Is caste why you should care about? Is caste only something out of Gujarati charnel house society? Calcutta landfill society where you get ethnic riot? Or trains that are burned with crowds of women and children? Or as redditors would say, Reddit posters. They say a Bronze Age class and racial hatred from benighted religions and weird outdated customs. Is it something too backward in other words for you to study as a modern world is free from case Do you think we may have class but we are not curry gobblers. You don't eat the curry you You know, it's funny. My friend Hakan points out the Indian vegetarianism is actually a biological Impossibilities the only way they eat this supposedly vegetarian diet in India is the unintentional ingestion of many pounds

of insects that get lodged in that slop. Isn't that nice? Well, of course, the Western fake spiritualists who copy Hindu style, they do not know about this, the unhygienic consumption of pounds and pounds of insectoid matter, so they severely malnourished themselves going for pure vegetarian diet let me tell you if you smell like spices forget it forget it you're lost don't don't write me these people smell like spicy imagine also believing the Kama Sutra was not invented by Richard Burton himself yes who is the English Explorer Richard Burton 19th century who he supposedly discovered this text Kama Sutra and introduced it to the West but I believe He wrote it and it's similar. He's a perfect, you know, all these English explorers. I must tell you they're amazing people

But their perverted habits is not for family consumption including unfortunately one of my Favorite one of my heroes James Brooke He installed himself as king of Sarawak in Borneo and actually he was able to have his son succeed him. So imagine this This foreign adventurer become king among the savages and his son succeed him, that is the hardest thing. Once you are able to secure your son's succession, you establish dynasty and once dynasty established, that is quite stable. Like Schopenhauer say, a monarchy is hard to establish but easy to maintain. Republic easy to establish but very hard to maintain because a republic against nature, He is in keeping with men's monarchical instinct, but James Brokaw, all the more amazing because

he did this in foreign land, a true man of power who deserves a show all to himself. And a copy of his life, by the way, you will find in Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim, a great book used to be read in high school, I doubt it is anymore, about a man of action, Lord Jim, driven by honor and by will to perfection. There is also a decent movie of this with Peter O'Toole. By the way, why some Irish look like Peter O'Toole and why some look like Gerry Adams of the IRA? What means? But anyway, Roger Brock, the English adventurer, I tell you James Brock was able to install himself king among the diacs of Borneo and he had quite strong the English vice. I don't want to get into lurid stuff like this. This is family show. This is family show. So

Caste is not just a primitive something. Okay, in fact, it's strange, you know There are many scholar of this phenomenon Caste who claims that it only exists in India and that the word should not be used for any similar arrangements outside including modern arrangements you find for example in United States some people would say his racial caste system still, these scholars say, do not use the word for anything similar outside of India because it's not exactly the same, they say, well, it's very strange claim to make because the word actually come from Spanish and Portuguese colonialism, not from India. Casta, this original word caste, casta referred to the various racial categories that existed in the Americas after colonization, and there were even visual catalogues to help the viewer

understand the gradation, what it means, because there were just dozens of kinds of mixings between white and black in India, and each had a different status in hierarchy. So for example, a higher status reserved for Europeans direct from Europe, all were named Peninsulares after Iberian Peninsula, but if you're, for example, German or French, you would also be named this Peninsulares. And then the Andorzam or the Creolos, these are the natives born but of pure European stock. So people born in the colonies of pure European stock and then there are many gradations. So for example, you've all heard of mestizo, this mean half white, half Indian. And a castillo is the child of a mestizo and a white, so one-fourth indio.

But you could regain white status, usually, if you were born of a castillo and a white. So not a quadroon, but an octoroon would be considered white, would regain Criollo status. Again castillo referring to one-quarter indio, three-fourths white mix. Mestizo, you know what I mean. But you get into a mix with black also at various gradations and you get very strange names. Green head, cabeza verde, and this kind of thing. Dozens and dozens of such gradations, that's where the word caste comes from. And by the way, in the American South, many, both white nationalists and leftists do not like this fact, I will tell you. But I believe that an Octoroon or one-eighth black could, under some circumstances, be

considered white, for example, in South Carolina, and especially children of Octoroon, if bred with white, would regain white status. So if Octoroon bred with white, the children one-sixteenth white would be considered white. So very much a little similar to Latin America castor arrangement, you can think. And I discuss some of these on a second show, my show number two on Angola, where I tell you how the Portuguese bred intermediary racial case to manage their empire. They went to Cape Verde, they bred mulattos to manage the slave trade there. And the interesting thing is welcome to America is that the south was integrated, actually south was integrated but unequal whereas the north was equal but segregated.

So in fact, it's very interesting because Jim Crow laws the one-drop rule, that is not a southern thing, that is northern, that's a northern law, northern origin convention. And what means one-drop rule? I mean, think what means in era before genetic testing, what could mean one-drop rule? Because they couldn't test for that, so how could you know somebody was tainted with black blood? Well, you must think of it, it was by association. And if they move in a black social circle, they were black, even if they look white. You could lose white status just by associating with blacks. You couldn't gain white status if you were black, or let's say, look a little black, and you associated with whites. Then you couldn't gain white status. So the people who claim it's all social construction

are very wrong for that and many other reasons, by the way. But there were white people who became black legally and socially because they moved in black social circle. That is what one-drop rule means. I'm sorry to tell you, but it's true. So Rachel Dolezal and that other freakazoid Sean King, they would have been considered black. In other words, Jim Crow did believe in trans-black, as this is so. And by extension, many whites, therefore, suffered under Jim Crow discrimination, too, by modern definition. So they, too, the whites who suffered under Jim Crow because of these social association rules and their descendants, I mean, should be considered for reparations. Would you not agree with this, Tariq Nasheed? By the way, Tariq Nasheed, I know you listen to my show, as many hoteps do.

Did you see Nick Cannon bow down and repeat nonsense about his respect for some obscure Talmudist holiday? He doesn't know what it means, he just repeats like a trained dog. Let me ask you, do you have anything to say about that? Is that an example of what you called buck-breaking? Please discuss. Black community, please discuss this, because Nick Cannon sure looks broken. But if he was broken, then by who? So anyway, you see the Jim Crow rules, the one-drop rule. These are northern innovation and the south was quite different. You can have slavery and integration. So I may do show at one point because in fact American history, white and black, you know this word socially constructed, that is true from legal point of view.

But this doesn't mean what the leftists imagine, that biological race does not exist as they they claim, nor I think do they have a very deep understanding of what social or legal construction of race really means. What it really means, it doesn't help their case at all, to be very brief, because it's never as constructed as they think, and like I keep repeating, it's often circumstances that construct it for you. For example, white was an inclusive category created by hostiles, in the sense of, again, If you are a Slovak on the frontier in Tennessee, you did not have luxury of separating yourself from other American settlers. You were to be killed for trespass by the red men who called you white skin men and

by the slave who was unable to assimilate and would have killed you in uprisings like in Haiti. So people who deny reality of whiteness are attempting to deny actually forging of the American people. Anti-white was really just shorthand for this, for the American people, and in general was a shorthand for also the European of where he went to the colonies. In other words, anti-whiteness has a significance much greater than animus against this or that nation or this or that ethnic group. And I mean for the people who truly believe in it, in anti-whiteness I mean, not for those who cynically use anti-white-ness to justify corporate and oligarch looting, but the ideology itself in its pure form, anti-white-ness, post-colonialism, this is an attempt to retain

the globalized world that is the result of European innovation, but at the same time to reduce not only European race or European ethnicity, but to get rid of the, how should Should I put this? Let me give you an example because I don't want to get too theoretical. It's to replace the exploration of the stars, to replace NASA with schools in Mississippi for underprivileged Negro youth, to force white children to take care of the Negro youth as a perpetual babysitter for them. Do you understand what I'm saying? In other words, it is to replace the anti-whiteness, to replace the frontier, expensive spirit with one of babysitting human defectives to perpetuity. Do you like that? But why I make this aside is to remind you that caste exists in the modern world very much also.

The American racial system again is a caste system. Still, apartheid South Africa certainly was, and European colonialism was, and many other things outside of European world dominion also were. For example, it existed in China in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, so forth, in Afghanistan, in most of Africa, Ethiopia especially, many places still does. And in all cases, I think the origin of caste is what you see in the colonies, is a remnant of racial conquest, or of conquest in any case by a foreign group, and it never develops from within. That's what modern historians suppose, they think it arises from within, from within societies because of specialization of labor, and as a result of agriculture and so forth. But that is not true, as I will try to tell you on this show with some examples.

And furthermore, I hope to begin to show you one great thing, that caste, and thereby conquest, is not only the origin of stratified societies, and therefore actually of all state structures, but the necessary prerequisite of all enhancements of the type men. It may not be enough, but it is necessity for all elevation of men from what I've called the yeast form or the long house creature from mere life and therefore it is cased that is the origin of all great things too that come out of the mind of art of philosophy but ultimately of what these intimate or encourage you to which is the life of power and of vitality life in greatness and energy so for example is it fair to ask if sparta did not have art science or philosophy because it was the fulfilled promise of all of these

And I believe this. Maybe you do not need more than Homer or some equally skilled bard or scout. Is the world meant to be the staging of great power by great specimens? I seek this possible. I will be right back. Cayst, besides being hierarchy class, what is? Well, you are born into it. That is, yes, so therefore in strict sense it is endogamy. In other words, if you can whittle down idea to one thing, caste must have this. People of same caste will marry each other and pass down caste status to children. And this is more important than whether caste is separated, for example, by professions or anything else. For example, there are case of potters or blacksmiths or dung haulers, people who Deal with dung and many other such specialization in all kinds of societies and many of these

Professions deal with ritually impure thing So for example as there is this nice line in Mishima about how Shinto priests would sprinkle salt salt around themselves If they saw a Buddhist priest because as a Buddhist deal with birth But especially with death with funeral and this is gross. So you sprinkle salt around yourself you see, to protect from pollution, I mean. And in Japan, to this day, there are pariah caste, the burakumin, and they deal in such profession. And it's easy to see how argument would go in such case that because of religion or simply economic necessity and the ownership of land and such, that different people end up in guilds of professions, or let's say simply a farmer, they're farmers and that become hereditary

and some of which carry a stigma or low status in some case or actual stigma in other case if you work in slaughterhouse or garbage collection or funerals or this Whereas others that do not carry that kind of impurity maybe you're just farmer's serf So you're thereby subservient to the local warlord and such So, you know, this is an argument that most historians and archaeologists other scholars like this argument I just made now and you can understand why because it's very flattering to a marxoid to a marxoid bias where you see the economy economic modes of production as determining social structure and even the ideology or art or religion which in marxoid term is you know, the superstructure that is marxoid word for ideology that emerges to justify existing economic

arrangement for the ruling class but root of this thinking is not Marx but Rousseau who I mentioned on previous show who say something very much like this in his essay on discourse origin of inequality well this isn't philosophy show so I have to simplify but he say basically origin of inequality is in demarcating private properties that is really the act that is original sin of of primitive men, the demarcation of private property, and it is the rich who want to preserve inequality in all its forms, in all the customs of hierarchies that, excuse me, as soon as I start to criticize their lover boy Rousseau, Zog sends something into my throat. But the neurotic Rousseau, he finds, what am I trying to tell you, he finds inequality dehumanizing.

He sees all the customs of hierarchy, all vestiges of hierarchy, he sees it as dehumanized. But he believes that rich organize things this way to protect their inherited wealth. So you see, it's really the same argument about origin of caste. And in fact, the truth is very different. Maybe even the opposite. The origin of caste and of inequality isn't in the petty processes of economic specialization. It is not in a growing economic complexity and so forth, but in virile conquest. The conquest of very often peaceful, sedentary peoples by men of the wild, by centaurs, by horse riders. Or like I have said before, there is a reason you have the German word, return riders. The Chevalier means the same thing in French.

The horsemen, the equestrian classes of Rome or the hippies of ancient Greek, all referring to the knight class, the horse riding class, the rightful ruling class that won the right of rule, not through the sin of commerce or of labor or of hoarding, as Marx or Rousseau or their leftist, pettifogging followers want to think, but instead by their manliness and by risking their lives. What Tacitus say of the ancient Germans? This ancient Roman historian Tacitus or Tacitus some people like to say. Nobody read him any longer. I will tell you from Tacitus Germania book. He, here is what he says about the ancient Germanic tribesman. He say, he thinks it tame and spiritless to accumulate slowly by the sweat of his brow. but can be got quickly by the loss of a little blood. Isn't that great?

This barbarian complete man, meaning the human as animal predator at its height, that has not yet been broken by domestication of civilization. Tacitus, you should read this Germania, short beautiful text. He say wonderful things about the Germanoids. I read from him now, this from Tacitus, he say, many noble youths, if the land of their birth is stagnating in a long period of peace and inactivity, they will deliberately seek out other tribes which have some war in hand, which are at war, for the Germans have no taste for peace. Renown is more easily won among perils, and a large body of retainers cannot be kept together except by means of violence and war. How this makes you feel? This is origin of caste, in its purest sense, when such men, sometimes by the way, coming

only as a gang of men, even they do not take the women with them, they might be a mannerbund that had been exiled from their tribe, and they come and they install themselves on a conquered mass, and both historical and genetic evidence supports this origin of caste, and not the one preferred by the scholar women of today. In other words, it's not economic specialization and property accumulation, but foreign conquest that is origin of caste. And I will tell you more on this in a moment, but there is another closely related lie that modern scholars tell about Indian caste. And they say that it was malleable or hardly even real maybe before English colonization, but that it was the evil Europeans, the evil Anglo, you see. It always comes back to that with these people.

The original sin of inequality can only come from the evil blond man. If it's ever found outside Europe, that is, it must only come from European influence. This is what the liftoids actually believe. But they say it was the Raj, English colonialism, English empire in India that made the case as rigid as they seem to be today. But studies from 2009, and more recent ones especially, show that strict endogamy, marriage within the case, has been practiced by this case for at least a thousand years. In some cases, I suppose, others for much longer. So no, I'm sorry, Marxoid professors, it's not the Europeans who introduced these things. And it seems like when you watch Hotel Ronda movie, and they repeat the lie, just casually

repeat this, that it's the Belgian colonialists who introduced the distinction in Rwanda between the Tutsi and the Hutu. They claim as a means to rule the territory. So you know as if they don't want you to see that Paul Kagame, the Tutsi ruler of Rwanda right now, he looked very different from a Hutu broad-nodes. And they don't want you to know this, that history even before genetic study that are done with modern precision and so forth. But historical research, even before this, it was well known that the Tutsi were not something that the Belgians just invented or that they picked out from among a homogenous population of Ronda. They were in fact pastoralists who came from the Nile, they were different people from

the Hutu, they conquered the native Hutu and imposed a kind of racial caste system in Ronda region. And now the Tutsi are colonizing the east of the Congo and they are extracting much wealth as I believe is the right, but anyway, so these processes of caste formation take place everywhere throughout the world independent of European influence or colonialism. So you should never believe that lie. It happened also, for example, Madagascar, but I'll be right back to discuss Madagascar and more. I will now have a Nordic's licorice, licorice snack as they use salt, they make salt and chocolate licorice. I'll be right back. Yes, welcome back to show how you like Rachmaninoff music's use. It's very appropriate to subject today, I should think, you know, Rachmaninoff part Tatar origin, Rachman.

And you can see this in his Asiatic eye. I will discuss family history on other show. I believe his descendant still Russia princess status and still alive today. Where was I? Yes, origin of caste is always a foreign conquest, although, you know, not necessarily, as I say, European conquests. So in Madagascar, where Austronesian came from Indonesia, they came riding trade winds to island of Madagascar very long ago. They settled the island. I believe they found it empty, or at most there were negritos on it, but not blacks. And you know, the Bantu were quite unable to make it across to Madagascar from African mainland. So, I don't know, think about that, but the distance from Indonesia to Madagascar must be about the same as from Europe to the Americas.

And yet they settled it long, long ago, but the Africans could not make it across. So how did the two nations mix in Madagascar? Well, the Malagasy animists, the Austronesian sailors, they brought the African slaves over from Africa mainland. So now if you go to Madagascar, the highlands are Austronesian, and if you don't believe me, look at the face of Ravelo Manana, their ex-president, Ravelo Manana. I mean, he looked like your average Italian man, if I may say. But anyway, that look and the language, very Austronesian as a belief in certain spirit, animism from Indonesia, Polynesian world, whereas if you go to coastal lowlands and you see much more Negroid features, Bantu features, similar to this you get Han Chinese

so flaming mad at me when I point out, by the way, the Chinese Communist Party, they this account after me to harass and attack when I pointed this out. What I'm about to tell you is that the Manchu, who were a northern Tungusic steppe people, basically from the Arctic, and they conquered China. This was the Qing dynasty, less dynasty of China, which they established in the 17th century. And because they looked down on the Han so much that they instituted a racial case system. So no intermarriage with Han and so forth. Anyway, I discussed this before on the same show on which I do the carrot salad. I forget the number, but I discuss this in more detail there, but I don't want to cover it again, but you get the idea.

I mentioned in my book the Black Yi, another warrior people from South China this time, but they too have a quite rigid caste system internally distinguishing between the Black and the whitey and in this case it does not refer to skin color similar in Afghanistan among tribesmen especially the ones who were pagan before they convert to Islam they were called the Noristanis they had strong case system very similar to India case system and case very widespread throughout Africa with Ethiopia being extreme case society maybe even more so than India I heard somebody say now how did the case develop in India well genetic studies I mentioned some very recent ones show not only that case is very old that endogamy was in this case by the way the case number in the dozens and hundreds

in India is a complicated confused subject because there are two words Varna and Varna refer to the four main case that you may know about so So, Brahmin for priest, Kshatriya for warrior, Vaishya for farmer and merchant, Shudra for various servants and so forth. And then you have of course the Chandalas, the outcastes who are impure, I may talk about them in the future. But besides these four varnas you have the Jati, which are very numerous. And this Jati is a different kind of caste you can think it refer to various regional and occupational castes. or the jati of a blacksmith or clothes maker or whatever. And the overlap between these two categories, varna and jati, very complicated. And it's sometimes hard to figure out where one lies on the hierarchy between them, in fact.

But in fact, what mattered more than the hierarchy, as they keep saying, is the endogamy, the fact that they only marry each other. But so not only are they old, Genetic studies show old origin, again, preceding English colonization by much time, but they're also not native. So, for example, to boil down what this means, step ancestry in genetic studies shows step ancestry is much higher in the high case than in the low case. So it shows very clear how at some point people with origin at some very far point back in time from the steppe invaded India, took over, probably created the case system in the law known as the law of Manu to preserve their Aryan purity, so called. By the way, I believe they did not invade over land from Central Asia or from the steppes.

I believe there was intermediate period where they settled actually north of Mesopotamia and then went down through Mesopotamia and sailed from there to India and took it over that way. This, what I believe, and there's considerable evidence for this, by the way, including words, I believe, Mesopotamian words that were kept over and some other very peculiar evidence. But a similar situation to what I tell you, called in Ethiopia, where again, recently it was not thought to be the case. In other words, a recent historian of Ethiopia also believes that the case in Ethiopia developed endogenously, in other words, out of a homogenous Ethiopian ethnic group. They just differentiated because of economic reasons.

But although many of the occupational cases in Ethiopia, like Blacksmith or Potter and such, again, they were assumed to have come entirely from internal economic specialization and so on, and that's what it looked like at first sight. But in fact, the higher cases there show genetic signature from West Asia. In other words, you can think of Semitic blood, and it's higher than the lower case in recent studies have higher percentage of this West Asia signature Semitic blood. And there is even very old distinction within Ethiopia in their own culture between the red aristocracy and the black aristocracy. And yes, these color terms have always been understood in a racial way in Ethiopia, with a red superior to the black. I'm sorry, is that allowed to be said? The red superior to the black?

I don't know. We had a bodybuilder friend in Brazil who seemed to be basically just your average mulatto, I think quadroon or octoroon actually in his case, but whose skin turned slightly red in the sun. What does this mean? He was very proud of this. And one time I asked a girl, what does this mean? She told me he has blood of the Amazon, I believe this. But so in all example I mentioned to you, caste origin is from conquest. In West Africa, similarly, you had, I believe, the Fulani, they set up an empire before the Europeans got there. What are Fulani? It's a particular African tribe, West African tribe, they look slightly different from other Africans, but they set up, before European colonialism arrived, they set up their own empire in West Africa, of sorts.

And wherever Fulani pastoralists did not set up their empire, Europeans found only egalitarian village life. So you know, mankind remains at that level of egalitarian village, agricultural life, or hunter-gatherer life, without external conquest, that where mankind remain, I think, forever in perpetuity. And I understand some of you may find that idyllic, but I think you should beware because like I might have said previous show is not idyllic, it's based on human sacrifice, on complete domination of the mind of individual by custom and by the group is disgusting. Look I'm tired of talking this of Africanoid people who eat brains and they do that, you know, but the point is you go to, why do I make this aside?

Because you can go to the most benighted armpit of the world and even there, if there is a state structure it was there because of conquest by an external group and if there wasn't conquest there is no state no caste no hierarchy but men remains in village egalitarianism or hunter-gatherer egalitarianism actually Fulani case I mentioned to you right now is very interesting because you know so this pastoral people the Fulani they impose themselves on agriculturalists mainly and they form the state structure primitive state structure but still one And now they live in a style as aristocracy. They live in high style for African standards. They live in palace They're no longer pastoralists. They took over They have basically serfs and slaves and they look down on the serfs they conquered

But there remains a mass of their people, the pastoralists that is, there remains a mass of the Fulani That did not take part in the conquest or in any case did not want to settle even in a palace they didn't want to settle, and it's very telling that the Fulani aristocracy of this new empire they set up, they had an enduring affection and regard for their Fulani cousins that remained in a barbarous state, and they held them in esteem above these so-called civilized conquered masses of foreigners that they had taken over. Now, why I keep talking to you this benighted armpit of the world, because if it happens there, you can be sure it's same in other parts, similar to how Manchu, even after they conquered Han

China, they held the Uyghurs, the Mongols, they held them in higher regard than the literate Chinese. And I would add this avoid also the Aryan, after conquering Europe, let's say around 1500 BC, nevertheless, however mixed his descendants might have been. And I don't know if they were that mixed. I think the military case that kept on ruling Europe until basically French Revolution had preserved considerably high portion of Aryan blood but certainly they had kept Aryan orientation and custom of high regard for nobility and so they had high regard therefore for the red men that they encountered in the Americas as a similarly free warrior man as a kind of cousin but they continued to hold the European peasant in contempt and I'm afraid this cannot be repeated too much

I say this before but must be repeated the ills of modernity are remember the physiological resurgence of the pre-Aryan in Europe everything you see the tranny stuff trainees is The cuckolds the woman-led relationship socialism obesity that is just the return of Europe to its Pelasgian near Eastern farmer nigger chickpea gobbler That's what it is to that past. It's Neolithic manlet distant past Returning, taking over again, and it seems throughout the world where the mass of human suffered the fate of beasts of burden Became Neolithic manlets so that a few could rise above necessities of mere life and reach beyond the human mammal, the human as an other This had to be achieved only through conquest and similarly the end of higher orders of life and

and the revolution back to lower level of existence. This was always a racial revolution. So in other words, French revolution, racial revolution. Russian was also all racial revolution. Disgusting, I will be right back. European colonialism is special case of case to rule. A pure case you might say, because it represents case to rule in its original form. Foreign racial or ethnic conquest. And it's always easiest and most marked, the social and legal distinctions are always easiest, where there is difference of one race against another, because difference of race can be plainly seen. It's very simple. This is why social constructionist people are so wrong in so many ways, but I don't want to spend show-talking against them. In his book, Ethnic Phenomenon, which I discussed last time too,

Pierre Vandenberge used European colonialism as a pure example of caste rule. And of course, again, the word itself, caste, casta, is from consequences of European colonization. By the way, please inform the fed cats, the federally Catholics. Please tell this to the fake Ross Douthat and the other portly Ross Douthat copies who like to imagine themselves superior to racist because they supposedly have, you know, pre-modern catholic theology. Supposedly that is what motivates them. In fact, they don't have catholic theology, they pervert it. But they claim to be driven somehow by pure religion, untainted by racism and they call people like me, they call us liberals and modernists repeating the lie that racism or race are modern notions of the scientific liberal age.

Only atheist modern liberals believe in racism, excuse me. This is a lie they keep repeating. But as you know, they are the true traditionalists, or they are the only ones who see through the modern state. It's all nonsense. Tell them about Casta. What means? Were the Spanish and Portuguese colonists in the 16th and 17th centuries, were they also modernists? Were they racist liberals? This word that commie grad students especially are the ones who come role-playing online, they like to repeat this word, racist liberal. As if to indicate, you know, that in rejecting racism, they are one-upping you in the contest to stand against modernity, against our time, against its delusions, even against the establishment,

You see they would ultimately like to claim that they stand against the establishment But of course is a lie because racism is seen by establishment now as the original sin This is a grievous sin against the modern orthodoxy So you should immediately distrust anyone who calls you racist or who goes out of their way To attack racists or racism and so forth at best what drives such people is cowardice I mean, I understand when somebody who has to keep a normie job in an unrelated field is forced to repeat these platitudes. But when you get wankers who style themselves freethinkers, and even worse, those who pervert their own religion and try to pretend that racism is a sin, or that it's modernism, and they are the true men of antiquity, I suppose, this is self-serving delusion of

lying worms. These two camps, you know, the normie, conservative, intellectual, and on the other hand, the Catholic, so-called Catholic role-player. Most of you who know, like, Russ Dowsett or Vermula are not even Catholics, but that's another story, not unrelated. But these two types, the normie, conservative, intellectual, and the fake, federal, Catholic, intellectual, they have made a specialty out of pretending to stand against the orthodoxy of our time and its tyranny. And even they speak of nature. But they're always afraid to talk of actual nature, of biology. I've said this before, because that's what nature must mean. They are cowards in other words, and lickspittles to this tyrannical regime driven by fear,

and by the desire for status and prestige, as is anyone who denounces you as a racist or blames you for that. Acknowledgement of reality of race difference and race hierarchy is first step to honesty. If somebody is unwilling to say nigger, and I mean hard-R nigger, even in private, you know, if they're unwilling to say that, then you must never trust them. But how cucked and cowardly can you be as a Catholic or a Protestant to denounce your ancestors in the 19th or 18th or 16th centuries as racist liberal modernists and bad Christians, unlike you, a good Christian or whatever, because they acknowledge a reality of race, Because they did not cower in fear of censure and loss of prestige like you do.

Well maybe they didn't for the doxies of their time, but you do for yours too, don't pretend otherwise. I don't want to think of such people. So you know Berg himself in this book, he denounces colonialism as dehumanizing to both the colonized and to the European colonizer. And that's okay. I'm not even sure in this case that he's doing it because he has to. It sounds like something maybe he genuinely believes, and that's fine. I don't read him for his personal experiences. I read him for his insight into human biology and its relationship to social structure and politics. But Pierre van den Berge, he grew up in Belgian Congo. Maybe he did not like something about his upbringing there. Maybe his parents didn't want him to have Congolese-Conga girlfriend. I don't know. That's normal.

He didn't like his youth, so then he spends much of the chapter on colonialism and caste talking about the anti-colonial thinker Frantz Fanon, who I would recommend you not waste a day on. But Vandenberg summarizes the view about how the rigid social roles in which you are expected to play in the colonies, they ended up supposedly dehumanizing even the colonials. It forced you, in other words, into artificial distance as he sees it. Let me read from him. It's interesting, I don't agree with him, but I read it. I'm reading from Bergen now. Colonialism was dehumanizing four rulers and ruled alike. The colonial master had to bear the strain of living up to the superman image he had created of himself and of being surrounded by sullen, hostile people whom he feared and

mistrusted but on whom he was totally dependent. He often found solace in alcohol. Let me interject here. This is true. I think I mentioned this before, it's not just about colonial, but all expats have problem with alcohol. Me, no longer, I mean never did so much, but any expat you meet, they drink a lot and in tropical climate I've seen one of these expat newsletters show expat in tropical climate 70% are alcoholics. Let me return to Bergen, I'm reading from him, the native had to bear as a constant burden of discrimination, exploitation, injustice and humiliation. In addition, his principal defense was often to work within the system, that is, to pretend to be what his masters thought he was and by doing so, to manipulate, evade and to deceive to maximum advantage.

Indeed, deceit is the last resort of the weak in oppressive situations, but it has its costs too. of the good native ascribed to the colonial subject was demeaning, and robbed him of human dignity. Furthermore, by playing it he reinforced the stereotype that created the role in the first place and thereby helped perpetuate the system. However, the penalties for rejecting the typecast role were high, both for colonizer and colonized. The former was socially ostracized as a traitor to his race. The latter was branded an opitinigar, a cheeky kafir, or whatever the local phrase was, often inviting violent retribution." End quote. So, you know, this view of van den Berg, I don't agree with him. It's too much similar to what we hear all the time, but it's a legitimate view.

What do you think of this? I myself think this distance and artificial formality he denounces is actually the first step to almost all human greatness. It is not enough. It may even be ugly in some way, but it's first step to what Nietzsche called the pathos of distance. You see, the other psychological and even biological effect of this relationship, which Berger does not speak of, because his book is not about that, but the other side is that this pathos of distance, this system Berger just described, induces contempt within the Master for the ape mammal other within himself for what I called the yeast mode of life And this is a beginning of men overcoming a mere life so I don't want to talk about this because it's not very a subject and he

Maybe would know where Berg is more interesting is when he describes a pattern of differing European colonization Throughout the world is it's very important and here he has a keen eye of a biological natural It come back in where he does what he like. He doesn't have to engage in denunciation So he say because they evolved in temperate climb of Europe whites could spread most easily Only to other temperate areas of the world. So think North American landmass above Mexico Australia Southern Cone South America New Zealand place like this where not in fact, excuse me Not entirely, by chance, such areas happened to be sparsely populated at that time by hunter-gatherer tribes mostly, and without complex state societies.

And they were not as able to spread to the tropics, I mean, the whites, the Europeans, they were not as able to settle the tropics, especially African tropics, because of climate, but especially heavy disease burden, malaria being maybe the worst. but many other disease problems in Africa. This is much repeated among HBD people and it's true, but Europeans could not settle much beyond the coast of Africa well into the 19th century when some anti-malarial medicines were discovered. By contrast to temperate areas also, tropical areas often were thickly settled. They already had state structures, for example, Indonesia Island, Southeast Asia, many other places, but they had state structure in place that could provide a much stronger resistant

to settlement, and there was not space for settlement anyway. But Berger point out this calculation has actually a flip side to it, which is European settler who managed to take over the sickly settled areas that had prior states and empires, For example, Mesoamerica, Central America, or the parts of South America in the tropics where you had Inca Empire. Well, once you get rid of ruling class in such a place, you could actually impersonate that class yourself. Which is to say, those lands had one of the most valuable resources of all, which is a population inured to labor and docility. And I'd be right, one moment I take smoke break. Yes, I just smoke opium-tip cigarette. I back. So in those areas of the world where Europeans found state structure, they sometimes managed to take it over.

Famous Pizarro took over Inca empire with 13 men. He Pizarro, a prophet of conquest. And because it was a strong state in that area, it had reduced the native population. It had bred them to be work robots. So that explained the pattern of Spanish and in some cases Portuguese colonization, explained both by the fact that the colonists themselves at that time in Europe history, before infant mortality problem was solved, they were fewer, so they had to make use of native labor. But also by ecological condition, including ecological human condition of particular areas of the world they found, where they could easily just insert themselves in spots that prior imperial ruling class occupied on top of a mass of serfs.

The Inca too, by the way, were probably from elsewhere, and the Aztecs, of course, definitely were. They had just done the same as Europeans did. By contrast, in temperate regions, you had sparsely populated by freedom-loving hunter-gatherer warrior tribes, and similar for much of Brazil. And such people, you cannot use them for labor. You cannot settle them either. They're not governable, they're ungovernable. Similar Romans, ancient Romans, they found in ancient Lusitania, modern day Portugal, far west of Iberia Peninsula, they found a people who did not govern themselves and would not let others govern them. There is line somewhere about this. What kind of a people is that? Do you like that? I like that. But this was condition of the red men in many of temperate zones.

And I see in book also in the Caribs and the Caribbean were like this too. And they actually, they bit through their hands to escape captivity. They commit suicide. The Portuguese, they tried to make local Indians labor, they would not do it. They would just die. They would commit suicide. This is what I mean. Heron folk, Mr. Race, cannot survive subjection or slavery. So what happened was, European found ecological niche, much like any other species might, you could think that, wants to expand. It found ecological niche at the right time in history, just like you could say, in maybe less controversial term, geopolitical thinker would say the Portuguese found a strategic niche situation and took full advantage of it very early to outflank trade routes, overland

trade routes, they outflanked them over the scenes, so they were able to expend enormously for a tiny nation because they were first-comers. But in the same way, more generally, Europeans found an ecological niche, which is to say biological and climate niche, and were able to spread to these temperate regions of the world, again thinly settled, but because the natives were ungovernable, they were mostly exterminated unfortunately which you know me I don't political correct on show but I disapprove of this extermination I cannot like this because I have much respect for example for Comanche or Apache and consider them cousins to the Aryan and also Heronfolk but such was what happened extermination mostly with some joining the Anglos and others because

to be fair, this was always an option given to the natives by Christian colonizers. Let's not forget, as Paul Johnson says in his book, A History of American People, which is especially good and entertaining on the colonial period, many Indians did take this option. They joined the American nation in full equality. They joined the American bloodlines and so forth. They married into the Anglo-American nation, but they had to abandon tribal life and existence to do so this of what I'm saying and the further insight of burger in this chapter is that in this Temperate area of New World especially where the natives were few free and ungovernable Extermination happened which was followed up in some cases by import of slaves from Africa

Why because the labor that was available? Let's say to the European settler of Guatemala or Honduras Peru or Ecuador Those indios in that area had been bred for labor and docility by the Mayan and Incan ruling classes But that did not exist in these other areas that had been settled by the free Indians So they had to import black labor, but even this is very interesting Where did they import a black labor? They had to do so only in the part They were too warm and tropical for Europeans themselves to work in so you see that is other There is another ecological niche argument for patterns of settlement of the Americas. For example, Brazil, where the hunter-gatherer Tupi, they were exterminated, but it was too hot for Europeans to work there and to thrive.

In the Caribbean also, especially, and in the southern states of America, it's always too hot for Europeans to labor, so they import slaves. Now, I'm sure you know all these facts, but what's interesting is how the biological qualities of each of the peoples and the ecological and climactic qualities of the land in question, this determined pattern of habitation, pattern of settlement, colonial settlement, and then the pattern of where the African slaves had to be brought in, which was always, as Berg says, it was always done as a last resort, because it's expensive, slavery was always the last resort, it's inconvenient. But it's simply that the natives in certain parts of the Americas were too few and too

unruly to be used for labor, and Europeans could not work in such climates, and the point of the colony in this way is to exploit it, so Bergis thinks. By the way, I think Bandenburg, in his claims that the entire point of colonial life was economic exploitation of resources, he's following a very traditionally, you could say, orthodox Marxist line about colonialism that I think is wrong, and I will cover why Why on future show, why don't I do that? Next show will be about colonial expansion and imperialism. But Berge points out that Europeans just cannot thrive or work in strict tropical climates. The only majority white, truly tropical country is Costa Rica, which itself deserves some study just for that. I send shout out to my Costa Rica friends of power.

I will see you soon after this worldwide insanity ends. But so yes, in reading Berge, you start to understand men situated in nature, men's political life and political fate. You begin to learn, see man as what he is, political life and history as an extension of ecology and the fate of continents also. Those areas, for example, with empires, empires that existed before European coming, European colonization, they escaped the importation of the Negro. Those areas that both lacked state structure and were tropical is where as an ego ended up being brought in for labor Because unfortunately, you see the anglo I say this before but the anglo The anglo the English use the tropical Tamil as biological warfare against entire continents

They use it. They use the Tamil as a weapon against the Fijians They use it as the Tamil as weapon against peoples and ecologies and the American Anglos They use the Bantu for the same purposes a travesty of life that areas where the Seminole and the Cherokee and the Carib They wandered the land in power and freedom a tragedy that this should be settled by the Bantu farm implements What is this? Well lovers of diversity should then think the southern planter class and should also think the Sephardic ship merchants But I do not think then Tarik Nasheed Please write an encomium of thanks to the Sephardic ship merchants. Otherwise, you would not have Diversity you wouldn't be here. You would be beating a tom-tom drum

River in Gambia eating the brains of her. I don't want to get into this but Thomas my friend the Nazi Thomas seven seven You know, he had Sephardic girlfriend. I hope I'm not being indiscreet He talked publicly of this because Thomas seven although being Nazi he considered the Sephardics quite different and you know I like this. I never attacked the Sephardes. You have to learn how to troll there in any case much more pleasant than You know the Dershowitz and Woody Allen type, which I'll say that and and they're often more artistic too as a people They have good food and look I'll come clean. I had crushed the why am I telling you this? I had crushed a long time on Emmanuelle Shriqui this actress. She was I believe in Antura

She Moroccan Jew, Emmanuel Shriiki, and her and the Corsican beauty, Alize, is this Mediterranean power. I want the Nazi Thomas 7-7 to return and say if my desires are okay. Is this alpha? Is this white to hunger for the Corsican woman, for the Sephard Emmanuel Shriiki also? Look, now that I mention her and this whole subject, I recommend you Google Ariel Toaf. Just Google that name. Google that name and what he wrote. And that in itself is a nice study in our interesting relations, a very heartwarming. But now I must myself go and study the matter of Emmanuel Shriiki and her youth and see if I can communicate with spirit of Monica Bellucci, please excuse. Maybe next time I tell you some stories about the history of colonialism and how colonialism

actually happen because, so far from being evidence of man's economic hunger, it's true history. Berge is wrong here, but the truth history of colonialism is of man's hunger for adventure, for exploration and for space. And the history of colonialism is not the dreary, economic one you may have learned in school, but rather one of heroic bravery, of lust for conquest and for new worlds. I tell you this maybe next time, until then Bap out!