And yes, that may not be Calypso music, really. I don't know what is some kind of island syncopation. This show celebrates island music, liberation feeling. E-girls want me to take them Caribbean island orgies. And I don't know if I can do this hardcore as an internet e-celeb. I have to tell you something, and this is serious. The effects of social media worldwide on the so-called dating, marriage or scene or sexual market, birth rates, it's little understood. But anyway, many things happened this week. I come back to that. Many things happened. Zelensky, disciplined by Trump and Vance, the rat of the Dnieper, Zelensky, all the running dogs of the permanent Libtard, government media, NGO complex are now braying in unison,

trying to spin what everyone saw on TV, they're trying to say it was a noble moment for the the comedian actor Zelensky, who stands up to the transactional New York urbanized business man Trump. He got slapped down in fact, Zelensky, when Trump took a photo out of his pocket and showed it to him. It was a photograph of a soy jack meme. You can look this up. He said, is this you? And then he publicly penetrated Zelensky on national televisions. There is a famous story, Locker Room Lesson, that I have posted a few times in response to journalists. But really, that Zelensky, hissy fit. I loved what Anna Katchian said about this. It was very funny. I read you, she said, he's a medically short TV clown in MTM, that's a male-to-male transsexual.

He's a medically short TV clown in MTM military drag who's putting countless of his young countrymen through the meat grinder for his own vanity, and also because with no war it's over for him. So no wonder lying assholes like him in response to supposedly Mr. Zelensky becoming a sexual icon among libtarded women, apparently. Is that true? To prove of the words medically short, however, many great men are manlets, including sexually powerful men, but the rest is correct, and then she quotes somebody who says Elinsky is a fucking obnoxious male actor, in capital letters, a male actor, I need to tell you something about manlet. I was at Jim Zor's a couple of months ago when I was in Japan, and there was a very powerful manlet, a very powerful deltoid doing exercise, a light sheen of sweat.

He saw me look at him while he was doing these exercises, and I don't know, it was a very charged moment. But I don't know if, you know, anyway. But she says Zelensky is a fucking obnoxious male actor gacked out on speed and high on his own retard rhetoric, which the Red Scare girls are right about this. I think they know the male actor type intimately. The male actor today, especially today, it's a type that feels victimized. When a man becomes actor, he feels feminized, not only because of the casting couch hiring process which fuck with a man's mind much more than a woman's, I think, but by the fact that in the very act of what they're doing on set, even when they do it well and there are no other issues or exploitation, but even if that, just being on display as an actor,

It's a kind, they feel it's a kind of feminine display behavior as such to appear. So they're psychologically brittle in real life because they feel that way and then they are out to prove something. Of course, there are exceptions, but as a type, I mean, I think this is a right assessment of the modern actor. And this Zelensky episode, the Zelensky thing, it reminds me of Ion, Eon, Yawn, the Plato dialogue. Yeah, the Plato. I'm Australian now. The PLATO dialogue, EON, is one of the best introduction dialogues to PLATO. I'd recommend for all who want to start PLATO, you maybe read this one, and Elsa Beidi's dialogue, and the Lover's dialogue, before even something like the Apology or Symposium, which are also very accessible. But this one is super accessible, and it's very short,

And it's not plodding or pedantic-seeming like many other Platonic dialogues. Actually, they're a bit hard to get through sometimes because of stupid logical pedantry. But in this one, Socrates talked to an actor, basically. A rhapsode. Socrates is talking to a rhapsode in Platonic dialogue, Eon. And this is a kind of man who was employed to recite Homer epics and to talk about Homer and such. And this man, a kind of actor, public speaker slash actor, becomes confused. Actually, he confuses himself with the parts that he's playing. At some point in this dialogue, he thinks that somebody who acts like a general on stage or describes in a monologue what a general does actually has the knowledge and skills of a real-life general.

And I think this is a real problem with many modern actors and artists, especially Zelensky, but it's a kind of parodic real-life repetition of a very old problem in Greek and now modern Western society, where people confuse TV and movies for real life, and actors and artists, to a lesser extent, confuse themselves for actual holders of knowledge of the parts that they play. And to some level I mean Trump himself is this, the actor become leader, and before him Reagan. But at least unlike Zelensky, Trump actually took a bullet. And it's very odd though for people who said all of that about Trump, that he's a reality show actor and a buffoon and a producer and TV star and this, what is this PR man doing, getting into the hallowed halls of government and so on.

But then these same people think Zelensky, who is a comedian and who's never been in a war and never had any military service as far as I know, and he goes around dressed in these fatigues and people are supposed to play along with his new Churchill war leader. And I think Zelensky, who has ruined the color olive green for everyone with his vain delusion that he's this war leader. But look more profoundly, the actor, this figure or type of the actor, few aside from Nietzsche, a few thinkers aside from Nietzsche, he has several striking aphorisms on the problem of the actor and of acting. From very early on in his writing, from the birth of tragedy on, and especially some striking ones in the gay science, but few aside from him have paid

enough attention to this problem. Nietzsche even says that the Greeks in their late civilization actually became actors. He also has his own paragraphs elsewhere, I'm not going to read that, but about the relationship between the woman as such and the actor, and how the woman is in some sense fundamentally an actor. But the Greeks had always had actors, the actor, the drama play, the rhapsode, all variations of that in their culture were always very important but later on they became actors and in fact Nietzsche connects them to the modern Americans in this way. He says the American is also the same as an actor and this very striking passage that I would read now in fact, do you mind if I read it for you? It's more interesting than the week's news which

I'll return to in a moment. I'm reading now. In what manner Europe will always become more artistic? Providing a living still enforces even in the present day in our transition period when so much ceases to enforce. It still enforces a definite role on almost all male Europeans, their so-called callings or vocations. Some have the liberty, an apparent liberty, to choose this role themselves, but most have it chosen for them. The result is strange enough. Almost all Europeans confound themselves with their role when they advance in age. They themselves are the victims of their good acting. forgotten how much chance, whim and arbitrariness swayed them when their calling was decided, and how many other roles they could perhaps have played.

For it is now too late. Looked at more closely, we see that their characters have actually evolved out of their role, nature out of art. There were ages in which people believed with unshaken confidence, yes with piety in their predestination for this very business, for that very mode of livelihood, and and would not at all acknowledge chance or the fortuitous role or arbitrariness therein. Ranks, guilds and hereditary trade privileges succeeded, with the help of this belief, in rearing those extraordinary broad towers of society which distinguish the Middle Ages, and of which at all events one thing remains to their credit, capacity for duration, and duration is a thing of the first rank on earth. But there are ages entirely the reverse, the properly democratic ages,

in which people tend to become more and more oblivious of this belief, and a sort of impudent conviction and quite contrary mode of viewing things comes to the front. The Athenian conviction, which is first observed in the epoch of Pericles, the American conviction of the present day, which wants also more and more to become a European conviction, whereby the individual is convinced that he can do almost anything, that he can play almost any role, whereby everyone makes experiments with himself, improvises, tries anew, tries with delight whereby all nature ceases and becomes art. The Greeks, having adopted this role-creed, an artist-creed, if you will, underwent step by step, as is well known, a curious transformation, and not in every respect one worthy of imitation.

They became actual stage players, and as such they enchanted, they conquered all the world, and at least even the conqueror of the world. For the Graeculus Histrio conquered Rome, and not Greek culture, as the naive are accustomed to say. He's saying the figure of the Greek actor and the charm of the Greek acting character is what charmed and conquered Rome, and not the normal fag historian line that Rome copied Greek culture, which is not really true. I continue reading. What I fear, however, and what is at present obvious if we desire to perceive it, is that we modern men are quite on the same road already, and whenever a man begins to discover in what respect he plays a role and to what extent he can be a stage player he

becomes a stage player a new flora and fauna of men thereupon springs up which cannot grow in more stable more restricted eras or is left at the bottom under the ban and suspicion of infamy he's talking about the historical infamy of actors and prostitutes and so on I keep reading thereupon the most interesting and insane periods of history always make their appearance in in which stage players, all kinds of stage players, are the real masters. Precisely thereby another species of man is always more and more injured, and in the end made impossible. Above all, the great architects. The building power is now being paralyzed. The courage that makes plans for the distant future is disheartened. There begins to be a lack of organizing geniuses.

Who is there who would now venture to undertake works for the completion of which millennia would have to be reckoned upon? The fundamental belief is dying out on the basis of which one could calculate, promise and anticipate the future in one's plan and offer it as a sacrifice thereto, that in fact man has only value and significance in so far as he is a stone in a great building, for which purpose he has first of all to be solid, he has to be a stone, above all not a stage player. In short, alas, this fact will be hushed up for some considerable time to come, that which from henceforth will no longer be built and can no longer be built is a society in the old sense of the term. To build that structure, everything is lacking above all the material.

None of us are any longer material for a society. That is a truth which is seasonable at present. It seems to me a matter of indifference that meanwhile the most short-sighted, perhaps the most honest, and at any rate the noisiest species of man of the present day, our friends the Socialists believe, hope, dream, and above all, scream and scribble almost the opposite. In fact, one already reads their watchword of the future, free society on all tables and walls. Free society, indeed, indeed, but you know, gentlemen, sure enough, whereof one builds it out of wooden iron, out of the famous wooden iron, and not even out of wooden. And yes, I finish now. And that's aphorism 356 from the Gay Science. What do you think that?

I think before parts of it, excuses if you remember it and I repeat myself, but I think it's one of the most amazing things ever written. He says more in this one paragraph than many, most 20th century writers like Baudrillard and others like that say in whole books, in their whole lifetimes. Anyway, this event and its aftermath with the entire European scene, I'm talking about the Zelensky actor thing and the European scene and Ursula von der Leyen, the bear, the then mother, the female bear of the EU rising up to condemn Trump and to support Zelensky and words only of course and hysteria. I think it's also a kind of bad moment for many pundits who have been shown up to be wrong in their assessments of what's been happening in Europe since the start at least of this Ukraine

war. It poses a civilizational for many pundits who've told you for the last two years that Europe was being forced into supporting Ukraine and into opposing Russia against its own interest, that it was being forced to do all this by America. And various pundits have had various reasons for insisting on this. Banania, for example, wanted to make it look like America has been all-powerful and has remained all-powerful. Others did it for anti-American reasons. I will not name names. Some are my friends. One was on my show not long ago. He quite rudely disagreed with me on this when I told him that European popular opinion was actually united in favor of Ukraine and against Russia with even centrists and even the leftists at times that are using bizarre far-right language against

the Russians, the Russian orcs, the Asiatic Russian orcs attacking our precious Europe on this. I've spent much time in Europe recently and I know they talk this way and now with massive popular outcry against Trump when he's trying actually to extricate America from this conflict to bring it to a close and how can it be said then that Europeans are coerced that being coerced by America they're the ones screaming for it and saying well we will step in instead well let's see if they do that but I remind you this issue has been disputed in European elections Maloney in Italy who's turned out to be a dud on immigration but she ran very strong supports for Ukraine and there There were others in Italy at the time during that election like Salvini, but others too

who were saying what all of the American dissident pundits and Glenn Greenwald and Tucker and so on have been saying. They were saying the same thing, that Europe industry and so on will suffer, that European economy will be destroyed by a pointless conflict with Russia, and they were in Italy. They were saying we are already suffering, the Italian economy is suffering, and actually that's really something I agree on. I don't think this conflict with Russia was necessary. I think the war in Ukraine is Zelensky and Victoria Newlands and so on fault and could have been easily prevented. But this woman Melonsky ran on support for Ukraine and the Italian people voted for that despite knowing all of these arguments. And the same choice

was made again and again in other European nations, so I don't want to argue with facts. It was the same in Libya, by the way, and I greatly opposed the Libya conflict that for me was a time when I realized how retarded the neo-cons in America actually were when they kept speaking about being in favor of deposing Gaddafi and being for the Arab Spring at the time. Mr. Sohrab Amari of the Compact and others wrote a book in favor of the Arab Spring because he liked, as Michael Savage likes to point out, these men liked the nice Egyptian men in tight pants in Tahrir Square. They wanted to be felt up in a crowd. I don't know there's something going on there. But look, in the Libya dispute too, it was France

and so on leading the charge against Gaddafi and America did join in and it did lead the the military and funding operations, but it was not the spearhead of the political motivation and push against Gaddafi, that was the Europeans pushing it, not the Italians in that case of course, it was the French and English, but now it's also Europe and in particular the European people putting pressure on European politicians, and in some cases it was true that Scholz in Germany, the left wing social democrat I think leader of Germany, he was actually in practice very half-hearted about supporting Ukraine. And the pro-Ukraine people like Edward Luttwak, I remember at the time, they were complaining bitterly all the time that Germany was just pretending to be for the war effort in public

speech but in practice it was obstructing American efforts, it was not passing on weapons and so on, and yet the German government was pushed in that direction, in the direction of opposing Russia and not because of American pressure but because of popular pressure in Germany and Europe, which is something that, again, so-called dissidents in America aligned somehow with Russia, they're unwilling to recognize this, that the people in Europe, a lot of them have vacationed in Kiev, a lot of them have friends or relatives who vacation in Kiev, and they see on TV children who look like them, blond children being bombed. I'm sorry to put it that way, but even for leftists and centrists, that is a deep emotional

pull much more than if they see African or Palestinian children getting blown up, and the Ukrainians do look different from the Russians, by the way. There are, of course, many blond Russians. When I first saw Michelle Pfeiffer, I was a small boy, and Michelle Pfeiffer, to me to me she looks very Russian, but there are many Russians in St. Petersburg with that look and other places, but overall the Ukrainians, even the people in Kiev and of course west of that look much more blondish and west European than the Russians, not to speak of the people to their south and such. You go down to Odessa and further south and west of that and people start to be quite Mediterranean looking overall. But anyway, now this is all becoming clear that absent American pressure, Europe is having

even a hysterical moment, speaking of American betrayal, Trump stabbed us in the back and so on. And it becomes clear that this is what they want themselves. So I think these other pundits who told you the opposite are having a tough time. And they have to come up to explain it with all kinds of conspiracy theories that it was all staged, Zelensky planned it with Trump, it's an op and so on. So in a broader sense, sure, you can say that this is all because of America, because America installed Europe's post-war government some decades back, to some extent, and that it promoted through the organs of the European Union, which actually was an American project to start with. I'm sorry, Mr. Trump, I know you say it was founded to screw the Americans.

It's not really true, it was the American establishment behind it, but you can extend that by saying that the American establishment, the Atlanticists wanted to screw the American people, you can make this argument, but these are all things that have been done decades ago and America also decades ago put all kinds of other pressure against the European right and in favor of the European left. I think America is largely responsible for the replacement of right-wing governments in Iberia, Portugal, and Spain, with left-leaning governments there and elsewhere. In all that, it led to the present condition in that very broad sense, but that is so internalized to Europe now, where so much of the population supports these changes, and it continues.

You see, even after a change in American government and policy, it continues. It's not by inertia because the government only continues these policies, but because the people in Europe themselves, a large percentage, believe in all this. And so what's the point in litigating that history now? The European hard right, actually I think longer term, has better prospects than the right in America, but that's a bigger topic for another time. It's a question of demographics as well as the respective civilizational self-understanding of each country, America and Europe. Europe just has more flexibility in changing its constitution, let me put it that way. But I think that makes longer-term conditions for right-wing regimes in Europe to arise eventually better.

But for now, the European right is quite marginal, and they're not really part of this or any political discussion, except on Twitter, where unfortunately some rifts are being made. I hate to see it, but this is something else where you've been misled by many people, that the European hard right, the anti-immigration right and so on, they are very much anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine. I don't agree with them on that, but this is how they are. They've always been like this, the Scandinavians especially, the Spanish strangely enough especially, the Spanish right very anti-Russian, but now you're seeing these rifts again which is unfortunate and I think some very cynical people are trying to amp it up and play on them.

And I myself, in part for these reasons, because there are in many cases old friends, and also because Putler, I think, he genuinely mismanaged this war and the invasion. And I couldn't be cheerleader for what was going on anymore, not that my word matters one way or another, but I just, the conflict also has pure entertainment value, and let's face it, this show is entertainment. I didn't want to bore myself or you talking about it and its daily courses and a two-meter advance over the course of two months in one direction and then it gets lost and I'm supposed to keep up a constant barrage of news about that like these telegram channels which show you dead soldiers and so on. So I've stayed out of this mess for a year or more because I think everyone loses.

Europe loses, Ukraine, Russia also loses, America loses. I couldn't be for this Russian war effort anymore when I see how it's developed. But to the European right, I say, whatever danger Russia poses to you, this is something that Europe is better served facing down on its own, not for now with America. In other words, for those of you attacking Trump on the European real right or even center right, if Trump manages to pull out American military support and even to pull out of NATO or to lessen NATO's role, to make it a kind of ceremonial, cultural thing, instead of a military alliance. But then the European governments as they exist now, who are your immediate enemies much more so than Russia is, see they cannot survive if America pulls its security umbrella.

They don't have money, they run out of money even as things stand now eventually, but they they will run much quickly out money to try to do welfare for migrants and also military spending. And this wake-up, if America leaves, it might just push events in Europe into the right lap in the medium term because it makes situation in Europe more in tune with reality. I don't know that the continuation of status quo for the last 50 years, for that to continue, let alone this terrible situation where America in the last few years keeps doing what it did under Biden and sends weapons while Ukraine is slowly ground down in a war of attrition, which is insane. I don't see how that helps Europe at all. You can't win a war of attrition against Russia. I thought this was clear.

By the way, please don't mention the Finnish Winter War. Finland did wonderful in that war against Russia before World War II. But Finland did not technically win that war. It formally lost it and it had to concede territory to the Soviet Union. You can't win against a continental power like Russia as a small nation. And I believe in a united Europe, but not under this form. And the American security guarantee, which many of you are saying Trump is pulling it, he's betraying, he's not betraying. That is a distortion. It's a source of strength and insurance for the present day pro-migrant anti-European establishment of the European Union. I think it's good if Trump withdraws. I think the European right, maybe even the center-right people should see the opportunity in that.

I will be right back to continue talking the week's news and the recent election in Germany and other things. I need siesta. Quick nap now, please. I will be right back. Yes, I am back. I will smoke hookah mountain herbs very carefully selected by old woman. I do not recommend you do on your own. you may get elder berry leaves thinking it is medicinal, and then you get a seizure. Anyway, speaking of which, I was election in Germany with AFD right-wing party. Many were disappointed by that performance. They hoped that they would win, or at least do much better. Maybe I will invite again my friend, Eugepius, back to discuss this. I was impressed to see Maximilian Kra. He is important politician of this party, AFD. He appeared photographed with my book, and I was not photoshopped.

That's very nice. That said, at the risk of offending friends, I was not surprised by what happened in Germany. Elon, and he's put some face-fag influencers and other... I shouldn't say the word face-fag anymore, because there are functional face-fags, in other words, mere attention-seekers, in anonymous form around him now, too. These accounts like End Wokeness and Amuse Whatever and it post slop agitation. And there were people, so-called dissident and conservatives, who have been promoted around him who are retarded, let me put it that way. Not the account End Wokeness, but these others, Garbage Human and Radio Genoa, who are presenting you a picture of Europe, complete false, misinforming Elon and also many of you with what's happening in Europe,

what the situation is, what the political prospects can be. AFD does not have a chance ever winning a Germany-wide majority. It is a subcultural party. Now maybe you, Gipius, will disagree with me on this. I don't think they stand a chance. The same goes for Le Pen party in France, by the way. In Europe, at least as it's now constituted, the only way to really affect things is to get the mainstream political parties to co-opt these ideas. That was somewhat done in Denmark where the establishment party, even social democrat as they were, co-opted the hard right, adopted the migration platform mostly. But for that kind of thing to happen, the hard right had to be disciplined and discreet, standoffish and vindictive in search of internet likes, and I'm afraid the temptation to abandon

political aims and instead to be a pundit and influencer is so powerful a drive now, such a powerful human drive, more on this in a moment, for direct acclaim and admiration. But this soul, strong, you call it for likes, but it's really for applause. Many admiration hungry politicians can't resist this and prima donnas especially who are attracted to dissident politic or right wing niche positions, it usually attracts someone especially addicted to that and they cannot resist and to the extent you have Elon or such boosting and polarizing these matters internationally, I think it actually makes the political process as I mentioned just now, almost impossible. I mean, having a kind of discrete conditions where the mainstream parties can adopt these ideas

and you say, Bap, are you also not a prima donna and a show-off, okay, but I'm not in political life. I never pretended to be. I run sex comedy show Caribbean Rhythms. It's called Caribbean Rhythms. I'm not running for office. I'm not in State Department. Ultimately, you have to choose. Do you want to be an actor and a show-off on social media, or do you want this other path? And the two aren't usually possible together. In last segment I talked about actor becoming politician, you know, Trump. By the way, you are not Trump, it's very rare talent, or Reagan. But the opposite path is very common now too, and it's much worse. The politician who wants to become an actor, who wants to become a pundit. And Elon maybe doesn't understand this.

Elon, stomping for the AFD in Germany did not help the situation there. Okay, well, what else do I do? Many weeks news now there is this other politics as entertainment thing going on with Epstein and the Epstein files and the Epstein girls. Let me say something on that. It might make me hate it. I spoke before about Epstein on this show and his murder or suicide, whatever it was. At the time I said there might be more popular outcry against that than there was against something like JFK or Hoffa assassination because the people maybe have always been willing to accept that elites will off each other in internal power struggles. But now it is moving to human trafficking of our children and that's another matter. But now I'm not so sure of that anymore.

And first of all it's very plausible that Epstein was used by intelligence services to get a compromise on important people. That's probably true. If you remember, I mentioned that very early on this show. I forget what episode, when I talked of Paul Le Roux and this figure, Ghislaine Maxwell, and I think it was probably multiple agencies that they were auctioning information and compromise to. Most probably one of them was the Mossad, which I've heard from a friendly source. You wouldn't expect who told me this. I cannot say who. is a very prominent man, let me put it that way, who said that Epstein operation was used to shore up support among the Democrats for Israel. You see that their target was the Clintons and that whole thing. And, you know, he was well embroiled,

Epstein was in that whole generation of Democrat libtards, who they may have lacked the old Chuck Schumer commitments to Israel from the old Jewish left. Epstein himself had been close to Ehud Barak many times. Now, on the other hand, you see a particularly stupid kind of anti-Zionist point this out about the relationship between Ehud Barak and Epstein as if it reflects on Bibi Netanyahu, whereas it was Bibi's son, Yair, I think, his name Netanyahu, who pointed out the evidence for this Epstein-Ehud Barak connection. You cannot, if you are anti-Zionist, on one hand, rant about Likud and Likudniks, and on the other hand, try to use Epstein to throw shade on that, because the two of them are very much opposed. You don't know what your own sides are on this argument,

and this is why retarded schizophrenic ex-alt writer Charles Johnson, Chuck Johnson, was going around saying that Epstein is actually a good guy, because he was trying to help the good Israeli left get rid of the evil Likudniks in Bibi Netanyahu. Whatever. I don't know what's going on there. Something is going on there. But within the American scene, the right, the Republicans, they are surely for Israel's support because of the evangelicals that they are beholden to and so on. and so on. And so the argument went, well, the Mossad knew that, but it needed to shore up its support for Israel on the American left among the Democrats and that Epstein operation was a part of that. Regardless of what happened, I'm willing to accept that Epstein thing was something like this

and probably, I think, many other things because usually, these kind of middlemen information collectors, they cannot resist, They're usually in it, money and such thing, and the intrigue and the money, and they cannot avoid temptation to sell to many different services. But let me ask you, all of that aside, given that it was bad because of that, but let me ask you, how old do you think the girls were that were at Epstein Island? Because when I talked about this on show, and until very recent, I thought they are nine years old, or maybe 11 or 12, something like that, that that was the average, that it was an operation of abuse, and I think that's the impression people are given who just casually hear about this on the news. Epstein, the Fagin adopting nine-year-old girls

who were then abused or eaten or something in the ritual chambers, Frankist ritual satanic murder chambers or Pizzagate Little St. James Island or such. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, and I really mean that. I'm not saying it as for effect. I may be wrong, but I've heard from a number of people recently that the average was 18 and over. And not just the average, but it was the most frequent age too, almost always 18 and over. And that there were allegations of one or two cases being 14 years old. That's about as low as it goes. And that almost always the exceptions to the 18 and over was a few 17-year-olds. And it was very amusing in one of the court documents that was quoted by one of these hysteric, dissident, anonymous, moron, whatever accounts talking about the monstrous Epstein.

But it was in black and white in the very document they were quoting that the girl was 17 years old and 364 days, which I'm not joking, that is a real life case of the online meme that people make fun of from Law and Order SVU. You monstrous bastard. She was 17 years and 364 and 20 hours old. How dare you, you know, and what is this stupidity I ask? By the way, she was asked in the very document that was presented, she was asked, were you ever forced to do anything you didn't want to do? She said no. But I mean, I understand under a gynocratic social order where you have posts and articles that get 25 million whatever that say 25 million likes or this it says it's unacceptable for a 30 year old man to be a 20 year old 22 year old woman or 20 year old woman but you know

I didn't know that that was the premise of the Epstein scandal okay just because it's considered scandalous now to be interested in an 18 or 17 year old girl and excuse me I'll take all this back if I'm wrong and the evidence is otherwise that much younger girls were used, but I see from what I've seen so far is that it was 17 and older, usually most often 18 and over. Many of them came back hundreds or at least many times. Willingly they got paid and treated very well. There was often no actual intercourse but just massages or that kind of thing. It was well known in some of these high schools where he recruited that it was easy money and many did it willingly and gladly and the word spread, hey, you can make easy money doing nothing and they'll fly you out.

And in a few cases, there were 17-year-old girls who lied about their age and they were promptly sent back. And I'm sorry, I just disagree with this hysteria. Even if there were 17 or 16-year-old regularly, in fact, and I don't think there were, that is not pedophilia. You can fuck off with misuse of that word and that hysteria. I thought they were talking about eight, nine-year-old girls, 11-year-old girls. is not when you have 16, 17-year-old girls, that's not, pedophilia is not the right word. It is a lie that they were younger. I don't like lies, no matter what. And if a kompromat is possible in this situation that he did kompromat, which he probably did, because there is a video of you with a 17-year-old girl and you didn't know what she was, and the legal and social consequences

of you being filmed with that are so great. That's the problem with the law, and especially with the social condition that causes that feminist hysteria, that compromise can be done over something like that. That is absurd, I'm sorry. In many countries, the age of consent legal is over 14 years and older. So I don't see the justification for moral outrage here other than that among many conservatives, pedophilia functions as emotional trigger in same way racism does for libtards. And I still have to talk to you about sometimes this total domination in the right wing and especially evangelical circles, a feminist hysteria, the domination of bossy women about from early 90s, the evil rapist men abusing our girls in these right wing circles.

It's very widespread and I've heard stories from friends, some facing career destruction, some considering their own lawsuits or being sued over this kind of moral panic and they didn't do anything. They didn't even have affairs with a 60 or 70-year-old girl. I don't want to get into the details because it's an ongoing case, but it was a comment that was misinterpreted. It's all come from conservative men's subservience to their cunt wives. And Epstein was an innocent heterosexual man with a healthy instinct for nubile women of age, biologically nubile women of age. Maybe libtard society should get over it and accept that men like 17 year old girls as they have throughout History there would be less compromise may be possible of public figures if the public perceptions change similarly

For the Republicans in their base. Maybe they should not chimp out over gay things You know and their politicians sucking cock or whatever Maybe you'd have fewer Lindsey Graham's and Rubio's and Tom Cotton's or such or being blackmailed by by who knows who? I mean now it looks like Trump has bought the tapes, you know for phone boy Rubio salt-stick Rubio so now he's Trump's guy before he belonged to The used car salesman from Florida. I forget his name But you know this kind of thing and not to speak of people in media who are probably being compromised By this also, I mean don't you understand that when you have taboos and hysteria like this They will pick men like Tom Cotton specifically for that, or Dean Hastert, I think it was

before him if I'm not confused, Foley, Gannon, look up all these names. Anyway, look, I was talking about social media earlier, okay, I had this post, I knew it would blow up and cause anger and agitation about the drastic fall in birth rates in much of the third world, which is a relatively recent phenomenon. I read for you what I wrote, the worldwide broadcasting of hot white girls on TikTok, Instagram, et cetera, is having a major depressive effect on worldwide birth rates. Guy in Jakarta does not feel like fucking third baby and his fat, gross wife in a slum because his eyes are open and he'd rather goon online. Which, you know, then I post insta-sloot and, you know, I put in a photograph And I especially triggered the third world types, came in comments, you know, I expected that,

but I knew it as soon it would be discovered by, let's say, that whole square from the Levant ranging to Burma, okay, you know, the Pakistani and that especially coming in saying, my father from Faisalabad fucked 100 white supermodel in nightclub, they love Punjabi dick, They are all at the clubs in Baluchistan and this kind of, you know, it's quite amusing when they do that. Or the claims that Indonesia, you know, rebuttals of what I said supposedly, that oh, did you know Europe has a low birth rate or Indonesia has a 2.2 birth rate and India 2.1 as opposed to Europe, you know, lower birth rate. But these people, as also a lot of white nationalists, have their statistics somewhat out of date. First of all, 2.1 is not that high, you know.

I mean, that's what I actually said in what I wrote. It's the replacement rate. But it was much larger than that very recently. And in recent years, it's cratered all over the world, the birth rate. It's still high in parts of Africa, like Niger, still high in Afghanistan. I think those two are the highest, maybe. But not other parts of the world, and it will change very fast in those as well. And I think the phenomenon I say, Social media is a very big part of it. It's not just theoretical. There have been studies done, and long experience proves it. I talked before about the Brazil birth rate. At the moment, it's sub-replacement rate. Don't get me started. I will do another episode segment at some other show, some other episode on this.

It's very sad what's happening all over Latin America and Southeast Europe and other parts of the world. But Latin America especially, I don't know how it can recover because the young people have left and Brazil is old now. It's a geriatric country, you know, but they've had some replacement rate, birth rate for some time and the birth rate, they're cratered even in rural, conservative so-called rural Catholic areas, especially with the coming of TV and especially specifically telenovelas, soap operas, you know, which, if you look at the content, I think it's relevant, especially in places like Brazil, Latin America in general, and Turkey, the soap operas have an aspirational ideal. They show upper-class life, romantic images, handsome white upper-class men and this kind of thing,

which it works both ways. In that case, in Brazil, it was sterilized by female aspiration, because when the women in these rural communities even, and they see these images and they realize, they see in a direct way that something in their daily lives they identify with TV more than their daily life and they see raising eight children in a hot hovel in Pernambuco and collecting nuts is not so nice compared to others. And I think this idea for both men and women, the feeling not the idea that something better is out there even if it's not easily attainable. That's one of the biggest reasons for lowering of birth rates everywhere. And Europe and East Asia went through an analogous process much earlier, both because of the media situation,

but also the generally higher standard of living and education and the realities of urban life, where you may be faced with a view of a much better life and so on every day and aspire to it. But you are seeing now the artifacts in our world, the artifacts of that older situation, and delay the fact that maybe many are not aware of these latest statistics I'm talking about. And I have no doubt what they said in my tweets is a big cause of it, because yes, before there were things like Pamela Anderson, Baywatch TV, and maybe the people in a village somewhere would go once a week at communal TV house outside of Manila slum, and watch Pamela Anderson, maybe, or there would be a magazine traded of Playboy. But it was not everywhere like this. And even with the coming of cheaper computers

and pornography, and more on that in a moment, when you have a group of 20 Punjabis or Filipino, they go to Internet Cafe in Egypt, Internet Cafe in Cairo, and they watch American woman gangbang in porn, and then they confuse that for real life. But that's still not the same as the TikTok and social media frenzy, I think. That makes it, aside from its ubiquity and ease of access on the moment where everyone has phone now, it also makes it feel more attainable because the girl is not technically a Hollywood star. She's obviously not doing hardcore porn. She appears to be a normal girl in everyday American life. Very often she is, she just is TikTok famous. So it feels attainable even if it's actually not. And it's very hard to come back from watching 2030

in a row, extremely attractive, sexy, nubile Swedish and American girls with tight, clean pussy, presumably doing a dance. And then you go back to fat Filipina in a hovel favela, you know? And I think that's the big thing, when it works the same way also on the female side. Aspiration for men that they see in social media or online. It sterilizes their, let's say, desire also to pump out four or five children. It's not just with white men that they lust after, as they say, but my friend mentions this that in Menaquin On 4, I talked to him about this, he mentioned in Russia, they maybe do not want to go to alcoholic gopnik husband when they see K-pop Korean star, and that's So you get many Russian women dreaming of being rescued from Russia by Korean boy band,

K-pop dream men, or Korean professional men, and so on. So on the men's side, when they see Insta-sleuths and TikTok burlesque, they're delusional often because it's not really actually at all attainable for them. So it's quite amusing in many of my comments, I have insane remarks that, oh, you are coping, This is cuckery, and you are displaying your women as if it's me supposedly displaying these girls, as if I'm displaying my own women to outsiders, which, right, they're not my women, and as if their being on TikTok depends on me and so forth. But more fundamentally, these people who say this are, I don't want to say retarded, because many people can make similar mistakes, they are confused, they're making a confusion between online and online videos, and then their real life,

and they don't realize that girl is not attainable for them, even if they were to go to her neighborhood. So it's like black people online, they think movies are real. It's a very common phenomenon. You're having a political argument with someone and black or black minded stupid people of other races, they come in replies and they refer to what some character did in a movie as a real thing. You know, you're arguing about Ukraine or whatever, and they talk about Jason Bourne, or you know. And it's the same here, or yes, Jack Ryan, world debt collector for the CIA on Amazon. It's the same here, the fact is that the girl I posted is not remotely attainable for any of the swarming masses of the world's slums, and these Panjibs and such online,

They see girl dancing suggestively, their mind gets miswired, they think it's real, but they don't have a chance even to meet her, but she acts as a decoy that sterilizes their societies. And I think, by the way, that's not entirely a bad thing for this man. I think they would have better lives not having four or five children with the local pork swipes that's mandated to them. I think they want to escape that too. And even if they have to do it by means of a delusion, I think it's good for them to escape that. On the other hand, on the female side of the audience, it is more attainable in the basic sense that, for example, a Russian woman can marry Korean men. It happens. Korean professional men go there. They cannot find Korean wives because of a similar phenomenon

happening in Korea where Korean women don't want to marry men who are equal or lesser than them in so-called status. Anyway, but more importantly, and now forget the third world and everything I've said about third world and cross-country dynamics for a moment. The social media turn is having I think drastic effect on the dating and sexual market within first world countries also in ways that are not completely understood. But one way seems the following. The number of celebrities have greatly increased with the coming of social media explosion you see. There are many Zoomers now who make a living on social media, whether Instagram, TikTok and so on. They had become niche celebrities for every hobby imaginable. So before a woman could lust for a Gregory Peck or a Judd Law, but she

probably never got to meet one or see one on the street even. Such a person was unattainable such a man and she knew that and so she settled for her husband. But now there is an e-celebrity boy for every imaginable niche of interest and whatever world the woman lives in socially or culturally even if she's not an e-girl even if she's let's say a literature graduate student or whatever nursing but she will also have hobbies on the side whether it's cooking or skiing or whatever and within any of those worlds there are a few e-boy celebs you know and for really anything you can think of so now she thinks she can aspire to one of them and very often actually she can and the results really are that this is fundamentally and I think unfortunately revealing what women

want more than muscles or good looks or smarts or funny or money or anything else they will drop all that for a chance to be with somebody famous even not really famous even just e-famous in a niche you know and I talked this last thing is Menaquino for we talked sometime he very insightfully point this out I think it's true I was telling him things I was seeing and he he point this I think it's true. It's a very recent phenomenon. It's not well understood and it's changing many many things I can confirm to you It's true or the stories. I told him I can't speak in detail about what I've seen and I'm not talking about myself Let's just say I don't like I to take advantage of this but the things I've observed I've observed women smart attractive women abandoning their marriages to be with

with e-celebs and such, with even less exposure, public exposure than myself, not to speak of whatever offers I get, I'm not talking about myself, I am Volsel, but there is an e-celeb in their broader cultural world, and then their husband does not have such e-fame, and then he doesn't stand a chance. And it's a massacre in terms of this, you see, it's changing things for men who are not e-celebs as well, unfortunately. where women all want a niche social media star. And that's attainable for now, whereas fame was not attainable before, conceivably attainable for many women in the first world, I mean. So it's, I don't know. It has to be thought through. What will happen with social media revolution change? I don't know. I will be right back. Welcome back and speak of politicians

or political actors becoming TV stars. Let me play you two clips. I've edited them to be in succession. This man I'm about to play is Tom Braden. He ran and really founded the CIA's policy of worldwide support for the so-called non-communist left, worldwide socialism supported by the CIA starting in the early 1950s. He's one of the, maybe the founder of that policy when Allen Dulles basically outsourced CIA international policy to him in around 1951. Then later he became, with Pat Buchanan, first host of Crossfire TV show. So now I will play this for you. The presidential palace was bombed. Allende died inside it, and 15,000 socialists were murdered by the military regime, now one of the most repressive in Latin America.

I think it was a mistake for us because it was a terrible embarrassment for it to come out. I think we pay for it in shame and in loss of dignity. Who in fact ran the... Dr. Kissinger ran the Chile operation, very much like a desk officer. He's that way. He likes to do things himself. What do you think our founding fathers meant when they said, we the people of the United States? Well, I won't get into that debate, but I know, but you're sitting here in your bed sheet telling us all that the only thing you're for, you're against, you're really upset about my bed. Oh yeah. I think, you know, I, I, if I were you, I would be so ashamed of myself. I mean, I can't imagine walking around in that silly costume telling people to be against blacks and against Jews.

Have you ever seen the pope and the cardinals in their costumes? Yeah, but they're religious and they're for something and you're just nothing but against something and you're against the very spirit of this country. I believe in the same God that the pope, no we're not. You're against the thing that makes this country a unity and that makes this country great and I think you're a disgrace. You know nothing about what I believe and what I stand for. I just heard what you believe. And you think that's wrong? I believe in God. Is that wrong? Do you deny that you said this, that this is the literature you're handing out to schools, to school children in America? I just quoted this from your own pamphlet. Are you fed up, it says here, with blacks following you home, trying to beat you up?

Do you deny that you said that? No, I don't. And let me tell you, that happens more times in America than what you can shake a stick at. Blacks? Blacks. Blacks try to follow you home and beat you up. We've had more racial problems than muggings. You're a damn disgrace to the country. No, no. Oh, yes you are. I have a strong belief. You know what? You people were beaten, beaten, beaten, beaten, beaten. I don't know what we're doing in 1982 talking to you. Well, that's your problem, Tom. But let me tell you one thing. I'm not beaten, the Klan is not beaten, and the white race is not beaten. No more than the Democrats are beating or the Republicans are beaten. Yes, do you like this? The hectoring libtard bully. Does that sound familiar?

And then the part about Kissinger doing Pinochet, that was very precious. You see the mythology of all that, how it started, the libtard part of the CIA blaming Kissinger for it, and then Kissinger, wink, wink, nod, nod, taking credit. And by the way, actually these two men, Kissinger and Braden, I think remained, despite what he just heard, lifelong friends. I think Kissinger got Braden's wife a job in the Ford administration in 76 or something like that. So to some extent in Braden also in what you just heard, the subtext is the CIA has amazing powers. But in fact, there is no evidence that CIA had anything to do with the Pinochet coup at all. More on that another time. Just very quickly now, the CIA could have stopped Allende in Chile before his election

and it was begged to do so by a number of interests and refused to do it. Allende came into power in 1970 and Pinochet overthrew him in 1973 with no assistance from the CIA. Chilean society had plenty of reasons to overthrow that lunatic Allende. In any case, in the second clip that I played for you, Breden is self-righteously chimping at the Grand Wizard of the KKK, who they brought out, if you see the video, maybe I'll post it, they brought him out in full costume. And like every liberal dinosaur since the 1970s, that self-righteous tone, the same concerns, and then Pat Buchanan playing along with this farcical minstrel show to show you that, listen, that's happening in 1982, that clip I put, and now it's 40 years later and it's still the same tropes, the same debates, so-called,

the same scripted buffoonish TV fights and attitudes. Anyway, look, I wrote an article, actually, it's a three-part series, I just put up the first part on Substack called The Geriatric Left and the Progressive Right, which the series as a whole is about the American support for anti-colonialist and leftist causes in Africa from 1950 to 1970, sub-Saharan Africa, under the direction or the indirect management more like of men like what you just heard. And this one in particular, who I will talk about on this segment, Tom Braden, at least he was the one who formally launched that policy of supporting the worldwide left. But in this first installment that I put on substack, I wanted to go on a tangent and to talk about the spiritual fight overall. In

other words, the left has long tried to portray itself as the party of youth and freedom and actually it's the party of geriatric shrill farts like this one or or the various other academic communists, their concern is always materialistic and prosaic, it is the stomach, and their fixation on the CIA as a wrecker deity, a kind of wrecker demiurge that absolves the left of responsibility for the last 50 years or more, and I wanted to comment on that at the beginning in this introduction, that article that I put up, because it's such a, you know, the Oliver Stone images from the JFK movie and others, and the Noam Chomsky old trune fart thing, where these guys you've seen in media for decades, some baggy blazer lecturing you on the demonic manipulations of the CIA.

I'm tired of it, and I advise Tucker and his friends to come up with something new. You know, you cannot sound like Boomer Community College Marxist lecturer with blazer stained with seltzer and tuna. It doesn't actually make you dissonant and edgy, you know? So anyway, I wanted to discuss for a moment on this segment of Caribbean rhythm, this problem of Tom Braden, this man you heard, and the policy of CA support for the non-communist left. What I'm about to talk now is not in the article. You should read it. I don't want to give you details here of what I've written there and repeat myself, but listen, so this is not a secret. You can read book on all this by one R. Harris Smith, which was reprinted, not that I recommend you buy this book or read it,

but it's called OSS, the Secret History of America's First Intelligence Agency, and it's rather shameless about the names of ex-communists, people who were hired in the early 1940s by this agency that was going to become the CIA in the way that Thomas Braden, with Alan Dulles and Frank Weisner's support in 1950 or 1952, began this policy of covert support for the worldwide non-communist so-called left. Although really it was a continuation of a pre-World War II policy, is what you must realize, which somewhat does away with the pretense that it was some kind of Machiavellian pragmatic plot to preempt the Soviets. Then this man, Frank Weisner, who also supported the same idea of international left promotion, he was moved from the CIA to the State Department by Harry Dexter White.

Okay, now if you remember this name from the FDR administration, he's the man who died of impending so-called heart attack on the eve of his arrest as a Soviet agent, which he was. And then Weisner helped to found the CIA. And in 1957, he himself had nervous breakdown during when congressional investigation was about to start on him, you know. So, look, all these men, if they were not believing communists, This as was Harry Dexter White or sympathizers as many others were, they were in effect the same even if they were just naive idiots and they really believed that if you supported the left, let's say in Angola or Vietnam, it would stop the Soviets from coming in. It's an absurd idea because in many places there was no left before America created it

and it led to the erection, the fruits of their policies speak for themselves. It led to the erection of not only red regimes, pro-Soviet regimes around the world, but leftist causes, which included Afro-Marxist nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, every other type of anti-white, anti-civilizational agitation and ideology of third world resistance, which persists to our day and which you call woke today, was created in large part, not maybe but fostered, boosted by these men in places where it did not exist before. Let me read now regarding Morocco, which I don't deal with Morocco in the article I'm putting on Substack, because my series is mostly about sub-Saharan Africa. I'm reading now. Red governments came into power all over the globe as a result of this policy of Mr. Braden's.

Mr. Nelson Rockefeller loaned its architect $125,000 in 1957 to buy a newspaper, and Harry Kissinger spent Christmas with him in 1973. Hypnotized by dishonest propaganda dished out as news, the American public swallowed everything they were told when the State Department brought Mehdi Ben Barka to Washington, D.C. in March 1957 for red carpet treatment at the White House on a tour of the country. This is a red socialist agitator in Morocco. I continue reading. Time, of September 9, 1957, called him Morocco's hope. On September 21, 1959, Time went into raptures over the launching of Ben Barca's National Union of Popular Forces, a party name. Any non-brainwashed reader should have known it was a sugar-coated term for communism. As Ben Barca was about to leave for Cuba

for the formal opening of the tri-continental which he was to head, He was kidnapped on Boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris on October 29, 1965, and presumably killed in the Paris suburb by agents of the Moroccan king. His brainchild was organized in early 1966 without him. And Berriere, again, here talking about American support, really creation of a guy who would have just otherwise been smoking hookah and having coffees in some café, completely his force in Morocco created by America. There was no Soviet danger or presence in Morocco. A communist revolutionary in Morocco, where the monarch King Hassan suffered as a result of these things three coups, at least through the 1970s. None supported by the Soviets. All supported by America's local revolutionaries,

helped in their tasks by men like Joseph Büttinger of the International Rescue Committee. You look him up, he's an Austrian anti-fascist socialist, moved to the United States. And Irving Brown, who funneled CIA money to so-called labor unions in Morocco, again to topple the monarchy. And King Hassan of Morocco was pro-French and pro-Western and a king, therefore evil, so therefore he had to go. And so when you read about the OSS men in the 1940s, and this guy Tom Braden, and what they actually believed in, this was not the move to preempt the Soviets, who did not at the time again have any presence or chance in Morocco, or as in Vietnam, they did not have a chance. presence, in both cases of the left, was entirely American-created, and I mean this was obvious

at the time to America's allies, which is basically what I'm getting this from, because Berriere, my source, he was, let's face it, French intelligence man, or rather, let's be cautious and say he had very good relations with a wing of French intelligence, a faction that was very anti-communist and pro-French and very patriotic, and he gave refuge to French military men implicated in the coup against the Gaul when they were on the run from the Gaul, you know, their coup failed. Anyway, but this was obvious to the English, also, and other of America's allies, and to Dulles himself by the early 1960s, I read for you now, back in Washington, Alan Dulles was uneasy. By early 1960, he knew something was wrong. Since his 1951 approval of Braden's plan to fight communism by advancing socialists

all over the world, things had gone from bad to worse. But it appears never to have dawned on Dulles that the non-communist left is not a constant, that it is communism's ally against non-Marxist governments, and non-communist is not synonymous with anti-communist. The CIA chief had remained on good terms with his Austrian ex-son-in-law Fritz Molden, and European officials wondered how responsible Molden was for Dulles' blind spots. Molden was Dulles' eyes and ears in Vienna, and European socialists used Molden as a pipeline to Washington. In the process, Molden's socialist compatriot, Joseph Beutinger, naturalized himself American and worked his way into CIA fronts in a strange partnership with Leo Czern, the man of multiple

identities who President Ford recently appointed Chairman of the CIA Intelligence Board. After the U2 spy plane was shot down over Russia in early 1960, Allen Dulles decided to go to London for advice. Their members of Macmillan's Conservative government passed him on to Sir Frederick Hoyer-Miller, Under Secretary in the Foreign Office. Where have we gone wrong? Dulles asked. Inflation. Too many men too low quality was the reply. Better men with disciplined minds were needed. Letter writers scattered around the world and able to use CIA to advance their causes should be carefully screened. Labor unionists, part-time agents and committed so-called journalists are always spotted by enemy agents and used as transmitters of planted reports.

Excellent advice, but from the conservative undersecretary Mr. Dulles went to British intelligence whose top man, Kim Philby, had helped organize the CIA. Three years later, when Kim Philby fled to Moscow, not a word was said about what had been called his sound advice. By the way, Frank Weisner had worked with Kim Philby, who you may know as the target of movie Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, the series, and the movie a fictionalized retelling of the uncovering of this Soviet mole at the very highest level of English intelligence, but Kim Philby probably didn't think of himself as a traitor, and Kim Philby, it's made to sound like he's some kind of strange exception, but there's a continuity between him and the

The men who founded the CIA, like Frank Weisner and Tom Braden, Weisner had worked with Philby very closely. It was just degrees of the same thing. So again, I'm not saying all of these men were conscious subversives of Soviet agents. In Tom Braden's case, I'm pretty sure what you just heard from Crossfire, okay, he was just a liberal idiot and he maybe believed, you know, it's easy to believe if you are a sentimental leftist. It's easy to make yourself believe, I will support other leftists like myself because that will actually stop the Soviets. The fact is, in the case of Morocco, even if the Soviets did not take it over, it was not for America's lack of trying in that case. America's support of the international left had a long-lasting legacy

to our day, where basically again every anti-white, anti-European, anti-Western faction, and the basis of what you all now call war has endured and it has blossomed precisely because of these policies, Cold War practical effects aside, and it's indisputable that in the Cold War it led in nine out of ten cases or more to the erection of pro-Soviet regimes by the way, but that's another story. It wasn't just that in the Cold War these policies led to Europeans but also to Americans getting kicked out of places like Algeria and then the Soviets moving in. It was also that in the wake of all this, you have fractious anti-white, anti-European local nationalisms, again under the name of Afro-Marxism originally, or Socarno in Indonesia,

and their anti-white policies are continued by their successors to this day as well, regardless of what politics they may seem to be aligned with otherwise, and much of the political configuration of the world today is because America outsourced its foreign policy essentially to men, like I've said so far and like I'm going to read you in this following, let me read this regarding Algeria, written at the time of Algeria, it's quite striking, America's involvement in Algeria against the French. And keep in mind, when I'm reading you this, how much fretting there is right now about America getting to keep its bases in East Europe, on the Black Sea or elsewhere, about influence in Ukraine. And see now in the example of Algeria, it's not like America allowed local nationalists

to destroy French influence so that the United States could move in, which is the excuse. It was the West as a whole, including the United States, that got kicked out and then Algeria was used as a base for the training of Marxist guerrillas to be sent to other parts of Africa. I read you now. In July 1957, Massieurs Walter Reuster and George Minny, by the way, I interject for a moment. Look up this man, Walter Reuster, okay? Just look up his biography and what he did throughout his life. In July 1957, Massieurs Walter Reuster and George Minny, labor organizers, they were the lions of the ICFTU's Fifth World Congress, World Labor Congress, then being held in Tunis, capital of Tunisia. announced that American labor was behind the Algerian rebels and that France must be forced

to grant Algerian independence. It came as a blood transfusion to the FLN. This is the main anti-French Algerian secessionist terrorist group. It came as a blood transfusion to the FLN, which had been defeated in the field and was unable to terrorize the Algerian masses into any semblance of popular support. Senator Jack Kennedy of Massachusetts added his weight a few days later. In 1957 he gave a very famous speech for Algerian independence. The AFL-CIO's Irving Brown was in Tunis at the time, encouraging and advising the rebels, sending inflammatory dispatches against France back to the propaganda machine in New York without mentioning the murders, the disemboweled children, the frightfully mutilated victims of the FLN, the Front National de la Liberación.

A government official in Paris was asked, why do you let Irving Brown come back here after a stab like that? We don't dare do otherwise," was the reply. Why? Leaning across his desk, he scribbled three letters on a notepad, CIA, Central Intelligence Agency. If we are going to hold the slide that has delivered Africa to the enemy, doomed Asia, and don a noose around the free world, we are going to have to puncture the myth that labor leaders are sources of information of value to anyone but themselves. What we have done is permit men, distinguished today by their lack of principles, to make our intelligence set up the tool and protector of labor socialism. Time magazine of September 22, 1961, says of Labor Secretary Arthur J. Goldberg. His career was interrupted by World War II.

Goldberg joined the Office of Strategic Services, spent the war in liaison with European labor unions, including those in Nazi-occupied territory, performing sabotage and espionage functions. Westbrook Pegler states that Dave Dupinsky of the Garment Workers' Union in New York informed his subjects in his official publication devoted largely to glorification of himself at their expense that he spent unspecified amounts of underground activities espionage in Europe during the war. Ervin Brown and Jay Lovestone are constantly pictured as cloak-and-dagger heroes using their inn with European labour unions to frustrate fascism and save America. What an absurdity, what an insult to our intelligence. Russia was our ally in World War II and Russia was fighting against Hitler, so European unions

and ours, equally infiltrated with communists, used us in their war against Russia's enemies, and we are still being sold labour unions as ready-made intelligence chains. In any war with Russia, the same unions will be working against us. The truth is that in letting such a hoax be put over on us, we have Dave Dubinsky, Jay Lovestone and Arthur Goldberg pipeline straight to policy-forming agencies in Washington. Yes, so do you like this? These are men of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who fought for the Reds, murderous Soviet Reds in the Spanish Civil War. Then they were fast-tracked to the OSS. These men were not supporting leftist causes in the OSS and after in the CIA through international labor in order to preempt the Soviets, okay?

They joined the OSS to help save the Soviets from Hitler. Look up Walter Reuther and ask yourself, is this man, look his record, is he doing what he is doing out of a desire to preempt the Soviets? Not to speak of these men's agitation against Franco and Salazar, right? I mean, this whole reasoning flies out the window when you look at the fact that these same were very active against Franco into the 1950s and 60s, and in that case there was no possibility of the Soviets taking over. They were just continuing the Red War against Franco-Spain by other means. My point in all this is not just historical or to re-litigate a Cold War strategy whether it worked or no, I mean look, part of Algeria's assurances to Moscow was that NATO would be

kicked out and no basis would be allowed in Algeria after independence. I mean that's what these labor unions were working for while telling the American people they were defending democracy and receiving money and so on. Tom Braden himself with Irving Brown in 1947 set up the Force Ouvrière. This became one of the major French labor unions. It was set up in Marseille with local gangsters. It became a funnel for drugs into Europe afterwards, but this organization, the Force Ouvrière, never once opposed communism in Europe or anything of the sort. It banded in every mass general strike and marched side by side whether in 1968 or as late as 1977, I think in May of 1977 there was a general strike. In France these general strikes were enormously costly.

This same thing founded by Tom Braden and Irving Brown marched side by side with communists and acted in concert with them in French politics in every case, you see. But that's aside from the general picture of what happened in Africa, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa with the United States constantly getting kicked out, where you had NATO presence in Algeria and Angola and then you did not. It's not like America moved in after France and Portugal got kicked out with American collusion. however, is not just, again, whether to relitigate whether this worked in the Cold War, obviously did not work, and America won the Cold War, or rather the Soviets lost it, despite all of this. The point I'm trying to make is that the longer term residues of this, this is the

mess that America and Europe actually faces right now, all over the world. I will explain this and more with many examples in my article series, please read it, parts two and three are coming soon in the next week or so. I will go to break now and come back to discuss population genetics and other interesting unrelated things. Yes, welcome back. I enjoy a small snack of blackberry preserve on butter bread and tea with milks in break, this very wholesome kind of hobbit, English hobbit treat. But now something entirely different of special interest to me. studies in population genetics especially about the step and exciting ideas on origin of population movements recently there is paper Stone Age herbalist posted ancient genomes reveal trans-Eurasian connections between the

European Huns and the Xiongnu Empire that's title of paper I have not read this paper myself I can't speak to its quality but this has long been a theory anyway, the origin of the European Huns. Now the Xiongnu Empire was a tribal step confederation roughly north and west of China around 200 BC to 100 AD, but you know these kinds of things come and go. Later it was the Gokturk Khanate and so on, and you may have heard titles like Khan and Khagan, and these are apparently of Yeniseian origin. They come from the Xiongnu They were, I think, the first to use this title Khan and Kagan, and apparently these are Yeniseian words. Now what Yenisei is big river cut north to south across Siberia, think from top of Mongolia up to Arctic Ocean.

And his same name, a language group that today I spoke in past episode, excuse, it's small population called the Ket. You can look these up online. They live north-central Siberia now. They look like Eskimos. Apparently, genetically, they are close to Samoyed Eskimo group. But that doesn't mean... It's very possible that the language got transferred to others. It only survived, in our day, among a group that was not racially or genetically the same as who spoke it 2,000 years ago. I mean, think this right. Many people speak English today. And so on Martinique there are Africans who speak French. So I've told you before the theory that the Ket language or the Yeniseian language represents a back migration from the new world, from the Americas.

Athabaskan Indians who now live, let's say, Alaska or British Columbia, that area, and it's also the same language group, by the way, of the Navajo and the Apache. So think Apache, powerful warriors later, but imagine that they go back into Eurasia in antiquity and they found a steppe tribal confederation, they somehow end up its leaders. And so it was always thought that the Huns maybe descended from the Xiongnu, or let's not say descended, but just that some of the Xiongnu moved westward. This was frequent process on steppe. You had creation of Khanate or some confederation around, let's say, north of China, slightly west of China, and then it broke apart and then they moved westward. So the Gokturk elite later, which were the Ashina clan, this very mythical clan among

the Turkic peoples, and they moved westward after the fall of the Gokturk confederation, I think 600s, early 700s around then, maybe mid-600s AD, and they founded the Khazar Empire among others on the edge of Europe. So such things keep happening throughout history, but my friend Stone Age herbalist guesses how interesting it would be for the Huns to be an invasion of Europe in the Roman times by a confederation with an American Indian elite, basically, ultimately from the Americas back migrated and so savage, cannibal, you know, I think it's possible you like that Apache cannibal eating Roman soldier. Romans banding together with Germanics to deal with this danger, the invasion of Eurasia by American Indian Apaches, the danger of the red man.

I'm joking of course, but by the way beware of the red man and the hairless man, that is a thing common in that whole part of East Europe. That means, now the hairless man is easy, I've obviously referred to Mongols and similar, but who is a red man? Hairless man meaning not Norwood Bolt, but man who cannot grow beard. But who is the red man? I wish they would pursue this possibility of the Khazars being the red men referred to in this proverb. Contemporary sources in Armenia and Georgia refer to the Khazars as red-headed and blue-eyed. It's very strange. they convert to Judaism. It's a very strange story. But you know, modern genetic studies, if they're carried out by a Western government through, let's say, Western universities,

institute boards of review, their so-called ethics boards, they will not allow you to do certain phenotypic studies among populations if you target them by, let's say, you want to go to Wales and only make a study of red-headed families versus swarthier families. The Welsh can look quite dark. I'm not saying that to throw shade. Native English islanders can look like Sean Connery or even darker than that. They can be very handsome men, but they They can look like this, you know, but then there are others who redhead in Wales. You cannot go to a population like that now and distinguish on that, let alone make studies about intelligence and so forth. But anyway, just as an update, is this study further linking apparently the Xiongnu to the Huns?

It came out this week and it could be a good thing, could be interesting. But for now I meant to talk to you about another paper or rather two important papers coming out of Reich labs on the origins of the Indo-Europeans, and it's a synthesis of genetic knowledge to date. It's an important step. It has drawn attention because of its importance from outside the field of population genetics with historians and others ignorantly declaiming against it. What are you doing? Oh, you're resurrecting the Nazi myth of the Aryan conquerors and so on. I suppose such are a bit behind the science, and in that sense, Mr. Lazaridis and Mr. David Reich and that whole lab are doing very good things, and the people attacking them are

bad people, and I don't like to attack those who are being attacked by bad people. On the same matter, just to go on brief tangent, Mr. Bridge Colby, I should say about him, if you listen to Caribbean Rhythms, you know I've attacked him in the past on this show, And maybe in some tweets, I don't think so, but I don't remember. And now he's in the news again because of his possible entry into this administration and that's in question. And I actually hope he makes it in. I know Tucker has been a big promoter of him. The reason I've attacked him before is because I had information that he was never Trump going back to 2016 and also that during the first Trump administration he continued to be never Trump, and there were some conflicts with other people who are good people in the

first Trump administration, and that more than anything else was the reason. The other things about his associates, and that's never so clear from the outside what it means, you know, what's going on. I can believe that he worked at Victoria Nuland's outfit, CNAS, but that he was not in agreement with her on all kinds of things with that hoe, I can believe that. It was the never-Trump thing that bothered me. But I suppose, if others are forgiven for that, that he has to be forgiven, too. And in any case, I said nothing about him in the recent weeks, despite the fact that he's in the news, because I deeply dislike the people attacking him, you know, like Tom Cotton and Barry Weiss types and all those organizations behind him. And so I don't want to get involved in that.

And if he can make them chimp, that's okay. He's okay with me, then. And I also agree with him on China, by the way. So anyway, I stay out of it. I have no further information of any use on this for now, but I mean I'm reluctant to attack people who are in the minority and who are attacked by others who I dislike more. Lazaridis and Reiklavs for the same reason, they are under assault by malicious retards. On the other hand, I disagree with them on some points and this is a dispassionate matter and it should not be political. So leaving aside retarded concerns and political factions and so on, I'm not attacking them in this segment, but I do think some of the claims in their recent paper are vague and

I think their general model for how the Indo-Europeans expanded is faulty and vague, and in the end not correct. So let me try to explain what is the meaning of their paper, which is hard for me to summarise even though actually its point is simple but the context is complicated and there are so So many unusual words and acronyms used, and I absolutely on an entertainment radio show cannot read for you weird acronyms, I cannot read for you such things and scientific sounding things on the show, it doesn't flow well, it's bad, and what can I tell you? It's a tough thing for me to summarize even the basic point they're making in these articles, But I will try in general sense. The titles are The Genetic Origins of the Indo-Europeans, and there's another one called

A Genomic History of the North Pontic Region, Pontic North Region of Black Seas, that region Ukraine and such. Now these papers say, and I summarize in own words, you have this population, let's say, it's a ghost population X. They call it Caucasus Lower Volga, CLV. I don't want to get it, it used to be called, I think, CHG, Caucuses Hunter-Gatherer. You can sort of understand what it means from that, but it's a gradient of populations stretching, you can think, from the Caucasus up to the lower Volga River. And they are mixed in their more remote ancestry with various other things, with Eastern hunter-gatherers, This would be hunter-gatherers around the present-day Baltic region, Siberian hunter-gatherers and others.

But this population X moved westward from the Volga around let's say 4000 BC or so, and it mixed on one hand with farmers living in north and north-western Ukraine, or rather west Ukraine, and on the other hand it mixed with foragers in north-central Ukraine. And from the Miksut farmers, now again this started around 4000 BC I think or so, the Miksut farmers produced the so-called Ussotelvo culture, which was based around modern-day Moldova and Odessa. I think around that it was also called Kukuten Trippelia culture, you can look this up, that's a farmer, quite large complex of cultures in that area, very old. But then the Miksut foragers in north central Ukraine led on the other hand to the so-called Sredny Stog Culture. Now I know these are weird Russian names, you're not going to

remember them if you don't want to read about this, but it's just names for complexes referring to similarities and archaeological finds in material culture of these areas. Again these are names for archaeological cultures, I need to remind, not necessarily what is meant by the word culture in normal speech or by folkish thinkers when they talk of cultures and peoples and nations. And so So from the Sredni Stog culture, later emerged the Yanaya, who were a shoot-off of Sredni Stog. So think a smaller and more homogenous subset of Sredni Stog so-called people. But don't think of them as a people-people, it's more like, although the relative genetic homogeneity of the Yanaya indicates they may have been something closer to a people or

collection of closely related tribes in the modern sense, but more on this in a moment. But the subset of this Sredny Stog people had formed by 3300 BC or so, and these were the ones who subsequently spread over much of Eurasia. The so-called Yamnaya were then spreading from, let's say, Kazakhstan to Hungary. So I've said a lot of things, but the short of it is you have a population moving from the Volga Caucasus region and mixing with various other tribes on the Pontics that are north of the Black Sea, sometimes they mix with farmers, sometimes foragers or hunter-gatherers, and new complexes of peoples were formed, so-called cultures, or phenomena I'd say is a more accurate word. And you may have already heard from people online and elsewhere that Yamnaya has been

provisionally identified as the possible source population of the proto-Indo-Europeans, the spread of the Indo-European languages, with many assuming in some case one-to-one identification of what was called the Aryans in the 19th century, with the Yamnaya, what gets called the Yamnaya now online, and these new historical commentators. But certainly the Yamnaya, you can say, had broader spread across Eurasia than the previous so-called culture groups that they succeeded. And furthermore, there is claimed Yamnaya lineage, genetic residues, sometimes quite high in many populations of Eurasia that speak Indo-European languages today, especially I think in certain groups even in South Asia, for example among Indian Brahmins. To me that's a significant fact, very revealing.

If you have let's say higher step ancestry in Indian Brahmin group, to me that's very revealing. So okay, I've always been and still am by the way skeptical of this idea, the one-to-one identification of the Yamnaya with the Indo-Europeans or the Aryans. I will tell you briefly why later. But let's say this is the genetic, broadly, the population genetic consensus that's developing now. Finally, they say, we have found the origin of the ancient Aryans. It's this people that Russian archaeologists called the Yamnaya, who had formed in present day central Ukraine around 3300 BC, who they themselves were a mix of earlier populations. Although just because a population has ethnogenesis in the mix of two people doesn't mean that it itself is very diverse, you know.

In that sense, for example, take modern Ashkenazi Jews, who are all quite related to each other, fourth or fifth cousin level, at most distance between any two random Ashkenazi Jews in general, but their ethnogenesis may very well have been in quite a few Mediterranean peoples, and marrying North Italian women in late antiquity, but because they went through a bottleneck and did not mix thereafter, they can be, even though their origins are mixed, they can be quite homogenous today, you know, so this kind of thing. But there was problem, which I've talked about in some detail on episode 156, about a year ago exactly, which in terms of content, I can't speak to delivery and praise myself, you know, but in terms of content is one of my favorite episodes,

where I covered the so-called Indo-Hittite problem, for lack of a better name. That's not a good name for it, it's quite misleading, Indo-Hittite. But I will summarize now what that means to refresh memory because this is what the paper from Wright Labs is really about, about this same problem that I talked about almost exactly a year ago. And it's published now in February, but in fact the draft was out last year. I don't remember if it was out before or after I did my episode. I'm not saying they copied me at all, by the way, It's just very interesting that we both talk about this at around the same time. I had not paid attention in any case to their paper last year. I mean, I knew the result when it came out, but it's because the question of what is origins

or meaning of the Aryans, call them what you want, Indo-Europeans. I just say Aryans, it's old-fashioned, but the question, the ultimate question of their origins hinges on what you do with the so-called Anatolian languages. Now, remember, this is a linguistic phenomenon primarily. How do you even know about the Indo-European people or the Aryan people or to even seek their origins? It's because remarkably connected languages in Eurasia with Sanskrit being so close to archaic Greek, really quite close, and in many others you know the story, but the problem has always been what to do with this very strange ancient subset of the Indo-European languages that were found in Anatolia. The Anatolian languages, the most famous is Hittite. They didn't use that word for themselves,

but others too, like Lydian, Phrygian, Luwian, if you read ancient Greek or about the ancient Greeks, you may have heard of these people. Luwian was supposedly the language used at Troy, but all of these languages went extinct. None of them exist in our time or even in AD times. Lydian, I think, was the last of these languages to go extinct around 200 BC at the latest or so. Karyan, you may have heard this word. Karyans, again, people very close to the ancient Greeks. They became Hellenized quite early. They lived on the present-day western coast of Turkey. And if you like, the Roman, with the crest on the helmet, that, the Karyans came up with that. They were also, I think, some of the first to fight in a shield wall. Constant cultural and other kinds of interchange

going between the Karyans and Greeks. the Koreans loved the Greeks and I think they just became Greek eventually by late antiquity. But Korean language ended around the same time, 200 BC. They are somehow closely related to Indo-European, but also very different, and linguists could never really figure them out for a long time. They have much simpler grammar in many ways, some different vocabulary. Usually with a more complex language you see a simpler version of it. You assume creolization, in other words that people came from somewhere speaking the more complex language and then lost some of the complexity of that grammar when they mixed with others and started to speak a creole. It was for a long time assumed and it was the consensus until the 1990s that these people

then the result of an early migration of Aryans into Anatolia, after which it had, through creolization, had lost some of the distinctive features that the rest of the Aryan languages shared, which is actually an incredibly complex grammar. If you have ever studied ancient Greek or Latin, you can see what I'm talking about. In modern languages, German and Russian have preserved more of that complexity of grammar, but not nearly as much as Latin or Anyway, recent further computerized linguistic analysis and other reasoning shows that what I've told you so far cannot be the case. What is actually going on is that the Aryan languages on one hand, so think all of them, the Italic languages, the Germanic languages, the Slavic languages, all of the ones you

know on one hand, and these other ones, the Anatolian languages on the other, they're actually related but different language families and they're both descended from one common one for which, let's say, make up this name Indo-Hittite or Proto-Indo-Hittite. In other words, the Anatolian languages are not Indo-European, they are kind of a cousin language family. Obviously, this is crucial information because it bears on the deepest, most ancestral layer of what Indo-European or Aryan is, and of what and where the people who spoke it were. So one branch went extinct as spoken languages, the other branch is now spoken in variations all over the world. And this is very strange, how do you resolve this?

So I told you on episode 156, Mr Robert Drew's theory from his book in 2017 called Militarism and the Indo-Europeanisation of Temperate Europe, which I recommend, it's a follow-up, and a revision of his earlier book, The Coming of the Greeks. I recommend both books, he's an excellent, I think maybe best academic writer I know now. Everything is clear and crisp, concise, you can read without special knowledge of these fields, he makes it come alive for you. But it is not popular literature by any means, so you have to care about these things, but it pays off. But he came up with striking theory in that book. He does not think it's plausible that the Anatolian languages came into Anatolia from anywhere else. He believes that they are native to Anatolia.

Anatolia has been continuously and relatively thickly settled since remotest antiquity, with the oldest human settlements around Çatalhöyük and that whole area also. Other places too, to 7000-8000 BC and beyond in some times people think there are structures even beyond that. And the birth of agriculture not far from that in eastern Anatolia or the northern Fertile Crescent and not really any historical evidence in remote antiquity or prehistory of inward migrations into Anatolia, there is not really evidence of that. So the farmers it is known did spread from Anatolia, there was no united farmer identity or farmer people, I said this on the last episode and since then this fool, Razid Khan, I'm sorry I heard he does not hate me, I don't care about these personal things, but he made

some very foolish statement saying that Eastern farmers are celebrating as the population of modern England gets replaced because the 30 or 40% of the modern English, let's say native English bloodline that his Eastern farmer got replaced in some prehistoric times and so it's come up and quite aside from, okay, let's say it was a joke, but quite aside from let's say the racial fixation of these concerns and so on of this man, which the word resentment is overused but if it doesn't apply here, what does? But okay, he's joking maybe. But he's not joking in the sense I told you that a lot of these commentators on genetic matters, actually think the genetic signature we find now for Near Eastern farmer, West

hunter-gatherer, that it corresponds somehow to ancient self-understandings of local peoples, that there was some kind of farmer identity or something like that, that they saw. I don't want to go, I refer you to my last show. There was absolutely impossible for there to be such a thing. These are small family clan groups not in touch with each other and the processes by which they spread took thousands of years, hundreds, centuries at least in many cases. Anyway, it's known that they spread in small family groups from Anatolia into Europe on the riverways. Some would have wheeled around, however, by a maritime route very slowly now around the coast of the Black Sea in a clockwise fashion. So not in one voyage, but they stop here, they stop there, and then they move on to

the next river and so on. But now remember that this is taking place over, again, a thousand years or hundreds, but they would have wheeled around with some of them ending up on the eastern edge and then making their way down the Don River. If you look at the map, as I'm telling you this, it's easier to visualize. And then they cross to the Volga, because the Don River not far from the Volga at some point, I think. And the Volga, this river coming out of the Caspian Sea right above the Caucasus. Now at some point they would, after these long wandering journeys in search of farmland or whatever, they would have become isolated, this group of Anatolian farmers. And from this nucleus of an isolated population of these Anatolian farmers, they would have

mixed with local hunter-gatherers who were there hunting horses and such for food mainly, and from this ethnogenesis of essentially farmers gone feral, to put it vividly, who So natives, they mix with local wild hunter gatherers, who may have been, I like this poetic image, I'll tell you why, a lot of this talk of remote antiquity is bloodless. When you don't have an image of ancient human motivation, it gives you actually a false impression of how things took place. When you take all the blood out of it, it replaces actual human motivation with constructs imagined from the discipline of history, which are often false. But it's assumed that a people, which is itself a construct, for example, would want to pack up and leave and move to an entirely different place for no reason at all.

This is a common assumption of commentary now, but why would they want to do that? Understanding motivation I think is the most important task of history, right? Otherwise, it has no real meaning and you're fumbling in the dark. I want to show you in a moment these people fumbling in the dark. Now, when farmers move, that's easy to understand why, but it's always useful to remind yourselves They're looking for new land, they're acting under demographic and other pressures. Anatolia was quite thickly settled for that time, which is also, by the way, a reason that farmers would not be moving into Anatolia. Anyway, you can see them make forays by maritime routes into the Aegean, and so on, quite early. Anatolian farmers, they bring livestock

and their agricultural know-how with them to the Aegean islands, to Crete and so on. But, yes, some of these would go quite feral when they isolated themselves by accident somewhere up on the Volga. And then Drew's claims, it was in this isolated nucleus that the Aryan language, he doesn't need, you know, I'm sure he's not politically like me at all, I don't mean to compromise people by throwing shade on them or such, but the Proto-Indo-European would have developed in this area, because the new and distinctive innovations that all later daughter languages shared and that the Anatolian languages did not share. All of these would have to have developed in a kind of breakaway branch of the same Anatolian language family, but it would have to be isolated from contact with others from

that language family. You see what I am saying. there is evidence of continual contact between Anatolian farmers in the Balkans for example and those in Anatolia proper. Again not that they were united people in any sense but they had kind of intercourse with each other and so on and so radical innovations in language couldn't have developed let's say somewhere in Thrace or on the Danube and what happened, so yes you need an isolated population for that, what happened was what was to become quite different in the European languages could have only happened removed from all this localised, relatively compact group in a kind of weird bottleneck with a kind of alien influence that could have led to these wild new innovations. Yes, you see.

So the Aryan languages also share specific words for the wheel or the wagon or cart, both assembled and disassembled. And this goes to the date at which they would have had to break off from the mother language of proto-Indo Hittite. So the split would have had to happen post-date, after the invention of the wheel, the wagon or cart and so on. So that's around maybe 3100-3200 BC, some people say earlier, but maybe not before that. So it would have had to happen after that because the Anatolian languages themselves do not share the same words for wheel and so forth. And it would have had to happen early in the location where this existed at the time and prominently so because it's famously so conspicuous in the Aryan languages.

So that narrows down the locations where this isolation could have taken place, the linguistic innovations, the universal adoption of the same words for axle, wheel, cart and so on. I like this story, it's vivid, it makes sense. I think this is what this paper from Reichlabs actually shows. Now they interpret it differently. They believe this population in the Caucasus, excuse me, Lord Volga, they call it CLV, from which descended the Indo-Europeans by admixture with local hunter-gatherers and foragers in the steppe. So actually it's a similar story here to what I've been telling you so far, but the difference is they believe in opposite directions. So they think there was this primal population, they call it CLV, and some of them moved southwards and entered Anatolia from the east,

and from this descended those people who spoke, or rather the location of the Anatolian languages, Hittite, Lydian, et cetera. And then others moved into Ukraine, and from the mix with the local hunter-gatherers that developed the Aryan languages. But the point of the paper, the real finding, is they think ancient Anatolia, they find a genetic signature corresponding to this CLV group from the steppe. So again, it's a slightly different story from what I've told you, from, I'm summarizing Druze that I believe in, but it's just that a different direction is claimed. The Druze thinks that the original proto-Indo-Hittite languages were in Western Anatolia and then they moved out and somehow ended up on the steppe. This paper makes argument they were,

for whatever reason, they don't know the origins, but they were on the steppe and then some of them moved to Ukraine and then some moved from the steppe into Anatolia by a land route from the east. But I think the interpretation they have is unwarranted, is vague and highly disputable. It's not at all clear, I think, in which direction the genetic signature moved. It's very significant that they found a common genetic signature that is so old and it's shared between this population prior to Yamnaya and they say prior to the Anatolian languages. But I think that actually the results, it's unclear if it was into Anatolia or if it was from Anatolia. Two different people, without my asking them, they called me to tell me Drew's theories had been substantiated by genetic data.

And they're not Drew's fanboys, you know, like I am. One of them, I hope he doesn't mind I say, it's Menaquin on 4 again, we talk sometimes. And he says, oh, did you see the Reich paper? They showed that this thing you've been saying from Drew's is correct. And I tell him, no, Reichlabs claims it's the opposite. I mean, it's the same in that both are realizing that this question of the Anatolian origins, the origins of the Anatolian languages is crucial, and it's the oldest layer deciding what is the question of the origin of the Aryans. But they are claiming it came into Anatolia from the steppe, and when I told Menathis, he says he didn't realize that, because in fact he had not read their paper carefully,

but he had looked at the raw data carefully, and he only looked at the raw data you know, And the raw data is in keeping with the story I told you, not really necessarily with the conclusion drawn by Reichlabs in their published paper, which I think they are holding on to that claim because that's the conventional story for such a long time, that a population had to move into Anatolia and that the languages had to have come from elsewhere. But if you read their paper, and I will read it for you, it's quite some technical language. It's really maybe not appropriate for entertainment show, but I will mutter and pass over the technical language quickly so you get the gist of it. I found this passage that I'm about to read for you interesting.

At the end of the Volga Klein, so think they refer to Volga Klein, it's a certain gradient of populations from the Caucasus into the lower Volga. For lower Volga individuals from Berezhnevka too, now Berezhnevka is a location on the Volga River, you can Google Maps it if you want, present-day Russia. Four ancient individuals found that this location can be grouped with North Caucasus blah blah individual dated to 4200 to 4000 BC. The second groups can be grouped with another North Caucasus individual from blah blah blah. These two groups, the PV group and the PV group are closely related but distinct. These two locations also shared a distinctive burial pose on the back with raised knees, which was later typical of the Yamnaya and dated earliest in four individuals from Ekaterinovka

4800 to 4500 BC, contrasting with 95% of the graves which had individuals posed supine with legs extended straight, and also a female from blah blah blah. So I keep reading, I'm skipping over some things, you know, a natural interpretation is that upriver East hunter-gatherer related and downriver Berezhnevka related ancestors came together along the Volga forming the genetic gradient of people we find from these studies today, I mean of ancient individuals. The upriver ancestry had long established Eastern European antecedents unlike the downriver ancestry because, first, there is no earlier sequenced individuals from the lower Volga. Second, and this is what I'm trying to get to, the Berezhnevka people are distinct from

preceding groups, and third, the Berezhnevka group cannot be modeled as a clade with contemporary or earlier groups. Whatever BP group, Berezhnevka group origins are, this kind of ghost mystery population, We can use it as one proximate source for the Volga Klein, together with an east hunter-gatherer source from Karelia, that's part of Russia right next to Finland, which is well outside the Volga area and thus is unlikely to be part of the river-in-mating network. Seventh Volga Klein populations fit this model, blah, blah, I skip over much, but what you What you can get from gist of what I've read is they don't really know the origins of this unusual population you can look at, Berezhnevka is today, and to model their entire so-called

CLV population, which they're seeing as foundational both for what they consider to be the Aryans, eventually in the Yamnaya, and also for the Anatolian samples. In other words, the innovation of the paper is that both are tied through this so-called CLV component. And to model the CLV client, they have to rely on this mystery population I just mentioned, Berezhnevka. They don't know the origin of it. It is itself mixed with various things, including far things such as Siberian hunter-gatherers and so on. But look, short of it is, I don't see why this Berezhnevka ancient bones could not be one of the descendants of Drew's postulated mixed isolates of Anatolian farmers. In other words, that the origin is from Anatolia on the steppe and not vice versa.

I think it makes more sense, what I'm saying has problems too, there are counter-arguments to what I'm saying, including that although there is farmer ancestry in the Yamnaya, this population they're claiming is the Aryans, the farmer ancestry there maybe come from from pre-historic Caucasus or Neolithic Iran-type origin and not from Anatolia. There are many counterarguments to what I'm saying, but I think will be ultimately proven right because to make their case, they have the problem with eastern entry into Anatolia. These people on the steppe, who later led in a separate branch to the Aryans, they're saying these people went over land south through the Caucasus, into the north near east, entered Anatolia from the east, ended up in the west of Anatolia, which is where the Anatolian

languages in historical times were actually spoken. And so there's this problem, the lack of evidence of inter-aggressions of populations into Anatolia. How this happened, because Anatolia was quite thickly settled, what are they saying happened? that these people traveled over land which is, by the way, in many of these genetic studies there seemed to be somewhat ignorance of how ancient peoples traveled. They did not travel over land extremely difficult. They had to have mostly river way or even marine transportation. This idea that they went on foot over land from somewhat far north of the Caucasus, through the Near East, through all of Anatolia, which was thickly settled. So think through the mechanics of how that would work. What were these people? Were they farmers?

How did they eat? What did they do? The land was already portioned off and settled by other farmers. There's no evidence of war or conquest. But they put tents and they begged for food until they got to West Anatolia and then what did they do there? Because that part was also sickly settled and there's no evidence of other farmers coming in. So did they form a ruling elite? And why would they form the ruling elite? Because no claim is made at this stage of let's say 4000 BC or whatever that this population from the steppe at this point had any superior military or other technology. how they have made their way over land to western Anatolia. This is not addressed at all and there are other problems with their argument still.

Again when foreigners, usually when they introduce a new language, they keep the old place names. You can see this right now all over the United States, Massachusetts, whatever Indian place names. They keep the place names from the preceding language. You see this almost everywhere. This problem, because in Anatolia, in this western part of Anatolia, all the place names are in Anatolian languages. There is no substrate the way there is, for example, in Greece. In Greece, you can find many non-Greek names, Corinth, for example, many others. That's not a Greek name at all. But in Western Anatolia, all the place names, the rivers, the mountains, etc., are in Anatolian languages. So this would have to be somewhat of an exception. Now there are exceptions.

I speak with friends who know much about this. There are examples of, in the Americas, actually American Indians, I think actually the Athabascans, when they traveled into new place, they did rename all the place names in their own language. But that's very rare, you know, to rename every place name that you know, in a sickly populated land, by the way, not like North America with a few tribes here and there. The only other suggestive evidence that Reichlabs has for this direction of settlement, in other words that the Anatolian languages moved into Anatolia from the steppe, from the north, is a Y haplogroup, one of the R parental markers, which they find in Anatolia and it was not present among the Yamnaya, so in their model of what the Aryans were, but it had been present

in North Eurasia before the emergence of the Yamnaya and then it became rare. So I don't know, to that as one piece of evidence that there is one Y-DNA line in Anatolia from the north, I think it's very hard to make that claim. But to be very clear, the sharing of genetic material between Anatolian language speakers in antiquity and Yamnaya through this intermediate ghost mystery population that they call CLVCHG or especially through what they used to model that the individuals founded Berezhnovka too. I think this actually back up Drew's model quite well and it's interesting that he predicted a vulgar location for the isolation point where the Proto-Indo-European language would have diverged from proto-Indo-Hittite parent family. In fact, it fits in almost every way to what he said.

It's remarkable. The location is almost exactly what I imagined the location of this Berezhnevka II and closely related populations in neighboring. It's almost exactly what I imagined that Drew said, this wayward Anatolian farmer population may have ended up eventually and developed the basis for the Proto-Indo-European languages to emerge, and it's remarkable that he said all of this in 2017, including the crucial matter of what you do with Anatolian languages and what is the origin of this Indo-Hittite language family, and he said all of this without really paying much attention to the genetic data at all, which had already existed, some of it by that time. Not this study I'm talking about, this is very recent. But there was already genetic data.

People were talking about the Yamnaya and so on in 2016 and before, I think. I told him about it, and he addressed genetic thing briefly in the book, but this was not really known at the time, what I'm telling you now from the most recent like study. So how was he able to know it? It's because it's obvious to him he has special sense for history, for language, and he was able to figure it out entirely from linguistic, historical and archaeological considerations, which after all, that is what this question is about. And I think now genetic research starts to back him up. But this paper, I think, still quite vague on this. By the way, I could be convinced the other way on it too. It's not essential to its general theory, this dispute of whether the originatory population

of both the Aryans and the Anatolian languages came from Anatolia or the steppe. I think it can work with his more general theory in either way. But I check this, I talk with friend who I cannot say who he is, but let me just say he knows as much, he's as much an expert as anyone who worked on this paper, these two papers from Reichlabs, and he agrees with me that the conclusions in regards to Anatolia, The direction problem I mentioned and so on, it's still very unsure and it's vague. These results are quite vague. The certain thing is that you have to explain somehow the commonality in very ancient populations between both Anatolia and the steppe. That is real. But how you explain that is more complicated and still vague. But you can take as test case the Magyars.

If you were to look for some kind of Magyar signature in modern Hungarians, who are mostly of European blood and related at this point to the European peoples around them, but you would very quickly become confused because even in just a thousand years, and of course now when you're talking about the Yamnaya and the Anatolian thing, quite aside from our separation to them that's 5,000 years ago compared to us, but even in their time it was 2,000-year processes or more, the things I've been talking about so far. But even in a thousand years of historical time, the Magyar languages remained, but maybe at most 3-5% of modern Hungarian signature signal is from the ancient Magyars from a thousand years ago. And that's very ambiguous how you find that.

For example, if you were to just blindly go and try to find out naively, see what else there is in the modern Hungarians beside the baseline of any other central neighbouring population, excuse me, central European neighbouring population. So you look at that, you say, what do they have different that they don't share with Slovaks, Austrian, Romanian, whatever. Then you look at whatever thing they might share with other Uralic peoples in the modern age. And then you say, well, what's left over is obviously the ancient Magyars. Well, not really, you could be very quickly led astray by that method. because let's say a Central Asian or Siberian or East Asian signal that you find, that's not necessarily from the ancient Magyars. It could actually be from any number of peoples

that had admixed over the time by various paths, including indirect paths who were not Magyars. Cumans, for example, Turkics of various kinds that had also moved into that area in medieval times. It could even lead to, you know, you'd be measuring actually something like Slavic admixture in Hungarians without knowing it. indirect source from Slavics, indirect East Asian source and so on. Over time, you could refine this, but only if you had access to much better sampling of ancient population, more bones, right? Special information, especially, for example, very early royal graves, especially before the foundation of the Magyar state, royal graves and noble graves of the earliest undisputed Magyars. That would be very important. Then you could start to reconstruct their signature

in current-day population, especially as you compare to other undisputed Uralic populations. I can't imagine, by the way, what you do with the Bulgars, the modern Bulgarians. They're named after Bulgars, another steppe tribe, caused a lot of trouble for the Byzantines. Khan Khrum, I think, was their founder, the one who moved them into present-day south of the Danube, with a Konan name. But the Bulgars now, of course, speak a Slavic language. It's not even a case where they speak a steppe language like the Magyars still do, like the Hungarians do. So aside from the name of the Bulgarian people, I'm not even sure how much... There's no language, of course, and I'm not even sure how much bulgar blood from the steppe they have, if any at all.

They probably had an extreme tiny elite from the steppe. I don't know if you can find any signature from the steppe bulgars in the modern Bulgarians. I hear that the current-day language closest to ancient Bulgar is Chuvash on the steppe. And this is also something like what the Khazars supposedly spoke. But I very much doubt that the modern-day Chuvash people are a good source to judge what the Bulgar or Khazar genetics were. It's very difficult to judge these things, you know, from modern. And especially for steppe confederations, which were mixed, you have to find the royal graves of that particular dynasty that ruled them. not just any royal graves because in a confederation of many tribes there could be nobles from other very different tribes you know not to speak of their

present-day descendants so anyway I'm going on many tangents the point is that the results of this latest and I agree is very important paper and also look regardless of this dispute I'm getting into Reich substantiate I think a lot of story from Drew's and what I told you on this show a year ago that the Anatolian Indo-European split the most important thing to determine origins and that a split actually between the two tooks had to take place somewhere on the step. Now as for the direction I do think further studies will show the direction was also what Drew say that the origin of the Hindu Hittite languages is ultimately in Anatolia and that this is a story of farmers just wandered too far and gone wild mixing with some very savage people but if you want to find the real results

of course you must look for more ancient bone, ancient Anatolia of course, ancient steppe, but also why not discover capital Vashukani, the capital of the Mitanni empire, find the earliest Mitanni lords, why not have Mr. Lazaridis of Reik labs lobby the Greek government or Greek museum, whoever is in charge of them, to release the bones at my Sinai grave circle be for a full analysis which was never done. And this would answer the question to my satisfaction. The Skeletors, my Sinai beings, they are quite large, they don't look like contemporaneous Skeletors from Greece at that time, leave alone that they're buried in steppe style, with steppe goods, steppe style weapons, swastikas and so on. But they're much bigger and taller, uncomfortable facts.

Just let them be tested and others like that, find other royal graves of that time in my my Sinai and satisfy people and I mean I do think that the massive skeletons of the catacombs culture on the steppe, you look up this catacombs culture and the Trioleti culture in the Caucasus, the Trioleti being a derivation of the catacombs culture which in turn is a derivation of Yamnaya, I do think these last I mentioned the Trioleti as a culture that existed around let's say say, 2300 B.C. to 1900 B.C. in southern Caucasus. I think this is the direct origin of the ancient Greeks. They even had very similar architecture to what you find in Mycenae, similar weapons, similar everything, really. And the Trioleti themselves are a derivation ultimately of

the Yanaya, they're a steppe culture in the southern Caucasus. And they probably arrived by sea, by the way. So I'm very comfortable with this theory. I mean, they arrived by I see to Greece from the Southern Caucasus. I just think that this needs to be tweaked at the edges and also turned into real history eventually, filled out with details referring to motivations like Drew's does, which it's not a matter of romantic images but of doing real history, explaining to your reason, your satisfaction, why these people go there, why they do this, why they do that. Oh, they went to Northeast Europe because there were long-running amber trade routes there, and they went there to grab the amber fields, just like in the Carpathians in North Italy,

they went to grab the metalworking sites and the gold. Does that make sense? So I'll make another prediction now that will be proven right in time, I think. Just as the Yamnaya, although themselves they were, their ethnogenesis is in some kind of mixing of other peoples, but they themselves are a kind of homogenous subset or derivation of these other people, the Sredny Stog that preceded them. The core Yamnaya population was itself relatively genetically homogenous, but it spread over this largest area of Eurasia from Hungary to Kazakhstan, although it was mostly uninhabited. But I predict this, that the Yamnaya themselves as such, for all of their early spread, are that they are not in fact the direct origin of any of the modern Indo-European languages,

nor of the Aryans directly, but that the Aryans are a later subset of the Yamnaya, just like the Yamnaya would have shredd me stock, and that the present day Indo-European languages expanded quite a bit later from a small again relatively homogenous subset of the Yamnaya and that they had to have spread very fast. It had all had to have happened after 2200 to 2100 BC and even somewhat after that. in the same time as development of chariot warfare and also simply development of warrior culture as such. Warrior culture is very conspicuous in the Aryan daughter languages. Many words that survived. It was a bard and warrior culture with specific poetic formulas and it absolutely had to have spread very fast and that late.

There was no warrior culture before that, let's say on 3000 BC or such, and there are ways you can judge whether a warrior culture exists or not, having to do with existence of combat weapons, shields, armor, graves of young warriors and such. These things don't really exist before 2200-2100 BC or so, and they do appear on the step at at Abashevo, I believe, first. This is quite north on the Volga. But it's very possible that there were various waves of the same, let's say, pool of people, that the same broader genetic stock from which the Aryans later emerged also spread in gyres in various other places earlier. But the actual revolution of consciousness and being that occurred with what Spengler considered The Chariot Revolution and the most momentous change in human orientation.

This had to have happened in the middle Bronze Age and late Bronze Age only, so think starting around 1900 BC and going to 1200 BC and even after when it comes to West Europe. And always they spread through a model of elite dominance, which is to say small military groups of men doing this, not large population movements moving for no clear reason, let's expand from the steppe and move to Europe which is also poor like the steppe and to do what there exactly. I mean the explanation of small military groups doing this makes historical and archaeological sense as per the Norman model of how the Normans spread in medieval Europe or the Spanish conquistador model in the new world, and if you want your percentages of step, people say oh this or

that nation is, this or that modern nation is 40% Yanaya or 20% Yanaya, well you can see where it come from also in South America, Spanish percentages and such, that can happen by elite dominance theory, excuse me, elite dominance model. And I think this story is more believable because at every level it explains historical motivation is workable, understandable model for spread. It's in keeping with both the linguistic changes of the ancient world and the archaeological changes. I'm sorry to say to you again, a lot of these people do not know or care about military history. They assume warrior groups have always existed. They don't know what the material record is of weapons. I repeat myself again for a moment, but it's an important point.

They don't know what it means to expand in an already thickly settled area like Anatolia. They don't think of the mechanics of how that happens. Does it happen over land or over rivers? What are the signs when something like that happens? None of these questions are anything most of them have ever thought about. A few of my friends have, but most have not. But right, these people did not decide to leave the steppe with horses to conquer poor villages for no reason when richer civilizations were available in the Near East that were also not defensible. It was actually an all-around explosion of energy and military technology that affected the civilized Near East as well, which recorded it in writing and in other ways, and this is a much more satisfying historical explanation.

It's also, quite aside from all this, and yes, this is my own interest, but it's a model to jolt people out of a time of stagnation, because merely to know that small companies of use can and do affect history, and that it's not some kind of nebulous zoological process of movements of communities and people that move around for unclear reasons. By the way, in ancient Israel, the myth of the Exodus is also bullshit, but it probably has a historical basis. Again, there was an elite group probably in Egypt that moved into Canaan and gave the people there that myth in the same way that the Philistines were probably not the result of a wholesale movement of people from the sea. Everyone knows now the Philistines were a kind of sea people, somewhat Indo-European in their material and

and warrior culture, but I don't think there was any mass movement of people into that area of Ashkelon and so on from the sea, there's no evidence of that, but probably a small elite group did arrive from Crete, five days sail from Israel I think around there or ten days sail, something like that. That is how changes I think in the ancient world happened, and those changes can lead to massive genetic imprints, because elite men would, for all kinds of reasons, leave a bigger mark, but that doesn't tell you really what the self-understanding and identity of those ancient people were. In any case, it's just that we are in such time of stolid stagnation now, mortification of the will, that no one can imagine this kind of agency were small groups, which in

ancient times, I repeat to you, it had to be small groups. There was no national self-consciousness present anywhere in the world really, arguably before 1000 BC or 900 BC or so, and even then. But before then, it would have had to be affected through the agency of small groups anyway. Anyway, I believe this coming back, letters of marca returning perhaps. Erik Prince invite you to to skin Sinaloa cartel men alive to take their avocado plantations to take their cocoa yes maybe a glimmer on the horizon appears that history will move again not on its own which it never moved on its own it never moved out of historical forces or internal ideological motions it moved as in remote antiquity out of the will and lust for conquest of companies small

companies of adventure. I hope for this again. Until soon, Bap out!