauci, Cuomo, and Brix and the other daggers, if we let them have their way with us. Castrated by Fauci, is that what you want? But yes, whereas on the third hand, for a Rousseauan or a dumb like Margaret Mead, who she went to Samoa and the natives there made fun of her, but for people like that,

a man was never a brutal or violent to begin with. He was an innocent lamb, or at best, as I say, an orangutan, but a series of accidents and misunderstandings, men was then corrupted to become hierarchical and violent. So these are a few quite different versions of what a man is outside civilization, as also there are different visions of what the purpose or danger of civilization is. But I think when you look at historical record of early men is actually like, when you look at many, let's say, different primitive tribes, you can mostly completely dismiss Rousseauian vision, almost, because it's quite ugly life. First of all, it's social life, it's never really solitary. The basic unit of primitive life is not individual, but it's usually the kin group, which is

the patrilineal line, cousins essentially claiming descent from a common male ancestor and it's always based on violence and cannibalism almost always, human sacrifice, and the taking of other tribes' women. And in this book, the ethnic phenomenon that I read from beginning Pierre Vandenberg is talking about is a funny title chapter, Ethnic Relations, where he talks about very primitive stages of ethnic relations in pre-state conditions. You see how ridiculous Rousseau and vision is. Pierre Vandenberg, by contrast, he gave a few examples of primitive tribe, and the funniest example is the one actually that might support a Rousseauian case for innocent, idyllic version of early human life. The funniest example Berge gives is the Bambuti, who are the pygmies of northeast Congo and

of their way of life and of their relations with the neighboring Bantu. So the Bambuti are, of any people I've seen described, the only ones who somewhat fulfill the Russoan image of noble savage I tell you earlier, of the innocent primitive, because they live actually quite peaceful bucolic life, these Congolese pygmies. They live in a forest, they are hunter-gatherers, and the forest is more than enough to provide them with all needed food. So they don't really have to compete over food, they are nomadic, they are always on the move, like most hunter-gatherers are. They have no possessions or wealth to fight over. They are mostly monogamous, so they do not fight over females. They live in nuclear families. 90% of the men are monogamously per bond.

And the nuclear family easily moves in and out of larger bands. And these larger bands are not really strict kinship groups. They are informal practical associations that come about in response to the need of the moment. And they may be related either to the man or the woman or both, but the need of the moment as it changes, the weather, the game patterns and such, immediate necessity is what determines whether, let's say, this basic unit of nuclear family among the Bambuti joins the larger bands. So it's quite loose associations. Let me quote Pierre van den Berge, so you understand exactly how primitive this society is. Bambuti are truly egalitarian, classless, stateless society. This is what he says.

They have no chiefs, no slaves, no policemen, no courts, no prisons, no taxes, and no institutionalized rank differences between adult men, other than individual prestige achieved by age and personal qualities. Such loose authority structure as exists is based almost exclusively on kinship, sex seniority, and personal ascendancy. The division of labor is limited to age and sex distinctions, but even these are rather loose. Men are dominant over women and more prominent in decision-making, but male dominance is relatively gentle and muted." So this, as you can see, it comes very close, maybe not to the earliest stage of Rousseau's natural men, but close enough. And even their relations with neighbouring Bantu, who are a more developed later stage

society, but their relations with the neighbouring Bantu are not that bad. The Bantu are perhaps to us more familiar people. They are farming people, they are not hunter-gatherers. The Bantu farming people who spread out of West Africa over almost entire African continent, they spread very fast and they learned iron working some time ago. It is what aided their expansion and this is actually the population of blacks that spread to the new world, to the Americas through slavery. The Bantu forms most of the black stock of the Americas. But the pygmies, the sun, and other such, the koi, are the only real hunters, the hunter-gatherers left in Africa. The Bantu, by contrast, are a peasant farmer people who have all the attributes, the physical spiritual attributes of peasants.

I say this before, it's something that HPD dorkaloids, even on our side, do not want to understand. But so the two peoples, the pygmy Bambuti and the neighbouring Bantu, this is in Congo, they are at peace because the Bantu are deathly afraid to go into the forest where the Bambuti live. The Bantu, being peasant agriculturalists, they are afraid of the wilderness, of everything they associate with nature, of everything they associate with the wild, the habitat of the pygmies. And the pygmies, they mostly just trade with them. They bring them meat, which the Bantu need, because the diet of the Bantu farmer is slop. It's just carbohydrates farmed by Aunt Jemima. I'm talking it's bananas, it's cassava, it's peanut, this is pretty much it.

So the bambuti, the pygmy, they bring over some highly needed meat in the diet. And furthermore, they bring entertainment. That's the thing, Vandenberg is a good writer, so he explains to you how the Bantu stereotypes about the Bambuti Pygmies is that they're clownish, they are good dancers, good at music and entertainers. And he says this is of course how the Europeans viewed the Bantus themselves, so it's a funny thing. It's also how I guess you, my audience, view me. I know this. You think I am your entertainer, your entertainer, Negro radio man. That's what you think about me. But anyway, these two groups have this relationship that is quite funny where they both consider the other side amusing and owned by themselves and inferior to themselves.

But the pygmies, they come essentially to the villages of the Bantu just to do a minstrel show and to bring barbecue and occasionally they do some lazy labor and in exchange they get carbohydrate sources, you know, because gatherers, you gather tubers from the forest that are actually rather hard to gather, it's tedious. And they also get other trade goods besides from the bantu, they get iron tools, bananas, whatever. And then the bantu, again, they get meat and entertainment. So both get a needed break with each other from the drudgeries of life. It is a casual and fun relationship mostly, and it is the only one that I know of that somewhat approximates Rousseau and ideas of peaceful, idyllic, early human existence. But even here, I tell you, is not quite what it seems.

It is an exception. I will tell you more about this when I come back. One moment. Please, where is my coffee? Maria, where is coffee? ["Bambuti Pygmies"] Problem again with focusing on the example of nice, pleasant life of Bambuti pygmies in Congo and thinking that this reflects the natural state of man, is this is exception, okay? I really know of no other similar case. And even Pierre van den Berge, he goes out of his way to say what an anomaly that is. Both the peaceful life of the Bambuti, as well as their pleasant conflictless relationships with their ethnically different Bantu neighbors. And it's not clear, actually, that a relationship between the Bambuti and the Bantu as it exists now is a permanent condition. In other words, Vandenberg makes a point, first of all,

that the peaceable relations between the two are, at least in part, they are the heritage of the peace established by Belgian colonial police. So in other words, it did not necessarily exist before, nor would it outside of European civilization. It is derivative of European civilization. This primeval state is not so primeval. And second of all, he says, is unstable. For example, in neighboring countries like Rwanda, the pygmies have been incorporated into a state structure, and they have been incorporated as a subordinate tribe. So they were not allowed to continue their independent idyllic existence. They have not been able to preserve independence. And even in their relation actually with the Bantu and the Congo, where they both exist, let's say, outside of a unifying state structure,

where there is not clear dominant and submissive ethnic group, nevertheless, the Bambuti are net woman losers. These are Vandenberg Awards. In other words, pygmy women sometimes married Bantu men, but not the other way around. And that's really what the ecological competition over territory is about in the end with human groups. At least when you look at other tribes, because in almost all other cases that Vandenberghe or, let's say, some other writer-anthropologist-philosopher study, when they study actual directly ancient tribes, primitive tribes, you can see a violent, dark world of parasitism, of exploitation, and of cannibalism. Among Yanomami in Amazon, there is plenty of food, for example. They do not have to compete over food at all. They grow various tubers.

They have access to game to hunt. But this also means they do not need to trade with each other. They don't need each other for anything except for women. they fight viciously over women. They do raids to seize women. And their small wars are terrible. I read in another place that they can have very high casualty rate for that society, the Yanomami in Amazog. It's a polygynous society, and because the older males have two or more wives, there is then fierce competition for reproductive access to women, you see. So again, in Pierre van den Berghe's words, War is the principal relationship between villages. And this is more typical of a primitive tribe than the Bambuti I say before. This is life of so-called idyllic new world noble services, the Yanomamo.

And do you want to put fire ants on your penis, by the way, please respond. Do you want to put the fire ants? So then even worse than this, and out of the deepest pits of hell, is the example Pierre van den Berghe gives of the Maori in New Zealand. The Polynesians there before the Europeans got there. And here is a natural relationship between villages, seems to have been cannibalism. The noble meat, that's right, the long pig. But this is problem that Vandenberg explain how a tropical people arrived with ships in New Zealand, which is not a tropical area. It's heavily forested, non-tropical, it's temperate, it's mountainous terrain, where land was scarce because it's very hard to clear that kind of forest terrain with Stone Age tools. And so there was not so much land for cultivation,

and there was no large game. There was no large animal to hunt. There was no protein source. So Polynesian, when they arrive, they did not bring the pig. Big mistake. So there is no meat, and it's very hard to come by land. so they end up eating each other. So as soon as you defeat village amongst Maori, you slaughter the men, you eat them, and sometimes you eat people of all ages. And Vandenberg has terrible stories about how the prisoners would have to carry pails of the meat of their co-villagers, and as the meat supply dwindled on the trip back to the village of the captors, you yourself could be slaughtered and eaten at any time. And in the same way, the slaves, who were usually the prisoners of war from this constant war for resources, for land and for women,

the slaves were readily eaten at any time. No warning, they just came at you. And they took the head, the tattoo, the introduction of European guns and so forth, other weapons in this environment was a terrible innovation because it only accelerated this way of life to one of total massacre and all of this. So you see, this is more as a style of life you find among primitive, not what Rousseau says. And such a vision of life supports rather as a view of people like Hobbes or Schopenhauer or others who see in a man natural condition as exceptionally selfish, as wicked, and even a delighting and evil, and therefore requiring a strong state to keep them down, to keep them in order. And in the case of Schopenhauer, this is a monarch who protects the rights of the individual.

But it is not my purpose here to talk to you about political theory of states, but to make some brief observations on the life of primitives, and to ask what is character of so-called human before and outside of civilization. And I think these examples, actually let me give you one other example, not in Vanden Berge. I wanna give you one very lurid example before I end this show. This is from George Frazier book, The Golden Bough. Okay, he talk about other tribe of Bantus, not in Congo but in West Africa. Very pleasant people. this traditional Bantu life. I'm quoting George Frazier here. A West African queen used to sacrifice a man and woman in the month of March. They were killed with spades and holes, and their bodies buried in the middle of a field which had just been tilled.

At Lagos in Guinea, it was the custom annually to impale a young girl alive soon after spring equinox in order to secure good crops. Along with her were sacrificed sheep and goats, which, with yams, heads of maize, plantains, were hung on stakes on each side of her, this impaled girl. The victims were bred up for the purpose in the King Serail, and their minds had been so powerfully wrought upon by the fetish men that they went cheerfully to their fate. A similar sacrifice used to be annually offered at Benin in Guinea. The Marimos, a Bechuan tribe, sacrifice a human being for the crops. The victim chosen is generally a short, stout man. He is seized by violence or intoxicated and taken to the fields, where he is killed amongst the wheat to serve as seed, so they freeze it.

After his blood has coagulated in the sun, it is burned along with the frontal bone, the flesh attached to it, and the brain. The issues are then scattered over the ground to fertilize it. The rest of the body is eaten. This does not sound amazing to you. I think it should be celebrated. I think there should be high school plays on this performed completely without any irony. I mean it though. They should have plays of this. You know, I'm not sure that you can look at life of primitive tribes as you see them around us today or even in travel accounts of 100 or 200 years ago and conclude that this is a life of really primitive outside all civilizational corruption or improvement. Even if you could believe everything you read, there is possibility, I think, now that this

was once a civilized people, that that is what you're witnessing, that you are witnessing a degeneration, that you're witnessing maybe even an over-civilized tribe that has degenerated to a post-civilization condition. There are such cases you know about. For example, in Central Asia, South Siberia, there are some examples of tribes that has knowledge and mythology about writing, but that has lost the art of writing. So they don't actually know to write, but they have myths about writing. So regression from civilized to uncivilized is possible. But I'm not sure that what is recovered when you go through this process is necessarily vital pre-civilized life. It could also be the reduction of men to the condition of field mice, of cockroaches, of rats in barns or stowaways on ship.

I'm not sure. And I'm not now, by the way, referring to that Central Asian tribe I just mentioned, which possibly did recover some of its wild nobility from what I hear. But possibly I am referring to others. For example, I do believe the Yanomamo, who I mentioned earlier, are not primitives, but that they are the residue, post-civilization residue left from a collapse of massive Amazon cities. These did exist, by the way. Spanish explorers look for them, and there is a movie, a recent movie, you can see explorers who look for lost Amazon city in 20th century. There is also amazing movie, used to be on YouTube, called Keep the River on Your Right. I think that's what it's called, about a very interesting Jewish homosexual from New York who went to Peru to have sex with Peruvian natives

and to engage in cannibalism with them. Very unusual, they should make, Well, there is a movie about this, but I think Rahm Emanuel should celebrate it. Anyway, look, you have to be careful is all I'm saying. It's much better to study all tribes and peoples and to observe as their customs and to pick out from among them those features. How should I put this? Let me just say, first of all, is that I do not believe cannibalism is a big deal. You know, I mean, it's probably part of healthy, prehistoric way of life. But anyway, consider instead of studying primitive so-called tribes like the Yanomamo who may not be primitive, they may be plants, they may have been bred on space ship, you don't know. But instead you study many different tribes, many arrangements, you study also Spartans

and others, many tribes from history that you encounter, but you pick out those features that remind you of primal men in uncorrupted state. Is this in the same way that Greek sculptors, when they go to gymnasium and they see beautiful physiques, but they didn't just copy them, they improved on this, they distilled the images they saw, they picked out the features that seemed right in one case, that seemed better in another, they improved them and they could do so because there is an inner sense of this, they did this by relying on an innate and inborn knowledge in the same way that you never see perfect circle but you know one, you can improve on circle. You can see circle in mind because you remember it from unbegotten spheres because it is this

innate memory that you know something is right when you see it. So of course this becomes difficult question because most people do not have pure sense of this. They do not have good memories. You must be able to see this. You need profit to see this. And you must be able not only to see this, but to display it again to others in ways that they also say, ah, yes, this is how it should be. This is what is superior. I remember this. I remember it from… but look, I am not allowed to continue speaking now. Somebody is telling me, do not say anything more. I must end show. I talk to you soon. I will continue talk of this theology book from Vandenberghe and various ancient examples on next show. I talk to you soon. I say to you, Heil Pöttler, Bap out.