Welcome Caribbean Rhythm episode 47, possibly a sacred number. I have to tell you that I may cut short program at any moment for an unannounced break because there is a very annoying fly in a room where I'm recording entered cabin. This fly cannot catch it. It's different from the other one. It does not go to window. It hides on dark surface. It's very smart. And is possibly the most annoying creature invented, the fly. If you need any evidence that this world is ruled by Satan and not by a benevolent God, what this means, the fly, the most annoying animal, come at your head, it reads your head. I'm trying to think some type of evolutionary reason why the fly is so annoying. I can't think of anything other than maybe it raids the head of mammals and pesters them

so until they are driven into a frenzy of rage, out of being annoyed, so that they fall let's say into a ravine and die and then the fly and its friends can eat it. I can think of no other explanation. This disgusting animal should be wiped out of the face of the earth. So this show is about colonialism, which very often is used as a rhetorical attack on your enemies. You say, you're the colonialist, no, the liberals are the real colonialists. Of course there is, on the other hand, very precise definition referring to Western exploration of the world and Western colonialism, which I have always been a very strong supporter of this. I'm not a consistent nationalist, never said I was. I believe in supremacy of Western men, domination of the earth, or what Nietzsche called the

time of great politics which will decide the dominion of the planet. This is what I believe in. I don't believe in hobbit, white nationalist, or any other kind, small-time society. And because I express such views in the past, even in my real identity, it makes you become a complete non-person to a polite society of any kind. You are seen as Satan in the normy world for promoting colonialism. And I am disappointed to see some of you online embrace in full, sure it's okay to use colonialism as a swear or as a slur against your enemies rhetorically but to the extent that you adopt a anti colonial mindset I would say you're betraying of what it means to be essence of a European a man so I will talk this a little bit on this

show but as for recent events am I supposed to comment on Gamal Harris This human mosquito fly, I already did this before all I have to say is that Gamelle Harris is the left's sissy domination fantasy come to life. They get off on the visions of her as head galliter of essentially a bondage themed goulade system. Look the whole line about how a friend of mine said, it's good rhetoric for our side, but he say all the anti-police riots will lead up to cop camella nomination and it's good job maybe drumpf should make use of that it's a good job but these are not anti-police riots okay there's a biden dnc riots there are another state oligarch funded astroturf very much like color revolution you see the latest one they try to do now against

lucashenko belarus but insofar as the dementoids on ssris who are participating in these riots are genuine. I mean the true believers. They don't believe in getting rid of police but replacing it with national civilian force that Obama proposed. In other words, the American version of what I've called Basiji militia that Iranian clerics use. Or maybe more appropriate than Basiji militia, you can think of the Tonton Makut that will satisfy all their sadomasochistic fantasies of the left. What they grew up on, you know, the lurid horror porn of Schindler's List and this. Every lurid porn like that they want to do to you. I know these people, I grew up around them. What are the Tonton Macoutes, by the way, if you don't know, maybe topic for a future show, but

this is a paramilitary police of Haiti dictator Papadoc Duvalier. In the late 1950s and 60s, this uh came to power if you read maybe graham green the comedians excellent very funny book for a story about just this episode about a hotel owner with the best cocktails in the midi uh mediterranean yes well the caribbean may very well be the mediterranean this is esoteric geography lore but he had a hotel best cocktail in haiti or maybe caribbean and he go back to take care of his hotel, this plot of Graham Greene novels the comedians and there are hijinks that result from that because it happened during time of this uh black nationalist dictator Papadoc Duvalier or rather a tyrant and his violent anger was directed toward people who

look like a Gamel Harris by the way isn't that interesting he did he did wonderful things I may have mentioned on this show Papadoc Duvalier did things like he had an opponent decapitated and his head was brought to him so he could commune with his spirit he did a voodoo if you're interested in voodoo by the way there is a kind of i don't want to say novel but it's a novel like science book called a passage of darkness about how zombies were created in Haiti anyway this uh wonderful tyrant who had completely embraced the spirit of the enlightenment in Haiti he did many other wonderful things like he banned all black dogs on the island the Haiti part of the island he banned all black dogs in Haiti because he heard that an opponent

had transformed into a black dog and it's very interesting this belief very persistent in the black community. You see also Mobutu Sese Sekukundigabengo Azabanga in Congo here gathered all the most powerful rich doctors in the country and the entire Congolese population was convinced that Mobutu could turn into a leopard at will. I wonder how these ills got preserved in to the black community in the United States. But it's very interesting that Tyrant Papadoc Duvalier directed all his violent anger against the mulattos, people who look like Gamelle Harris. So how is it possible, by the way, that Dems only ever nominate people the hue of Gamelle Harris or Obama, this kind of beige thing hue? How does that make American dark-skinned blacks feel, I wonder?

It's always people like Holder or Obama or Harris. This may be too spicy for broad use, but I imagine that a funny Trump ad could play on this. It could compare it to Clarence Thomas, who actually grew up speaking Gullah and who is the descendant of slaves. He has very dark skin. But this kind of dems are the real racist trolling. I think in this case it can be used to good effect because you go to inner-city blacks and many of them have tremendous resentment for the mulattos, I've said this before, they call them they half-breed. And even to the extent you can point out, you know, Gamelle Harris is from Los Angeles, right? So that's a sunny day on most of the year and I can tell you some of her biological

stock let's say, if they stay in the sun, she can get quite a bit darker than she is But so you have to wonder why she avoids that why does she avoid as a son like the elites of? Thailand or India is it because she grew up to take great pride in her non black skin in the Wheatish tones of her skin to use her mother's Brahmin language. This is how it is in India Bharat Skinned the color of butter so beautiful. Gamel Harris you have skins the color of butter All you need now is a leather suit, you know, as a culmination of the by the left sissy fantasies The Mel Harris in a leather suit and she can piss in the mouth of Biden I'm sorry to get graphic but this you know I think this makes the Trump landslide all the more likely nobody normal likes this woman

It's like I told you before about but gig that was show number five that all of you liked but there's a emotional and An aesthetic break that leftists, and in fact many GOP strategists, they have this break not just with normal Americans, but with natural human reaction as such. So as with Buttgieg, who on paper he checks off all the boxes for a strategist that's a political strategist in the upper middle class faggot striver world, who thinks therefore Buttgieg is a perfect candidate, but who for normal people gives off Jeffrey Dahmer vibes. Kamel Harris is just incredibly unpleasant, but for the Washington DC sissy political crowd set, she pushes all the strong woman buttons, you know, they love the strong woman. I mean, do you remember Carly Fiorina from 2016?

Because I remember this, Rich Lowry from NRO would like you to forget. Are any of you aware still that whatever grudging accommodations the GOP establishment has made to Trump, and they did so because he has 90% something approval among Republican voters, but they still hate his guts, the party leadership. I imagine McConnell does too, all of them, they hate him, they would like nothing more than for him to be one term so they can then say, hold nationalism, the anti-immigration thing especially, that this is an anomaly and then they can return to Rubio and Jeb and Nikki Haley another woman of butter whitish skin how many know this by the way that if you support Trump genuinely so I mean and in particular if you supported him before 2016 election you're actually an on person with the

donor brown-noser crowd who still rule as a GOP for now and they seek Trump's removal they were part of the Russia gate hoax and they seek to uncover and unmasked genuine Trump supporters or nationalists who might want to change the GOP. Are any of you aware of this? I think many of you are, but some are not. And on this, the signature problem of our time, which is mass third-world immigration – the fight for the political future of the GOP – at least this, it continues. And I suppose I should remind you briefly of what their strategy is. I mean the establishment, which remains never Trump. Because they know, without taking measures, they know the frogs will inherit the GOP by default. It's simple demographics. So they're fighting for their lives and careers as they see it.

The removal of Trump is priority one. And priority two is to get all the frogs to de-anonymize and to come into the open. And they've tried various strategies for this and they have absolute hatred of me and of Twitter, posters like Loki because we've stood in the way of that. The intention is to put you on a blacklist so you cannot advance within the GOP or even to win local elections. And they have a parallel strategy in which Vermula and his various deformed dwarves are much involved and that whole fake Catholic convert said. But this second strategy is to promote so-called conservative socialism, as they call it, that It's nonsense, doesn't exist, but they seek a rapprochement not with some left-wing policies,

which I approve of the adoption of some left-wing policies, which Bannon also promotes. For example, you should of course try to win certain percentage of Bernie voters, the ones who are motivated by problems caused by trade policy and this. And there are many left-wing policies that could easily be co-opted by us, especially actually environmentalism, many other things, but no, they seek not this, but rather an intellectual rapprochement with socialism as a label. And they try, I think it's mostly unsuccessful by the way, but they try to get many of you to openly embrace this label under the mistaken belief that it's edgy or that socialism is anti-establishment, when in fact this kind of third world nationalist socialism or socialist

Nationalism is the, how should I put it to you, with a slight modification which they've implemented only in form of presentation to you. This is actually a ruling ideology of the schools, of the Lutrino universities, indeed it's ruling ideology of the occupational class. It can never provide an opposition to their designs, leftism I mean. All it will do when you embrace word socialism is to make you odious to the mass of a red blooded Americans and this is indeed their intention they figure if they can get some of the thought leaders so to speak of the frogs some of the thought leaders who are out and out fakers many of the ones who use their face by the way they're the people we call face fags but if they can get some of them to

openly flirt with the word socialism and to embrace this label it makes them feel so edgy and nice finally a dialogue with the left you get a pat on the head which is what the pundit grifters on the right of any form ever really wanted but they know if they can get you to embrace this label in any form they've already ghettoized you they've made you politically inert from especially within GOP or to GOP base and that's what the Yang marketing thing was about that's what the gay face paint man movie Joker thing was to get you to embrace sissy emotional performance online and in the streets and to become a second And then Occupy Wall Street, easily quarantined and made to look ridiculous before the people.

And made to look ridiculous even to you, something that you would later dismiss as a useful infatuation with radical socialist politics. But I don't think they're having much success among people, it's just beyond their wide anus that taught leaders this doesn't catch on. It only catches on with people of broad, wide anus, if you know what I mean. But these people are promoted, they are given profile in the New York Times, that woman who's obsessed with me profiled one of them, they all look the same, they're all obese and so forth, but they have this kind of face, they're Antifa adjacent by the way, and they all work with Vermula in some direct or indirect form. You see how I cough now, the flies. So if you remember, to get back to Carly Fiorina, these people like Rick Wilson or Rich Lao

Lowry and so on in 2016, they were very excited about Carly Fiorina and Lowry like a little good boy. By the way, you know, Fiorina is another subject, but the Repoop GOP consultants, they try to do this every election almost. They find some vain moron like Fiorina, a retard, who made her money of being in affirmative action her entire life. Look up her career, I think she was at Hewlett Packard or something like this or AT&T. Every position she had, she had by affirmative action, she used terrible policies, outsourced jobs, ran company into ground. But they find some idiot like her or some similar dumb rich person, and they persuade them to run, and then they just squeeze them dry on consulting fees and ads. I mean, the ads are people they know. Those are the people who make the ads.

And the staffers they put to run on Carly Fiorina or equivalent campaign. It's their cousin or their nephew. So this is a big grift every election cycle for the Rick Wilson set. They know the Fiorenas can never win. But the expensive campaign is the point, and it's a con job. If you can get it, it's as good a con job as anything from movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. These guys in that movie actually are pikers next to the conmen of the GOP, Inc. So anyway, you see, a Fiorena, aside from being dumb, she's just such an unpleasant person like Kamala. But the Rich Lowry said in 2016, they just eat that up, they love the unpleasantness. For that kind of a man, you know, the harder the better. They like it hard. And for Rich Lowry and NRO and AEI, that's American Enterprise Cuckold Institute, the

harder they get it, the more it turns them on. I've posted the video of Rich Lowry, he was so giddy after a debate where Carly Fiorina did the strong woman tranny dominatrist act. She act like a transsexual dom, fin dom queen. But Rich Lowry was so excited by that performance, he went on about, I quote him now, she cut his balls off, referring to how supposedly she castrated Trump and the video is still up. And of course that is not what the rest of America saw. They saw hard-faced tranny S&M freak clown of some kind acting angry and crazy on TV And she got some 1% of the vote if that she had to drop out But what I'm telling you is the same thing as with butt gig and Camilla as a DC Capitol Hill club crowd

They are they are different from you and me. They're different from average American and different you might say from natural human Emotional reaction. Okay, when you get into the kinds of things they do I mean just ask Frank Luntz and his second level basement But when you get into this stuff, it tends to have a warping effect on your judgment of persona, of understanding of how public image will be seen by others. So it's the same with Kamel Harris and Biden, Kamel Nasser Harris and Biden, especially the two of them together, the optics, you know, it's like out of a Japanese S&M horror movie, Audition. I don't recommend you watch that movie, by the way, but this is the audition team, Biden and Gamal Nasser Harris. Anyway, I go to break. So sorry to do politic.

I'm back now and I want to talk colonialism, peculiarity on this show. So you know, Pierre van den Berge in his book, Ethnic Phenomenon, this third installment series on this book I do, he points something out that from average normie, average reader or leftist point of view sound false, counterintuitive, but that should be no surprise to anyone. of view, which is that colonialism and a racial caste society in particular, this helps the average working class and middle class men. Whereas on the other hand, it is so-called multiracial or multiethnic pluralist arrangements that are actually cover for elite interests, which is very strange claim you might think to come from an ex-Marxist, someone like Vandenberg, and this is to his credit that he was able

to see this, and for example, when he discusses apartheid South Africa, he shows, again this may be obvious to many of you, but not to normies, but he shows that it was for the average working-class Afrikaner or Boer who benefited the most from that arrangement, I mean apartheid. Apartheid was set up to benefit average Afrikaner whose high wages and higher than normal standard of living, it was protected through apartheid, and of course you see now with end of apartheid it is this group that suffers the most. And if you have any illusions about post-apartheid South Africa, I recommend book South Africa's Brave New World, the Beloved Country Since the End of Apartheid by R.W. Johnson. It was written about ten years ago and this valuable book, if you want, look it will not

tell you anything shocking to you, by the way, but for a normie, if you want to convince a normie, because this book comes from an English South African who opposed apartheid during its time and wanted its end, and then finally in late 2000s he realizes what a disaster South Africa has become, and of course since then it's much worse. And this book actually has some very interesting observations in beginning chapters about how all the African nationalist terrorist liberation leaders, who some snakes among us now, I repeat, are promoting as based nationalists, but they were in fact all taught and trained in Moscow. And in fact, the overthrow of all vestiges of Western civilization in the third world was the primary goal of Soviet and then of Maoist world revolution, going back, by the

way, even to Lenin, who was pushing for this before Stalin only temporarily stopped it because of World War II and what was going on in Europe around then, but he had to focus on that. But it restarted with Khrushchev after Stalin. So the Third World liberation movements, they were on paper, ideologically, they were based on Frantz Fanon's misreading of people like Fichte, sorry to get too abstruse, but these are their favored ideologues, Frantz Fanon. But they were in fact all a Soviet-supported enterprise, including the end of apartheid in South Africa, although it should be added here that America helped the Soviets so that in early 1980s or late 1970s, I forget which, the foreign minister of South Africa, there's

a cable I read in which he says that South Africa is facing a greater threat from United States than from the Soviets. And this is what I've been trying to say to you on a number of shows and on my account, that America has worked with the Soviets since 1940s actually to promote decolonization. So it is very foolish to believe that European colonialism and globalism are the same thing, but more on this in a moment. With apartheid, I tell you, the living standard and wages of the Afrikaner were protected so that during this time, the Afrikaner, after World War II, the Boer, he was considerably better off than his middle-class or working-class counterparts in Europe or even America. And he had access to the fruits of cheap black labour at the same time that he enjoyed the

homogenous healthy communities of ethnic solidarity. And the Afrikaner, if anyone is, as Pierre van den Berge points out, the Afrikaner fits the full definition of an ethnocentric people, a strong ethnic group of powerful self-consciousness founded in part on their messianic and fervent Calvinism, and in part also on powerful national foundation myths. True myth, by the way, but it's called the Great Trek, time of Boer colonization. They came to, the Dutch came there in the 1600s, so the same time that the Americas were colonized, or you look up the exploits such as the Battle of Blood River, no less than their oppression at the hands of the perfidious English. So not that America doesn't have similar funding legends and previously at least it

had a similar solid Protestantism and I strongly believe that Calvinism is possible foundation of strong ethnocentric society, but this was much weakened in the United States, I mean by the Civil War and then the influx of the Ellis Island fraternity who are actually ultimately the cause of, let's say, FDR's rise to power as well as America's busting open its borders. If you look at Ted Kennedy and the Irish lobbies, they were very strong for that. So it's not just our friends, the Ashkies, who are behind it, but the Ashkies and the Irish and some of the other Ellis Island fraternity who hate wasps shaking hands. Whereas the Afrikaners, you know, they didn't just have race or white skin is what I'm

telling you, but the Afrikaners kept this amazing historical and religious self-consciousness and you need that to erect this self-interested system like they did with apartheid. So in any case, the claim that racially exclusionary caste systems in fact help the common man should be very obvious to you, but it is not the norm, is what I'm saying. It's not to the average reader nor to the leftist who is trained in college on this kind of dime store Marxism to believe that all case system and all colonialism and Berge, Pierre van den Berge calls European colonialism the purest form of a case system. But these groups I've just mentioned are trained to see it necessarily it must help only the ruling class, the elite or big financial interests.

Which in the autistic sense I suppose that he could turn around and say well the Afrikaners as a group formed the elite of apartheid society, but that's wrong. It's stretching the definition of elite to meaninglessness. And you can look to other cases around the world to see this dynamic is true. So for example, now you must forgive me because if anyone ever brings up Israel or Zionism and anything but tones of how it must be destroyed, they're accused by very pure people of being a Netanyahu agent and this, but you must be able to consider history objectively. And Israel was similarly founded for the benefit of the Jewish common man and not for the Jewish elites. That doesn't mean that it was good, by the way, or that it deserves United States support right now.

But if you read the early founding documents of Theodor Herzl and later updates to it, and if you look at Israel settler culture, Israel colonial culture, who actually founded Israel were the youth scout movements from Eastern Europe. They were called the Hashomer Hatzair, which Jews copied, almost a complete copy from the German van der Vogel nationalist nature-loving scout movement. And Jews copied this and tried to transplant it into Zionism to Israel. But this very clear, it was for the Jewish common man because the elites, the Jewish elites, I mean, they did not actually need Israel, you know. Elites are wealthy, they are insulated largely from blowback in general against their perfidy and because they're elites they often have access to information to advance knowledge,

they have money, they have international network and connections, they often have second residence in foreign homes, so it's very easy I'm saying for them when you repeat the 109 expulsions the elites get away. And when the people start to get angry at abuses and such, the Zionist observation was that it was the Jewish rank-and-file man that gets fucked in pogroms, and the Jewish elite is mostly unharmed. And this is why, by the way, Jewish leftist academics always attack Zionism for promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes, because it's true, the early Zionists, they said very bad things about the Jewish elite and about the Jewish diaspora in general. And if you look at World War II as an example, the ones who got fucked were the Orthodox

Jews of the Pale, from Poland and Belarus, the Jewish peasants and so forth. While the German leftist Jews were actually the ones who provoked the Holocaust through their embrace of Bolshevism primarily, other things too such as, it's well known now the pornography rings, the prostitution rings, many of the financial scams, there were hundreds of Madoffs in Weimar Germany that made things much worse in terms of ethnic tensions and so forth, but it was primarily their embrace of Bolshevism. But these ones mostly got away. And I think it was Hitler, he caught one Rothschild and he was ransomed, but the German Jewish elite in general, they left, they got away. And if you have a problem with what I'm saying, by the way, take it up with Churchill. I've said this before.

He has, I think, 1921 article about the Jewish support and involvement in a Bolshevist uprising in central Europe, whether it was Bela Kun in Hungary or the Bavarian Soviet in 1919 or the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, all of them were Jewish led. But that's the thing, such people mostly ended up escaping, unfortunately, and of course the major financiers escaped. So this could be another example. The Zionists, as Ron Unz has documented, worked with the Nazis for a long time. They were friends. And even, I believe, after 1939, there were Zionist organizations in Germany who wore paramilitary uniforms. So by the way, isn't it interesting how Ron Unz, despite the fact he says all these crazy things and has a series of articles about 9-11 and all this and how Israel did 9-11

and yet there is never any media hit job on Rann-Unz. I wonder why. The media just will not touch him and I'm not attacking him by the way because he has an article trying to explain this but it's very odd. The media largely wants to discredit frogs as low status and of course Rann-Unz is Silicon valley guy and doesn't fit the image that the media wants to promote of what the alt-right is. So I'm guessing this is why they never touch him. There's never any article denouncing Ron Huns and so forth. But again, here's an article about this. You can look up on his website, it's called Voldemort something, I don't know. But this is another example I've just given you of World War II. Think of Israel, what you will, and by the way, I've said quite a bit before and I have

an article on this, attacking Hazony, but I believe America should completely disengage from Israel, cut it off completely and disengage also from that benighted area of the Middle East and leave it all to its own fate. But from objective view, Israel, like apartheid South Africa, is a racially exclusionary society. I was going to say National Socialist Society, but I don't want to get too controversial. But it's a racially exclusionary socialist society set up to promote the benefit of the common working class or the middle class man, middle class Jewish man, it should go without saying. But you see this same pattern repeated everywhere. Again, apartheid South Africa was the only difference with Israel.

In other words, the only difference between Israel and South Africa is that Israel has not formally annexed the territories, Gaza and the West Bank. If it did, it would be, and that's its only legal fig leaf of protection. They can then say, well, technically, if we are not apartheid societies, they can say. But in fact, they are. It's the same thing as South Africa or Rhodesia. In fact, Rhodesia was more inclusive than Israelis. But you see the same pattern repeated everywhere. And you look at America now with immigration restriction. And it's not the same at all, of course, as apartheid or Israel. It's something much milder, which is nevertheless, of course, it's lost on those who want to support Israel but who blame Trump America for void nationalism, when in fact it's much

milder, incomparably milder even than Israeli or South African immigration policy, let alone their racial nationalism in general. But it is the same pattern where immigration restriction is something analogous to that, even if milder. And what is its purpose? to help the working class and the middle class of America, whereas open borders and its attendant ideology of so-called diversity of ethnic and racial pluralism, this is elite ideology that promotes elite political and financial interests. So it's the same pattern I would say and I would argue actually is European colonialism in its pure form, at its pure exploitative form, at its height in history, let's say 19th century or early 20th century, it has the same function.

It promoted the well-being of the European common man, or of the middle class, or in general of the nation, the mother country as a whole, and not as you have been taught of a financial or political elite only. And I say this for two reasons. First of all, the European colonials who actually manage the colonies, when you consider them, And second, when you consider the Europeans in the home countries and how these both benefited from colonialism and how in fact they are hurt by modern globalism, which is in distinction to colonialism actually is a form of elite control. But now I need to take a break. It's a rare sunny day here now and I must sun my powerful balls in the sun. I be right back. It does not refer, for example, to Roman Empire or Russia Empire.

It's not just any empire, at least if you take traditional Marxist theory, or even capitalist theory, it means exploitation of overseas positions for resources, for raw material that is produced in colonies, then imported to the mother country, processed into goods, which are then sold not only internationally, but back to the colonies themselves. So now let's accept for a moment this definition and go with the claim that this is a form of control that favors the elite only, or the ruling class, and that the common man, the worker and so on, is either disadvantaged by this or is not helped. If you just consider this, it's not true. And furthermore, this is what I want to say on the show. It's not true that the impetus for colonialism was financial or economic primarily or what have you.

This is founded both in Marxist misunderstanding of nature of man, as well as in historical ignorance of certain aspects of colonialism, how it actually happened, and even if the initial reasons for some colonial venture was financial, once you get into the business of imperialism, a different logic starts to take hold. You have to rely on warriors and on adventurers, which are very different men from merchants, So it starts to look quite different. But I talk of this in a moment. For now, if you go simply even with economic understanding, why did colonialism take place? Why it looked like it did? Who did it benefit? Well, the third world has massive resources. But Europeans, in many cases, again, they could not settle because of climate conditions or of tropical disease burden.

But more important, in a tropical climate, Europeans do not prosper. And even European technology, for example, agricultural technology had become very advanced by colonial age, but it was agricultural technology that could only work in temperate climates, that was mostly useless in the tropics, where the only innovation that Europeans brought was very much improved transportation technology with ships and such, but actually exploiting the land, there was not good technology for tropics. So you had to rely on massive labor. And even when they can work in that climate, as for example they did in Costa Rica, Europeans come from societies that – how should you put this – even when that pre-modern or authoritarian like a lefty or a liberal would say, they nevertheless because of traditions

of liberty and law that are inherited in part from the Romans and in part from Germanic tribes and feudalism, even the lowliest European peasant had some notion of his rights and of his being that you couldn't just indiscriminately exploit. So then they developed this formula in the colonies that help you understand everything about how they looked. It determined the whole colonial social order. And this formula was native equals cheap, European equals dear. This Pierre van den Berge mentions this. And it has significance beyond the moral. In economic terms, you can see this drive to cheap labor very strong, except in colonial times of course it was not imported to the west nor did it compete with western industry

but was based on natural resource extraction and so because europeans were troublesome and expensive you had to have the smallest possible colonial class that you could to manage a colony that is in other words experts of various kinds would run it efficiently and cheaply as cheaply as possible so you'd have a small class of administrators including supporting staff of soldiers, engineers, doctors, other experts that are needed for European life and their families, of course. And these were often people of middle class or even working class background who in the colonies, they ended up have a much higher standard of living than they would have had at home. There's a good article about colonial life by Theodore Dalrymple, or maybe he wrote under

named Anthony Daniels, again forgive if I repeat myself but this is show 47, I hardly remember if I mentioned this on previous show, but it's about his time, Anthony Daniels, as a doctor in Botswana and how he remembers it as the best time of his life. Because when you are released from pressures of daily chores and of cooking and cleaning and shopping and all of this, life becomes totally different. That is true change in living standard. Of course, now I will be accused of supporting the importation of a Lutinc servant class. But no, this was the major feature of life in the colonies. So it's simply false to say, for example, that the purpose of the colonies was to benefit some kind of colonial financial overclass. These were often middle-class people who were sent to be the colonials.

And in special case of Portugal, this even more marked because by the 20th century, even before, but certainly by 20th century, Portugal was using its colonies as a way to give a higher standard of life for its own working class. So for example, many of the barbers and the waiters and all of this, it wasn't just the doctors and engineers anymore, you could go to Portuguese colony like Mozambique and its capital city, which is now called Maputo, and it's a slum, it's crap, but it used to be called Lorenzo Marquez, the name was Lorenzo Marquez, actually a very pretty European city with beautiful architecture, and all the waiters and barbers, there would be these Portuguese working class men who Portugal sent, they could have better life in the colonies, but

even beyond the colonies themselves and what went on there, over colonialism of this kind, of the classical kind where the mother nation owns the colony and incurs the privileges and duties of that ownership. This helps the mother country, the nation as a whole, and its middle and working classes. Whereas the opposite is true with modern globalism. Modern globalism only favors what I've called occupational elite, or a transnational clique of gangsters. Essentially, the model for this is look at America middling in Ukraine, it's called colonialism. But in classical colonial culture you would have access as an American citizen to its agricultural goods, you know, whereas right now the only thing that happens is Biden's

son gets a contract there and there's this complicated scheme for kickbacks to, you don't even know where the money goes. But for this reason it was necessary for globalism to destroy colonialism. And this is why they actually used the Soviet Union as muscle to decolonize the third world so that this gangster clique could then seize control of resource extraction. I've given you examples on this show many times before on account too. I repeat one very obvious one. In Congo, the Belgians were kicked out by the Soviet-American collusion, 1960. And all of a sudden, this new third world based socialist nationalist leader, he comes in Lumumba and he gave concession, mining concession, to globalist and American firm. The Belgians didn't get there. So this happened actually twice.

First when Lumumba was installed, then Lumumba was removed from power because he was so awful. And then later when the pro-white, pro-colonial leader, Tshombe, when he was removed, I think 1964 or 65 I forget, but when Tshombe, who was the pro-Belgian, pro-colonial leader was was removed, the mining concessions were available not only for the racist Belgians, but now they were available for our good universalist multicultural friendly group, what you call the globalists. And the same pattern repeated throughout the third world, the Latin America too, Mexico, the pro-white, the colonial leader kicked out or outright colonial government kicked out often with nationalist rhetoric or socialist rhetoric, but immediately resource extraction concessions are granted to globalist firms.

That was the point. That is the point of decolonization. The globalists, in other words, require decolonization as precondition. Do I repeat myself? It's a very important idea because it reveals to you that before globalism, in fact, those resources were not just being exploited by a transnational gang of financiers and such, the politicians, they pay off, but for example, it killed the nation of Belgium as a whole or it helped England as a whole, it improved the living standard of the average Englishman or Belgian. The resource exploitation was on behalf of the whole mother country because it was formal and overt. So besides helping the colonizer management class, which again was often of middle class

origin or even working class often, but it was elite only in the colonies in other words, But besides that, it helped the average man of the mother country, whereas with mother globalism you don't see any benefits, for example, from the oil of Iraq or any of the resources of Afghanistan. You just get flooded with the drugs, but the primary profits are seen by other people whose names you don't know. This is why the leftist rhetoric about how it's the oil, the American engagement in Iraq or whatever is about the oil or its colonialism. People who genuinely believe that, who are not just using it as a rhetorical ploy, are deranged. Insofar as it is about the oil, the citizens of America or of Western nations see no benefit.

It's completely wrong to pretend that what America did in Iraq or what it's doing in Ukraine can be called colonialism. In fact, it requires that colonialism not be on the table. It can't be on the table as option and the American foreign policy establishment is extremely hostile to idea of colonialism. In my brief time in polite society, I could never abide by its rules, but long before Trump, I ended up asking things like, well, why doesn't America just seize the oil? And you should have seen their faces when I said things like this. All the people you hate, they can't abide that thinking because over ownership of resources means that they cannot hide its extraction and they cannot hide where the profits go.

The gangster occupational idiot makes its profits indirectly through various kickbacks and such. The over-justification is always human rights and this. And if you look at the oil like Trump wanted, that would be for a benefit of America and the American citizen and they would lose in that transaction the gangster class. And this bears, by the way, on so much to understand the problem of foreign involvement today. I would be for foreign involvement if America could be Roman Empire or England at its height. But it can't. Why can't America win any of its supposedly colonial wars? Because England managed very easily to do so most of the time, except when it had to fight other Europeans, like against the Boers.

But the English and other who owned colonies, they managed to stop colonial insurgencies very easily, whether it was sending gunships on the Nile for Egypt and Sudan, or the example many of you may have heard during the Iraq years how the English stopped the insurgency in Malaysia. This is what was always said during Iraq years, it was brought as an example, America can stop insurgency in Iraq because the English did it in Malaysia, well it's true but the English owned Malaysia and this is the point, America did not own Iraq and this has very big meaning because their overt ownership means English had legitimacy both at home and internationally and even to a large extent within Malaysia to do what they did to end

uprising and in this case it was through concentration camps and by the way that is how you end a colonial insurgency it's why America is unable to nor should it try it's why any modern state really is unable to be a colonial state but English could both manage their colonies like Malaysia when they got arrested and also they could extract resources to their advantage as a whole, again only because of overt ownership and what this meant in terms of how a colony was governed, how it was accepted by the English people that the elite would get involved there in the first place, what measures could be taken and so forth, whereas with modern globalism none of this is possible but only inefficient police actions which are inevitably losing

from the point of view of military victory or of the nation, of the people and of the men who get mangled as soldiers in pointless police actions, which aren't really wars, whereas the gangster occupational class, they make a profit in the police action as well, whether it's through military kickbacks or charging $12 per plate of food for their contractors. So you see this completely dysfunctional system now, totally unlike colonialism, where now The money is made covertly through kickbacks to corruption and graft, even legalized corruption, and which actually all of this would have to end if an overt form of colonialism got put in place, which may be impossible to do also, I don't know. But the other option of course is non-intervationism, or if you just isolate and not interfere.

But the point in this show isn't for me to recommend policy direction, but to tell you Some things about colonialism and how is very different from globalism, although they get confused for each other by people who seek to obfuscate. I'll be right back. I mentioned the example of Portugal, where much of its working class, lower middle class, class found better lives in the colonies, and how the colonial system of Portugal therefore does not fit with the example of always only top-hat man with a monocle like Monopoly Guy Who Wins, which is a communist and also modern liberal globalist caricature against colonialism. Never call it neoliberal, by the way. Some of you are tempted to do this because I guess sound intellectual, but fundamentally it's a middle-brow habit and you have to lose it.

It comes from wankers of the academic left, like Chomsky. It has nothing but to make you sound like a Chomsky dance. But there's another way in which Portugal does not fit in this cartoon Marxist notion of what colonialist imperialism was about, which is for most of its history Portugal actually lost money by maintaining its empire, at least from 19th century on. And I don't mean that in the pointless way that America loses its money while a small class makes out like gangster, but actually the rich of Portugal in this case lost money on preserving its five centuries old empire, while its middle and working classes actually enjoyed a higher living standard than they would have without the empire. And why this happened? Is it because the rich were altruistic toward the poor? I doubt.

because of prestige, or in this case a real prestige, and not the prestige that I mark of the yokel strivers you see in American occupational class and its aspirants, but a real prestige, the prestige in this case of being a global imperial power. Portugal without its empire is what? A very small nation, insignificant almost, one of the poorest in Europe right now, and And even if it gets, let's say, as rich as the Dutch, its ruling class will still be – well, the Dutch also are some kind of province of a province, but the Portuguese elite before, they were willing to take the financial hit they incurred by the maintenance of this empire because it elevated Portugal from, let's say, a fifth tier power status to third tier or even at times third to second tier.

And I mentioned South Africa, well, the fall of the Portuguese Empire in the 1970s is the reason why Rhodesia and then South Africa could no longer be viable because the Portuguese were the only ones left in the world, for example, who stood by the Rhodesians, who allowed them an opening to the sea and to get oil, opening to markets. And Portugal was, for similar reasons, very important for Cold War politics because occupied very strategic positions in Africa and Asia, but this is just some example. In other words, the Portuguese ruling class, they thought the financial hit was worth it for the prestige and influence this gave them in global political life. And I would add the further satisfaction of having a worldwide geopolitical orientation and not merely being a province of Europe.

So what I mean to say is a human drive to political power and influence, and in this case to pride and prestige, often much more important than economic motive, which is why both Marxism and capitalism are wrong human nature, also by realist foreign policy that doesn't take pride into account, very wrong. In general, a traditional understanding of colonies and how they even came about is wrong because it's just not true that merchants or economic interests drove the whole thing, That they may have jump-started it, that's possible to argue, but didn't drive colonialism. For example, British possession in India, okay, considered East India Company. This often cited as archetype of European capitalist imperialism, right?

But despite East India Company, they did have genuinely financial and politically conservative attitude. actual governors of the province, they were often very restless, military ambitious men who worked for the greater glory of the crown and not for the East India Company only. For example, Lord Wellesley built British Empire in India 1798 to 1805, this during Napoleonic War's time. But he did so almost bankrupting the company in his search for military and political glory. The company simply wanted profits for its shareholders. They did not want costly territorial gains. You can read Peter Hopkirk's book, The Great Gain, for many of these examples and I recommend his other books about English colonies in Asia, Peter Hopkirk, and in this I can recommend

to you, by the way, a very wonderful small account on Twitter called Peter Hopkirk Respector. I will promote him later today so you can see him where he tells just wonderful stories of not just people like Lord Wellesley, who were great generals, but captains and great adventurers in the English colonies in Asia and Africa, and tales of adventure and heroism that they undertook on behalf of the empire, they were not motivated by money. And whatever initial motivation for foreign adventurism may be, no matter how prudent and financial these are to begin with, the process itself will not attract money makers at decisive points. You can't rely on Paulson or Lloyd Blankfein if you want to conquer a territory. You need people like Lord Wellesley type or you take a Russian case.

Okay, so Russia case is not Western colonialism, but still the logic of empire expansion is the same. When you look at Russia conquest of Central Asia, you get general like Skobalev or Chernyayev, the conquered Tashkent without approval from the Tsar. You have to send men like these far from home. You can't be in touch with them often with pre-modern communications. They don't like to obey orders, so you can't do anything to them. They present you with fate, they present you with conquest already made. And by the way, in Central Asia, Russia introduced markets as a means to political control. So trade, at least for Russian case now, but I would argue also in other empire case including European colonial empires.

Made was a means to introduce political control later, not the other way around. But away from this day-to-day oversight of a prudent so-called policymaker and of the financial interests at home that may have set these ventures into action at the beginning, men like this will pursue their own agendas. So colonialism will always be driven by an internal logic that's quite alien to the search for markets, or even to the prudent and restrained strategic policy. And there's another part of this which is the condition of the tribes, of the nations you encounter as a colonialist adventurer in a third-world setting where colonies and clients are very backward compared to the superpowers. But in such a case, material and strategic consideration become even less important,

consideration of pure prestige rule the day. So you take this author I named, Peter Hopkirk, words on the Russian motive for colonialism in this area, and I'm quoting him now. He said, blocked in Europe and the Near East, the Russians sought to work off their frustration by demonstrating their military prowess through colonial conquest in Asia. What does this mean? How fit in any financial or economic understanding of empire? And it's similar also to how Soviets became involved in Angola later. Why they do that? Because they had setbacks in 1973 in the Middle East war, the Yom Kippur war with Israel. Then they had a major setback with Pinochet in Chile where Allende in Chile, now you have these based socialists and nationalists on Twitter who are supporting Allende.

This was the guy that Pinochet removed in Chile. They say, oh, he was a socialist good man, he was a nationalist for Chile, it's bullshit. There were, before Pinochet came to power, Chile was crawling with East German Stasi, the Soviets deeply involved, and why, after they failed in Chile and the Middle East after 1973, they wanted to show they were still strong and effective, which of course with America's failure in Vietnam, they managed to take initiative again, and Angola was one powerful thrust of that. But this is not even about strategy or geopolitics. It's about the drive to prestige and adventure, and I would say, in fact, prestige drives in many theaters, sorry to use this kind of wonk word, but you take bipolar struggle like

Athens versus Sparta, or Soviet Union versus United States, and the prestige you acquire actually ends up having, from a realist point of view, geopolitical consequence. Because it emboldens your factions, the factions that support you in every country. But you read a book I mentioned, Peter Hopkirk's Great Game, and you consider Russian General Kaufmann, this is a German background, like many of the Tsarist ruling class were of German background, his name was Kaufmann, but he was a Russian General Kaufmann conquest of Samarkand, this very important central Asian city. now is Uzbekistan, but Russian soldiers and officers like this, they were always eager simply to go to war, okay, they wanted to fight off boredom, they wanted to satisfy

enormous ambition, read about this conquest of Samarkand, it wasn't something necessarily that the Tsar wanted. The British officers were similar and both of them often took forward action on their own initiative and they did a present policy maker in London and Petersburg with territorial gains that were not expected and often not wanted. And then once even you take over a territory, you come to the local elites there. And now the local Nababs and elites are, as a rule, they are unaware of greater global struggle between superpowers, okay? They don't read economist, not in pre-modern settings. They're usually unaware of great power European superpowers possess. They don't understand. They don't know anything really outside their own territory.

Read the book Occidentalism as opposed to Edward Said's retard, Foucauldian book Orientalism, which is a ridiculous slur on the West, but really instead Occidentalism is just a complete lack of curiosity of the outside world that is common to places outside the West. That's the rule, lack of curiosity of the outside world. So local leaders often just assume that the newcomer colonizers are like their immediate neighbors with no greater ability, with no greater power and entitled to no greater dignity. And Hopkirk says this as well. And this is true even in 20th century. African elites were just, you know, they didn't necessarily know in detail about Cold War global power struggle. They didn't know much about the interests of America or Russia and they didn't care anyway.

The information gets passed differently in tribal society like that. These weren't yet mass democracies with powerful press or newspapers that disseminated global information or the line of the American elite or that had a hold on local transmission. It was still tribal. So local tribe leader, they often think European are just another tribe, an equal neighbor power, at least in the beginning, and they think they are not due deference or dignity above any other tribe. They assume they are driven by similar motivations as their neighbours. And they are strengthened in this impression by the logistical limitations of the great powers. And in the 19th century, you know, it could take a long time for British or Russian power

to be felt in the wilds of the Hindu Kush or in the remote cities like Shiva in Central Asia. So local leaders assumed they were dealing with powers equal to their own and they acted on this false impression and it doomed them, it totally doomed them, it often, sometimes, maybe not often, sometimes it doomed also the colonial expeditionary forces. So you see Gordon at Khartoum and other such tales of, very much like Thermopylae stories repeated over and over in colonial times, many more movies need to be made about this, But it led to a certain logic of native revolt and defiance, and then of belated, often brutal and total revenge by the colonizers. So the Russian conquest of Khiva, or the brutal massacre at Gyoktepe, these are places in

Central Asia, you can consider it this way, exactly what happened, same as British reprisal during the First and Second Afghan Wars in the 19th century had similar motivation. So the Afghans revolted, they managed to throw off Britain, and then the British came back and just crushed the massacre and hanged them very bloody. And this was raised, this policy was raised to explicit by Russian general in the field who understood in such colonial context only demonstration of power, mass demonstration of power were only means of enforcing colonial rule. So Skobalev, the Russian general who I mentioned before, he conquered Gokhtepe and he said a very famous line, I'm quoting Skobalev now, I hold it as a principle that the duration

of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict upon the enemy. The harder you hit them, the longer they remain quiet. End quote. Isn't this wonderful? Russia mindset. I love this, but this become pattern not only Central Asia, but Africa, many places, massive temporary spasmodic cruelty seemed as the only way to overcome logistical limit to a regular and steady policing of your colonies. And remember, the point of having colonies is that they were supposed to be cheap. So you can't just police them in the way the theories of colonial imperialism assume. So what all this means, it leads to what I tell you at the beginning, that the entire logic or

dynamic of colonialism, once it starts, leads to something very different from what you'd expect based on purely economic consideration. You end up with crazy people like Skobalev or Kaufman or Lord Wellesley Not to speak of the Spanish conquistadores who I celebrate in my book Am I the only one to celebrate them by the way? When movie get made of Hernan Cortes In closing of this show, I remind you of something else. It's another way in which Marxism got self-pwned I mentioned to you how the Soviet Union actually trained many of the ANC African nationalist revolutionaries from South Africa and other parts of Africa, trained them in Moscow, some even spoke Russian. So they surely had a compromise on all of them, whatever.

You see a big taste then for Marxism when you look at the morons Lumumba from Congo or Julius Nyerere or the South Africans or Mugabe, all these Afro-Marxist tyrants, why were they initially attracted to Marxism? Was it a genuine love of Marxist economic theory? And of course no, aside from the direct Soviet patronage and influence, it's because Marxism is a more effective tool of control for native African elites, more effective than Western liberalism or capitalism maybe. It's like the vestiges of the colonial bureaucratic state that African elites, when after the colonialists left, they tried to inhabit them. But Marxism, with its focus on centralization and its government-direct economic development, it was just another means for a particular tribal elite to assert its power over its

competitors and to pretend to represent the state. But in truth, no matter their ties to African Marxist leaders, the Soviet Union, like any Any other colonial power could only affect policy in Africa through this kind of indirect control through tribal channel. So the Soviet experience in eagerness to ally itself with movements of national liberation and to associate the cause of Marxist-Leninism with national liberation, what do you think happened from this? Soviet Union acknowledged that nationalism, not Marxism, is a historical force of our age. that liberals and socialists themselves too. They tried to affect this with democratic and national movements in 19th century. It betrays the same awareness that nationalism is the thing.

You get this from Schmidt's book Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Ultimately, such alliances only however work to benefit democracy and nationalism. I mean democracy in the sense of majoritarian democracy or in Africa as the assertion of the tribe. This is what co-opted socialism and Marxism, not the other way around. So this why Pierre van den Berge book, who I guess with this show I will conclude series on his book, this why is most important sociology book of our time, maybe together with Kadehi, so you can fully understand human nature, it triumph over historical abstractions. And I repeat to you, secret idea now, that why I like nationalism as provisional thing, Because a nation, a people, an organic people, is nature's circuitous route to a few great specimens.

It's the true aim of evolution, the secret aim, and that with the return of nationalism, which I see as instrumental, I hope also for the return of men like Lord Wellesley, of Lord Jim, of Hernán Cortés, or Pizarro, or Fernando de Soto, the great adventurers of exploration. This too, as I keep repeating, as Leviathan falters, the age of the pirate man will return.