Simon Mann, a legendary Condottiere, a man of adventure and power of our time, unique specimen of man, a gentleman soldier. I had the privilege of interviewing on this show a couple of episodes back. Unfortunately, he died today. It made me very sad to hear. We had talk, planned to meet someday also and continue further discussion, all kind of things. And I feel he could have been my friend. It all make me very sad. I was not expecting this. I will make an entire episode available to all tomorrow on Twitter. Simon Mann ascends to Valhalla, but I think also he will return to our world, soon return in power. Otherwise, I must do episode now. There is new pope. He is like his predecessor, Francis Bergoglio, the bouncer from Buenos Aires. I have called him Pope Faggot.

The new one is also South America-linked liberation theology communist activist, who seems especially incensed by the fact that Trump and Vance are trying to do some minimal level of border and immigration control, and there's no way around this. I really don't care whether he had statements from 2012 for or against gay marriage. Hillary Clinton also attacked gay marriage around that time. He was chosen now because the College of Cardinals are a bunch of ignorant peasants, they are brain fucked by mass media, addicted to the same Reddit or everyone else is watching same news sources around the world, and they chose him simply out of spite against Trump. If you go to Europe, any country, local TV station, France, Italy, whatever, it's all

all US news and sometimes very small Trump pool funding from Harvard University and it's on like a French TV. Why would France care about this? Imagine American media having news report that Macron cut funding to some university and it's very bizarre. Everyone plugged in to same American news site and fucked in mind by this. And so College Cardinal, no different. And they chose this man just as the anti-Trump to spite Trump. They see Trump maybe as anti-Christ, Trump rules their minds, and brown migrants are their religion. And I feel bad for believing Catholics because the Church as it is now and the Pope is basically international leftist pro-migrant NGO right now, and there's no way around this, and

I guess also they keep choosing South America-connected popes because they hope to stem the tide of South Americans converting to evangelicalism. It's not quite snake-handle Protestantism, but I have attended evangelical services just to get into the spirit, you know, at least they have that, but Pope Faggot Francis did nothing to stop that, nor can they unless they were to choose a man like Bishop Richard Williamson, who I also had the pleasure to interview on the Caribbean rhythms, I think a year or two ago. He also unfortunately died, but there are, I don't know if he has successors in terms of charisma and so on, but someone like that, of course they never choose, and as for church doctrine and theology, whether it's conservative or not on matters of theology alone.

That's nothing to me, nor to anyone else outside the church, because what it takes according to their high priest with a little hat, the man falsely sitting in Rome to pretend to save souls, that is up to whatever religion. I no more care about that than whether a Shiite Ayatollah or a grand rabbi of Borosimir's decree a novel way to wipe yourself in the bathroom. As you know, these are the things that animate Shiite forums. How should you brush your teeth? Who cares? As long as this man who has international audience acts as a secular creature and head of a foreign state and foreign organization and tries to flood America and Europe with millions of the Pope's brain dead brown slaves from the global south, that's very different.

not a religious matter. And I think actually all real Catholics will stand against this community organizer from Chicago impersonating the Pontifex Maximus when he tried to interfere in immigration policy at least. Well, otherwise, I don't want to talk this on a different matter. You've heard the news that rising tensions between India and Pakistan. This week India sent a missile into Pakistan. Just the other day, many missiles. And you know, I mean to to say that it was a special moment I saw TV and rise Bharat, rise India, let fly thousands nuclear tipped vajra thunderbolt at Pakistan. The numbers of the impiers who walk this earth has made silent the oracles in India, in Greece Delphi silent, silent the oracles in Tibet, all the other holy places of the world silent

But as long as the MPS rocket aim your nuclear weapon missiles without mercy or India at the MPS, 1,000 flying Iodias demolish them utterly as you did the false temple Babri Masjid in 1992 look up Iodia. Use bulldozers giant to scoop and level into the seas beyond Balochistan. Fly high, fly proud the Aryan swastika my Indian brothers. Let fly the holy vajra of Indra, the thunder hammer. Listen, you look at these interesting Zephanic peoples, also called the hammer of the thunder god, Uko, Uko Vasara. It is the hammer and thunderbolt of Indra, the same word vajra, vasara, nuclear weapons in ancient Awaken O India, the saffron swastika of fire. Blaze a path to re-establish Aryavarta. Let Buddhism also return to Afghanistan. The Buddha, you know what it means, right?

The Buddha, the awakened one. Apparently that means woke, and I'm serious. Jordan Peterstein and James Lindsay, who looks at more important things like an academic fart huffer, they're having this course now about how waking up in the morning is like Lucifer, the morning star, who is woke, the satanic right-wing origins of wokeness or whatever. It's schizophrenic Wikipedia link, you know, when someone stay up at night, maybe a coffee link, many Wikipedia, and they think it's research. And if you remember Jordan Peterson interview from some years ago with Camille Paglia, you can find on YouTube, I think it's pathetic. Such a gulf immediately apparent between Paglia's learning, insight, her wit, and this, he's really a dull pile driver, Jordan Peterson.

I knew there was nothing, I never read a word he wrote. Life is too short for that. Otherwise, yes, I drive and I listen to audiobook, John Julius Norwich, history of the papacy. And the remarkable part is that it is amazing institution, 2,000 years old. He calls it the oldest continuous absolute monarchy. It's interesting, it's an elective monarchy. I've suspected at times that an adoptive monarchy such as the five good Roman emperors had, maybe best system of government could also work, maybe to last a long time. A hereditary monarchy, not so much I think. Some do last long, but not, I don't know. The Japanese claim to have a continuous hereditary monarchy since their emperor Jimmu descended from Amaterasu, the sun goddess. I think that they say it's older than the Catholic Church.

They say something like 300 or 400 BC by our counting, But I think the earliest historically proven emperors, I mean with any certainty, are maybe from actually around 300 to 500 AD. That would be some, but by their own legal traditions from that time on, it's a hereditary house with direct descent, at least from that time. In other words, no coups, there are no formal dynasty replacements. It's not quite, you know, father to son to whatever daughter even direct is. There were some, it's impressive the church, I think, may be leaving aside the first few popes, including, let's say, Saint Peter, which, yes, Peter was in Rome and probably martyred along with Paul, but his role as pope was probably mythical. But even that aside, you do not count Saint Peter and the first few popes,

which are not otherwise historically known with any certainty, but even then, It's the oldest historically certain absolute monarchy in the world that's very impressive and yet when I listen to John Julius Norwich about the late Roman Empire and the spread of this institution in the first centuries, it's a very depressing story because the empire for all of its problems and it had a basically dead ceremonial religion by that time. No one believed in it but it was the form of the state lording it over a motley population quite different than the one that had founded, had been the engine of the republic and the early empire. And this shiftless, globalized population of no identity, living in an extractive, all-encompassing kind of nihilistic empire prison.

It turned, it was the receiving ready ground for this, I'm sorry to say this, Levantine Mafia and alien moralities and the Empire for all of its problems was still late antiquity still populated at its highest levels by exemplars of Greco-Roman powerful specimens in the philosophical schools Especially and among some of the political class what what Nietzsche calls the flower of Greek skepticism The cultivation of ancient philosophical schools, it could have led to an early scientific revolution Also, all of it shut down by dirty bearded men in black robes screaming, breaking statues and temples. Well, you know, then it turned into something else after that, it is said. But now I think very much back to being what it was or almost the new Israel, the mortal enemy of Roman nobility.

Anyway, Norwich, always good read, accessible introduction to general history, I'd recommend any of his books. I think his last one was on France. And this episode is about something else in our own globalized prison world, the concept of indigenous peoples. I posted a few weeks ago two articles by Keith Windshuttle. He's an Australian historian, a conservative, who died about exactly a month ago right after I posted his article. In fact, he had been a socialist in the 1970s, but turned conservative, especially as a critic of post-modernist historiography. And the two articles I posted, one is from the New Criterion, it's called The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. You can find, I'll repost it, they took down the paywall. You can find for free on New Criterion site.

Another one is called Extinction of Australia's Pygmies, and it's from Quadrant magazine from early 2000s. I was going to talk about both on this episode, but I may leave the latter for next. I think maybe the audience does not enjoy episodes over an hour and 20 minutes or an hour and a half. Maybe I should keep them shorter and of course more frequent. Yes, I know. But I'll talk these articles on this episode and especially the general idea of indigeneity, The way the left uses this, which I think is misunderstood by the new media environment on whatever you want to call it, the right, broadly speaking, or the anti-left. A recent example was this guy, Razib Khan, you may have seen him around, he had a tweet. I will read it for you.

I am aware that many people who listen to this show are not on Twitter, that's interesting. The Sami, I'm reading this guy's tweet now, the Sami, the lapis, the Sami are Europe's only official indigenous people, they are also relative latecomer to Europe compared to their Scandinavian neighbors in cultural terms, which I haven't read his subsequent or whatever, I haven't listened to whatever he said on this, but my point here is not about this person. It's about the attitude on the right or in the new media environment online, call it what you want, which is that if you post about the absurd way that the left uses these words, that maybe you can then hijack their moral standing. That is believing that if you point out that Scandinavians like Swedes actually may predate

the Sami or the lapis in that area, that therefore you have proven they are indigenous according to the obvious meaning of that word, therefore QED, you have also taken over the left's moral standing and therefore the Swedes now, or in whatever the South Africa, the Afrikaners who arrived in South Africa before some of the black tribes did, but now you would believe these are entitled to the same benefits or protections or sympathy or call it what you want legitimacy as the left gives to native first peoples or native first peoples so-called or that the UN gives to them all around the world to so-called first peoples and again I'm not interested talking about the poster I just named but it was a point of contention online around what he had said.

I've seen this attitude before, I thought it was good to illustrate why this posture doesn't work. I mean, there's some vagueness already in what means official indigenous people, who is it who grants that and why. So it's two people talking past each other ultimately. When the left uses the word indigenous, they are not seeking what the right is seeking and use of that word. The right is primarily concerned with legitimacy, with the right of occupation of territory, maybe right to exclude outsiders and so on. It's a point of contention now, this word in immigration debates and so on. The left by contrast is concerned with the other things I mentioned, morally with empathy for the marginalized and disadvantaged, practically with protections, benefits for enclaves, sometimes

of the view to their sovereign independence, but almost always with a component that includes a role for leftist NGOs composed of international human rights officials or whatever you want. I've called them an international human rights priesthood. Note what it does not address, really this matter of immigration. I'll get to that in a moment. But then quite aside from ultimate intentions, the right and the left mean very different things by the word. I'll get to in a moment, but to illustrate, let me give you an analogy. This is not merely a case of misuse of terms of art. If you adopt technical language from a scientific discipline, let's say, mathematics, whatever, and you misuse the word in a common sense way, that's a waste of time, it makes you look silly.

My favorite example is a postmodernist psychoanalyst, Lacan, when he's talking about the supposed topology of the human mind, you know, he makes up the, I guess he thinks it makes him sound intellectual, the topology of the psyche, or whatever he calls it, and he adopts from the discipline of mathematical topology, its technical language, and ends up saying things like the first group of man's psyche is not trivial, it is profound. You know, a first month topology student would find that unintentionally very funny because In math, trivial does not mean the same thing as in everyday language. The opposite is not profound. So what's going on here, though, with the right misusing the language of the left and of the mainstream is like that, but also somewhat different.

Let me give an analogy to the so-called Mediterranean diet. And just as a preamble, I want to tell you, I don't support or oppose any diet. You have to figure out diet for you. That's not what this is about, but it's about misuse of, look, you may have seen people online attack the so-called Mediterranean diet by pointing out countries like Greece or Italy have actually high rates of diabetes and so forth. So Italy today, with its pasta eating, with rich sauces or whatever, it has this diabetes and I think higher than average for Europe and so on. So I assume Nina Teicholz, I think that's her name, other advocates of carnivore diet or ketogenic or varieties of the so-called paleo diet. I think they've engaged in this criticism. I've seen, anyway, many who use their talking points

do what I just did now. They are right, but they're talking past the matter because that is not how words Mediterranean diet are used by mainstream nutritionists. They are referring specifically to the diet observed some decades ago among Cretan, not Cretan, but from Crete. Cretan peasants, in Crete specifically, it was a diet based on things like whole grain bread, some olive oil, chickpeas, beans, peas, greens, foraged mountain greens, some fish, a few eggs a week, white cheese, very rarely red meat. And then this diet, when translated into similar ingredients in America and Europe, was actually put through studies. I haven't read these studies myself. I cannot vouch for their quality. That's another thing, by the way. Influencers online talking about studies. They read the abstract.

They don't tell you, they never read the study itself, let alone judge the quality or whatever. But I don't know of these studies. Their advocates, I will tell you, claim they are very high quality, multiple randomized, double-blind, et cetera, gold standard studies and meta studies that show that this diet, call it what you will, what I just said now, actually does have very good effects for cardiovascular health markers, weight control and other things. Why isn't it called the Cretan diet? Aside from PR concerns, which, right, nutritionists maybe shouldn't have done that. Maybe they shouldn't engage in PR. But diets similar to the one among Cretan peasants were shared historically at locations around the Mediterranean. I'm not going to say peoples,

but certain locations around Mediterranean. The point is it doesn't refer as such what mediterraneans eat today, or what people stereotypically assume they eat, or their signature dishes known abroad, right? It doesn't refer to spaghetti alfredo or whatever, or Roman food, you know, because Roman food is very heavy, carbonara, amatriciana, all this stuff like fried bacon, egg butter, cheese on pasta. It can be very satisfying in a hearty way, but it's extreme heavy food, it's not what people think of Mediterranean light, you know, and it's not what I meant, excuse me, it's not what is meant by the words Mediterranean diet. So if you go to Rome, by the way, go to Luciano, Luciano's in the center of town, it has the

best carbonara, it's a kind of cliche location for carbonara, but they really do very good carbonara with thick, crispy guanciale and this. I am hungry, which I didn't eat today, maybe, do you think my rendering is low energy? I had some grapes before recording now, but anyway you see what I'm saying, what I'm saying as an own, a new media figure online will try to own and to point out part of what I'm telling you and the fact that actually that what the Mediterranean's eat is not so healthy and that Spain has a big obesity rate and whatever and they say I'm owning them, but that's not what nutritionists are saying. So the two are talking past each other and then the audience is presented with an empty rhetorical win, a rhetorical trick really.

It's not taken seriously by anyone who's actually concerned with these debates. It cannot affect policy because it may very well be, by the way, that the Cretan diet isn't as good as they claim either. But that's not being debated by these, you know, the studies of the diets of secluded mountain populations, whether in Okinawa or the Caucasus or Sardinia, maybe Crete too, who knows. Then there is the, I was reading today about this language isolate in Pakistan, the Burushaski. Nobody knows where they're from, there are speculations that they may have come along with the Aryans into that part of the world, the language isolate, supposedly also extremely long lived, but actually when they look at real medical studies, they are not so long

lived and not so healthy, it's just local nabobs claiming these things for media consumption, but what happens is because you have very long lived people, okay I'm sorry if I already said this on a previous episode I think I may have mentioned, what's really going on with this, oh you have very long lived populations in these isolated mountain locations, but you have remote populations who are integrated into a new bureaucratic state and these local enclaves have just poor record keeping and there's no keeping of birth dates of old people especially. So the claims that you're seeing about there's that many centenarians on Okinawa or Sardinia Subsequently, when someone actually closely studies it, it's not true.

So you can't say, oh, you eat yogurt because you come from the mountains in Georgia, in the Caucasus. Who knows if that's true? But estimated ages and so on are faulty or often made up records. So that would seem to me to be a stronger criticism of something like what I'm saying about the diet of Cretan or Berber peasants or whatever. But again, the Mediterranean diet strictly defined in this way its advocates say is good studies and translated to the West, I don't know. But when you look, I've been giving analogy, when you look at this other discussion, it's the same thing where a journalist influencer in this new so-called right wing media biome is presenting you with an empty rhetorical victory by pointing out the absurd ways the left uses indigenous.

The thing is that the left is not concerned with who is there first when they use this word. They don't have that in mind at all. It refers to things like a cultural enclave within a bigger state, or a population whose presence in a region precedes the erection of formal state structures by someone else who's the dominant party in that region and who don't have their own state elsewhere, or things like this. What you can deduce from what I just said, it's an extension of international human rights language and concerns primarily from the 1960s onward concerned with dismantling especially the legacy of European colonialism and in this direction institutions have already been established at the United Nations which were supported by the international left as

well as the Soviets and the Chinese and so on when they saw an opportunity to attack Western influence and presence in the third world, especially if you look in Africa and so on, please maybe you study my three-part series on Africa, what actually was happening in all those countries. You had some European settlers and colonialists, they were running the economy in places like the Congo, and then you had this supposedly nationalist revolution against colonialism on behalf of indigenous peoples and what really happened is they just replaced Western populations and specialists with Czech because the Czechs were especially aggressive in that period of the Cold War, the 60s under the Russians, with Czech and Russian so-called experts and

violently killed Western Europeans whenever they could find them and just put Soviets So of course the Soviet blocked people in, so the Soviets supported this. And then there are air or successor NGOs which act along the same lines. In fact, they did at the time too, American NGOs as well as Methodist missionaries supported all of this process of so-called decolonization, really Sovietization that I just mentioned. So they're actually smart, these people, not to touch on the matter of who was in one place or another first historically, because this is often impossible to establish. So this is why you have, for example, Romanians arguing with Hungarians for a thousand pages on Quora, who was the first in Transylvania a thousand years ago, as if that matters.

I consider this to be a stupid old pile driver concern, by the way. You get forum threads, Quora shut down after 10,000 posts by Albanians versus Turks, Serbs and Bulgarians and Hungarians over who was in Kopochnika Valley in 1400 AD or whatever. But often this is the kind of emotion that influencers again of the new right or whatever you want, the media biome, they're trying to appeal to this kind of, what do you call it? Kibitzing? Is that what? I don't even know what this is called. causes engagement, it's entirely fruitless. It leaves the population, excuse me, the leftist position especially firmly untouched because they're not talking about this at all. And although discrediting their absurd use of language in the public eye has value, but then trying after that to pretend

that you've therefore assumed the superiority of the moral position that they intended to inhabit, which many on the right think that, that's a huge mistake because you haven't done that, You haven't really convinced anyone except people who are already on your side. Just like with the Mediterranean diet thing, it's kind of a, in fact, any smart reader who digs a bit further on his own will discover what I'm saying and that you're maybe purposefully obfuscating matters or you just didn't know what the word meant. But the word, whether used correctly or not, you're not really addressing what your opponents are talking about. Questions of semantics aside, because they are referring to a real phenomenon. So anyway, I will elaborate more on this and talk about Windshuttle article,

The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, when I come back. Welcome back, this is Caribbean Rhythms, episode 189 on the problem of indigenous peoples. So listen, okay, let me read you a paragraph from this article by Keith Windshuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. So you get idea of what first peoples or indigenous peoples movement means in United Nations language, and also the general approach of how this works through academia, media, and NGOs to achieve political goals. I am reading now, despite the certainty with which such pronouncements have been made regarding massacres of Aboriginals, and despite the political weight they carry, the body of historical work from which they derive is actually very small.

The history of relations between Aborigines and British colonists only began to be taken seriously at an academic level in the 1970s. Claims about large-scale massacres and of a death toll in the tens of thousands date from the 1980s and in fact derive largely from the work of one historian, Henry Reynolds, and his book The Other Side of the Frontier from 1981. Reynolds and his colleagues have generated a number of academic followers and have established an intellectual framework within which most research on the subject has since been done. Like several of its supporters who now hold prominent chairs of history at Australian universities, Reynolds was a member of the generation of sixties radicals. He remains a political activist today and recently wrote Aboriginal Sovereignty, a book

that has inspired the leading black radicals in the Aboriginal movement. The book argues for a separate Aboriginal state governed by Aboriginal laws where traditional Aboriginal culture can flourish. It identifies with the international First Peoples political movement that wants independence from imperial domination for all indigenous cultures and which is currently working through the United Nations to achieve that end. In Australia, the current overt demand is for a treaty with the rest of the country. For public consumption in the media, the activists justify a treaty simply on the grounds of rectifying past injustices. In writings addressed to their own supporters, however, they see a treaty establishing the grounds for a separate state and government.

In other words, what we have here is a version of Australian history designed to serve highly politicized ends. To date, it has largely been accepted without dimmer, except by a handful of older historians such as Geoffrey Blainey, who has labeled it a black armband history. And yet, in terms of acceptable scholarship, it has very little to recommend it. When it is closely examined, much of the evidence for the claims about massacres, terrorism and genocide turns out to be highly suspect. Most of it is very poorly founded, other parts are seriously mistaken, and a good deal of it is outright fabrication. Right, okay, so this article by Winchottel again in New Criterion goes into some detail to show then how not only the claims of massacres often have no historical foundation in any

In fact, usually they were the result of just later rumors or lore among Aboriginal communities and their interactions, either with missionaries or with leftist activists. And by the way, when, say, massacre, even those who claim essentially that genocide took place, they're saying numbers ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 total Aborigines killed for a high to as high as sometimes some claim 100,000 from the late 18th century to the early 20th century, so that would be the total death toll. But the reason this would be a genocide, so-called, is because that's from initial pre-European population of Aboriginals of about only 300,000, so that would be a third of them, okay? And much of this article is Wind Shuttle considering evidence for any such massacres, and finding

there is basically no evidence most of the Aboriginal population that died, considerable numbers did, I don't think it was as high as claimed even, but they died in disease introduced not only by Europeans but simply also by the opening up of Australia to Asia and Indonesia. But in any case most of this article Wind Shuttle goes back to colonial police, colonial Police records, court records, many such things, studies them, primary records themselves, finds that whenever ex-convicts and many, you know, whenever they did massacres, which was very rare, but obviously it happens sometimes, but almost all such massacres were again, number of 10 to 20 people at most were killed during such massacres. And even by the left's own claims, you know, they're saying it added up, but each of them

was about that number. But following, for example, one such widely publicized trial, executions of the white Australians who did this, and so it's very questionable how you have genocide and public and big media case of public hangings of people who kill Aboriginals, I don't know. The third and last part of the article is not very good. I think when Shuttle tries to play the conservative intellectual audience of the new criterion and does this kind of filler where he goes baby's first foray into primitivism, like a college lecture where he criticizes the origin of the idea of the noble savage, attempting to tie leftist 1960s style anti-colonial nationalist agitation to the idea of the noble savage, which he traces back not only to Rousseau, but even to Montaigne, whose essay on this

The Cannibals, I discussed it on this show a few episodes back. But I think this is a half-truth or a quarter-truth at best, is not really relevant because the left are not primitivist for the same reasons Montaigne or Rousseau are said to be. They're not in the same way either, it's very different valence, only to the extent They are primitivist to the extent they see that as instrumental to setting up again the ancient commune, or the total obliteration of the individual will, or the individualized personality under Anglo-civilization, which they want to do away with, crush it under the commands of the amassed organism of the lower orders of the community, or what I've called the long house, or mid-life.

And in this sense, maybe the left is traditionalist or rather reactionary in the extreme in trying to reestablish the most retrograde side of human nature and retrograde form of human organization to reestablish this on a modern basis and to arrest the progress of modern freedom and technology, to make it completely subservient to the communitarian needs. But I think for some primitivist so-called philosophers like Montaigne, that conservatives like Wind Shuttle then tried to lump in together with the modern leftists, I think that approach is very wrong. They have very different reasons for considering nobility or lack thereof of primitive peoples. I'll come back to this later, but yes, the article is valuable. It shows a little bit of what Wind Shuttle did in his academic career.

He went to primary materials with no evidence for these claims of massacres, and not only no evidence, but often evidence of the opposite. And I'm not just talking about the public executions of those who did occasionally kill Aboriginals, but very often the numbers that – well, I don't want to get into it. You read the article, he gets into some details. One of the best parts of Wind Shuttle research into this question of supposed past massacres, justice is done to Aboriginals, is his account of how religious missionaries were the ones who spread these rumors. And often they did so not only without evidence, but against all evidence that can still be found. In other words, they counted, they went to the police or to the media, they said such

and such have been massacred, and they gave a list and then the people on that list appeared in their attendance rolls the next year or the year after that and thereafter and so on. Missionaries, I guess, they were probably Methodist, I don't know, they usually are, but they fabricated rumors of massacres. Why they do this? Because they intended to show the European and the civilized modern world as hopeless, as cruel to the aboriginals, in order to keep the aboriginals as their wards. In other words, only if you stay with us missionaries on our plantations, they're not plantations, I guess, they were reservations, missions, only then will you be safe. And to the outside world, it was also a call for funding and for their self-justification as essentially NGOs, right?

So give us money or we were trying to save these poor people who are being killed and the missionaries were... In other words, even at this time in the late 19th, in the 19th, early 20th century, when you are told, oh, it was muscular Christianity or whatever, but actually it was libtard NGOs of that time fabricating stories of the white man's cruelty and the gravity against the the defenseless natives who only they could protect. Anyway, missionaries aside, the narrative or mythology of past injustice is at the core of everything you recognize today as woke, I think. In other words, it's not, you may have seen arguments recently again online about, oh, it's about differentials in capacity or IQ by race and the denial thereof or whatever, but it's not really so.

Whenever you find any claim that you can readily recognize woke it's always actually the other stuff is ancillary but the actual core of the claim is based on a moral outrage that's stoked at supposed past victimization at the hands of straight white imperial males especially and that's so whether it's blacks claiming it but also natives of various kinds women gays Jews or whatever making other claims like that that need a restitution or protection it's always this the white devil the man bully us. I'll never forget this gay faggot who I was talking about, Roasties and how they claim victimization, and he said they deserve to ask for redress, the women now. This is a homo defending women saying that they have suffered for thousands of years. Now listen,

women have not been alive, there's no woman who's been alive for thousands of years. They're a people, they're a gender. I don't understand how they inherit one side of their family and it's the victimization side. It's bizarre, but it's the same thing as with the gays. It's this self-created identity that then others are supposed to acknowledge. I posted I posted recently, sorry to go on tangent, I posted recently on the bizarre pretense that two lesbians, or let's say a lesbian, would only be attracted to other lesbians, or that a gay guy would only be attracted to another gay man, and I say this makes no logical sense and I have a hundred gays in my replies chimping at me, but that's, of course it's complete nonsense, a lot of their pornography is based on the seduction of straight

men and so on, but it makes no logical sense on its face. The only reason it's just routinely accepted is because, again, construction that there's such a thing as a separate gay identity, so of course they're only attracted to each other somehow because there's no such thing as woman identity or identity as a man either. It's a bizarre thing. But anyway, now regarding claims of past massacres in Australia, in this case, it's the historians themselves who in this, one of this article by Wendt Shuttle, the most memorable and outrageous part, the historians who are his opponents themselves admit that yes, there's no evidence, but the absence of evidence is proof that it was a frontier war and its supremacist to demand every day of being a bad white man to ask for evidence.

So I'll read a bit more. So while I had demonstrated that there was very little reliable evidence for most of the claims about the killing of Aborigines, defenders of the Orthodox replied that this is just what you would expect in a frontier war situation. Pastoralists displaced both Aborigines and the game they depended upon. Faced with the loss of their land and starvation, the Aborigines understandably responded with violence. The Orthodox view claimed that the frontier was a place where whites could kill blacks with impunity. No other settlers on the frontier would have reported them and the police either turned a blind eye or were complicit in massacres themselves. Hence, widespread killings would have occurred without leaving any trace in the historical evidence.

This is, of course, a circular argument. To explain why there would be no evidence of widespread killings, you claim there was a frontier war situation which, under this definition, is a place where there were widespread killings but where no evidence of them remained. The most revealing comment was made by Dr. Bain Atwood of Monash University, who wrote, �Most of the historical sources that might have enabled us to enumerate the number of aboriginal people killed on the frontier have, for various reasons, either never existed or have since been lost or destroyed.� Atwood went on to claim that very little historical interpretation is verifiable in any strict sense, and that historians arrive at the truth on the basis of a �scholarly consensus.�

The notion of a scholarly consensus might be acceptable if there was sufficient evidence to support it. However, if the evidence never existed, as in this historian's words, or can no longer be found, then the consensus can owe nothing to scholarship. It is no more than a shared ideological position. To imagine that one can arrive at conclusions without evidence, but simply on the basis of an agreement between those currently in the field, is to abandon historical methodology in favor of politics. He who has the numbers determines the truth. Unfortunately, this postmodernist assumption now dominates the teaching of history at our universities. I end reading from Keith Windschuttle now, but what you think of this, I think if you

are familiar with any academic historians in any field really with very rare exceptions, what I've just said now is not at all surprising. This is how they operate. It's also how their analog in the international human rights lobby operates, by the way. If you read some of the writers prominent in that world, like Michael Ignatieff, who was apparently also the leader of opposition, the head of the Liberal Party in Canada I think around 2010. But as an academic, he just outright says that the foundation of human rights philosophically is just our agreeing on them. And I'm greatly simplifying of course, but what all these postmodernist forms of light nihilism have in common, and I call it a species of ignorant female nihilism in the sense that

that both for the academic disciplines where this is carried out and also in Mr Ignatieff International Human Rights priesthood at the UN, what is meant in practice when you dismiss standards of reason and standards of evidence and you say the origin of moral notions and even of facts is not to be considered, but that both can be decided by so-called consensus, we agree. The question of course what happens to those who don't agree, who don't share the consensus And what all of this implicitly means is they're ousted or not hired or in any case their voices are excluded by bureaucratic and other passive aggressive means. So it's a kind of institutional authoritarianism that's unaware it is ultimately based on force

as all forms of nihilistic consensus seeking, you know, they're based on force. So, you know, it's a very female thing, female at its worst sense where you are dependent on the force of other men and use that in a furtive way and don't even acknowledge to yourself what simultaneously dependent and aggressive person you are. But anyway, so you see the entire edifice of indigenous people's language is built on the back of concept of writing past wrongs, which is why constructing academic narratives of massacres and genocides, real or not, that's what's central to this effort. And then these get disseminated in media and used also as basis of United Nations and so-called civil society groups, NGOs, they work based on these.

So you know, it's just absurd moment for me to see supposedly dissident or supposedly right-wing influencers, whatever you want to call them, call it the alternative new media, the new media bio. Because in fact it includes a lot of ex-leftists, various other opportunists, but it's amazing to see them try to convince people that if you merely can engage in a debate, the result of which is to prove first occupancy for European people or people of European origin, first occupancy that somehow you will have won this argument and that the whole edifice that I just referred to will now work in your favor. The part of the left's argument that takes place in public, and it's based on things

like writing past wrongs, Holocaust-like narratives of the evils of the white and especially Anglo-imperial colonialism with which they're especially obsessed Anglo-settler colonialism which in places like Australia these historians regularly cast in the light of a kind of Holocaust language and so on. Because the Anglo colonies, why? They are the most stable, prosperous, and influential ones, yes, and well that's putting it lightly. The point is, if you can get the United States, the center of the world still, to adopt this Holocaust guilt on itself, whether over the treatment of the slaves or of the Native Americans, but now they're focusing on the black thing, on the slaves, or putting down the woman identity,

the trans-historical universal woman identity as if such a thing has ever existed. But yes, they've mostly forgotten the Native Americans, the people of which I'm very Some of them by the way, but if they can achieve instilling that Holocaust guilt over for example Black 1619 project or whatever. That's milk and cookies for the international left indefinitely And as you know, they've got a large way to achieving this already, especially under Obama years Obama himself come out of this academic leftist world culturally and so forth so articles and work such as wind shuttle others are doing the same to show why why the narratives of past injustices are largely falsified, and to chip away at the very concept of indigeneity, and to show why the supposed history marshaled to these causes

is by its own creator's words even just activist scholarship or propaganda translated into academic language. And this and various other attempts discredit this, so I'm very much for that. And I'd even be into trolling occasionally about indigeneity. you were there first or so, if you didn't take that too seriously, but how some, and actually it's quite a lot, which is why I'm talking about this, a lot of people on the so-called new influencer biome, they go on Tucker and so on, and then they take this next step and seriously believe that if you will, you can get someday a bunch of leftist academics and NGOs working for you if you prove you were there first, and that's an absurd thing, right? And weirdly enough, the Israeli method of argumentation is exactly the same as this.

Just, you know, chorus style debates about who was there first, and what did Mark Twain say, what happened in 1900, and this and that. I'm saying I don't really understand who such arguments are supposed to be aimed at. From my point of view, who was somewhere first doesn't matter, because mankind, I'll try, maybe I do next part of this episode, now I do next time, but mankind, you know, even in Australia has always been a series of displacements, a series of conquests, takeovers, and of course in the sense of the nationalist right worldwide, the Anglo states of United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are obviously not indigenous by any definition, so what do you do about them? How do you buy them into the left's language on this? I don't understand.

To me these states are legitimate for other reasons, including that they just exist, but also they built the cities, they developed the land, that's a Lockean type argument you could make, you could find it also in Schopenhauer's brief writings on politics and many other liberal thinkers say the same, that you mix your labor with the land and this is what gives you a moral claim in that it's a kind of claim readily recognized by others. Ah yes, of course, he developed, he built that city, of course he should. But secondly, they are legitimate to me because they built a state structure, whereas what existed before was not a state, and in fact not even a national or ethnic consciousness in any recognizable form.

I found this part of Windshuttle's article very illustrative, very true regarding especially how hunter-gatherers see the world. I read now, third, the idea that Aborigines were patriots engaged in a brave but futile defense of their territory against the firepower of British imperialism is a piece of ideology derived from the anti-colonialist movement of the 1950s and 60s. It has little to do with the mentality of tribal hunter-gatherers of the late 18th and early 19th century when colonization originally took place. Rather than nationalist hostility, the aboriginal response to the arrival of the British was quite different. In some places, Aborigines were fascinated by and strongly drawn toward white society.

Some became quickly dependent upon white food supplies and addicted to British products such as flour, sugar, tea, tobacco and rum. In other places, personal quarrels between the whites and the natives, especially over women and the theft of food, led to violence. Under the Aboriginal notion of payback justice, an offense against a native could be revenged by a violent assault on any white man. The great majority of killings of both whites and blacks took place under these conditions. While they involved a genuine clash between the two different cultures' notions of justice and law, rarely did they amount to frontier warfare and certainly not the kind of anti-colonial guerrilla warfare familiar to most historians who came of age in the 1960s.

As for the aborigines being driven into conflict by starvation after native game was eliminated, many frontier pastoralists reported that after they had removed the timber to expand their pastures, in most places they suffered the plague of kangaroos whose populations exploded to take advantage of the greatly increased supply of grass. It is true that the aboriginal population declined dramatically after British colonization, but this was almost entirely due to disease. Smallpox on the north and east coasts contracted from fishermen visiting from present-day Indonesia and influenza and pneumonia in the rest of the continent and on Tasmania. The aboriginal birth rate also plummeted primarily due to the spread of venereal disease.

In Tasmania and most of the south and east of the continent, the last full-blooded aborigines died in the 19th century." He point out that although obviously the Tasmanians no longer exist, I see of course its tragedy. You cannot even do, I think, genetic testing. They do look quite different from the rest of the aborigines. That would have been interesting. But the Tasmanians, he estimates that they killed more white settlers than killed them in violence. They died out because of disease and initial quite very small numbers. Tasmania one of the prime locations, paradisiacal locations of this world I think, it's almost perfect living conditions for man. time. Anyway, I wanted to add this last part in because it's not like Wind Shuttle is saying

the abbows didn't suffer or, you know, in my view it's a real injustice, the introduction of diseases, even if it's unintentional. And in the case of, he mentioned the Indonesians, that's indirect, right? But look, regardless, the point is that in many primitive contexts, now tribal peoples have some vague tribal, sometimes even pan-tribal consciousness when you get to the tribe level, clan level. many cases when you have small groups, very small family tribes, there's no state that's being destroyed or usurped in these colonial cases, so it's the opposite. One is being erected in a territory for the first time, often, as Wind Shuttle points out, to no native nationalist resistance, there's no consciousness as a people there to begin with.

And so, to my sense, this gives a certain recognizable justice to whoever sets up a state there and is the first one. But it must be emphasized that for the left and the indigenous people's movements, it's precisely the presence of a state that is formed by someone else that gives you the moral title as a marginal outsider. In other words, the whole point of the indigenous person concept is to represent stateless groups of beings. So again, this seems to be misunderstood by those who sometimes try to adopt the rhetoric of indigeneity to make a moral point similar to the one I share, where having a state is what gives you title, for example, to the Anglo-Americans or to the Anglo-Australians or the white South Africans.

But the concept nationalists are invoking in this case actually rests on the opposite of what the left means when they use the word. So I think even friends do this. My friend Nick Sallow, he's my friend, but this is a long-standing disagreement I have with him because he thinks he can adopt anti-colonialist posture, he has a long-standing feud against the Anglos. I'm not picking on Nick. Many Europeans, especially from some smaller East European countries, want to think this way. And in his case, he believes Croatia is immune from moral accusations of colonialism. I will agree Croatia never colonized anything, which to me is a negative for it, right? But I mean, it didn't because it couldn't, you know, same as, you know, but it actually did something worse than colonialism. It squatted.

It's a squatter country, right? You go to so-called Croatian town of Korcula. It's a beautiful island, right? It's got Marco Polo was supposedly imprisoned there for a while. It's really weird castles. It's kind of a fortress island, you know, so more so if you go to Dubrovnik, more so if you go to Dubrovnik. It's a museum town today actually, it's perfectly preserved, castle, ramparts, I hated every moment of being in Dubrovnik, it's simply armies of tourists, it's basically uninhabited. The inhabitants live in quite dreary apartment buildings on the edge of town and the town itself is just a museum. But Dubrovnik was actually the Republic of Ragusa, it was a Venetian type state and so So the Korcula, this island of theirs, is actually called Kurzola. It's Italian.

If you read Wikipedia, this is all kind of swept under the rug with various rat-like obfuscatory language. So Slavs basically came and squatted on that, right? So those are not Croatian buildings, okay? They're Italians of Venetian stock, basically. And then Croatia took them the same way that, for example, Breslau or other cities that were German that are now Polish and is done squatting. So please enough of that, we are wholesome chongas, we didn't colonize nobody, we are good potato slobs, we are virtuous blacks, you know, the Haiti, it's not Papa Doc Duvalier, who is the founder of Haiti? Toussaint Louverture claiming that the Poles were the blacks of Europe, are you proud of that? Is this, you want to be a porridge black from Ireland, is this what you want?

Only you evil gay Anglos colonized you, you evil, you know, and it's always this going back to Roman times, the image of evil when you take this frame, the evil Anglo oppressive colonialist and they are sexually degenerate, they're gay, you know, anyways, it's always the same stereo. So you see the way the indigenous works, this word that the Basque and the Irish, maybe the Slavs, I'm exaggerating the Slavs. I like the Slavs, but they shouldn't try to be this way. But sometimes the Basque and the Irish, you know, they say they can be considered indigenous in so far as they were the objects of oppression by other empires, then they are considered indigenous by the left. And especially in so far as they participate in the network of international leftist nationalist

causes like the PKK for the Kurds, ETA for the Basque, IRA for the Irish, ETA was their violent wing, but actually the Basque had been adopting this, this is typical third worldism, this is what it means, you adopt the language of we are an oppressed indigenous people and we are bullied by these evil bad guys who just gratuitously came to bully us, And ETA was their violent wing, and they adopted Algerian War of Independence, so-called, as their model, and the Irish cause as their model. All of these organizations were loosely allied, both operationally and ideologically, maybe not so loosely, actually quite closely, what am I saying, during the Cold War. But insofar as the Irish and the Basque took part in Anglo and Spanish colonialism, which Which they did bigly.

The Irish were super colonialists along with the Scottish integral part of the British empire and very respectable as part of that from my opinion. But then they are not considered indigenous in that sense by the left you see. So then you take the Japanese too, they are indigenous kind of if they can claim oppression at the hands of the European I mean. But in fact they're not because they oppress also and they imperialize over others. And then more in particular because of their, let's say, it's partly based on vibes too, you know. Their culture. It's very clean and I call it an honorary Aryan culture. It does not give kind of a Lumumba dreadlocks and incense weed stinking oppressed downtrodden vibes, but the opposite.

I was once sitting with a Jewish communist psychiatrist in Japanese restaurant and he He started fagging off about, oh, do you see the way these sushis are arranged on the plate? All of these people, like the Japanese and the Germans, so orderly, they all have this insane aesthetic sense. I'm not saying that's at the core of it, but in private such people will tell on themselves that that gets to them. They have a very different image of what native indigenous should be, and it's definitely not that. that when they are imperial and orderly and so on, they're not indigenous. They can be indigenous only on occasions that are victims of Europeans, like not just during World War II, but take for example the absurd movie with Tom Cruise, The Last Samurai, where

if you don't know anything about Japan and you watch it, it's kind of unclear in that movie if the samurai are a warrior class of Japan, tied to the ruling of Japan, or if If they are an indigenous remote tribe of Japan and they're just actually in the movie overtly compared to the American Indian as victims of the imperialist modern state structure, they're typically presented in that movie as what the left understands as indigenous people. And so there you know in that movie Holocaust-like scenes like from Schindler List, scenes where a soldier in uniform cuts off the long side locks or whatever, the long ponytail of a traditional samurai in the gene. It's very funny, very ham-handed. So in that kind of fantasy they are indigenous, but in reality, when it was in fact the samurai

class that after Meiji again they took the helm of Japanese society and had imperial morays, well then it's not indigenous. So you see how it works. There's a price you would have to pay for being given the indigenous title and you're are not prepared to pay it and the only time they will ever bestow it upon whites for example European society and so on is either when you're actually fighting shoulder to shoulder to them against Anglo imperialism or French imperialism or whatever in the Basque or so on or more likely if they can actually get whites to be a dependent population living on a reservation, then you may indeed receive this sympathy from them, which is also, by the way, why people like Razib Khan and certain other, I'm sorry to say, Hindu or Indian people

online who feel like it is a comeuppance to the white man for them to consider the white man now a disadvantaged native or something like that. So they get off on pretending that that's how they feel. Then they go back to seeding that they were oppressed and they faced a lifetime of discrimination and racism at the hands of the white man and look at what they did to India and this kind of thing. But as for the Japanese, it's interesting that just like the English, I go on tangent now, but look, Japan like the English is an island of high manners, very particular habits, Imperial ambitions and let's say homoerotic ethos for its upper class. Passive homoerotic ethos for its upper class. But that's a story for another time.

But look my friend, Europe Esperance, who I mentioned sometime, and we had many disagreements. But one of them was this. He actually believed in a passive, we live in a passive aggressive time, so that you have to try to convince the soccer moms or whatever, you know, you're not going to convince the left for sure he knew that but he thought well no you do have to use the left's language and even play the victim so and then you have to do that I mean the indigenous thing to convince the middle-aged women and so on do you believe this do you think this would I just don't see how it's doable you know I I don't know if you could ever do so that's why he was applauding people like Lawrence Southern I mean I'm not going to become a ceiling clap for people

doing this. Why is there no white entertainment television when there is a black entertainment television? Are you not outraged along with me, comrade? So I think if you manage to get a large audience for people like Lauren Southern or her more desultory female snatch successors now, you will lose the ears of people who are far more important for me. I seek to convince is the smartest, the most energetic, I mean spiritually energetic youth but not just youth and I have my eyes on the future and I don't see how invoking victim status for actually populations that the left and their allies will never really recognize as victims, I don't see how that can be a good thing with the hope that you will convince a couple of

soccer mums or whatever they will give you a clap like on Instagram or Facebook, leaving Putting aside entirely the fact that the concept is entirely inapplicable to the civilized Anglo broader world, the five ice countries besides England, you know, how does that work in New Zealand or other populations of the greater European world for that matter which would include the Spanish upper classes in Latin America and so on besides, they're facing the same problems too by the way, whether it's under the Jewish communists currently ruling Mexico or Evo Morales who again incoherently so-called dissidents rose up to applaud him. The CIA is deposing him. The CIA did not depose him. He was deposed by the white population of Bolivia because he was doing exactly this

saying I am turning my back on Spanish colonialism, we're going to decolonize and decenter European culture in Bolivia. going to go back to worshipping the mother goddess of Pachamama or whatever they worship and so on but is all of this to be abandoned then or the entire world and maybe hope that you will live under a matriarchal commune reservation somewhere on the edge of the North Sea along with Eva doing you know she come with a basket of eggs and you can take a photo of her you know as people are eating Chinese tourists eat organic egg yolk in your restaurant with pickled herring is this the kind of world that's supposed to emerge out of this I don't understand what is the entire America Australia New Zealand to be

abandoned so that influencer girls can come with long skirt dress you know traditional peasant dress on videos and they can look significantly into the distance and pretend on camera to be this and that and love your people love your homeland, you know that it's the kind of slogans that are easily parodied and that the left this bizarre parody of 1930s propaganda unaware parody which okay Even if conceivably you could peel off some middle-aged women or more likely middle-aged men who use this as a porn substitute or whatever Especially though they could middle-aged conservatives who want to watch the snatch match women on Fox News and they have a vagina and they want to watch that. But to me, the sacrifices of adopting this posture, which is that you become a joke.

It's a walking joke and the left basically uses people like Eva and others in porn parody edits. That's basically their function to act as self-important jokes and patties for the left. So we don't want to harm or rule over others. We just love our own people and this kind of self-pitying, you know, I've mocked it myself as the, again, the black people at black entertainment television. Why white not have, you know, and it's basically, first of all, you don't need that posture to limit immigration or cause remigration, which is what's important by the way. And the left's arguments by the way for indigeneity are not actually arguments against immigration into the territories of the people they consider indigenous.

It often works out that way if they achieve their aims, like let's say with an aboriginal state, and if that aboriginal state maybe would limit migration into itself, it may work out that way, and I'm sure the left would not dare to complain, but it's not actually what they want. It's not the left's point about indigeneity, and in fact, they would see it as unjust for an indigenous people to include migration of another disadvantaged people, which is why, and this is the huge questionable part of all this because you have Catalonia, you have Basque Country especially, who have used this language of indigeneity, who have allied with the international left in this way, where we are socialist nationalists, not national

socialists, we're socialist nationalists, we want our own country, we want to be free of the oppression of these empires, they put so much effort into this and ties with the international left on these. And what happened is, you know, this is where all the third world migrants are in Spain in Catalonia and Basque Country. How could this be? What is the explanation? Why would they do this? It is because they see common cause with them, maybe. I don't know. It's the same in Argentina. Argentinian indigenous people's advocates saw nothing wrong with letting Haitians and other such into Argentina during the Kirchners who again allied broadly with this kind of third worldist posture I'm talking about. Sorry to repeat myself if I've said this on past shows, but it's a huge question.

How can it be that this attitude actually does not stop mass migration, which is after all supposed to be the concern of the right? It doesn't work adopting this rhetoric. I'm sorry, it just makes you into a kind of joke. But quite aside from the fact that you don't need to this, and here I am wearing Eva, neo-traditional Dutch skirt. That's how we stop migrants. I'm standing up for the farmers and looking. I squint my eyes, I look into the sunny horizon. And I think the entire mode of life that this kind of thing points to, just alone, quite aside from its effectiveness in regards to migration restriction, which is completely ineffective, but the kind of life that points to is utterly degrading, I think, self-defeating. But look, this is casual show. I'm talking many things at once.

In ending this segment, I will give you analogy example. Putin in Russia, Orban in Hungary. Orban invokes mostly nationalist rhetoric, nationalist. He's not a socialist nationalist at all. I think he's just a nationalist. I'm not saying he's like Eta or anything, but he invoked nationalist rhetoric. Putin, because Russia has always been multicultural, multi-faith empire, he invoked different kind, You can maybe call it a Russian imperial nationalism. But I mean only in the sense that two of them have won in a sense, but they've won by sacrificing the future. Because in these two countries, the youth are generally so turned off by this government that they become libtarded. And I think that they're wrong to become libtarded and to become aligned with the EU and even

in some cases wanting migrants or such. I think that's obviously wrong, but I kind of understand why they don't like Orban and Putin in their own countries. They have this kind of preachy wholesome, we are just, I'm sorry to say, and I don't think the Russians with attitude friends would disagree with me on this, on the number of Russian young people who are so turned off by this. So I predict the next generation of Russia leadership and government will not be what you think. Sorry to say, but anyway, this segment is getting too long. I think I'll be right back to talk more about wind shuttle articles about Australia, the concept of indigeneity a little bit, but more about remote Australian prehistory and the waves of different populations who have been there.

Let me see if I can have coffee and continue this time or next time. Should I go, I have bottled grappa in front of me, should I get drunk on this Italian vodka? I will be right back. The Extinction of the Australian Pygmies, title of another Keith Windshuttle article from the magazine Quadrant, early 2000s. Another entry in historical wars having to do with, right ultimately, this about what you competing charter myths. What is charter myth? In antiquity, one of Clearest's claims I can think of, autochtony, people coming right from the ground, example the Thebans, who claimed they were descended from dragon's teeth sewn into the ground, literally sprouted from the earth of Thebes like plants, therefore very, very native.

So you can take this prototypical charter myth of autochtony, but there are many other kind charter foundation myths that give a people right to the land. So for example, the case of Sparta or other Dorian states where they couldn't say they were drawn from the land, everyone knew they were not, there was within traditional memory, which means there were oral traditions, alive knowledge, in other words, that the Spartans were not from the Peloponnesus, so they had recourse to a charter myth. They were return of the sons of Heracles and Normans in Europe in various locations had recourse to similar myths. I think what you see in Bible, Exodus story is similar mythology. I don't think the Hebrews actually all came out of Egypt.

What happened was probably small breakaway Egyptian faction left and imposed themselves on the Hebrews with some kind of religion and brought along their imposed, not imposed, bequeathed this myth to the Hebrews as a whole. Probably something similar happened to the Philistines. They came from across the seas to Gaza, Ashkelon, and so on, and bequeathed that myth. Because there is in antiquity no archaeological evidence, for example, of anyone moving in or out of Canaan, any evidence of migration of peoples there. Anyway, one of the most unique myths is that of Rome, they invited criminals and single men. It was an incel revolution from all around Italian peninsula and then they raped and took the women of others, which I think this is a vague memory along with Romulus and Remus

she-wolf myth. It's a vague memory that Rome was obviously founded by an Aryan wolf mannerbund, in other words, a gang of unaccompanied warrior youths. Such existed all over the Indo-European and Turkic world. So look, obviously ancient peoples had needed such myths. Plato recognized this in imaginary state, the republic with famous charter myth of men born from the earth, determined by different metals, which would justify the case they belong to. A story Plato obviously presents as a known fiction in his book, but he intends it as a noble fraud. And in the modern world, you can't role-play, I think, in this. Because people have been introduced vaguely, but the elites for sure everywhere have been introduced and at least have to pay lip service to science and the reason.

So you can't go around claiming things like this and expecting people, and especially foreigners, but even your own people, to believe. So then you start getting historical debates instead. Whether it's between old men playing backgammon at cafes in Balkans and getting into fights with umbrellas, or Kura, message board, or internet, or historians arguing especially over past injustices and victimization, the various charter myths of our world, whether it's the various fractious nationalisms or the way the liberal world order understands itself at least after 1970 as a defense against genocide and Holocaust and so on. So in this article, the extinction of the Australian Pygmies, Wind Shuttle honestly admits that yes, there is debate ongoing over the first occupancy of Australia that has

great political meaning because aboriginal indigenous people's activists want to claim the aborigines are homogenous and that they have a unitary origin and are as native as can be to Australia stretching to time immemorial tens of thousands of years with no other human population before them. By the way, this is standard Europe. By this, the Europeans are indigenous to places like Madeira and Iceland because there is no known human habitation of those places from before. I think there was, but we'll see if it will be proven one day, but by that standard alone the Europeans are indigenous to those places and yet they're not because they founded a state there and they're not excluded. But yes, that would be the Aborigines and their academic defenders' claims, whereas

As conservatives, they try to undermine that by showing that the Aboriginals themselves displaced prior populations, which again is kind of, it is a debate in the public sphere. It's that fact alone, even if you could prove it, would not convince the left, and I know it maybe should not be the aim to convince them. It's impossible. But anyway, there is this debate ongoing in Australia, kind of, although wind shuttle was in the great minority by the time he was making it in the 2000s, but obviously the reason you want to argue that is because European colonization would then be one in a series of typically human universal pattern, one people displacing one population displacing another, rather than this narrative of monolithic European imperialism bulldozing innocent native

of traditional folkways. And he shows that there were narratives both ways prior to the political argument growing up in the 60s and 70s. In other words, there were certain Australian historians for entirely unrelated reasons. Going back to the 1930s, they had been arguing a unitary origin, first occupancy for the Aborigines. They were not motivated by these political reasons. But this argument was seized upon and popularized than in the 60s for these political reasons I named. Similarly, on the other side, actually it was part of all Australian history books, textbooks apparently, that there had been Australian pygmies of a different origin until, this was taught in Australia, common knowledge until the 1960s or so. And also theories of at least three waves of human settlement

in remote Australian prehistory, which was based on linguistic and archeological, evidence like drastic differences in toolkit and also differences in ancient crania and so on which I'll get to in a moment which was said could only be explained by humans of various origins populating that continent and so this which had been again common knowledge the pygmies thing at the very least this was entirely suppressed after the nineteen sixties also for political reasons now regarding the presence of pygmies that's indisputable There are photographs, still you can find, they lived in North Queensland, in tropical forest coastal environment. If you look up the place Cairn, I don't know how you pronounce that, C-A-I-R-N, you look on a map, that's around where they lived,

but probably other parts of Australia too. And Windchuttle and other historians claims these were Negrito-related people. Negritos being, yes, you know, pygmy people who exist in islands in Indian, the Andaman Islands, And in the kind of border between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Philippines for example was maybe 10% at the time of Magellan's Landing was maybe Negrito. And Wind Shuttle claims these were an earlier wave of human migration to Australia that were later displaced by Aborigines and maybe even others before the Aborigines came to be as such. In other words, that the Aborigines themselves are a mixed race of these various waves of settlers. It's interesting that prior anthropologists apparently thought there were three waves that corresponded.

The very earliest one would be a Negrito one, then a Murayan so-called, which were akin in this scheme to the Ainu of Japan. And then finally they claimed the Carpentarians came who were like the Vedas of southern India. If you look up the Vedas, it's different from the text of Vedas. are Vedas with 2D. You look at Vedas of southern India, it's a tribal, people with marked Aboriginal appearance of face. But apparently the genetic studies now don't show that. They look Aborigine, but they are, in fact you can find Aboriginal appearance type looks even in parts of Vietnam. But the people, their look may have some aboriginal facial features, but they're about as far from aborigines of Australia as they are to northeast Asians, so they're equally close to both.

So genetics show aboriginals have a kinship to Papuans, which isn't that surprising, but also to East Asian peoples in the sense that they have similar Neanderthal admixture and also highest Denisovan, you know, the Denisovan, this other ape, not ape, but humanoid type like the Neanderthal. But the East Asians have the highest Denisovan admixture of non-australoid people. So the Aborigines are close to both, to Papuans and East Asians. translate this into common sense language in a global sense so called. Aboriginals are closer to Swedes than let's say to others, meaning specifically the Africans. They are part of the same human lineage that populated the rest of the world outside of Africa. So they're not part of a, let's say, earlier wave as was previously thought by someone

earlier wave of human settlement that may have come out of Africa along, you can think, coast of the Indian Ocean, so Southern India and then the islands and then the Sahul or ancient Australia. That part of migration is unproven. They are actually lumped in together with the rest of mankind, not closer to Africans. So there is also possibility given – well, part of what I'm saying, this is maybe subject for another show where I will invite experts in this, but there is an out of Australia theory since we're on this. There are peculiarities about having to do with the Neanderthal signal in mankind outside all of Africa that really only makes sense with an out of Australia as opposed to out of Africa theory.

So anyway, I'll leave discussion of genetics of Aboriginals to others, it's not my specialty, But as for the claim that prior non-Aboriginal pygmy people existed in Australia that was displaced by the aboriginals, on one hand and then on the other thing, there are photos of course for sure of pygmies that still existed in the early 1900s, I think. But I speak with a paleogenetics very good friend and he said, well, he does not believe these are negritos. He thinks that they are aboriginals who are pygmified in a tropical forest environment. There are examples of things like this in Papua New Guinea. People who are not Negrito, but who are natives who became infantilized in a rainforest environment. For example, Koinabme, Kosipe tribes and others in Southeast Asia mainland, the so-called

Derung pygmies, I think in Burma and other such. These are local peoples who evolved to pygmy form. Is what you don't want to accept, okay? primitive form of man, you think they were all huge, powerful ape. But if you subsist on seafood and nuts and other such in coastal forest, relaxed lifestyle become maybe because of that, highly infantilized, highly gracilized people. I don't know if it's because of that. But it's a pattern where this happens and in remote human prehistory, there were probably many back and forth breedings with such pygmy, humanoid, childlike forms. Anyway, he say these photos of Australian pygmy from Queensland are again actually this, abbows, aboriginals who evolved to pygmy form, which is also the claim of the mainstream

archaeologist that Windchuttle is disagreeing with. On the other hand, he says there is considerable other evidence indeed for an early Negrito settlement of Australia, just not this pygmy thing that Windchuttle is using. So Windchuttle could be right, but for the wrong reasons. Regardless of all, you know, Wind Shuttle is correct that the presence of these Australian pygmies, whatever their origins, they existed until recent times. Maybe now they've, what happened to them, they have probably left the reservations they were on. Many Aborigines choose to leave, to live in cities, you know, and I just think all accusations of Holocaust-like or what people think is the Holocaust genocide, attributing it to

Anglo-imperialism is absurd because the Anglo always gave the natives the option to leave their tribal life and join the Anglo society as full citizens, which many American Indians absolutely did. And many Aborigines chose and in fact continue to choose to do so also. You see, they attack my throat when I'm defending the Anglo, but quite against the claims of aboriginal activists and so on who wanted to have a separate state, and so many aborigines continue to, maybe even most of them, to leave their traditional society and to try to join white civilization. But anyway, the existence of these pygmies who probably did leave the, it's not a plantation, reservation and join white society and maybe their children are not pygmies anymore now,

but their existence regardless is swept under the rug in Australia for political reasons only because it brings such questions up at all, you know, were there people before the aborigines? That's not allowed. So in this sense it's a huge injustice that basically a possible earlier genocide or displacement, it what you want is covered up or in any case the existence of a branch of humanity in that continent is covered up because the left and the Australian Aborigine ethnic nationalists find it inconvenient. So recently you may have heard about the Lake Mungo Skeletors. These are ancient hominids, human bones that actually are very different from the Aboriginal skeleton. The skulls don't look Aboriginal. They are much more gracile and no genetic tests could be done on them.

So the Australian state recently let them be destroyed. Supposedly they're not destroyed. They were buried out of respect, you know, in unknown locations. Because obviously if genetics tests had shown a different origins than just Aboriginal, this would explode the kind of Holocaust-like charter myth that the leftist Australian state wants to wield as a weapon against its dominant Anglo population and culture, presumably on behalf of the aboriginal, but you know how this work. So you know, this is what the so-called liberal centrists you see on Twitter and elsewhere in American media environment now, I actually forget their name, the people attacking tribalism so-called, I don't know any of their names, but apparently that's a big thing now.

oh I'm denouncing the woke right because they're into white identitarianism and I'm against all tribalism. Well they're not, the so-called liberal centrists or anti-tribalists they call themselves. The reason I have such contempt for them is they're not actually anti-tribalists, at least if they were that, but they're complete cowards. What happened now in Australia with the Lake Mungo bones is a crime of such magnitude in in my opinion, a crime against science, against everything that a defender of liberal cosmopolitan scientific civilization is supposed to stand for, an assault on free inquiry, and frankly if you want to get humanitarian, it's also a crime against the memory of possibly previous

people who is now maybe extinct or maybe even went extinct because of aboriginals themselves, and in order to cover this up, the Australian state censors this, caters to and protects It's the most obscurant and vicious type of ethnic nationalism and tribalism. It's excused by them, it's overlooked also by these so-called brave defenders of liberalism because it's the ethnic nationalism of people supposedly uniquely harmed and victimized by the white man. So then any cruelty they do and any obfuscation they engage in, any smothering of science and of speech, that is then cuddled and this is what people experience actually as rank Like hypocrisy, of course, that's what it is, and it goes, by the way, under the name of woke. This is what everyone, I think, recognizes as woke.

The selective promotion of group narcissism as a retribution for past injustices supposedly done by the white devil. I'd place sanctions on Australia if I could for this, by the way. Say no more, please, about tribalism if you had nothing to say about this, and covering up of scientific inquiry and blotting out possibly eons of the human past. If this not allows you to comment, but to be fair, none of these online, they're not just online, they go on TV. These commentators probably never even heard about this. They're addicted simply to retard outrage news cycles. Anyway, more interesting, if you look at the Bradshaw figures, look up the Bradshaw figures, are Western Australia rock art. And some of these are 12 to 16,000 years old, but I think some are claimed to be 40,000

and even 60,000 year old rock art in Western Australia. Bradshaw figures, they represent unusual, they're beautiful, they're the oldest one especially. Actually, they get worse as time goes on, they degenerate in elegance, but the earliest ones show kind of elegant dancing creature, are a graceful, small type of human. It looks nothing like the Aborigines. Over time, the paintings again become cruder. They start to include kind of weird, blocky, Aboriginal-like human types. And the local Aboriginal elders, so now they've been trained to claim them as Aboriginal. But before, it's very well known that in their traditions, they used to refer to these paintings as made by birds, and then refer to them as before our time.

And then at other times, I read this is an article, I cannot verify, but the local aboriginals referred to these beautiful nice paintings from the remote history, they referred to them as rubbish art, and when they found them they tried to scratch them out, to chip away and destroy them. And then, because this is known, it's fraudulently reinterpreted now as, oh they were engaging in actually that sacred respect for this art because they were over painting and they were They were adding chips and by the chips they meant that they found it sacred. So like, you know, if I go to an ancient church and put graffiti all over it or you go to some temple of religion or whatever, you're not actually trying to erase antiquity, right? But you can claim you're engaging in sacred behavior, right?

I mentioned at the beginning of this episode this mosque that was destroyed by Hindus. I think I'm on the side of the Hindus on this, sorry. They destroyed this mosque Babri Masjid Ayodhya in 1992, you can see video of it, I might post video. You used to not be allowed to post on the old Twitter, let's see if you can post on Elon Twitter. But why did the Hindus, I think rightly, destroy this? Because the Muslims demolished an earlier Hindu temple and built minarets out of it. And it's what Muslims do everywhere they go. They built, they turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque, and now this bastard, the neo-Ottoman, what's his name, Erdogan, the green grocer from Anatolia, and he turned it back into a mosque. This is what the Muslims do everywhere they go.

They go to the holy sites of others and desecrate them, and it's as if they're telling you, oh no, we took apart your Hindu temple and built minarets because it's holy, right? I mean, it's done as a humiliation tactic and as the Aborigines do the same to these beautiful rock art that probably precedes them. It's from an earlier human population that looked and acted nothing like them probably. They chipped them out, oh no, we're being respectful and safe. All humans, I guess, have tried to delete the past that came before them. Machiavelli discourses Book Two, Chapter Five. The title of that chapter is, that changes in sects and languages and the happenings of floods and pestilences obliterate the memory of the past. I suggest you read this, one of my favorite passages from Machiavelli.

But look, I will not close on this, it's too depressing. Since we're on the matter of indigenous peoples, let me address this as such and not the distortions of it at the hands of leftoid agitators. For me the ultimate value of something isn't whether it's first occupancy or if it's disadvantaged or even the Lockean argument which makes some sense, did you mix your labor with the land and develop it. I don't really care about any of that. What I care about is whether a people or a group or an individual, but let's say we're talking about tribes here, represents a higher or lower form of life, meaning concretely lower or higher form of existence, I don't mean just like in crudely physical sense by life, but the way of life, the existence, the spirit of the beings, their modes of existence,

how they behave, how they feel inside. And in this sense the question becomes a little complicated, but I agree with Montaigne that the life of the cannibals he depicts is not less noble and maybe much more so than the civilized men of his time that he's actually criticizing in that essay. And then of course you say, well, the cannibals were imaginary, but the Apache, the Comanche, the Hawaiian aristocracy, the Arawaks before the Europeans, they were not imaginary. And I would rank some of them among the master races of the world, and now they're gone. And I'm not sure that in all these cases you can claim that a higher form of life has replaced them simply because there are cars and TVs and buildings with indoor heating and air condition.

I do not know that an obese bantoid in a Humvee eating fried chicken and spitting out the bones on the street is superior to the form of life that had previously existed in that part of Texas, for example. You see in the movie Avatar and in the movie New World by Terrence Malick and certain others, you see a similar longing for freedom and power of savage life on the part of European man that you find also in these older writers like Montaigne and Tachi to Solso. What I firmly disagree with is the smug, philistine self-satisfaction of the civilized, of the so-called conservatives, such as, unfortunately, wind shuttle at times channels by the end of the first article I discussed, when he talks about the criticism of the supposedly

leftist concept of primitivism, especially by, he cites, Bruce Thornton, this is a classicist I've mentioned before on this show, but you know this kind of you know you need to be happy with your the bourgeois stolid existence and be content that you have toothpaste and a car and peace on the streets and well-lighted streets and Freedom from fear that you will be violently killed by another man to use the words in this article Modernity has brought the greatest happiness to the greatest number and this kind of disgusting self-satisfaction to me just stolid, dirty, and on account of which conservatives are actually bound to be perpetual losers for the minds of the most spiritual people in general. Because this is a degraded view of life implied here, a degraded view of the possibilities

of life too. If men like Montaigne made up or exaggerated reports about New World cannibals or the primitive nobles of the New World, he was not a leftist for doing so or had leftist intentions, still less was touch to a leftist for doing this with the Germans versus the civilized Romans more than a thousand years before, and it's rather when you read that throughout Western imagination, the persistence of this longing in civilized men should tell you that there actually is a danger and problem within civilization, that it brings to the fore very often a low type of man, a low type of life in all of us, that something is lost and merely insisting that you are not like those hippies who look up to the Apache and by the way Rousseau and

Montaigne were hippies too or whatever conservative this kind of, yes it is, Nietzsche was dismissed as the English longing for comfort among a certain type of conservative that follows Locke and Hobbes and so on, the celebrator of middle class stolid civilization. It's pure Philistinism. It will rightly turn off anybody who has spiritual energy. I wish instead that people actually feel the pain of, you know, yes, many noble tribes of a magnificent body and mind and spirit disappeared, and you should feel the pain of that. And to honor them, you should not, in fact, sink into depraved comfort and self-congratulation at modern amenities, or worse still, at its facilitation of the indiscriminate reproduction

of mere life called the greatest good for the greatest number and the greatest possible stupidity, which again modern conservatives are party to this as much as the left is. Take inspiration instead from the greatest tribes of man's past, the highest forms of life, realizing that up to now man's haphazard history, its only meaning throughout this confused history has been the accidental occasional attainment of a handful of peaks. And the greatest of these peaks, the ancient Greeks, who sought to throw the spear of man beyond man. I will end on this for now. Until next time. Bap out.