Happy day! Rejoice at the United States Agency for International Development. Congratulation is happy day for you. USAID website is down and this is Berlin Wall moment. I talk this with my friend Scott Laughlin. I think he correct in this episode. Welcome Caribbean rhythms. Episode 183, mega sex calypso variety show. There is much to talk about these last two weeks. Revolutionary almost, and they will one way or another leave permanent mark in American history. But for most of this episode, I want to make case for why the closing of the USAID in particular is a momentous event. And as I record, apparently Doge just sent firing notices to 9,400 USAID employees. Let's see if this is true. But this regime change moment situation, I think,

don't misinterpret that what I just said is not necessarily full revolutionary or a radical or such scary word. It could be. And in fact, Trump and his friends are best advised to present it as what it actually is a restoration of American liberty and of responsibility to the voters. But I will talk about the founding of this organization, USAID, in late 1961 by executive order of JFK. Actually it was contemporaneous at the same time, late 1961 was the building of Berlin Wall and it may be that some things are born in sin and then become something different, I know that. But I'll try to make the case for why the founding of USAID in circumstances of actually the deepest corruption, the most self-defeating stupidity was characteristic of its entire

subsequent existence, and indeed why this organization, maybe more than any other, exemplified the arrogance, hypocrisy, the imbecility and naivete of what you could broadly call the New Left, the regime initiated by JFK and LBJ, two of the worst presidents America ever had. It's often called post-war liberal order, but really it is much more of what was initiated or accelerated, especially with JFK. There were problems already percolating from 1950s or even late 1940s, well even before that with FDR, but around that time of JFK this went into overdrive with USA being its most representative institution, an exemplary collection of all the most characteristic vices of the new left regime, falsely called progressive.

And to explain the circumstances this was founded in, this entire regime, by which I mean a moral, political, social whole that was initiated around that time to mostly replace and distort what America had been before, I will have to get into some historical detail on what was going on in Africa in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and especially these momentous years. So much happened in 1961, but in 1960, 1961, around that time, what's going on in Africa? And to tell you, or if you already know, to refresh memory on the Congo crisis, on the question of the Katanga cessation from Congo, the involvement of the UN and the Dag Hammarskjöld, the Swedish UN chief at the time, of what means this, what meant broadly the Cold War and America's involvement in the third world,

the non-aligned developing world, right? It's the United States Agency for International Development is the name, but the broader meaning of America's foreign aid, intelligence, and media complex, and in particular its meddling in the third world, in Africa during this time of decolonization, this has much to do or explain of what meant the civil rights movement even in America itself and America's support for the so-called non-communist left worldwide. This catastrophic decision America took already starting actually in the early 1950s, but it took time for it to creep up and to triumph, I'm saying in the era of JFK and after. And these events, America's posture in the Cold War has led, I think, to the disturbances present in our time. And so this is a lot to talk about.

Maybe two episodes actually will be necessary, But this will be a very fun variety show. You can see on historical matters, Africa, many things. I wanted to go to Africa. Around this time of year, I'm not, well, I don't want to tell you, maybe I'm in Africa, but I do think I postponed Africa trip because I won't go road trip East Africa with friend and we make these plans. I want to see animal there. East Africa, of course, much better for seeing wild animal than West Africa. but I remember that I do not have malaria pills. And that furthermore, if you don't have the little yellow book, you cannot travel between two different African countries, or rather they will just forcibly vaccinate you if you don't have this certificate. The little yellow book, the yellow fever vaccine pass,

you need to travel between any two countries listed as at risk for yellow fever. If you don't have this little yellow book, you can't. And this is an older convention from way before COVID. I think you can get fake little yellow book in some places I heard outside Luanda, Angola or outside other similar places, but even in a respectable hospital, for example, in Nairobi is maybe not so easy to get a fake yellow fever vaccine pass. So maybe I should take the real vaccine, I'm not sure, but there are many logistics like this. Beyond which, I've been living like a gypsy for years now, so every three months, I hope you don't mind, I take detour, I talk to some fun travel things, but for every three months, I have to pack all my belongings,

two large luggage, everything I own is in two large luggage, and then I have to move everything again when I switch location or country. I obviously cannot travel that way around East Africa and load this in the back of a car, I need to leave my things somewhere. Does anyone know of a good cold storage space in Dubai that seems near to there? I've been in place with hardly any internet for the last week or two weeks. I felt I was missing out on momentous changes in America. I'm driving in a mountainous area and I much enjoy mosses and many such plants in the river stream. Especially, I will post some very nice photographs I've taken of moss. I love moss. Some of it looks even marine. I don't know. I left my possessions in a big city under the care of a friend so I can travel light.

I tell you, no jinx. I've been exceptionally lucky on this trip. I don't want really to save where I am at the moment, but often this place is hardly inhabited at all. There's nothing for hundreds of kilometers or miles, there's nothing, there's maybe one hamlet or something like this. There's no estates even, or very rarely a private cabin, I don't want, but you know, you run the risk of, if night come on, you have a choice, do you sleep in your car, it's very uncomfortable to sleep in car as such, but especially in a wilderness you don't recognize, Or then you have to, if you don't want to sleep in car, night is coming on, you don't know what's ahead of you, you have to backtrack 100 miles on a dirt road to the last small town you were in. But so far it's been good.

I was very lucky with this and catching boat ferries and such, I found some nice lodges. Would you enjoy a sub-staying article by me reviewing in a frank manner lodges, nice lodges and international luxury hotels? I found that you cannot trust TripAdvisor, let alone Google reviews. I could also talk maybe major restaurants or restaurant finding tips in this article telling readers where you can rely on Google reviews, where you need other guides. But even, let's say, Boomer, I think Fodors was ended, right? I don't know. But Boomer guides like that or Conde Nast, such are often misleading and they can entrap you in scams, especially when it comes to hotels. I don't know any reliable guide, really. Maybe there's some small blog, but I don't know it. Many times people are entranced just

by the brand or the claim of luxury, and they go and stay there, and then when they review it, they don't want to say they've been had. That's quite aside from all the fake reviews, you know, user reviews. I'm sure there are companies in India and Africa and China or or wherever they're based, some maybe East Europe based, who will give you a thousand good reviews, or if you pay for it, you can't trust them. You can't trust reviews on Google. I had a post to the viral, when I remarked that people get taken advantage of in luxury hotels in America, I hear this in some places, in Chicago for example, the signature old luxury hotels, is it called the Palmer, there are others like that. They all have, it's not just that it's shibun staff.

I don't care because you can have very polite, very nice black people in lodges in Africa and such. I hear a very nice treatment, but in these places in the United States, they have ghetto affect. Yo, I'm going to tell it to you for real. I'm going to do you good on, you know, I'm going to take real good care of you. I cannot imagine what that's like for people. Maybe it's their one trip of the year, if for every two years they haven't had a trip, but for two years they think they will splurge or have a luxury experience, or maybe even a trip of a lifetime, like for a honeymoon or something like that. I don't know who honeymooned in Chicago, but there are places like that in America, I don't know Grand Canyon. But I think it's a thing all over America, that you get that experience.

There was a response to my post also by Disgraced Propagandist, he's a poster. I think he was saying that he visits St. Louis and it was, again, some signature old luxury hotel that, oh, you have to stay there if you go to St. Louis. And there was a Shaboom reception woman on phone, ignoring everyone, acting catty. And that Google or this did not let him leave a bad review because it registered that hotel. It's not allowed to leave anything less than a five-star review for underserved areas, so-called, underprivileged areas, because it's deemed that there are tech companies, I don't know if it's TripAdvisor or Google, that will not let you. So foreign travelers to America need to beware on this. Reviews are not going to be accurate. But I've had bad experiences abroad, too.

In fact, I am not making any of what I'm telling you now up. As I record this, I've been driving with a friend, we get separate rooms, it's middle of the night, his car stopped working, he's locked out of his room so he has to, you know, I tell him, do you want to hear me record? You can sleep on couch in my room, he say, no, I'll wait in lounge, they will come in a few hours and I'll try to get money back for this night, but his car stopped working in middle of night, there's no one at front desk, it's a kind of very isolated lodge in the middle of nowhere, I guess there's no 24-hour staff, but you know, should I write quick guide on many such things? Then again, the perils of travel are not just corrupt reviews of places, but the native

cretinus minds of the salt of the earth, people who live there, who many, let's say right-wing dissidents who are disdainful of urbanite people, they think being a peasant automatically makes you virtuous and wise, wise in the ways of the world. Well, I tell you a quick anecdote. I stop with this friend. We drive by side of river, and he starts picking these fruits from bushes. And they look somewhat like berries we had had that morning in a different hotel, where the barman say, oh, I've collected these for cocktail. And I tried them. They had nice peppery sour taste. They were nice. Otherwise, if you get any jams, and you're traveling in a new country and you get traditionally made jams are usually loaded with so much sugar especially anywhere in the global south or forget

global south when as a boy I first arrived to country Greece every every dessert in places like Greece or Portugal is cloyingly sweet you cannot feel the taste of the fruit in any case in any tropical or a global south preserve so but I'm paranoid about poisoning and so I asked that barman and other innkeepers along the way from time to time I would ask them I like wild fruit and so on is there anything in this area that's poisonous but that looks edible and they say no you are okay not there's nothing like that here but this is certainly something you have to watch out for in the Carpathians for example and I think throughout Europe what am I saying there is a berry that's That's basically indistinguishable to layman eyes from the blueberry, but it's highly poisonous. I'm not sure.

I think it's the belladonna berry, but that's another one. It would be a nightmare to get poisoned with belladonna berry. I think it's a nightshade, so it must be like nicotine poisoning, but on overload, and then you die. It's nicotine poisoning, 10 times worse, and then you die at the end, maybe. Nightshade is a very dangerous family. Be careful eating tomato and pepper and this. But anyway, so everyone says, okay, there are no poisoned fruit here. I check with botanist friends. I know that is not true, but this is what normal people in the area claim. That sounds suspicious to me, though. But so my friend collecting these berries, I tell him we don't know what they are. Let's wait off. Let's get some confirmation, at least from locals. He start eating a few anyway, think I'm paranoid.

So anyway, we get to destination. And as it happens, we don't have four by four. So the inn tells us on WhatsApp, I can barely get any coverage, you have to stop in a small village a hundred kilometers away to be able to communicate with them, they say, you cannot make the last stretch of the road without a 4x4, we're going to send someone to pick you up at the bottom of the hill. So we make it there, we're an hour late, the jolly middle-aged guy come, he very jolly fat mans, like Tony Soprano but with a duller look in the eyes. So I show him the berries, I ask what are these? And he says, oh, these are definitely, so again I don't want to give you current locations, so he says these are definitely eggs.

So eggs is something that grows all around this area, they're great, I've had them, you can make juice, so okay, I start eating them in the car as we're going up, I say this guy I must know. Don't worry, I didn't get poisoned. That's not where I'm going with this. Go to something else. And that's this. During dinner, I show one of the waitresses the berries. And she say, oh, I don't know what these are. Let me take them to the kitchen. They will definitely know. She come back, she say, oh, a friend of mine didn't recognize them at first but tasted them. And she says, oh, these are definitely berry Y. They're surely Y. I said, oh, they're not X, no, no, no, they're very Y. So I started to get a bit antsy, you know, because two different answers on something

that should be a commonly recognized thing in the area. So then I asked a third girl from front desk, do you know what these are? And she says, I don't recognize these. I know fruit in the area, I don't recognize these. These are probably not edible. I say, well, the guy who drove us up says they're X. And she says, no, they're definitely not X. X has leaves that look totally different from this. They're not Y either. I don't know what they are. Please don't eat them. They could give you a bad stomach thing. Do not eat them. So I'd only eaten two or so. My friend had eaten a whole cup full of these. And then I got worried, so I look at online and I search photograph, and it appears they were indeed an entirely different berry than all of these people claimed.

But they were in fact either the one I had had that morning from the bar man, the one who collected them himself for cocktail, or they were something very closely related. They looked just like that on line, the tree just looked like that, the leaves, so on. So I then was relieved to know that they are not poisonous. But I need to tell you this story, anecdote, whatever, because especially if you are urbanite like myself, that people, whether they're in cities or countryside or mountain, are fucking retarded, you know? And that middle-aged man who told me they were eggs, the one who drove us up, he had lived in this area his whole life. And these berries look nothing like eggs, which are plentiful everywhere here. You know, they look nothing like that,

except in the most general sense of vaguely same shape or same color. But when you look closely, totally different size leaves and other features and so on. But he got it very wrong and he was confident. The other girls got it wrong too. And I remind you that cassava tapioca was introduced by the Portuguese from the New World to Africa hundreds of years ago. In many parts of Africa, they still don't know how to process it. In some cases, the processing increases the cyanide content. I'm sorry if I repeat myself. I must have said this before. They've had it for hundreds of years as a staple food. They still get poisoned by it. My children is starving. They have to feed now. I don't know how to, you know, but it's not just, I'm not being a racist, it's not just a black thing.

In Poland, there was still ergot or some other such poisoning or mass mushroom poisoning, I forget what, into the 20th century. I don't know if it was a berry or mushroom or ergot or this. Of course, Toussaint Louverture did call the Poles the black men of Europe, but I have Polish friends and I like Polish people, in fact, And I'm sure they're not the only ones who do this. Most people of any nation are very stupid, but they've been living there for hundreds, or maybe if it was a mushroom or berry, or wheat, or what is it, thousands of years, they've been farming for a thousand years or this, people living there, and they still get it wrong and mass poisoning them. And in that case, die horrible deaths and so on by self-poisoning hundreds of people,

because people are fucking cretinous, okay? general run of man is an idiot and that's not to say that I know better but at least I know what I don't know they don't have known unknowns they live in a blurred up imbecile world of first impression and vague similarities and probabilities like children and I'd say for this reason also that jury trials are insane except that educated judges now are about the same mental level often also so you can't ever underestimate stupidity of people but but especially on such matters as recognizing plants, that's the thing, and how could I forget this? Hermes appears to Odysseus in a dream and shows him the healing qualities of a certain plant. And that's one of the, again, the only two mentions of the word nature

in Homer. That's what it means. That's one of the earliest, maybe the earliest mention of this word nature as such. It takes a god showing you in a dream the nature of a plant. And in other Greek poetry, this is also a quality of magical creatures. They possess this knowledge of the attributes of plants, and it's actually extremely special knowledge. The shamans, the witch doctors of tribes, make their living, and they gain their prestige and supreme social position by being able, in part, but to recognize plants and to know what they do. And if this ability had been widely distributed among men, history, I think, would have looked very different. Awareness and knowledge of nature is an extreme special thing.

Don't ever trust a random peasant to be able to tell you any of this if you're in the middle of nowhere. Please, your life can depend on this. As for computer programs, so far these kind of plant-identifying apps are very unreliable. Hopefully the newer AI tools will be better, but the story I'm telling you repeats this matter of that Most people are functionally AI, or less than AI, anyway. So what would be lost, you know, if they should just accept a buyout? Most of humanity should accept a buyout, should live in a mega-club med for normal fagged AI brains. Anyway, that's what they should do. Look, this episode is actually on many different things that entertain me on historical matters and so on, but that will be second half of episode. I talk a variety, many things that interest me.

I will come back to talk a matter in prehistory that I was thinking of a few days ago. I'll be right back. Marco Eliz, an employee of Doge, Elon's government audit thing, was attacked in an article by some glow-jig seeming journalist woman who had formerly worked, she had formerly worked for USAID and other similar organizations, and he was attacked for past naughty posts on Twitter, although I don't really see what he said that was so naughty at all. He's just been rehired by Doge after being fired or forced to resign over that article, and it's a great sign that he was rehired after much public outcry and very good frog posts and frog pressure, something that would have never happened ten years ago, a sign hopefully that cancellation culture is on its way out.

idea that someone loses livelihood and career prospects even because of something they've said offhand or as a joke, let alone make a, there are cases where they make TikTok and you have online mob following teenagers because they made some TikTok or this, and they lose college admissions or such, it's insane. You know how it works, the most frequent kind of cancellation though is still what existed already in early 1990s, which was themselves woke times, which is you are often the less majesty of a woman. And I'd like to see a push to stop witch hunts based on that, too, as it's ruined, derailed the careers of more men than I think it's the most frequent cause, by the way, not actually things having to do with racist statements.

That said, I'm not sure what this guy Marco L is, what he was supposed to have said that That's so bad, other than that he prefers to marry in his own ethnicity, or very broadly that he doesn't like this or that, but by the way, he appears to be Serbian, so this witch hunt is just more anti-balkanoid racism itself, this whole thing, but Chuck Schumer and being anti-balkan, Chris Murphy is that Connecticut senator, he's a noted anti-Serb activist. I think Steve Saylor, he loves to point out that Elliot Cohen, who was a Bush administrator point man for the Middle East, at the State Department under Condoleezza Rice, who was herself an idiot, DEI hired by the way, by a Republican administration. But this man, Elliot Cohen, had previously been an activist against Jewish intermarriage,

and somehow there was never an issue in his life. It's never been an issue for his career. But the guy posting, and you know, He was running a formal organization or movement to stop Jewish intermarriage, but some young guy posting a pseudonym that he thinks marrying outside your ethnicity isn't good or that. And this kind of double standard, which the libtard or soft right never wants to condemn this kind of double standard, but Steve Saylor has been pointing this particular example out for a while. And anyway, I assume you're familiar by now with Marco Ellis' story and how Elon rehired him. J.D. Vance made some great statements too on this in which, again, the hope is that this can lead to a social change, not just political. It has to be social change because in places like DC

and California, there are already laws, you know, against getting dismissed for political or other such views from your job, but people get fired anyway. Story's constructed, pretexts are found. you can take it to court, but the judge won't back you up. So it has to be a social change, especially on the on the right where even on the right I'm saying people used to get dismissed for very mild things. I know Heritage now says that they are good people, but they let go some interns or some employees simply because of the topic of their PhD dissertation, which had been approved by universities and it used to be that AI heritage and not to speak of Congress and other parts of government would let people go for very small and absurd things.

So at least if this can change on the right and give backbone to people on the right to say you can't do this to us, we will not fire our own people just for some silly statement or joke, but I would hope it affects the center too and eventually that there's some type of social change in this direction that makes it shameful to fire someone for unrelated statements that, you know, oh you disagree with something I said, I disagree with something you said so therefore you should lose your job and you can't get another job either by the way. So the really interesting part of the story though is this guy's doxing was at the hands of one Katya Long, but Katie Long, but really her real name is something ooze back and it's

very clearly part of America's foreign aid slash journalism slash intelligence complex. Don't get that wrong. It doesn't mean that particular person, whatever her name is, James Bond, but journalists of this type are always in with some type of American agency where they get fed information And the claim she's making that she somehow found this guy's old Twitter account that was defunct, that she found it within hours of knowing his name, I think that's not credible. She had access to deleted posts even and such. And there are frog posters, anonymous posters, Martin as well as Malmsbury men and some others, Loki Julianus as usual, who have pointed to quite clear Antifa networks that were behind this doxing article of this Doge employee, which, remember, this was published in Wall

Street Journal, a NeverTrump conservative outlet, similar to how The Daily Beast hosted National Review interns, employees for National Review, to write against being The Daily Beast, an Antifa-adjacent publication. In other words, there's a longstanding cooperation between legacy NeverTrump conservatives, the cyber security so-called community and Antifa, they cooperate to dox and harass anonymous posters interested in the truth or simply interested in fun posting. There was a whole complex of them buzzing around something called the Capital Research Center some years ago with people like Samuel Goldman who was at the time posting under a pseudonym pretending to be a dissident this and attacking me and Shane Devine and others who were working for this center and at

the time consorting online with transsexual let's say cyber security experts adjacent to Antifa you know and these people were saying they were conservatives but in other words working with them to Doc's nuns passing them information and this person Katya Kashimova false, fakely called Kate Long for the Wall Street Journal now and previously Business Insider, I think. She's a typical example of the journalism, foreign aid, CIA complex that many have now become aware of with this discussion over US aid. Because the way it works, which both my friend Nicholas Sallow has talked about many times and also noted, I don't know what you call him, some people would call him a crank. I think he's one of the best writers of last few decades, Ilair du Berriere.

Many decades ago, he discussed the same phenomenon where the United States sponsors certain people in foreign countries who are then called journalists, but they were groomed all along by American NGOs in that area, and people who espouse leftist opinions that are then recycled back into American intelligence reports for official decision-making, but also to American media, both of these as supposedly the popular opinion of this or that country. See, this is what they're saying, but it's not the popular opinion. It's in fact someone who was groomed and funded by NGOs that are 100% USAID outlets or State Department outlets. So it's a kind of closed media government loop, And this person was obviously hired recently by the Wall Street Journal to dox anons on the internet.

Previously, she had a similar doxing of raw egg nationalist, which was also, in my opinion, a case of parallel construction. She already knew of his identity from somewhere and was fishing for local farmers markets to give her, in other words, she would get from them, confirmation of his identity, which she already knew, but it's something that she could use for proof in an article to pretend that that is how she discovered it. You see, in other words, you know, she had information likely from some intelligence or intelligence adjacent sources, and Bellingcat is one such nexus between Auntie Fafard Left and the intelligence community in the Five Eyes countries. And then these journalists pretend that it's a fruit of their own research, you know.

And very often such people often have fake fronts on the so-called dissident right, never Trump and similar hysterical dissident right so-called accounts, because they know, for example, that calling me or other fascists doesn't really work, so they send fake dissidents maybe to call me Mossad, will that work? You know, they believe this will hurt us with our audiences because they think our audiences are a toothless guy in Arkansas who will believe, oh, he's a secret Mossad agent. And in this sense, there are multiple connections that aren't even especially well concealed and many of them quite obvious. Perhaps friend will write article documenting these, but there are multiple connections between the SPLC, Far Left Organization, Hope Not Hate, which is an Antifa outfit from the UK.

These Antifa groups, again, work with governments and with semi-government organizations like Bellingcat, but there are multiple connections between such things and so-called dissidents. Chiefly, if you've seen online, the name's Chuck Johnson, who has written repeatedly in support of the SPLC and is a former alt-right figure, who is now really, as far as I can tell, purely a front for doxxing anons and harassing people adjacent to Trump. but him, Chuck Johnson, yes, J. Arthur Bloom, his friend, also wrote in support of the supposedly new SPLC. Nick Fuentes, Keith Woods, whose real name is Keith O'Brien, an Irish Marxist who pretends to be a nationalist, but who has coordinated multiple times with Hope Not Hate, and on one occasion at least with Kate Long in particular,

and Katya Hashimova, or whatever her name is, and Richard Spencer, of course, whose associations with the SPLC are not even denied by the SPLC employees. Maybe again someone should write on such compiling all of these. But sorry for all the inside baseball, the, let's say, far right, especially the face fag far right, but not just that, there are fake anonymous accounts too, but it's almost all completely fake and controlled in this way by, I'm guessing, some mixture of SPLC and GOP fronts. Kanye certainly is. He is natively a psychotic man and motivated by that, but again, it's not a secret that Atlas Strategy Consulting, a GOP smear machine front, ran the so-called Kanye campaign in in all the election cycles. And it was basically every time either an effort

to sabotage Trump or, look, I cannot exactly sort it out what was going on. I've heard from English friends that Dominic Cummings was possibly involved in recruiting Kanye to do this. It's hard to know what was in their heads, whether Bannon thought that recruiting this psychotic, retarded, Negro-spent rapper to, It's a very strange situation, but to me it was quite obviously an attempt to sabotage Trump on the part of the never-Trump GOP, at least in the most recent election cycle, whatever it may have been before. And the involvement of this firm, Atlas Strategy Consulting, is not disputable. So again, sorry inside baseball, but it's a fact that leftists prefer to launder their attacks in general on the right through ostensibly far-right proxies.

David Duke was also used for this, he regularly sold, David Duke sold lists of his members to the SPLC. I believe this is well known. And in Luke Turner's case in England, he's been trying for years to call me a Nazi. Sorry, I got scared right now because as I'm telling you this, there's smoke next to my head, but I forgot it's because I lighted some Japanese incense. I thought it was a gigantic insect, but it was just a smoke from the incense catching the light from the lamp, excuse. But yes, Luke Turner, he's been trying for years to call me Nazi and this and fascist, anti-Semite, whatever. He wasn't getting anywhere. He has no engagement whatsoever. So again, he believes my audience is a toothless guy, as he sees it in Tennessee or this,

who can be convinced that I was sent by the Mossad to trick them in evil Straussian ways or such. So he sends proxies to say that, because he can't say it. But this is all a preamble, just to tell you that there are two things I found reliably brings out the mania on the left directly. Other things too, the tranny thing especially, sometimes the gay thing. But in my experience, they all chimp like crazy, the leftists themselves, and showed their faces directly and no longer use their far right proxies. But they showed their faces directly on two matters. One is when I simply shitpost about international reds being brown and beige servile idiots. For example, if I post half-naked, handsome Thursday specimen saying that he's relaxing at our Suriname

compound after two weeks of crushing the reds while beige and brown people are bathing his feet and doing his manicure and such, and that image of the combination of red humiliation and POC servility, they cannot help themselves. They will chimp out in my mentions by the hundreds if I make any joke like that. The other thing is what I'll talk about later on this episode, namely that the CIA, but not just the CIA, the whole CIA foreign aid media state department complex of America having been reliably a support and prop for third world reds and commies, as opposed to the CIA supposedly overthrowing communist regimes in favor of capital with a capital C whatever myth they've been told by people like Noam Chomsky, but if I ever post anything

in that vein, whether I post examples or not, I get mega-chimping in my mentions. The latest case, maybe I have 1,000 mad-as-hell leftists that I'm introducing one of their founding religious myths, which is the omnipotence and Nazi nature of the CIA. But if I mention all of this, why I do it is what I'll discuss on later segment of this In any case, momentous two weeks, and in the words of my friend Kashi, we are bringing back plastic straws, we are bringing back shower pressure, we are bringing back incandescent light bulbs, every small joy that libtards have tried to steal from us, we are bringing it back. And that's the thing, it's a reaction against the joyless, freedom-hating regime accelerated especially since 2012 by leftoids and since 2022, the tyranny of the Kamala

Baidan, stupidity on many fronts, normal life can make somewhat of a return. The light bulb thing, incandescent light bulb return is big. I've been convinced on this. The vicious yellow lights, the flickering fluorescent lights, in their own domain of dirt, they can be romantic, you know, in the domain of dirt of the night world but in houses in daily life and even on streetlights they are deeply disturbing it's time to end them and yet this I felt I had to take a few minutes to discuss what hasn't happened before which is somebody that was cancelled for supposedly racist remarks was rehired with a wave of opinion against these filthy kind of sycophantic journalists doxing tactics when they think that writing a hit piece with dubiously gathered information or

even sometimes fakery and such they think that this can work and now they've been shown it can't with even the president vice president of united states stepping in saying it's absurd to cancel somebody in other words to destroy their career and their lives over a joke they may have made when they were 16 it's the beginning hopefully the beginning of the end of cancellation tactics of this kind i hope so i will be right back welcome back well i go off the blueberry path again on this segment as I discuss matters in prehistory, the big thing was publication of new synthesis, the new synthesis paper on Indo-European origins by people associated with David Reich's lab at Harvard, so incorporating all genetic information gathered to date as they see it on this matter of Indo-European origins.

Think Joseph Lazaridis and such, who although I consider him basically ethnic activist, And even this paper, he makes irrelevant and absurd what I consider political statements such as claiming, for example, that he knows the Indo-Europeans did not spread because of any genetic superiority. I mean, what is the purpose of this aside in a scientific paper, as if there's any scientific standard to define that or that he knows it all about it one way or the other. But all that aside, it's an important paper because its synthesis of all ancient population genetics information so far relating to Indo-European origins, again, as these people see it, and it has to be considered. So I will talk that on next episode after studying it closely.

I have not had time to do this yet, but I'll say this much about it. The foundation of this paper, the big point in it is realization that determining event in Indo-European origins, as well as probably the most important thing to explain when they are trying to find out where it all comes from, is the cleavage between the Indo-European languages as such, and on the other hand the Anatolian languages. So think Hittite, Phrygian, Lydian, and so on, the ancient kind of cousin Indo-European languages spoken in Anatolia. So you may remember that I addressed this matter on a previous episode where I discuss Robert Drew's 2017 book on the Indo-Europeanisation of temperate Europe and militarism. And Drew has a similar conclusion, but he did not reach it based on genetic information.

This is primarily a linguistic, historical and archaeological phenomenon. I mean Indo-European origins. He was able to reach the same conclusion from the latest linguistic and archaeological finds, which is the status of what means this odd cousin, kind of cousin language group to Indo-European, the Anatolian languages, and in fact from quick skimming I think the two theories, my own borrowed from Drew's and the one now from Reich lab based on genetic studies, these two things actually agree on location and timeline, they agree that the cleavage between the two languages occurred in the Caucasus somewhere, probably around 3000 BC at the latest or such, but they disagree radically on the following. Drew thinks the Anatolian

languages are the original, the older, and that the Indo-European languages developed later in the Caucasus after farmers from Anatolia moved around the Black Sea, sometimes by sea, into the Caucasus and creolized but moved in a kind of by the shore of it very slowly. There is evidence for that and that they moved into the Caucasus, ended up on the Don River and then on the Volga and creolized with local hunter-gatherers and that the Indo-European languages developed there as a consequence of that mixing. But I don't want to comment further until I've read the paper carefully and I'll discuss it on this show and maybe write a response on sub-Stank. But the crucial matter, I believe, is to understand, to have the right kind of model for how these

languages spread, which is to say, was it a gradual diffusion of some kind? Was it a mass population movement, on the other hand, like a Volker-Wanderung? Or was it a matter of elite dominance? There are three main models of how a language can spread. The last elite dominance would be small, mobile, usually military groups setting themselves up over larger populations and spreading the language that way. I believe it is the latter, whereas the people pushing the model in this new paper, as well as most of the online posters on this that some of you may be familiar with, like Razib Khan and Greg Cochrane and others who have had blogs on this, they all started with the assumption of a mass population movement, and they've always adjusted the new data

to fit their pre-existing conclusions, which I think are based on the misunderstanding of what the establishment consensus was before them. In other words, they set out to own the libtard archaeological consensus in this field, and they picked what they thought would be the most edgy, although they themselves actually know nothing about prehistory or the Near East or military history or anything else. And much of this has to do with a misunderstanding of what it means when you discuss population admixture percentages so that, you know, if you are told this or that part of Europe has or had 40% step component, the conclusions drawn from, you know, meaning 40% of whatever bones they find that the ancestry can be attributed to ultimately step origins, but the conclusions

drawn from that are often ahistorical and nonsense. But again, I'll discuss this on the next episode when I address the paper as a whole. For now, I responded in a similar vein to a thread by one Tristan Rapp, who is an account I otherwise like, and I will read his words or the beginning of his thread and then I will explain. This is interesting debate. This is better than politics, I think. So I'm reading the claims from this man, Tristan Rapnow. He say, so many of the tiring, protracted debates about whether this or that ancient population movement were an invasion or a migration would be immediately resolved by simply internalizing the notion, I think eminently defensible, that there is literally no difference

between a large-scale replacement level migration into an already inhabited area and an invasion in a prehistoric context. The entire distinction and the insinuation that one is somehow more peaceful while the other is more violent rests on a level of obfuscating abstraction where you never ask the nitty-gritty of how exactly population A is being replaced by B over a few generations. It's the same with vague assertions that early humans simply displaced the Neanderthals they encountered. That's nice, isn't it? They didn't kill or cleanse them. They just displaced them, you know. It's a natural process like the rain. I end reading, you know, he goes on a little bit from there but as far as I can see, he is student in biology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

But I follow, I like his account and I like the things he posts about usually. But here I disagree with him a little bit because I think like the other people I mentioned in an effort to correct the Libtard Consensus, He obscures some important differences. So there's a libtard consensus, and I think in an effort, a Rousseau and leftist effort, they try to show that mankind is naturally peaceful and that warfare or violence or expropriation are pathological social condition that may be brought on later, they're not part of man's nature as such, but they're brought on by the coming of private property maybe or the state or the coming of monogamy or who knows what else they have in mind. It changes for each of them maybe and every decade there's a new thing that supposedly

corrupts pristine, peaceful human nature, but they are never actually comfortable with the idea that man was vicious, selfing, grasping, violent in his prehistory. So I'm very familiar with this when I would tell academics I'm interested in the study of war and such, and they would become very uncomfortable with that, why we should study peace and make sure that peace reigns on earth, a very bizarre attitude I think for a supposedly an objective scholar, but a lot of nonsense gets written on these kinds of matters that Mr Rapp rightly talks about and attacks in his thread in cases where there were obvious genocides or such. The Libtard archaeologists will try to get around that with vague language. For same reasons also they denied cannibalism among Indians in the American Southwest and

other places too, many such which I briefly mentioned that on the Montaigne episodes a few back. I actually stopped reading archaeology and such thing around age 19 because I felt the same. It was lame. All the modern studies were this lame thing. They tried to reduce explanations of prehistoric life, to changes in pottery, everything was supposed to be some process of vague diffusion or mingling, and always vague language and avoidance of matters that might lead to untoward conclusions about men in the remotest antiquity, which is stupid because they could even preserve their Rousseau and fantasy in so many other ways. For example, by claiming that even in prehistoric times the conditions for men's corruption

by society had already been introduced or whatever, but no, they have to go the whole way. Regardless, I think it's an important corrective, but then Rapp, in what I just read for you, I think he takes it too far, and I'm not picking on him. I like his account, but this is symptomatic of what many edgy or dissident thinkers do in other cases, including on the Indo-European matter, where in the desire to counter the libtard establishment, they end up making their own distortions. In this case, I think it's plainly true that migration and invasion are different things, both in our time and in remote antiquity. If you take the modern case, I know he distinguishes it from prehistory, but they are different, even though people deny often that they're different.

I've used myself rhetorically that the Mexicans at the southern border are an invasion. I remember I used to have these arguments with normicons in the 2000s. But in fact, you know, I knew at the time it was a rhetorical thing that they're not in fact an invasion, it's a misuse of the word, and when you misuse a word you're smothering the reality of that phenomenon, when you refuse to make these distinctions. In fact, migrants, whether in America or Europe, are not invaders. They're not coming with 100 tank divisions as part of a state. They're not coming as part of any organized effort, they're not coordinating with each other, they're small family groups or such, or sometimes at most there's a village I think

that decides slowly to move over time because they hear other people from the village have set themselves up in a new area in the West somewhere, rather in the North. But these are people invited by governments in the West to an already existing state, And they think they're coming to work or for welfare benefits. And that no, I'm sorry, it's not the same as conquest of the new world or even Russia invading Ukraine or Austria-Hungary invading Serbia or even the Teutonic order invading old Prussia where the Baltic tribes lived. And to be conquest and military, such things are very respectable, manly things and require of a people to have high spirit, a high level of organization, conscious decision, planning

and such, and that cannot describe a diffuse group of migrants in the modern or any other era. And the reason I bring this up, I think actually both words, migration and invasion, are inappropriate for what goes on in a prehistoric time, when on many occasions they correspond to modern phenomena that vaguely analogous to modern phenomena that are political, or they take place in a political context that didn't exist in that remote antiquity. And it's also a complete delusion if you consider the timescale involved. If you take, just for example, the expansion of Near Eastern or Anatolian farmers into Europe, which I imagine that Rapp has in mind partly when he says what he said, that's something the expansion of farmers from the Near East or Anatolia into Europe, it's something that

began around 7,000 BC at the latest or even before, and it took millennia. So think about it concretely, what we call today Near Eastern or Anatolian farmer genetics versus what was in Europe at that time, which were various hunter-gatherers, West hunter-gatherer and such, Caucasus hunter-gatherer in that, when they're in the Caucasus and in other areas they're named simply by the region that they lived in. None of these correspond to modern, national, or even tribal identities in the way some are using them. There was no Near Eastern farmer self-consciousness. That's a conclusion drawn by modern observer of genetic and material changes that took place over two or 3,000 years, sometimes concerning hybridized populations, in fact, more than 3,000 years.

In concretely, it was a small tribal group, or even below that, family clans, spreading very slowly on, in this case, on Europe's riverways. They had no communication with each other or common cause or common identity. They likely diverged into unintelligible dialects quite fast, even language, even different languages quite fast, pre-written language, pre-literate language changes much faster. So let's say you have a farmer hamlet somewhere down the Danube, maybe modern-day Austria. They had expanded there from a previous hamlet, let's say, toward the, in the direction of the Balkans, but this new so-called invasive colony, let's say somewhere near Austria on the Danube, had actually been there for several centuries. We're talking about millennia here.

I mean, they live in a place for centuries. I think when talking of millennia and these genetic studies, people don't maybe see in front of their eyes the number of generations lives and so on that humans there went through it's not two or three generations 20 generations or something like that more than that okay so this new hamlet receives reports from one of their fishermen or some of their fishermen that there is good farming lands some 50 miles down the river if that let's say 25 miles down the river maybe they've had some good years there has been much food many hobbit feasts maybe they fucked a lot 15 to 20 years back you know maybe they've had some good years you know you know too many kids in other words they tell the younger people they have to

leave with their families down the river that you know the too many people in this village they have conflicts over whatever or maybe they're threatened by another farming village that they consider assholes you know upriver from them or downriver from them so you get a small breakaway group who decides for whatever reason to settle that new land that's rumored to be down 50 miles. So it happens that they arrive there with maybe some livestock and knowledge of how to plant crops, but in the adjoining forest of Riverbank Field, there are hunter-gatherers. They're semi-nomadic. Maybe they're not even there when the first settlers come. You know, there are people who forage and hunt that forest for some other part of the year. They appear later.

ask you, do they own that land? Is it, you know, they inhabit it in some sense, but is that their territory because they hunt in that forest for part of the year? So in what sense do the people founding the new village constitute an invasion force? How even actually are they migrants? They are something, I will give you that, that may be settlers, but even these are not the right words. Is injustice being done to the hunter-gatherers? I'm not sure what happened back then. Maybe the new settlers are fascinated by the hunters, maybe they have hot women or whatever or vice versa, and maybe in the beginning the two groups are actually trading and friendly and then eventually conflicts come up, they start fighting and by fighting I mean you know shoot

arrows from thickets of bushes into the back of the neck, ambushing each other in small groups personally at night on what passes for a path or road in the forest. Finally, there is a night attack, let's say the hunter-gatherers in this case, massacre the undefended village one day at night, maybe the men are away, and I'm not making this up. There are finds relating to what I'm saying, archaeological finds, bodies clearly killed in violence. There's evidence of massacres, but it's usually people shot in the back with arrows and things like that, personal violence on a small scale. There's no evidence whatsoever before about 2200 BC and in Europe actually later than that considerably of anything resembling organized warfare, battles, anything relating to things

like that like armor, swords, even combat spears do not exist before around that time. The same battle acts that you hear of from the corded ware culture, it gets sometimes Sometimes parts of it get called battle-ax culture. There's never evidence they were used in battles. This was a hatchet used for personal protection, maybe most often against animals. Do not forget, men did not have the upper hand at this time in history. Europe was a wild, savage, thickly forested land with extreme danger animals, even lions and probably packs of wolves sometimes wiped out settlements of both the farmers and the hunter-gatherers at times. Weapons at this time were maybe used mostly against animal or against animal just as often as against man. But explain to me how what either side is doing here

corresponds to phenomena like migration or invasion. I don't see it. The farmer village is not aware of actually being in someone else's land. They've lived there for centuries. in the previous location. They don't sink their migrants to Europe. They don't know what Europe is. The hunter-gatherers also don't know what Europe is. In fact, the hunter-gatherers aren't on the whole having a good time of this general process that takes a thousand years, but I think that has mostly to do with numbers that can be sustained by each lifestyle. The farmer lifestyle can sustain many more people, and maybe in many cases, such hunter-gatherers decided to join the local farming village and to be absorbed by it. And so then you get a hybrid population with different percentages,

but those don't necessarily correspond to one tribe getting raped or something like that. And how this hybrid population then understands itself is anyone's guess, but it was some kind of a change, yes? And also let's say it is a pure farmer blood village, let's say, but they again have no self-consciousness themselves as part of a common cause or nation or identity with some other farming village of similar blood. They may again speak completely different languages by now, have different gods. Maybe they think the farming village some 30 miles downstream are assholes, and maybe they rather like the local hunter-gatherers. A good reply to what I said was correct to call this an absolological process rather than a political, and in that case different words are appropriate.

This question is entirely separate though from that of violence. Violence no doubt took place in horrific ways, maybe even including cannibalism. But monkeys also do raids on each other, and I don't think it's a good idea to talk about invasion and migration with monkeys or chimpanzees or similar concepts. The humanoid invasion of the Neanderthal state or territory, that is absurd, please you give me a break. That means territory, for example, in this case. The range over which we find Neanderthal bones remains. It's a vast part of Eurasia. It's continental scale. It was not in any sense, that was not the territory of any one Neanderthal group. I'm aware they're gone now, yes, I'm aware they were in some sense genocided, although they may be hiding in some places in Siberia, I hear.

I hear there are breeding experiments underway. Dmitry Medvedev has this as his special commission by Putler. I'm aware of changes that took place over tens of thousands of years with some populations disappearing. But I'm saying whether that's good or bad, fortunate or not, those changes have nothing to do with political words that we think of like invasion, migration, et cetera, conquest, or anything that has to do with political decision or the self-consciousness of a group. Mr. Tristan Rapp replied to me that I'm trying to synonymize invasion with the actions of an organized moves by a military case, but that's overstating the case. I'm not saying it's necessarily a military case, but to talk of invasion by, let's say,

some group, in this case the supposed group of Near Eastern farmers, yes, you'd have to presume some level of decisionist political unity, some level of organization on their part or the world loses meaning. What I just described now with the hypothetical villages, that's actually more or less I think the process that happened, that there was no prehistoric group corresponding to our understanding of categories like Near Eastern farmer or West Hunter gatherer or any such. They only had tribal or actually even subtribal consciousness and they did not understand themselves as invading or being invaded or even migrating by the common meaning of these words now. Right, so the counterexamples would be very clear cases of ancient invasion.

The Mongols deciding to invade various parts of Europe and Asia. But that's not what happened here. On the steppe, it was often, for example, in historical times, there were many disparate tribes but at times vast confederations of steppe tribes would be formed. They would rally around the chief of one tribe and around his banner and then decide we've We've heard there is booty there and let's go there and invade and kill them, take their women. Or in some cases they had more concrete goals like the Cumans who were fleeing the Mongols, they wanted to find a new land, that's why they entered Hungary. But I assure you that's not what happened with these vast timescale changes in prehistory, that we only see them now as a fait accompli after thousands of years and then we are the

ones who construct these categories like Near East Farmer based on genetic origins. But these origins don't correspond to ancient people's understanding of themselves. In the new paper on the Indo-Europeans that I will talk about next time, they at least refer to it in the beginning as the Yanaya archeological complex. But online or in blogs you might hear of Yanaya used as if this was an ancient self-understanding of a people. In Russian archaeology, sorry to repeat, the word culture refers to a common material characteristics shared by ancient finds according to the archaeologist, who's not making a claim that that actually corresponds to a culture in any normal sense of that word. I'm not sure what language the young people spoke.

They may have, I think, maybe spoken entirely different families of languages. There is no reason, at least from the archaeological finds alone, to presume that they were at all one people or one tribe or understood themselves as such. This is not a question of semantics, it goes to a deep misunderstanding, I think, of ancient political life and identity, where people who read a few studies believe that if you find again 40% step admixture component in some ancient population sample, this gives you an impression that these people are of such and such an origin or that language was. when in fact that 40% could come about in any number of ways. You know, African Americans also have a large Aryan component in their DNA. So, you know, what means? I mean, obviously that's interesting,

and the story of how that happened is very much worth studying. But if you just knew that fact in the future, to make quick deductions from that regarding their political orientation, their language, or even appearance or behavior, such quick jumping to conclusions is unwise and assuming modern political identities for the constructs of archaeologists and ancient population geneticists who are talking about changes occurring in some cases again over four or five thousand years is downright retarded I think. There is also another matter from the flip side that when I look at how the ancient Indo-European spread I actually do see what you might call words like invasion. In other words, I see willful political planning, long-term planning, following actual trade routes.

I will get into this on later talk of this. But when you confuse that with a mass wave population movement, which again does not have this character, maybe it has the character of resettlement for climactic or other conditions, Then you obscure the matter of how the Aryans spread completely, but I will clarify on longer talk of this. This long episode on many thing I hope is okay, you like I talk many different thing on episode. I will be right back to talk USAID and the matter of America's support for the worldwide left. I will be right back. Yes, in fact, I had to retire Brennan from washing my feet in the commercial breaks of this show because I find him supremely unsexy, and I am opening applications for the 10,000 laid-off USAID workers.

There will be a barrage of eight interviews with my subordinates before a final interview with me. whole day affair if you want to apply to pedicure, manicure, in the breaks, Caribbean rhythm. It's a privilege, it's American laid off government worker privilege. I am back to tell you a story, foundation of United States Agency for International Development. aid being maybe the most representative among nexus of State Department CIA journalism complex that described American activities abroad after World War II. This is the most filthy origin of USAID when you hear the details, which have to do with Fowler Hamilton, the first head of this organization after JFK created it by executive action in September 1961.

But to tell you full story, I have to step back a bit, describe in some detail the political situation in the world and in Africa in particular at the time. I hope you don't think I'm being internet researcher and conspiracy tard with all this. I'm aware that an organization's origins don't need to describe its present, its future. But Elon and Trump, I don't think are aware of what I'm going to tell you now. They are closing USAID down because of its nefarious activities in recent years. And what the story I'm going to tell you about its founding, in other words, is representative of what it was always going to be and what it still is today. And also, I'm aware that many of the people who work there and who've worked for USAID in the past are probably well-meaning.

Many have no sinister or corrupt motives at all. Many are simply fools driven by some version of do-gooding impulse. My friend the bureaucrat wants me to remind audience that much of the old CIA and USAID type, that kind of seeming collaboration with the far left on the reds, and even their embrace of let's say black victimization narratives, all those kind of things are not necessarily motivated by anti-white hatred or by resentment of America or by pathological leftism or even by belief in communism, because in many cases they probably genuinely believe that by the these methods, they were opposing the Soviet Union or strengthening America's hand. Many of these men were simply do-gooding idealists. They had a kind of Protestant sensibility, most notably, for example, Talcott Parsons,

famous sociologist who I mentioned on the GNC show some time ago. He joined the OSS as a precursor to the CIA. He then consults for CIA. But he also opposed the Morgenthau plan. I think he was the one who shelved the Morgenthau plan, stopped that from happening. And he was, I think, partially in charge of bringing in Nazis under Operation Paperclip. So you know, definitely not a Marxist, not a crypto-Marxist, nothing like what is alleged about the left, but instead a kind of mix of both puritan moralism in the mold-bug sense, and also kind of realism. He supported and liked Martin Luther King, but he believed that America's supremacy would be ensured by embracing the cause of the Negro and his victimization.

That America becoming the vanguard of victimization of disenfranchised groups and most notably the Negro would ensure its primacy in the world. So the USA has many such types. The problem with these kinds of men is that none of their plans and strategizing worked the way they hoped, and then they become tools for Kim Philby types. If you see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy dramatization of Philby case, I heard that BBC series Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the best TV ever made. I can't wait to watch it. I've never watched it because I think only available on YouTube and I want higher quality image, but maybe since it was for BBC TV, it was already a bad image. It doesn't matter. Maybe I should watch it. The movie with Gary Oldman, a relatively recent movie, is also

not bad, but I heard the series much better. Anyway, but that's a dramatization, some kind of fictional form of the Philby case, where an English intelligence services had Soviet mole at the highest places. And not just active Soviet mole, you know, become tools, I'm saying people like Talcott Parsons and the do-gooders who joined USAID and similar organizations, they become tools of kinfilby types, and not just kinfilby types, not just active Soviet moles, but even reds and the red adjacents in the United States government, which still exist, I know some. But such always get the upper hand, I think, over the Talcott Parsons type, and that's the story of USA, too. In large part, it's the story of America since the early 1950s, where know-it-all realist

liberals with a supremacist puritan moralism get taken advantage of by the far left, and the far left always come out on top in the long run. To give you one example that I will talk about at length on the next sequel episode is a very long topic, but one man I've mentioned before is Tom Braden. He was later in his life a journalist and apparently was on the beginning of Crossfire opposite Pat Buchanan. But he was Alan Dull's second in command, so to speak, at the CIA in the 1950s. And to see where this man's sympathies lay, he joined the British Army before the United States entered World War II. The OSS, and later the CIA, but the OSS, its precursor, was founded by men like this, hardcore libtards. They joined World War II eagerly to fight fascism and to fight Hitler.

That was their primary target, always throughout their lives. I don't think Tom Braden, however, who was a crypto-communist or a Soviet mole or anything like that. He was just retarded. Maybe not completely retarded, but he was a man of middling intellect who thought that he could play 44D chess, but he couldn't. His 44-dimensional chess was to use America's might and funding to empower the so-called non-Soviet left, the non-communist left. So when I say that the CIA was a leftist organization supporting Marxist goals, I am sometimes asked by others if I claim that Allen Dulles was such a man And the answer is that no, but Dulles outsourced the CIA's international orientation to men like Braden and to Tom Braden in particular, and even though this man was not himself a

crypto red, you know, but in large part he was inspired by his own native liberal leftism, but he wrongly believed that America could win against the Soviets only if it supported its own brand of socialist, non-Soviet left. If you look up the book The Vital Center by Schlesinger, it was the same idea in different words. If you're interested in these topics, episodes 24 and 25 of Caribbean Rhythms, I've discussed some of these same things. I don't want to repeat myself on this episode, I will talk something quite different. But the general posture of this group is that America must continue a crusade against European colonialism and the vestiges of fascism, or otherwise they believe the Soviet Union would seize the vanguard of history, which was, in their view, inevitably leftist.

To this end, Braden ended up using the AFL-CIO and other trade unions to create a network of international labor left that would supposedly serve America's interests by being non-Soviet. He bankrolled, in particular, men like Irving Brown and Jay Lovestone, born Jacob Liebstein, a Jewish communist from Lithuania, I think, and these men in the International Labor Network were in fact Reds, they were Reds, communists through and through, and the result of Braden's effort was not that he took advantage of them, but they took advantage of him and of America. In almost every case where this strategy was tried, of supporting a supposedly non-communist left, and in some cases like Vietnam, a strategy of creating a non-communist left where one really had not existed

They were not in any noticeable strength before, but in every case where this was tried in Vietnam, most notably, it was the Soviets and the Reds who came out on top in the end, with gulags and murders following as usual. If there were exceptions to this pattern, it's very rare. So the relationship between the CIA and the left is revealed when in the later 1960s, these connections between labor's international network And the CIA, this was revealed in some red leftist publications. They started to squeal the version by the CIA and so on. And then Tom Braden coming out and getting the free songs because that's very flattering, you know, to be called the Machiavellian manipulator of all sides. And he made some famous wisecrack that it's great that the CIA is immoral,

meaning, you know, he is the dark lord and manipulator. But in fact, again, the truth very much the opposite. Braden was the friar getting scammed by reds who used CIA funding to achieve red objectives in almost every case where Tom Braden tried his meddling strategy and some dumb paranoid leftoids later, people who were on the outside, mere readers and such, who did not understand what had been going on started squealing. And I'm saying this kind of dynamic where the CIA thinks it's doing 44 dimensional chess and then it falls flat on its face into a shovel like Bugs Bunny cartoon. And then he tries to cover it up by saying they were wisely planning things all along. It's a tactic of long standing, and it's still used on Netflix show and such

about this institution where the CIA wants desperately to project an image of omnipotence and competence that's totally undeserved. It's similar pattern to, well, the political Straussians in the 2000s who got free songs, when Shadia Drury and other leftists were calling them manipulators of the American government, and in fact they have a lady's reading group and one guy working in a very minor role in government, but when they're accused of things like that, it actually flatters them. It's a much smaller scale of what I'm talking about with the CIA, which desperately wants the entire world to think that it's very powerful. But I will talk about this case of Tom Braden in particular with many examples in next

episode because this man I admire, Rilea du Berriere, who is the best source for world events 1950 to 2000, he mentions him often. Now I talk instead about the same phenomenon regarding USAID and its founding. So granted that many well-intentioned people work for USAID and always have, but they get routinely used, taken advantage of, weaponized by, or at least two red ends, by shades of actual reds ranging from active Soviet assets, which American intelligence has always been penetrated and fucked by the Soviets in every which way. The Soviets did win the intelligence war in World War II, no question about it, they only lost because the internal system of Soviet Union was so dysfunctional, it fell apart by its own inner contradictions,

plus some foolish choices made by Gorbachev in particular. But the Soviets had absolutely won the intelligence war against the United States, the human intelligence especially. But so they get used by shades of reds ranging from this actual Soviet assets to merely red-adjacent or sympathetic people, which again the United States government hasn't always had. I know people myself with high positions and bureaucracy, who identify as Marxists openly. Going back decades in CIA also, there were examples of stories, OSS agents doing a little jig. That's a quote from when communist Ho Chi Minh, I think won his freedom in, actually during World War II when he had been captured in five, the story, right? And why did they do a little jig? Because they were, as OSS men,

they were fellow communist sympathizers and many such other examples. But you may recognize in the description of the actual policies. A war on European colonialism, on white supremacy, a support for colored third world revolution, but under different orientations supposedly than the Soviets. This is already much of the mess America created together with the Soviets after World War II. And I emphasize together because in fact in many cases they cooperated against European powers in the third world. One such case is the Congo, which was ruled by Belgium during colonial period before 1960, was one of the most developed parts of Africa at the time. Very good hospitals, road system and so on. Great mineral wells, diamonds, many other such mining,

especially in the southern part called Katanga. If you look in a map, that's the part of Congo that protrudes deep into the south, into Angola and Zambia, like in the southeast. Well, in 1960 Lumumba came to power in Congo ago, as it was gaining its independence from Belgium, he came to power with American funding that was barely concealed, laundered to him, and Soviet direct operational aid to overthrow or replace Belgian colonial rule. It's one of the clearest, I think most egregious examples of what I'm talking about, in this case actually teaming up with the Soviets against European interests, both in the coming of Lumumba and in the events that I'm about to describe. And this had actually been FDR's declaration in solidarity with Stalin at Tehran Conference

before the Alta during the war, a crusade against European colonialism. Lumumba was a deeply unpopular leader for the whole of his very brief tenure. He was killed not by machinations as is now claimed of Belgium or of foreign powers or or even Moiset Shombe, who I'll describe in a moment. That was his opponent in Congo. He was killed by Balubas. This was a tribe in Congo, is a tribe in Congo. Strong, cannibal Baluba, Zange men on an airplane, tortured, and I don't know if they ate him, but they killed him not long after his coming to power. He had been then thereafter removed from his position, and eventually he was killed by them. but he has since assumed a huge profile in the consciousness of international reds, including there is Moscow Lumumba University,

which was used during the Cold War to train many of the Afro-Marxist elites. African students would be sent to Moscow and then they'd come back to their countries, et cetera. Again, much of the ANC, the South African Black Terrorist Organization, they spoke perfect Russian because they had studied at this place in Moscow. Well, after Lumumba came to power, atrocities inevitably began committed against Europeans living in Congo, which was a vast number of Europeans living there, into the late 1960s, even well after the great commotions that I'm talking about, and during the tenure of eventually Mobutu, who was to rule Congo as Zaire for quite a long time, and is now called an anti-communist leader, however he was primarily an anti-western, anti-European leader and

only in second place an anti-communist leader and continued, maybe not as severe, but continued persecutions and dispossessions of the European population. But I'm saying even after all these coups, counter-coups, civil wars and so on, even in the late 1960s there were at least 100,000 Europeans remained, especially in South Congo, an area of great wealth, great importance, a land many called home. They had been born there. They did not want to leave. I take a pause now to mention that Trump has just issued executive order. As I am recording this show, he issued amazing executive order, something I never thought I would see for an American or European leader in my lifetime, maybe, but he passed order to prioritize Africaners, powers from South Africa for refugee status

and other considerations, especially because of the recent expropriation law that was passed in South Africa, which basically allows seizure of land on a racial basis without compensation. So basically, the Mugabe plan from Zimbabwe, after which Zimbabwe start, the Lumumba plan, the Nyerere plan, the typical Afro-Marxist move of dispossession, expropriation, which leads to the economy tanking, the population then starving. Idi Amin tried this with Asian Indian merchants in Uganda, led to collapse of economy there too. You know, the rapacious leaders don't really care about that very much, but the population suffers. But anyway, I never thought I'd see this. That said, I have mixed feelings on it too, because I think it is the Boer's land. If you talk about invasion and such,

by the way, they were there before the Zulus, for example, who came in well after the Boer settlement of that region. And when they arrived, there were sparsely populated tribe, the Khoi and the San, but the Boers really founded that state. And I want to see them regain the land or to have a strong and independent state in the region, a state of their own, even a smaller one. But it doesn't matter that any Western leader, let alone the leader of America, the most powerful country in the world would do this. And to do it now is something I didn't think would happen until, I don't know, regime change was going to take place somewhere. So I'm just bringing this up, but even if you don't think the Afrikaners should move

to America, this executive order publicizes and legitimizes the plight of the Afrikaner. It hallows their cause in the minds of many. And I think if perhaps some intervention is called for in the future, maybe they need Eric Prince to go there. I think if I made a call, is it Fed posting to say so? But at least 2,000 to 3,000 men, most of them veterans, many with combat experience, would answer my call. I believe this. I get the sense from many years being online that it would be around that number. And I would go there myself with them, even though I know nothing about war and fighting. For morale I would go there myself and be on their side. Of course I would study the matter before to make sure we are not being walked into

a trap, but if such a call is made for South Africa, would you do it? I would. I would do it myself. I would like to die on the red earth of Africa. Anyway, Trump is delivering beyond anything anyone had hoped and the naysayers on the right can go to hell. He's one of the greatest men in modern times, I believe this. He's a larger than life man. It doesn't matter if going forward they try to stop him with legalese or this or to kill him or such. What he's doing is already a big sign, a big pointer to others, a big example that can be emulated, that no one can obscure any longer. Just to say again, the cancellation cult I think maybe will slowly wither away, let it go faster please. Anyway, back to my talk on the Congo, but actually let's have nice musics break now

now, and should I relieve tension by masturbation in this break, it's no longer a family show, I'm sorry. Look, I come back in a few minutes. Yes, I'm back to talk Congo, which was recently again torn up by murderous war in the early 2000s, late 1990s, a war you almost never hear about in supposed international humanitarian crisis. and Tibet for some reason no one talk about anymore. So Lumumba was the first post-colonial prime minister in 1960, just as Congo got its independence from Belgium, and he institutes a retarded red reign of terror with Soviet and American aid, a so-called process of Africanization, through which a series of political changes I won't discuss in detail, but basically the entire country was revolted by his insanity

similar to what South Africa is doing now and what Zimbabwe did. In his case, the first step was to change the entire government to kick out all the whites or try to and so on. And the men who actually killed him, Balubas, were from a tribe especially hurt by Lumumba's and that said during this time the southern section I tell you Katanga which was the richest part of Congo in resources and the part where most of the Europeans had fled to with its center at Elizabethsville. The capital of Congo was on the other hand Leopoldville now it's called Kinshasa. Lumumba's own center of power was neither of these it was Stanleyville in the northeast of country, I think. So anyway, the southern part of Katanga decides basically to go its own way in July of

1960, right after Lumumba became Prime Minister, because it did not want any part of this Soviet supported madness, and it was Katanga was somewhat backed in doing this by Belgian mining interests in the region, and by part of the Belgian government, not all of it, other Other ministers and such in Belgian government were very cautious because they got the sense America did not support Katanga independence. But parts of European governments backed this decision and most of the European population in Congo and Africa backed it. The leader of this decision, Moise Tshombe, I don't know how to pronounce that, but Tshombe was from a royal line that had ruled Katanga region for a long time that had always been its own kingdom.

It was the country's Congo, of course, is a complete fiction, but they had their own kingdom some centuries back in that region, Tshombe's family. a very himself urbane educated man who local politician and businessman in other words he was a pro-european leader he breaks away from a crazed afro-marxist state that set on self-destructive policies to just address quickly the justice of in or injustice of what followed even from a libtard or leftist expression excuse me point of view just to take that point of view for a moment, which is that Katanga had no right to secede or such and he was being a meanie to not follow the central government. Elizabethville, the center of Katanga is true, was no longer responding to Leopoldville, the capital of Congo.

But Stanleyville, Lumumba's stronghold in the north, was also basically no longer ruled by Leopoldville after an initial short period. In other words, after Lumumba was no longer in power and he was basically running his own secession de facto secession province with the central government and their president Kasavubu having no real control over either Stanleyville or Elizabethville. However, it was only the state of Katanga that came under American international pressure. In other words, not the red de facto breakaway state, but the pro-European one. And it led ultimately, maybe you didn't know the UN did this in its past, but the UN actually physically entered this conflict, attacked Katanga with a military force.

It was a lot of Indian soldiers, Gurkhas from India, in this case under Nehru's command, and very much resenting white presence in Africa. There were Irish commanders of all things that were very aggressive against the... I'm not saying they were so as Irishmen. They were probably so as UN, fanatical UN troops, if you can believe such a thing existing, but it did. But it was an international force, and it was in fact repeatedly defeated by white mercenaries that Katanga and Tshombe had hired, however, these mercenaries, good as they were, they could not hold out against the United States, which entered this conflict on the side of the UN, providing them with heavy-duty airplanes, I don't know of combat airplanes, but more

like heavy-duty transport airplanes, but it did give heavy artillery to the UN to basically destroy this pro-European incipient state in South Congo that I think would have been the most civilized part of Africa if it had been allowed to secede. If you doubt what I tell you, you look up Operation Grand Slam, it is called, where with no legal basis, the UN entered this conflict physically, essentially getting back a tango for the central government in Leopoldville. This was, I think, around 1961, 1962 at the end of 1961. It's a complicated matter of what happened next with Tshombe. Even though his secession movement failed, he then actually became leader of Congo in elections that took place after this, and he was eventually assassinated sometime in the later 60s.

He was assassinated by Mobutu, who although technically an anti-communist, he was supported by America because he was also viciously anti-white and anti-European. Hated Moizet Shombe, hated Katanga. These are somewhat later events though, later in the 1960s. For now, let's go back to 1961. Doug Hammerskold is the Swedish head of the UN at this time. He was deeply embroiled in Congo crisis. At this time, this was major worldwide news. Congo crisis was in a very eventful year even, where earlier in that year, there had been in the Bay of Pigs, I think in May of 61, and many other such events. The Berlin Wall was erected also toward the end of the year, but this was major news at the time, the Congo Crisis. So Hammerskjold, let's just go,

I don't know if I'm pronouncing this name right in Swedish, let's just call him Mr. H, he was deeply opposed to the Katanga cause, and he started an impotent, twiney hissy fit when Tshombe's white mercenaries stopped the Africanization of the Congo under Lumumba and prevented its supposed unity under UN supervision. I don't know what it is about the Swedes at this time. They were also the biggest funders of South Africa's communist ANC behind the Soviets. It may have been the number one and the Soviets' number two, I don't remember, but regardless, In this case, Mr. H was absolutely planning to do what his successor, U Thant, this man U Thant was the UN chief after Mr. H was. U Thant was a stupid Burmese bureaucrat who became a UN head who approved the attack on

Katanga, the military attack on Katanga. But Hammerskjold, Mr. H was planning to do the same, which is again physically involved UN as a military force in a national internal conflict and to crush Katangan independence. But H flew to the Congo to undertake negotiations personally to end this crisis, but he did. He died on the way, the plane blew up, or rather it crashed. This is September 1961 over Zambia. To this day, many conspiracy theories about his death with multiple sides being called guilty and so on. Who knows what happened? I think many people hated Mr. H. Many meddlesome Swedes in the Cold War at this time. I think Sweden came out of World War II because of its neutrality and its iron ores and such as one of the richest countries in the world.

For whatever reason, it picked up this extreme leftist posture. But it was in September 1961 also that JFK created USAID by executive order and the story I tell you now concerns the man who was its first head, the first aid of USAID, Fowler Hamilton. I think I've given enough minimal background information on Congo and Africa, although I'd like to talk about this country and its events in the future. I mean the Congo crisis lasted really throughout the 1960s. I want to talk it in some detail because it is also staging ground of Bob De Nard, the great military man, adventurer of our time that I celebrated in my book, as well as it was just, excuse me, generally cinematic, exciting story of coups, wars, assassinations on all sides.

But anyway, here I read you from Hilaire du Berriere, his newsletter, a somewhat convoluted story and yet so valuable because, you know, Berriere did not write this 20 years later or nowadays to indict or smear USAID looking backward. He wrote this at the time, in October 1961 maybe. To him, the organization Hamilton headed, USAID, was just the latest incarnation of American foreign aid programs. It was nothing that special. Some had existed before, you will see. But anyway, the value of this is it's written naively in a sense that's valuable. It's in other words contemporaneous to events discussed. I read for you, I read for you now, how much is America being told about the Congo crisis? A lady in Indiana wrote Senator Albert Gore, Democrat Tennessee, I think that is Al Gore's

father, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on African affairs, requesting information on American involvement in a huge syndicate hoping to exploit concessions in a Congo-dominated katanga and even UN delegate Adlai Stevenson's involvement with a member corporation. Senator Gore replied, I am glad to inform you that there appears to be virtually no truth whatsoever in this imaginative account. The diamond mining concessions of templesmen and sons were written off as not pertinent since they are in Kasai province. We have no information that Adlai Stevenson is in any way connected with Temple's men and sons," the senator concluded. He further stated, I have been unable to obtain any information about the company by the name of International African American Corporation, adding,

While there have been rumors started about the financial operations of the late Mr. Hammerskjol's brother, to the best of our knowledge that gentlemen's interests are confined to Sweden. If Senator Gore, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, cannot obtain any information on International African American Corporation, IAAC, and sincerely believes the reports quoted by his correspondent are fanciful, then it is certainly our duty to put before the Senator what is common knowledge to all of our NATO allies. One, templesmen and sons, through their diamond concession is in Kasai, but Kasai's Société Minier du Bec, like Katanga's Union Minier, is paying its taxes and royalties to the local regime, approximately $12 million per year, instead of to the Leopoldville government,

a fact that makes Kasai next in line for Katanga treatment, meaning to be attacked and bullied by the central government with the aid of the UN, etc. Minier du Bec, known as Mibeka, and its subsidiary company, Société Minier de Baquanga, has anticipate a UN-maneuvered fleecing, and the gradual eating away of their concessions by a member of the international syndicate, which includes IAAC. Royalties and taxes will thereafter be paid to Mr. Adula's government, issuer of the new concessions, the logical heir to Mibeka's diamond mines, templesmen and sons, Adlai Stevenson's law firm is reliably reported to have represented Temple's men and sons. 2. International Africa-America Corporation. A tangled thread to follow. Briefly, IAAC

was incorporated in Delaware in 1953 to exploit concessions in Liberia. Its New York office is at 52 Wall Street in the office of the law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton. The Hamilton of this firm is Fowler Hamilton, current chief of American aid. He means USAID, the recently founded institution by JFK. On assuming his American aid post, Mr. Hamilton resigned from the board of directors of IAAC and was replaced by his law partner, Mr. Steen. IAAC transferred its Liberian concessions to a firm called Liberian American Swedish Minerals Corp, LAMCO, in return for a million Class B shares of LAMCO stock, and Mr. Johnston Avery, former 0.4 program chief, became both a director of IAAC and president of LAMCO, according to IAAC's 1960 report. I interject for a moment.

0.4 program is a precursor American aid program founded, I think, by President Truman in the late 1940s. It was something like USAID, though not quite so extensive, it was before that. I continue reading. We are still in Liberia, mind you. Then IAAC made a deal with a Swedish group, which included Swedish LAMCO, Grangisberg Ochselund and Company, and a number of other corporations, and the new line-up became known as the Syndicate. IAAC put in 500,000 shares of its stock toward backing the million Class B shares floated by the syndicate. Head of Grangisberg-Oxelosun is Gustavo Hammerskjold, Mr. H's brother, the head of the UN. Sture Linner, UN's operations chief in the Congo, was formerly Grangisberg chief engineer.

Sven Schwartz, head of the syndicate corporation firm Boliden, was among the mining heads anxiously watching UN's crushing of Katanga from a Leopoldville hotel. IAAC may say it is interested in Liberia, but the syndicate with which it is inextricably and all but incomprehensibly enmeshed has interests which only a UN victory would further in Katanga and Kasai. By another hocus-pocus of shares, IAAC gave Canadian-incorporated Liberian Iron Ore Limited – LIO – half a million shares of its Lamco stock in return for half a million shares of LIO. LIO's Vancouver office, untaxed in either America or Canada, then became the head office of IAAC. As things stand, the ousting of Belgians from the Union Minier now running Katanga mining operations would bring all the wheels to a standstill.

That and penalizations for paying royalties and taxes to Tshombe could put Union Minier out and members of the Syndicate in, perhaps under UN administration, which would be profitable to UN also. It is worth noting, Adula was Labour leader in the Congo, which helped to stack the cards against Shombe. American Ambassador Gullion's role is yet to be thoroughly examined. Rumours or announcements of American aid projects in Liberia, Katanga, Kasai or the Congo will boost you-know-what stocks. A few international operators may make a clean-up. The corporation heads watching the Katanga invasion expectantly from a Leopoldville hotel almost equalled, man for man, the so-called mercenaries against whom the UN and our American press were ranting.

In other words, they were similar, self-interested, rapacious, etc. It should be of interest to Senator Gore that Sahara oil and Katanga and Kasai mines may not alone finance the Holocaust in Africa, but they are at stake and they will ultimately financed the great coalition against us. This report is long. Its importance impels us to write it for your and Senator Gore's understanding of the events to come. So, yes, do you like this? And listen, the many details of convoluted financial interlocking interests, however interesting that may be or disputable, that's not the point here. Men are corrupt. A certain level of corruption is to be expected of any government action. Greek heroes even can be corrupt, Themistocles, the saviour of Greece in the Persian wars was famously corrupt.

That's not the point here. I would not care so much about Fowler Hamilton's personal gain or Doug Hammerskjold's brother or his family, whatever, personal gain some 60s or more years ago. This wouldn't even need to reflect on USAID or other institutions. In fact, if they had continued some corruption only as corruption into our day, that wouldn't necessarily be something that determines their character as institutions, the problem is everything else connected to that, the whole pattern of action and the outcome of it especially. And the outcome is not aid or the development of a place, but actually it's counter-development, it's the smothering of progress or civilization. Congo was actually well, it was not well off, it was a third world country at this time,

It was developing, but it was developing, it was a lot better off under the Belgians in the 1950s than it's ever been under this new Americano, UN, Soviet regime that followed. It may be that America simply is not a good steward, or at least has not been under things like US aid, not a good steward of international development, nor does its involvement in such places help it or its position in the world. It hurts itself and it hurts others, it hurts the territories it supposedly is steward of and it betrays allies. In this case, most notably Belgium, a NATO ally, in similar cases I've mentioned before and we'll discuss again, it hurt France, Portugal, Spain and so on. In almost every case, it was Soviet interests that were advanced, often unintentionally,

and that's true whether you consider interventions in Algeria or Vietnam or Angola or Mozambique and so on. In this case in Congo, what obviously happened from what I just read you was the US teamed up first with the Soviet Union and then with the UN as a front to kick out the Belgians and the Europeans, kick them out of Congo, complete with all the atrocities and massacres that goes on with that, in order to replace one mining conglomerate with its own mining interests and interlocking corporations, all of course under the self-righteous cover of of high words about development, human rights, decolonization, and so on. Katanga and Operation Grand Slam was, you can think of as a repeat of Suez crisis in 1956.

At that time, Nasser in Egypt, Soviet-aligned anti-colonialist dictator, he tried to nationalize the Suez Canal, and England, France, and Israel tried to stop him, and America intervened and prevented Europe from pursuing its own interests. In this similar case to Katanga, where Belgium and other European countries wanted to support Katanga's secession because it would have helped Europe, not to speak of the local white population, and as I believe, the African country itself and Africans there would have been helped by this too, but America intervenes again under UN cover, just as in the Suez, with Mr. H. Doug Hummerskeld using the UN essentially as an army, a front cover but also an incipient offensive army of world government against European interests and

in the name of decolonisation. Globalism is opposed as such to decolonisation. The main actions of the UN were against European colonies and European interests worldwide in colonies. So everywhere was American and Soviet joint backing. What motivated American on such actions, I don't think was exactly Kim Philby-type crypto-Marxism, but I think it did contribute greatly, and that is in fact what ended up benefiting. But instead what motivated it overtly was one part insane naivete, as when JFK repeatedly embraced the belief that decolonization could and should be pursued as an end in itself, At the end of European colonialism, for example in North Africa, would automatically lead to lasting peace in the region.

Another part of motivation may have been too-smart-for-itself, facile realism, which claimed that leftism and decolonization was the wave of the future, and that America must therefore put itself at the vanguard of socialism and international racial Marxism, or else the Soviets would seize that role, so that somehow the way to win the Cold War was to outline the Soviets in the third world, who can kick out whitey faster. And most of the troubles of our own day, I think, are caused by this dual stupidity. I mean, on one hand, JFK and the entire complex of people around JFK, self-righteous eggheads who imagine themselves technocrats, their attitude to colonialism, that alone is incipient what you would call wokeness in every respect.

In other words, the white man and the evil European colonialist has bequeathed a legacy of oppression and exploitation and war in the world, and if only we end that, peace will reign. There is also something else to consider though in the Congo crisis. So far, I've talked about this in the context of Soviet-American rivalry, although again seen from the point of European interests in the Third World and European colonial life in the 50s and 60s, the polarity looked quite different with the Soviets and Americans both ganging up on them. But I take another quick break, I need smoke, and then I come back to discuss this same matter of Congo and USAID, to discuss it further from another side, because there was another

set of interests, besides the Soviet and the Americans, involved in the struggle for Africa in the 1950s and 60s. I will come right back to Todd. Yes, I return, but I was saying there is another set of interests to consider in Congo question besides Europeans, Soviets, and Americans to consider in the Africa question more generally. It's really point of what I'm getting at because it's in the hands of these other interests ultimately that the naivete and self-importance, imbecile self-importance of programs like U.S. aid falls into the grasping hands of these other interests I'm about to mention. Some other parts of the world had already been decolonized. I will read from Berriere again to explain this other interest that had embroiled themselves

in a pan-African conflict that included eventually the Congo, and to show you what he meant about the Congo mines and resources being used eventually to finance a coalition against us, in his words, by which he means against America and the civilized world in general. I'm reading now, through a draught playing of the anti-colonialist card that is chaos-bearing nationalism, America was led into estranging France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. That is to say, by America supporting the initial, the incipient breakaway nationalisms of the anti-colonial cause. It had alienated its European allies. Russian influence first spread, then crystallized in North Africa. A Russian descent on thinly populated Scandinavia in the north could grip Europe in a firm embrace by the Soviet pair.

With every click of the teletype, an alarming picture has taken shape. In late 1958, AFL-CIO delegate Irving Brown visited Ghana and Guinea. Inflammatory speeches and the planting of an American colored girl, Ms. Springer, to merge and agitate on the local scene presaged future excesses. Portuguese Foreign Minister Marcelo Matias alerted Paris on October 3, 1960, to American agitation in Angola. In a May 1961 letter, I, meaning barrier, gave details on a trip by Frank Montero and William Scheinman of the American Committee on Africa for the purpose of contacting Angolans' subversive elements and assuring them of American support. Frank Montero is the Vice President of the American Committee on Africa. Robert Delson, former editor of the Socialist Call and in 1948 a supporter of communist

Ho Chi Minh, is its General Counsel. At Parador de Merida on June 20, 1960, General Franco told Salazar of the contacting of Spanish underground opposition leaders by undercover agents of the State Department and the American support such feelers were depicted as signifying when enlarged upon in incendiary reports to the Spanish masses. Over Franco's head and our bases now hangs the threat of Russian guided missiles standing poised in Morocco. Qualified observers agreed. Anything that has happened in Africa to date was mild compared to what is to come. Here are the factors. Nasser, the leader of Egypt, is sick, weakened by diabetes and undermined by setbacks, but he is also desperate. It is still too early to write him off.

He saw himself as the natural leader of North Africa's Arabs and the rightful master of of Africa's blacks, regarded as cattle by most Arabs. Creeping conversion of black Africa to Islam became his vehicle. Negro pilgrims to Mecca were diverted to Cairo through scholarships to Nasser's indoctrination centers. Fatia Ritz, the light-skinned wife of Ghana's in Krumah, was specifically provided by Nasser in 1957 to be Egypt's agent, to turn Ghana to his side, that is. Guinea's Muslim president, Sekou Toure, became a Nasser tool. Africa was the stake and each leader's diatribes against balkanization stemmed from a desire to keep it packaged for easier assimilation by himself. Felix Momier, leader of the Union of Cameroon's people, before his poisoning in Geneva, was

to have launched an Egyptian-backed reign of terror partly financed by Russia, which should have brought the Cameroonians into the Cairo-Konakry-Akra camp. In Tunisia, Salah bin Yusef was slated to replace Bourguiba and become a local viceroy under Nasser in a vast Afro-Arabian empire. But Bourguiba, the leader of Tunisia, who was himself an anti-colonialist and a rival of Nasser for Arab leadership, I'm interjecting now. But Bourguiba dealt with the threat in true Bourguiba fashion. His private secretary, Zergayoun, leader of Tunisia's Black Hand, took a plane for Frankfurt via Zurich on August 11, 1961, accompanied by a hired killer named Ali Orak. Three days later, they returned via Rome. Ben Youssef had been quietly killed in the Frankfurt Hotel, and Interpol prudently concluded

that it would be foolish to ask Bourguiba to extradite his own killers. Within America, a troublesome anti-white, black Muslim movement holds riot squads ready to launch street demonstrations in New York. The idea to force police action under the eyes of anti-white UN delegates, whose orchestrated protests would then bring African anger down on America's head. Guinea's delegate, Maraf, supplies the funds. Nasser, Castro, Khrushchev or Abdullah reap the benefits, as Nasser's exigencies of the moment decide. Nasser's brain trust, Johannes von Lierz, Hitler's former Arab affairs expert, directs and coordinates Nasser's intelligence, sabotage, and assassination program. It is run with German efficiencies, has lines through Switzerland, East and West Germany,

and provides the intelligence experts of the whole Maghreb, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, which Nasser hopes to lead in his play for African-Islam domination and an eventual triumphant holy war against Israel. I stop reading for a moment. That's all very interesting, yes. the war against Israel used maybe as a rallying point or pretext for Nasser's crusade to unite much of the Arab world and Africa specifically under his leadership. But his rival for this role of Arab leadership was leader of Tunisia, the one I mentioned, the one Bourguiba writes as follows. I'm leaving out much that is interesting and I don't want to read too much on this show, but I'm telling you the following reading for Local Colour also. I find this Cold War intrigue very interesting.

On Bourguiba now, Beria writes, his country, Tunisia, is the poorest, smallest, most backward on the North African coast. The Algerian terrorist army camping in Tunisia outnumbers Tunisian forces by a good 3,000 men. But Bourguiba's position is better than it looks. AFL-CIO is behind him with unlimited money, many communications, and a boast that it can guarantee American support. The financial and material support of Italy's oil king, Enrico Mattei, was secured by Bourguiba Jr., when he was ambassador to Rome. Mattei, more powerful than the Gronkhi government, has his own fleets of tankers. His planes operate from private airfields, unhampered by customs agents and police. Alliance with Mattei has brought arms, money, and the oil agreements that led Bourguiba

to climb some 8,000 square miles of Sahara oil fields that he regards as automatically his after Algerian independence, namely the fields developed by Sahara Esso, Petropar and the French petrol company. Matei, it will be recalled, is Russia's European agent in the project to drive America and Britain from the world market by dumping Russian oil at cut-rate prices. Bourguiba's trump cards are American support. He is talking about the rivalry for African and Arab leadership between Bourguiba, leader of Tunisia, and Nasser, leader of Egypt. I continue reading, Bourguiba's trump cards are American support and oil revenues to come. From Rome, Bourguiba, Jr. was dispatched to Washington to cultivate President Kennedy.

Moroccan and Algerian obedience is obtained by holding up American support as a personal Bourguiba asset. And he can come up with a letter from President Kennedy at any time he wishes to back it. It was to Habib Bourguiba that Senator Kennedy, while a candidate for presidency, wrote on September 1, 1960, that the Algerian problem could not be considered an exclusively French affair and that America would see to its internationalization, as though decolonization were an end in itself and peace in North Africa would thereafter be automatic. To counter Nasser's machinations in Ghana, Guinea and the Cameroones, Bourguiba undertook to underwrite a revolt in Angola, Portugal's large colony in South Africa. It is not by accident that Holden Roberto, representative of the Angola terrorists, is

at the UN on a Tunisian diplomatic passport. At the same time, visas are denied to Moiset Shombe of Katanga and Dr. Nguyen Ton Juan, whom the anti-communist Dai Viet Party of South Vietnam has been trying to send to America. It is also a clue as to why Jay Lovestone, Labour's lobbyist at UN, and the pro-Burgiba press have directed a barrage against Portugal. Briefly, Angola, when and if Burgiba makes it independent, will be his operations base in the fight for black Africa. Holden Roberto is Burgiba's pawn to counter Nasser puppets in Ghana and Guinea. Mungi Slim, the wily Tunisian of Greek descent, protects Burgiba's interests at UN. His brother, Tayeb, is Burgiba's foot in Moscow. It is a two-brother team.

To spell it out in simple terms, the struggle in North Africa is a prelude to the struggle between Arab and Negro, in which America and the red world will be played against each other. India's aspirations and big business attempt to grab concessions supported by UN action in the Congo are passing phases. Both will go when the blow-up comes, leaving not a trace of their role in preparing the fury. Yes, I am reading now, there's much interesting that follows on the intelligence networks used by the Russians, by the UN, by the Tunisians in Africa, but I leave that out as well as Tunisia's relations with the goal during this time. It's all very fascinating stuff, but I wanted to focus on the essential and read you what

I think is the correct conclusion that behind the 44-dimensional chess, the self-dealing and everything else that organizations like USAID engaged in since their inception, all All of it under the leadership, again, of the same type of smarmy libtarded faggot eggheads you see running around now since Obama. It's the egghead type you see on the West Wing. This type became very powerful during JFK administration. They think they're being metternich. Behind it all is failure after failure for decades, and during Cold War, in favor of the Soviets at first, but ultimately what I've called GNC comes out on top. In other words, the civilization behind all the claims of justice, of the end of exploitation, the claims of the goodness of decolonization, behind the talk of international human rights

and global development, what remains in the end when the dust falls and the great powers and the business interests get played out, what remains is simply the pure assertion of dysfunctional group identities from the global south. Some of them recently invented that pure assertion as a pathological protest against the humiliation they feel imposed on them by a superior ancient civilization. I'm saying something bigger than all Russia and America fight or big powers fight and they waste each other and others end up picking up the pieces. That's something that happens throughout history. What's going on here is something new that behind both the Soviet and USAID mirror claims of universal do-goodingness, that in itself is a process that ends in this, in the pure

assertion of these kind of pathological identities from the global south, these group identities, the endless night of what I've called actually the long house, tribal mammy massacres, witchcraft juju, cowardly chimp warfare, a kind of global Haiti-Angola civil war to the end of time. What is this internationally but a mirror of what has been developing in America internally During this same period, percolating slowly, and has accelerated since Obama's second term, you know it under the name of woke, but it's the same principle repeated in projects like the 1619 thing and a thousand other incarnations of what some call DEI, all taking place under the name of redress, social justice, human rights. But in effect, they're nothing but vehicles for POC group identity, grasping,

and self-assertion of the most brutal kind. And this is why the end of USAID is Berlin Wall moment, maybe. Again, remember, USAID founded late 1961, just same time Berlin Wall gets constructed. If you're curious of this weakness of the JFK regime from another point of view, Donald Kagan has a nice article in The New Criterion, I think it's called Weak Will, High Wall, something like that from I think to around 2010 or around then. It's quite a different take from what I'm talking here, but this interesting article about how the Berlin Wall came about as a result of JFK's weakness, especially in the Bay of Pigs crisis in early 1961. But in any case, USA founded same time as Berlin Wall gets erected. It was like that wall, to me it's a symbol of dysfunctional, redistributive regime

that under the name of High Ideals, and at the time even through the agency, maybe of genuinely idealistic, but misguided men, it brought about the reign, by the 1970s at the very latest, brought about the reign of the worst kind of human beings in history, both internally, I mean, both within the Soviet Union, actually, and America, this universalistic idealism brought about the reign of the worst kind of self-interested apparatchiks, and also promoted the most rapacious banana governments abroad. I remind you of Mark Stein's classic obit in the Irish Times for Reverend Banana of Zimbabwe, one of the funniest political articles I've ever read. This Reverend Banana was one of Mugabe's most loathsome henchmen in Zimbabwe who liked to, among many other injustices or whatever you call them,

he liked to rape Zimbabwean youth soccer players after drugging them. While you were sleeping, we helped ourselves, you would tell them. The story of all Western and even Soviet aid to Africa and the rest of the global south. while you were sleeping, we helped ourselves. Well, very good. I will talk more such jolly things on next episode come soon. Until next time, bat out.