And Caribbean rhythms is back, listen, there was temporary injunction, legal injunction placed this past week on important radio broadcast episode 193, Caribbean rhythm. What happened is Obama appointed federal judge, her name, Justicia Olwame Bungungdo Afolamabobo Kumar Bergstein issued federal decree blocking release of my episode saying it would cause undue trauma to underserved, marginalized communities. Yes, have you donated to Planned Parenthood today? Is this ultimate activism? I would strongly encourage donations, support for their activities in underserved minority communities. I strongly encourage you also to promote spread of female liberationists as well as gaydom in various, I mean, listen, I don't understand, by the way,

If you think those things cause decay and weakness, why wouldn't you want them to spread among your rivals? For this reason, I never understood people who think that China or Russia want to oppose the spread of weakness in America or Europe. Why would they care? Why would they want to stop them if they believe those things make you weaker? And those of you who obsess about Israel, why wouldn't you support gay marches in in Tel Aviv then? Why would you not even maybe send your own operatives inside Israel to spread gayness, gay them in truck stops to spread? Is that a thing in Israel, by the way, the truck stop? I don't know. It is in Iraq. Be careful going as a blonde man to souks or public marketplace anywhere in that whole area.

Let's say East Turkey into North Iraq, unless you're into hot man on man prison action. But anyway, listen, this is an exciting variety show. I will talk to you today about violence in civil wars. Does this excite you? And what this says about man's wretchedness, the wretchedness of his fallen nature, that well, it can be reformed, but in the same way you would reform the nature of a chihuahua. What did it get to make chihuahua into Great Dane? I don't know. I need to take my mind off all these heavy things. the New World Order attempt to poison me and my friends in real life for the last few weeks. But yes, many have commented on the so-called gay, gay American empire, they call it. It's not my coinage, and I've never used that.

I've said something else, I say GNC, and now this is a polite show, should I tell you what that stands for? It's an acronym that refers to international racial Marxism. But note that's not a reference to American foreign policy establishment as such or any idea of empire. I'm referring when I say GNC or international racial Marxism to the moral ends for which the Western world still currently works rather than its, let's say, operational or institutional aspects. But all this talk among so-called dissidents about the gay American empire, which I disagree with, by the way, that formulation. All this revived talk about foreign policy, is America an empire? My problem isn't with the projection of American force as such one way or the other.

It's just with the moral ends of not even the American government necessarily, but so many American society, polite society, upper middle class, run NGOs and so on. But this debate doesn't go away about is America an empire. It was a prominent debate in the early 2000s with the Iraq war. Now it's back because Mr. Trump, who actually did not run as an isolationist, many hoped that he did or pretend that, but he is kind of, you say, Jacksonian, wants to reform American foreign policy. That's well known. You know, you want to know why there's so much opposition from various factions among government and punditry to him. I think it's because many careers, much funding is at stake one way or another, even if, let's

say, he's not isolationist, does not want to close down NATO bases around the world or this. But besides ideas, when you get just at the level of, let's say, where you are in charge of policy in state department or other agencies over, let's say you run Eurasia organized crime desk Eurasia, or you're overseeing the selling of weapons to East Asia versus those doing the same thing for the Middle East or Ukraine. And it's very hard at this level to disambiguate if disputes are over ideas and what's good for the whole of the United States and its future, versus your own career and whether you get your nephew a job. And forgive if I repeat, but things actually work backwards in many cases because if Trump

can solve, for example, the problem of peace in Israel to some extent, even to secure good stable result for Israel, then the Zionist lobby in America will hate him as much as the anti-abortion lobby does after he gets Roe versus Wade repealed, because then he puts them out of a job and validates the basis on which they agitate for their funding. Or did you think that people who become activists don't have their own welfare and their families as their priorities? In the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state lobbies, I think it's a little less clear because those seem to be kind of a traditional foreign lobbies run directly out of Saudi Arabia or Qatar, rather than a class of organizations and commentariat that's native, let's say,

the United States or lives there and it's made an independent economic biome for itself within America. That's more ambiguous because they need the problem to continue in order for them to have a way to make a living. Not that the influence of the Gulf lobbies isn't for now just as noxious, but forgotten in public debates among public prominent intellectuals is in my opinion actually the benefit of America, country whether or not it gets a real profit out of its foreign entangle entanglements and a lack of clarity in thinking about what means this word Empire for example it's a word that's merely thrown around as a slur for now I like mr. Tucker Carlson but he too I think is too motivated by emotion and in particular by anger toward the class of people or commentators let's say part of

of the new elite that he despises. So although he could, in fact, he doesn't himself or he doesn't have Gaston who could address these questions in a clear way. He has some actually very questionable and stupid men on this show lately who make a mess of everything they touch. And I ask Mr. Tucker, if you're interested, for example, in disputing World War II and its aftermath, which actually is not a driving issue in foreign policy today or even in the politics of any nation, the only faction which regularly brings up World War II or the Nazis is the far left. I doubt that it persuades very much at all anyone else when they talk about Holocaust, this and that, but maybe if you want to dispute that, consider having on people who actually know the history,

rather than who have read some forum posts that I wrote or that my friends wrote 15 years ago, And who would be prepared to hold their own in a debate with the opposing side, and no, I'm not referring to myself. Invite Arno Meyer if you want, I don't know if he's dead. But right now, you're having on people and arguments that set others up to be destroyed in public. Because, let's say, the people arguing this about World War II, this and that, and the Germans were really anti-racist, anti-colonialists, and they were oppressed. That's just too stupid and uninformed on these matters. Anyone who takes that point of view will be destroyed. But anyway, listen, the fact is that level of discourse on foreign policy and these things is actually

dramatically dropped in quality from the early 2000s. There was a brief rise with a few anonymous posters in 2015, 2014 and around then, 2016, and now it's much lower than before. And the discussions in the early 2000s were already at a quite vulgar level to begin with. And I happen to read this week article by Angelo Codevilla. He was good. I'm not saying he was good. He was very good critic of CIA incompetence and such. And this is article from Claremont in 2005. The reason I read it is the article's name is some call it Empire. I only read it because I was curious to see what he'd say about William Odom's book. The title of William Odom's book in 2004 is called America's Inadvertent Empire, which is a mostly libtarded book, okay, but for example when you read what it says

about immigration and these things, but General Odom who wrote it was my friend, he said he doesn't think the word empire is appropriate either, but people call it that, so okay we'll go with it and try to explain how it works. He was in any case the most potent critic of America's war in Iraq in 2003, and thereafter in the sense he was the most prominent at the time before the general not just let's say talking head or blowhard to come out against it i am naturally suspicious mans i think odom was maybe killed in 2008 that's a year or so after i met him i think he died supposedly of a heart attack but last i knew him he seemed very healthy vigorous and i think he would have been major obstacle inside of stupid interventionists going forward, being a non-retarded critic, he was a disciple

of Clausewitz, a man of the realist, let's say, school of foreign policy, deeply disagreed with the kind of moral-based arguments, foreign policy, moral-based arguments of neo-con interventionists. So anyway, it's by the way, a complete bizarre, bizarro world to see so-called dissidents when I brought up Odom in the context of saying that he distrusted elections in the United States as having effect on foreign policy. He thought that foreign policy is too important to leave to presidents. He would never maybe put it that directly, but he thought there should be something like what get called now deep state, that there should be a permanent foreign policy security establishment that has America's long-term interests in mind, that is not subject to

the vagaries of elections and so on, and that would know better than the president, would overrule him if necessary, and placed a lot of emphasis on structure of National Security Council and so on type of decision-making. You can disagree with that, actually I disagree with it, but to call him because of that a A Neocon, when he was the Neocon's chief antagonist, is retarded and dissident intellectuals today are retarded. But anyway, Kudwila in this article I mentioned reviews a few books. It's not really interesting article, I think it's mostly book report type thing. But it's nice, I guess you want to see debates around wars in 2005. That in itself may be valuable. It was encouraging because the tone of debate around Trump striking Iran, actually very

different from, you can see right away if you take a glance of this article I mentioned, a lot actually has changed. So despite the best efforts of The Daily Wire and that whole bunch to screw things back to 2005, Trump's action in Iran was not at any point defended by him or by Hegseth or anyone in his administration on kind of 2005 terms. So we will see, we'll see what happens with Iran, but it's just now so many efforts to bring back the conversation to the tired categories of, let's say, 2000 through 2008. And what I found interesting was this following passage toward the end of Codevilla's article, which he start by saying that to call America an empire, to begin with that's done by anti-American people who want to forget what empires were actually like, how they actually operate.

So it's mostly used as a slur now. As far as I know, America does not demand that its client states, if you can even call them that, in Europe or the Gulf give business concessions or quarters of cities to its citizens or business benefits of that type. That's what a traditional even half-empire would do. That's what the English and others did to China in the 19th century. They didn't even fully occupy it, but they demanded these minimal concessions. How can you call something an empire when it doesn't do that? But anyway, Code Villa does think the title of empire fits to the United States only in this following negative sense, what I will read for you now. It has the drawbacks, in other words, of empires, without its benefits.

I'm reading now, President Bush's reaction to the events of September 11 further muddied America's understanding of our relationship with the world. He could have addressed the fact that Arabs had struck America on behalf of causes espoused and embodied by a number of Arab regimes. He could have declared that in doing so, these regimes had put themselves in a state of war with the American people, and he could have proceeded to undo our foes, regime by regime. That war would have left many enemies dead and many potential ones eager to avoid the experience. That, and that alone, is true peace. Instead, President Bush deferred to parts of what some might call the U.S. government's imperial infrastructure, the State Department and the CIA, which have long-standing stakes

in many Arab regimes, for example, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. He absolved the regimes of responsibility and proclaimed war on abstract noun, terrorism, to achieve some indeterminate global effect. In pursuit of this so-called war, he has raised America's rhetoric, profile and presence around the world, harming many who do not count and killing few who do. Occupations are not wars, criminal investigations are not wars, democracy-building and nation-building campaigns are not wars. Unlike wars, they do not produce victory, nor its offspring peace. The United States is not at peace, and it is not making war. To this extent alone, the accusation of empire, the dawdling kind that wastes its core resources, sticks.

If we continue to trifle with empire rather than establishing peace, we shall reap stalemate, retreat, and the domestic strife that is empire's bitterest consequence." So yes, Kudvila defines empires or rather their negative, let's say foreign policy meddling, dawdling, he calls it attribute. He defines it as this, the kind of forgetfulness of the distinction between peace and war, which is seems so simple and was so important to America's founders and 19th century American statesmen, but which actually in empires or kind of lame semi empires such as that half established by now various conflicting American factions. You get instead this gray area thing, you're never really at peace, you're never really actually at war, you're constantly wasting yourself

in innovating interventions, peacekeeping, nation-building and so on. You forget the purpose of the intervention, victory isn't clearly defined at all, you forget what your interest is. And there are various factions with various stakes in these interventions, but the country as a whole benefits nothing from it. It has no conception even anymore of its own self-interest. It's kind of, I guess schizophrenia is not the right diagnosis for this, is it? It's having a decentered self, having a fractured self. What is that called? Anyway, this is why I opposed the Iran strike and actually would oppose any vigorous action at moment against China or anyone else because to talk and strut around like Alexander or Napoleon or even something like Cecil Rhodes to be in a situation actually

where your nation is institutionally confused and tangled already in all these ways that can't produce victory and peace because they're built to do entirely different things. I don't know. I find that a kind of pathetic anachronism and I think Trump administration should focus on serious things, the true reform of the foreign policy and security apparatus first, before even conceiving of foreign interventions or such. At the moment, it's just a confused mess. It's like pretending you're conquering Balochistan for the British Empire, but you're not actually the British East India Company getting territory and owning it. You're not owning Malaysia like the British did. You're setting up pro-consul Masha Gessen with a mandate that's very vague to what I

don't know nation-build and defining victory as, well, not having a definition of victory but having a vague aim to maybe one day have gay rights march rallies in Balochistan. And then you have to work through agencies that only employ and are built to only be able to select Masha Gessens who have the priorities of Masha Gessens, which is why Why say I consider firm opposition to China in the long run the most important thing? Why? Because the Chinese, if not countered, I think they even maybe hope for a total destruction of European civilization, its erasure as payback for what they perceive as humiliations of the past, essentially of humiliation so-called, the opium thing and so on, and everything associated with that. Look at the fentanyl coming into America right.

What worries me about that isn't just the fentanyl itself, but why China would even do that. Think about that for a moment. Why? It gets no actual benefit from it. Let's assume maximal destructive effectiveness of that move. Still nothing would be achieved for them through it that would lower America's operational effectiveness abroad. For all the pain that would cause the United States, or actually some individuals or a number of families in the United States, it doesn't actually degrade America's ability to frustrate China abroad or not. So you must realize then, why would China go to the length to do that? And it's obviously done purely out of spite and the desire for payback against the opium thing in China in the 19th century, and so you have to think through the mind of people

who think that way, who make a state policy based on ancestral spite and vengeance. So they've only been barely, I think, held in check by their risk versus older leadership, as my friend Menacquinone4 puts it. But once that is gone, it's going to be game on, I think, with the younger generation of Chinese leaders. And I don't know, for the opposing side of this, I have a good friend who thinks China China just wants to buy Gucci and to be rich and doesn't want to interfere abroad, and that perhaps Luttwak's book, The Rise of China vs The Logic of Strategy, you can look up this book, he wrote it in the early 2010s I think, and it made the argument that China is autistic and had no tradition really of foreign policy strategy, but because it was

being clumsy, like it was freaking out its neighbours, it was alienating and scaring its neighbors by being needlessly aggressive, and it was driving them into compacts and alliances against China. And this friend I'm saying for the opposing view says that it was a valid criticism at the time in the early 2010s. It was called wolf diplomacy, but that that faction has since been discredited in China and that its behavior now with respect to its neighbors is peaceable and mild. So we will see if that's true or not. For example, this other friend thinks that a big test case would be if China interferes in the conflict in Myanmar, Burma. There's a conflict ongoing inside that country for many years and there's a Han ethnic group

there embroiled in its civil war or whatever you want to call it, low-grade civil war. And this Han ethnic group kidnaps actually Chinese citizens from across the border, from within China. And so far, China has been hands-off, even in that case. So this will be a big test to see maybe what flavor China's foreign interventionism will be or will it have any at all. But long term, though, I do think China is a huge threat. And I'm thankful that they are not at the moment aggressive, because maybe the West could not in its current condition win against them. I don't know. And yet, having told you all this, I have so little confidence in the people still at at the helm of American agencies that, and in America's understanding of itself at the moment, even with Trump at its head,

I would be firmly opposed to any action against China, no matter how vigorous, how good the reasons were, so long as it's these same confused people doing it. Until that's sorted out, until there's a clear national understanding of self-interest, and even of more basic general things, what is conquest, what is peace, what is war, It's victory, it's important until these things are clarified that maybe Trump administration talk less, puff up less, and do more on other things, not so much foreign policy, but more on this one thing, migration, border control, ultimately also legal immigration and H-1B visa and so forth, the restriction of that, delivered on this one clear thing, where it is simple and where they were actually elected to do.

Otherwise it's returned to the fake categories of 2007. If you watch, and I highly recommend you don't, but if you see this so-called fake jubilee thing that's been spread on X on Twitter by bad actors, and the arguments brought are just so tired, it's the same 2007, the same stupid debates. My friend the Bureaucrat points this out, and you can blame the neo-cons for this, the people who play into their hands to screw back the conversation to the tired moral categories of that time except that as I tell you even then Bill Kristol, Fred Kagan, all the rest of them were actually heads and shoulders above the so-called dissident online pundits who have been elevated recently unfortunately by my friend Tucker and the like and I like Tucker very much but

he shouldn't you know and all the advantages that frogs or anonymous posters had in 2015 or 2016 in changing the terms of the conversation which was all based on yes humor yes but chiefly the fact we were better informed thought about things in a deeper way than the right of the previous 20 or so years that's all canceled out now by the new media biome currently being constructed which besides the fact that it's chief talking heads like Eric Weinstein or migrant maid or is it Martin made or whatever they're much stupider and ignorant and even the neo cons. What I'm saying is operates on a terrain that's very comfortable for both the left and the establishment pre Trump right, where the outcome is then in

a large way predetermined in favor of those. So listen, yes, I asked Trump administration maybe to stop going down a fruitless path regarding foreign policy posturing, especially loser area of the Middle East and then just do immigration and focus protect a job, American white collar worker limit H1B legal immigration next. And my advice in terms of signaling on all this, if anyone is listening, is to be more low key. There is little value to having, for example, Homeland Security Department account, post nostalgic 1950s Norman Rockwell or such Americana to show that you're based. I say rather go in the opposite direction on this. Act harder, talk softer. Outsource your immigration policy to Mr. Miller, let him act, maybe he can go speak on shows

although he should, you know, but maybe be a little more polite himself. But I'm saying it's better tactically to troll and to go in the other direction rhetorically because the only point of talking loud and aggressive is to alarm and agitate the other side. And if you're in government, you have to think through the use of that kind of agitation. You should maybe want to calm them or make them look ridiculous. You know, I've always liked the Russian way. When hardline ultra nationalist Vladimir Genovski does not name his party, the Greater Russia a hardcore party or whatever, he names them the Liberal Democrat Party, right? It's better trolling. If it agitates the other side, it's in a way that makes them look ridiculous.

So you have ICE raids, and on top of that, you don't have to have aggressive messaging. You can have liberal boilerplate of office language about upholding the international human rights order, the care of migrant repatriation, respect for their traditional folkways. You can have Despacito playing images of planes returning to sunny Latrino, America. As the migrants are on planes, you're showing them enjoying glass of USA government granted farewell Prosecco and this kind of, you know, that's funnier too than, it's funnier than by thumping your chest and posting openly so-called based things. Just show return to their cheerful, sunny lands. Isn't that better? Get them away from from difficult gray America. Get them to sunny Puerto Rico barrio, you know.

But anyway, I'll be I will be right back. Interested in real human biodiversity questions. OK, for example, if you watch documentaries about African slums or videos made by Christ-cucked or libtard organizations trying to get you to donate money for Food Africa and show African infant, very sad, yes, but they show a starved infant or child and there is fly crawling on their eye and they sit apathetic, doing nothing. I can't imagine this. Even the hint of mosquito or feel of insectoid on me, on my face especially, which can happen in tropics. I cannot tolerate for a fraction of second and still less so could I as a child. But so I think the amount of time you can tolerate, there could be a equation, amount of time tolerate fly crawling on your face is one of big inborn biological trait

by which you can distinguish peoples maybe, maybe even more significant than measurable genetic distance. It might correlate with that. Anyway, the counterexample would be, well, this is not accurate because there are studies done on infants. This is very interesting, these studies, not about just Africans, for example, but if you suffocate or just, I mean, you put arm, you put hand on nose and face of a newborn, And Asian newborns will just sit there and tolerate it and stop breathing. They will be suffocated and not resist, whereas Europoid and Afrikanoid newborns will viciously try to fight against that and freak out. So I don't know, the videos from Africa with the fly on the eye, what can you make of that?

Then I talked about this with others and they mentioned that if you spend a lot of time outdoors, especially as a hunter, if you learn to hunt, you may have to lie still stalking prey for a long time, and because you are in the wilderness, there are a lot of flies or insects about, you cannot react, you have to tolerate flies sitting on your face, or you will alert the prey with a sudden motion. And I imagine that in any rural or actually wild setting, I mean, if you're a soldier also let's say special operations such stock human prey and the same would apply but that's different because there you have to train yourself to withstand any kind of discomfort with this I agree that doesn't really apply to being an infant where you have not undergone

such fortitude training nor do you have to you're not stocking prey it's not a test of will and it's just you know you naturally tolerate it the way you tolerate living in a fetid room with a layer of a week old swampy water in which you discard chicken bones as I hear the Obama White House was with Michelle Obama with, I don't know, they have prosthetic they said she's, I don't know. But it's a lot of these studies that people invoke are anyway questionable. I've seen claims that many African infants, even five-year-olds, will not pass the self-identification test in a mirror. This is where you place a thing on a forehead, like a post-it note, and then you have the subject looked into a mirror, and they can see it themselves, and they can notice there's

something stuck to their face, remove it or be so interested in it. I've heard that even five-year-old Africans cannot pass this test in many cases, whereas the magpie bird, the smart corvid bird, it can. And so can only a few other animals. Maybe the elephant, I don't remember. But this same study though famously say the cat cannot. And yet you can find videos of many cats who can pass this test. Why is this? Because I think in general the cat and the feline, although they are naturally smart animals, they often cannot be made to care enough about the rewards of a test, you know, to pass intelligence tests given by humans who they're not interested in pleasing. Whereas dogs have it within their blood both to please the human and also to desire certain things predictable things very much.

But cats don't. Some breeds of don't also don't. Some of the more primitive breeds, they're not as interested in pleasing the humans so they would not readily pass one of these intelligence tests. But I think it's misleading because for objects in nature where they do care, they would react. So there are videos of cats where the human is looking with his cat at one of these TikToks or Snapchat, whatever filters that make your own face look like a cat in the reflection of the phone camera, right? And the cats clearly understand that they're looking at themselves and the owner because they look from the altered mirror image in the camera to their owner back and forth with astonishment and fear because that's another cat. They care about that. I don't like to see cats scare, I love cats.

But they don't like another feline to be there, and the revelation that their owner might also be cat is very frightening to them. So in that case, they do show they understand the mirror test quite well. So I don't know, I'm saying a lot of these studies are actually maybe misleading. In this sense, I'll add something else that my racist friends may not like. I speculate, and I know very well the IQ studies about Africa and other parts of the world, and I think they're mostly right, but first of all, I speculate, first of all, I don't trust any data or studies coming about Africa in general. I don't believe their population figures, their TFR, their disease rates, and so it's very misleading. And I see no reason to trust the IQ studies either. And I remind you 100-something years ago,

The Irish and quite some others in Europe also got very low IQ scores, but now not so low at all. So I think people who put too much trust in this are misled. I've also lived in the third world long enough to know, I've seen how tests can be misleading for other reasons. For example, I've known Brazilian guys, they were very smart, but they weren't educated, and they didn't score well on tests because they grew up on beach or whatever, playing games or this, and they grew up with a very kind of careless lifestyle. And so during the test, they literally got up in middle of test, walked out, or they filled it out at random. So, you know, that's a botched result. What do you do with that? They just didn't care. It's like the cat thing, if you pay too much attention to that,

can lead you into speakers, that guy is not in fact stupid, and you miscalculate if you think he is, and it matters what it interests him, he could maybe outwit you, and you underestimated your own peril. And I don't know, is this bad? Is this bad for you to hear? In my opinion, I don't know. You'll say, BAP is stupid, he doesn't test. Well, okay, if you want to believe this. But I just think the whole toolkit of racist talking points is a bit stupid because if you're secure in knowledge of European history, you don't need this other measure. I mean, who is this supposed to convince if you're not convinced already by 2,000 plus years of history. If you've ever walked through Third World Street with a girl who is a white nationalist, which let me say would include most Latin American

white girls who grow up with that mindset casually, and they have all these very quite similar talking points also, but it's enough to make you weary of it and to become an anti-racist almost. So you walk by and this is, oh no, here are on Jemima nannies, and they're taking care of blonde kids. Do you have some affable, nice, fat black girl, maybe 30 years old, or 50 years old, and she's taking care of some blonde kids happens in the third world, and one of these girls will declaim to me, she will never let her children be taken care of by such never. What kind of values would they get? And I have to, hearing that kind of thing makes me want to disassociate from so-called racist, not racism because I am a true racist, but this kind of stupid second order beliefs

animate the whole of modern, whatever vibe, contemporary vibe in this sense. Makes me take a step back and I wonder if popularization of these ideas won't lead to a greater retardation, but these are dark thoughts. I'd rather think about the flies on Carrion in the wild. Have you ever seen the carcass of a dead water buffalo by a swamp? The water buffalo likes to relax in bathing water and be calm. The look in its eyes is profound. The Greeks worshiped the look in the eye of the cow. But even in mountain hiking, I have no idea how you get rid of the swans of flies that come about your head. They never tell you this in hiking videos, what you can do about it. The thing is you can't. You can't escape them. and the Arctic summary will also be assailed by mosquito swarms, I don't know.

Biological differences, they're about many things, you know, if you're ever in Spain, or Southern Italy, let's say, or, well, let me put it this way, anywhere in the world, and you see three Spanish-speaking girls, and you can see these dark girls at the next table over, but I don't mean black or even dusky skin, but darkish, dusky in general aspect, and there are three possibilities, but people don't know there are three types of this, at least three options in Spain. Actually more, but let's take the three main kinds, okay? Three dark Spanish women, three options. One is that they're from the Spanish south, and part Moorish so-called, but which means it's not black, but you may have heard the stupid claim on a movie that Sicilians are part black or sub-Saharan too.

Well, it's true that Ethiopia was in ancient times populated by Italians. No, I'm joking, but it's true. A recent study had come out that ancient Ethiopians were much closer to West Eurasia. I will read you this study on next episode. It's very interesting, but I have friendly remarks. If you consider modern Jews or Levantines white, or Levantines white, then ancient Ethiopia was a white homeland. But anyway, you may have heard this, it's a trope on some movies or some online forums even that Sicilians are part black or such, it's not true, the duskyness in that case would come, if indeed it comes from anywhere outside the European continent, it would come from Semitic stock. As in the Mediterranean, you know, not just Arabs, but waves of Jewish and earlier Phoenician

settlements and other such migration or settlement would have caused some mixing in the European south. Sicily was also occupied by the Moors or Arabs for a while. It was liberated by the Normans. But then that would be a Semitic component. And this is not untoward component, by the way. It accounts in part for the great exotic beauty of Andalusian women. famed in Spain and elsewhere, and some of the men as well, when mixed with Goth and others of the Spanish kind, especially the results of this southern Spanish thing, whether it's with Moore or Semite or such, it's not bad on average, but this is one option. A second option is their so-called Latinas, of course, which is a meaningless linguistic category, but if it means something, it would mean Amerindian mix.

So they'd be from South America, let's say Criollo Spanish stock that maybe mixed a little bit with South American native, then immigrate back to Spain or tourists back to Spain or tourists to wherever in America or Italy. But you know, I say Spain because unfortunately, it allows a lot of South American Latinx migration. I suppose it's better than Middle East or North African, but it's still bad and the Nationalist Party vox is rather cucked because a lot of people in this party vox that many of you have celebrated, they make the argument these people from South America need to be welcomed because of Spain's imperial heritage. So you know, it's what I was talking about on last segment, it's the part of big larp

where you pretend you're an empire, oh they're coming over as a result of Spanish conquistador imperial policy, but in fact you no longer have that and it's just you're getting taken advantage of for petty economic reasons while being a cock with delusions of grandeur. Maybe you forget, by the way, that the cock traditionally is understood to have delusions of, you know, it's a kind of self-deception. People now often think of cock fetishists when they think of cocks, but political cuckoldry I always understood to be like the traditional medieval or renaissance understanding of the cuckold who is a kind of moralistic fool who deceives himself with delusions of grandeur or piety. His wife is fucking another guy and he doesn't know it and he goes around

strutting that he's a pious paterfamilias and so on. This is why it was especially useful insult against conservatives of the 2000s and early 2010s. They were not fetishists of any kind, they were simply pious idiots, you know, so But that's what Vox does or any similar European country when they pretend it's somehow grand or traditional to excuse migration that's done for welfare or economic reasons, but you are pretending it's because you're ruling an empire or responsibility toward colonies. But anyway, this is not to cast aspersions on Latina women who are blameless. Many of them are attractive and charming. They're not the ones to be blamed for being invited by NGOs and such, but they're very charming girls, including my regular courtesan when I'm in Europe.

I will not say from where she is precisely, but she's a Criollo from a certain South American country with a slight exotic touch, but if you didn't know that, you can't quite place it. You'd say, oh, she's slightly exotic looking, has slightly dark hair or such, but I think a lot of people overestimate their ability to guess ethnicity, or race, call it what you want. It can be very misleading. out before Dilma Rousseff, the communist ex-president of Brazil, actually communist terrorist. She went to jail for corruption, but if you look at her, you'd be misled. You would think, oh, she has South American native or black admixture. You might say that just because she's Brazilian. But in fact, her father is Bulgarian from Bulgaria.

Her mother appears to be nearly 100 percent white, Portuguese or other European stock from Brazil. And it's only by cultural association you'd even think of non-European admixture, whereas you know she would not look at all out of place in Sofia Bulgaria or such. When I posted image of Netanyahu recently and there were retards saying he obviously not white or how dare you say that, but that's only because they know who he is. If you saw men who look like that in America or Europe on the street, you couldn't distinguish This is why certain medieval or Renaissance Pope introduced yellow stars other such marker for Muslims Because in fact these populations could not be told apart by looks in the Rome of that time

It tells you so much just to say that not just in a matter of physiognomy and biology But that even hundreds of years ago these had similar enough ways of life That you couldn't tell them apart just by dress or or manner even so an identify marker like yellow star would have been necessary. I think Spinoza complains about it's not a yellow star, but the fact that for all the huffing and puffing of his time, everyone actually had a very similar way of life and it's all a big role play. Where supposed differences in belief and such are not honestly held. The lie is told by the uniformity of their manner and their dress even. I didn't even know this, but apparently Goebbels wanted to put the yellow star not just on Jews, but on those who sympathize with them

or were deemed to have been their political allies, which, you know, that is a social political thing, not race. Similar to how Nazis would consider Michelin or mixed. Sometimes they would consider them to be Jewish and sometimes not depending on their social or political affiliations. Anyway, I wish I could show you my beautiful Latina courtesan. I'm a fan of her because she's a cheerful slut and maybe I keep saying I make pornography, but you couldn't tell the provenance of her somewhat exotic, darker look just by, you know. But I was thinking this, when I saw three women dark look who were speaking Spanish, what were they? Well, again, first option Andalusian or similar origin, that would be Semitic admixture maybe, or Latinas or this, but I didn't hear Despacito

being played on their eye potato or reggaeton. Sometimes you can tell Latinas by reggaeton or such manner. The UK really tells them by their loud way of talking because they share that with United States, American white women, and they share that also with Portuguese and Spanish, women of pure Portuguese and Spanish stock, who if you get three of them in a restaurant, it'll just become louder and louder. As time goes on, they will try to talk over each other and compete, and it get enormous shearing your inner ear, actually, if you're sitting anywhere within two tables of them. A third option, though, for let's say dark looks, this is not as well known, it's prehistoric native Iberoids of the Neanderthal type, I call it, who knows some kind of pre-Hominid, but maybe Neanderthal.

So if you go not just to Basque Country in the north of Spain, but to the state of Rioja, where the famous wine is from, and which also has some of the most beautiful nature in Spain, by the way, if you go Spain road trip or Rioja, most beautiful scenic landscapes, it's kind of in the north too. It's caves though, and it's its own distinctive dark look of the women who are from there, which is not the complexion, that's often quite pale, but his very dark hair and eyes and a particular rough facial structure, let's say big faces, protruding, not quite overbite, but the teeth and the protruding, big brutal Neanderthal cave bitch face. And often such women, very rough in manner. I'm scared, I feel they can physically overpower and peg me as such, and they're completely,

they brutalize Spanish and Argentinian men. They're wary of these Basque Neanderthal women. In this case, you have to be especially sensitive to things like facial and brow structure. Most people pay attention just to color, but the facial structure very different from the other two. The Andalusian Semitic type is very gracile and often refined, whereas this, you know, it's cannibal. Many of you have very coarse sense of race. You can't tell these apart. And this is quite aside from that even many people deem Germanic also for various reasons have darker hair extending to prehistory. But let's not get into that now. Please read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, essay one, section five. Anyway, I was not aware until recently, but a lot of the Latin American cuisine,

even that of Cuba, especially that of Cuba, isn't from Spain directly. is the cuisine of the Canary Islands. Ropa Vieja, if you've heard of this, it's kind of mishmash slop food and the like, mojo sauces in this. Transplanted to Cuba, where there was a lot of Canarian migration. There is, interesting to me, I didn't know the Guanche, the Canary Islands natives, who were they? Some people say they were very similar to current day Berber stock in North Africa. Others say this is Atlantean holdover. I want to write a kind of history of Mediterranean which tells the struggle of the area, I mean, excuse me, the story of the area as a struggle between the melding of European versus Semite in that whole. I'll give you an example. Excuse me, the city of Cordoba in Spain

was originally a Phoenician settlement. Then it became prominent Roman city. Seneca, the philosopher, was from there. The name was Romanized to Cordoba, excuse me, you know. Then Spain, conquered by Moors with Arab overclass, okay, and the city became center of Muslim civilization in Spain. It was called Cartuba, which means in the same way that Carthage, cart-hadash, cart means city, cart-hadash means new city, cart-uba means good city, and it was also its name under the Phoenicians, same name under Phoenicians who founded it, Arabs took it over later in the Middle Age in the Middle Ages. So but yes cartooba How does that make you feel and now it's back to Cordoba and it's a good example of what I'm talking about Which is underneath the change of ideologies

Religions you have still the same struggle between Phoenician and Greek Phoenician and Roman Semite and European being played out on both sides of the Mediterranean back and forth for millennia now And in this sense, I think the meaning of Judaism of Christianity and Islam have to be considered in their turn quite plainly and and it's not my observation, but others have made from Gobino to ransomware and so on that Islam in the Middle East spread so easily there because Semitic discontent that being ruled by Greeks and the Romans were only the upper class had been Hellenized quite superficially, and the general thrust of culture and sensibility ran against, for example, the use of images, against the kind of theology also that would have

been congenial to Rome or Constantinople. Even before Islam, there was monophysitism as a Christian theological heresy had taken hold of that area, and the Byzantine emperors, in a desperate attempt to reach a compromise that would be acceptable to that region, they were trying to find a religion that would have been held together their entire empire, so they introduced various hybrid theologies like monoseletism, I think, or several others which were exclusively of imperial origin, but they were not accepted either by the clerics in Constantinople nor the peoples in the Near East. They held to their own theology, partly out of nationalistic protest against being ruled by non-Semites, nor out of a different spiritual orientation more congenial to that region.

You can say in many cases they went over to the Arabs without a fight because it was much closer to them in many ways, a language more similar to Aramaic that was spoken in that region. So the introduction on the other hand of Persian sensibility into the history of development of Islam confuses this or makes it a lot more complicated, but that's for another time. But yes, do you like it? I have no point to make in this segment. I just thought it was odd that the city held exactly the same name other than both ancient Phoenicians and the Arabs. I just wanted to tell you I saw three women in a beach club speaking Spanish and they were dark, even more so dark than Monica Bellucci if you consider that dark.

And I was thinking, imagine being big face Spanish woman from Pedro Almodovar movie with big overbite. Cannibal, take a bite out of your shoulder. Prehistoric cave, do you like this? I'll be right back. Yes, I'm back and if you hear kind of chirping bird-like sounds, it's not a bird, it's a bat. Bats actually surround location where I'm currently recording because perhaps they feel intensity of darkness in my voice. Lucifer let me be your sword. Anyway, it's a matter of imperial control or lack thereof makes me think of wretchedness of mankind become manifest when you read about civil wars, guerrilla actions against central state control, anti-colonial actions in this. If you read about civil wars in 20th century, including some time of World War II,

parties and resistance actions against the Germans but then mostly I mean what followed the wars of decolonization and the internal civil wars after that in various new countries after European powers left down to our time now in the third world it is example of human wretchedness in a very particular way that extends well beyond you know oh well hand wringing over man's violent character which is such I wouldn't have a problem with as you know I wish men were more overtly violent braver more brutal but it's more men's weak lying petty character pettiness that's the problem that's what I mean in these cases hmm and I didn't mean to make it sound just now that it's just in third world it's it was there already in in the civil conflicts that accompanied

World War II and in European cases that followed also in the Greek Civil War. I was reading a book by Stathis Kallivas, The Logic of Violence in Civil Wars, which I don't know if I can recommend you this, it's quite an academic book, there's a lot of throat-clearing in the beginning, but it's full of particular interesting historical examples, full of vivid anecdotes. I like this, you know, in some academic works, even if you don't agree with the general points made, there's a lot of information compiled that's very valuable. One thing that sticks out at you if you look across different civil wars is the fact that allegiance is dependent more on control of territory than, let's say, on conviction or pre-existing ideological preference, which seems a simple point, but when you realize

the magnitude or pervasiveness of it throughout history, it's essentially a compendium of human cowardice. I suppose you can play man wanting to survive, but authority and power are largely occupational. Like in the same way the Byzantine throne, someone called it, I think it was Norwich, the historian, he called it, the legitimacy was occupational, whoever happened to credibly take over that position. And this, because in civil wars, man's servile submissive character has multiple opportunities to manifest itself. For example, it's well known that insurgencies are often rural and rarely urban. But you must look deep into this to see what it means. Because when you realize that actually this overrides any initial preferences or ideologies of the urban and rural populations in the country.

So for example, rebels before the war can have their political support in the cities because they hold to certain intellectual movements that are popular in cities and have no popularity at all in the countryside. But when the war actually starts, it's the other way around. They have no real presence at all in the cities and control the countryside that had no interest at all in their ideology. When you realize this, it gains a very different significance, right? In cities, an upstart force often does not have a lot of power because that's where the incumbent is based. And the determining element in guerrilla wars is information. If you can suss out who the insurgents are through bribes and informants, you can find and kill them or otherwise turn them.

And so, it's a logic quite different from peacetime political struggle is what people miss and what this book is good at pointing out. I will read a short paragraph or so from the book. Insurgents tend to be uniformly weak in cities, although cities are often their pre-war strongholds. Observers often note that many big cities in countries in the midst of civil wars look normal and peaceful. Urban areas are inimical to rebels because it is easier for incumbents to police and monitor the population. The collection of information through blackmail and bribes is facilitated because regular contacts between handlers and informers are possible. As a result, urban insurgents are particularly vulnerable to penetration and information

leaks, as suggested by the cases of Northern Ireland and Palestine. And once identified, insurgents can be easily defeated by the superior force of the incumbents. Urban guerilla warfare is uncommon and summarily dismissed by counter-insurgency experts. As Trincare puts it, the most vulnerable part of the enemy organization is in the towns. It is always within the control of the army troops to occupy it and a police operation can destroy it. Fidel Castro remarked that the city was the grave of the guerrilla. And then I stopped reading now, but there are many other similar statements from other rebel leaders, including Mao. The Chinese communists made gains initially in the periphery of China. They had been cleared out of the cities actually by the late 1920s, but their base of support

had been the cities, whereas the periphery initially had no taste for their ideology. It only acquired it as a consequence of Maoist control through coercion or the threat of it. So the malleability of political allegiances, you know, to the extent that you have natural experiments in places like Nicaragua and Mozambique, which proved this in the clearest way possible Well in Nicaragua, when the Sandinistas had revolted, they were insurgents against the ruling government at the time, the Somoza regime. They were very strong in the periphery, in the mountains and such, this was their base. Then they won that war, they became rulers of Nicaragua and ruled the cities. And then they faced their own insurgency when the Contras revolted against them.

When the situation was reversed, the Sandinistas were now strong in the cities simply because They were the incumbent and the contras in the countryside and mountains. The Sandinistas' previous base of support and all of this overrode any initial loyalties the populations might have had for either party. It was all a matter of who had a presence based wherever. Another example is Mozambique. I've pointed out before the natives in this Portuguese colony rebelled against European rule, a Marxist organization called FRELIMO. This was in the 1960s and so on under one Mondlane. And this was again a man educated by the way in the United States. America and then Sweden showered him and his retarded communist bitch American wife with

money, operational people, logistics, including at one point so-called Peace Corps volunteer, which used the Nyasa land as military aids for guerrilla insurgency while the Soviets and Chinese were supplying him with heavy weaponry and ship transports and so on. So it is a communist anti-colonial insurgency entirely spawned, supported by America. He was JFK's darling. It's amazing how JFK is now recast by dishonest people as some supposed dissident leader of the resistance when he was one of the most active anti-European, anti-civilizational leaders the world has ever seen. as the father of the new left and the globalist pro-migration global south ideology, but in any case FRELIMO and this revolutionary movement in Mozambique anti-portuguese or anti

colonial whatever you want to call it movement, although it should be clarified that Primarily its victims were local blacks who actually wanted Portuguese rule Purely numbers more blacks volunteer volunteered for the Portuguese colonial side than the FRELIMO Marxist anti-colonial insurgency and that's another interesting fact pointed out in this book I'm discussing. They say that in fact many natives in countries such as these joined the pro-government militias greater numbers than they joined the rebels still it doesn't matter. In this case for many reasons but for example Portugal was facing the combined coordination of both America and the Soviets on this but anyway so Frelimo takes over the country commit terrible

crimes by the way in which again the local blacks both in Mozambique and in an earlier raid that I believe is connected to this which was the massacre in Kitesh, Angola. It was blacks who suffered much more so than the Portuguese colonists at the hand of the anti-colonial rebels but so Frelimo takes over the country and now they are based in the cities in Maputo, formerly Lorenzo Marquez, it still has beautiful colonial architecture from that time, what remains of it, the famous train station and the like, and then Rhodesia and South Africa in the 1970s, the second half of the 1970s, they fomented an anti-communist insurgency in Mozambique against this ruling Afro-Marxist, I would call it more like kleptocratic regime, which was supposed still by much of

the population and many of the traditional tribal chieftains and the like. And this new insurgency was under a party or organization called the Renamo. And Renamo, although opposed in ideology and everything else, happened actually to be based in exactly the same areas from which Frelimo had started its own insurgency in the hinterlands. So, pre-existing, I'm saying, allegiances actually mean very little ideologically. Here you have very two clear examples, where in Nicaragua and Mozambique, the incumbent always ends up controlling the cities, whereas in the hinterlands you get insurgencies, and the positions are flipped ideologically when one wins, simply because of who controls what territory with the threat of violence and death, which you say, okay, what's so bad about this?

want to survive, they're rather mercenary about belief and ideology, isn't that okay? But there is a movie scene in Seven Samurai, I think, where the Toshiro Mifune character, the kind of volatile rogue samurai, who had probably grown up as a peasant in that movie, or am I confusing movies now, is it there or is it Sanjuro or Yojimbo? Anyway, in one of these, he goes up to these peasant old couple and he chimps at them for being servile, and sees that this what he hates to see, human weakness, servility and submission in the face of the threat of violence, this weakness, you can't shake a man out of this, is pathetic to see. I read for you something highlighting the importance of control in no way implies that coercion is the only factor or that popular grievances are irrelevant.

joined the South African-financed RENAMO insurgents in Mozambique because it allowed them to destroy the deeply unpopular new villages created by the Mozambican government. However, they did so only after the insurgents were able to challenge the government and establish local military control, thus shutting out the army. Popular dissatisfaction with new villages was equally strong in Tanzania, but because no insurgent group challenged the state, this dissatisfaction was not expressed in the context of an insurgency. During the Spanish Civil War, many leftists joined right-wing militias and vice versa because they found themselves on the wrong part of the front line and wanted to survive. Young Frenchmen wishing to avoid labor conscription during the Second World War were more likely

to join the collaborationist Milice if they lived in the cities and the resistance if they lived in the countryside. Two men explained why they had joined the pro-Israeli South Lebanese Army, SLA. We grew up on guns. Guns were muscles, and in this area the guns were in the hands of the SLA. Practitioners are well aware of this point. Mao Zedong argued that the presence of anti-Japanese armed forces was the first condition for the establishment of a base area. If there is no armed force, or if the armed force is weak, he pointed out, nothing can be done. A 1968 CIA report from Vietnam observed that most of the people respond to power and authority whether that of the Vietcong or their opponents, the GVN. What I'm telling you now is the story of a pathetic animal.

I don't blame in some way the Russians and Ukrainians for fighting what appears to the outside world, such a pointless conflict, so hard, almost trench warfare. One day a few meters here, the other week a few meters lost on the other side over territory because why they fight, they know the preferences of the local population are more or less plastic, they will change depending on who wins. In 2014, many of the regions now on Ukraine's side were pro-Russian like in Kharkov, but they changed because of Netflix specials and maybe later because of feeling of threat. So this, I think, is pathetic and it's universal to mankind. And then there is a worse aspect, because here again, maybe you can have some pity. You can excuse or coddles men, innate cowardice and servility.

But what you miss is the flip side of this, which is extreme malice, his wickedness. The same cowards are full of that too. The cup overflows with covert malice. Let me give you some examples also from Civil War time. I told you that in the guerrilla setting of Civil War, where it is asymmetric conflict, most important element is information in the city, ruling government with superior force. You can say easier access to information historically, at least in most cases, can usually find the insurgents faster and wipe them out. I say usually, okay, the reasons don't only have to do with terrain and the difficulty of let's say mountain and swamp terrain or the fact that the population is dispersed in hamlets where it's hard to keep a troop or police presence and patrol them constantly.

I remember some friend who was in Marines, he was patrolling the Afghanistan countryside and village elders would come out to him and say, look, I'm sorry, the Taliban was here yesterday and we had to provide them shelter and hospitality. Please don't kill us. So I mean, what could he do in that situation? It's the constant in all guerrilla warfare in Vietnam and Algeria and elsewhere, he can work years, build something in hamlets, both in terms of infrastructure and trust, and then insurgents can come and destroy it in one night, I'm paraphrasing a quotation from an observer of insurgencies now, because they own the night and you'll never have enough soldiers to own that area. And the ancient world did not have insurgencies because you could kill all the men and sell

the women and children in slavery. But really anything short of that almost doesn't work to pacify a situation. I think this book I'm talking about now somewhat overstates the effectiveness of parties and operations against the Germans. It's true that the Germans could never completely put down resistance against them, parties and operations, but it's also true that such parties and operations were mostly irrelevant in the case of France and even of Poland especially, and large swathes of Russia. They did not interfere with German army movements really there. They relied on Polish railways run by Polish railway men and I think in many cases the threat of extreme retaliation was effective. And I think the book I'm talking about now slightly overstates the effectiveness of parties

and operations, at least against Germany in World War II. But anyway, in rural areas, I'm saying it's not just the terrain. It's also the honor culture, the habits of not being ruled by a central authority. The fact that non-state criminality is traditionally more frequent in the rural areas, meaning You know, black marketeering, banditry, highway robbery, traditions of resistance to central state control and many such things. You know, Tsarist Russia, for example, was widely under-policed region with vast areas where the central authority barely had frequent penetration. This is why you often had pogroms and counter-pogroms and actually when the Tsarist authorities got there, they severely punished such events, but Russia of that time got a reputation for fomenting them.

I don't think that's true. But when you have people also close to the land who eke out a living from agriculture in hard ways and actually don't own much beyond their land, or at least maybe they don't even own that, they just occupy it as tenants, you don't have much leverage on such people beyond violence, and they're used to threats of that as well. So for example, why I say this, because Stalin had to be brutal against people of the earth who worked the land hard, but probably if they had been urban dwellers with more to lose and if they had waged jobs and debt and such things, it's maybe in that case not necessary fully to threaten them with death, you know, but what can you say? This held even, by the way, in Civil War and post-Civil War American South.

The center of Confederate insurgent activity was in the Appalachians in this, but that had actually been a stronghold of Union sympathy before the war. It's only because of the terrain and these other sociological factors that it became center of rebellion later in the guerrilla style. So I say all of this because there's an asterisk, in other words, to the rural-urban divide in this civil war logic. I don't think, for example, that everything I just said now about rural areas applies anymore to these kinds of regions in places like the United States and Europe, not anymore. The Americans and Europeans don't really have any more peasants of this kind, not in any big numbers, not big enough anyway. In my book, I pointed out that the suburbs are at a distinct disadvantage both with respect

to urban areas and rural if it ever came to resistance to government of all area inhabited types I can think the suburbs would be the most easily controlled it's also why the Europeans are better placed to control their migrant populations by the way if it ever came to that because they're almost all in suburb areas in France for example the security services could cut off migrant areas in a few hours just by shutting down a couple of highways and there are examples of urban guerrilla conflicts however that this book I'm talking about I think doesn't cover prominently Buenos Aires in the 1970s and also let's say Germany in the 1920s if you want to count that as well as other parts of Europe where you had constant gang and paramilitary fighting between left and right-wing militias in

In both the cases I mentioned, this took place on city streets where you can hide somewhat. But to have that, you need a constant in both such, you know, you need a weak government with broadly rightist or center-right sympathies and a powerful committed flanks on both far right and far left. In that case, maybe you do have urban guerrilla warfare or urban terrorism as a primary manifestation of civil war violence. But anyway, let's say classic civil war guerrilla cases where you have asymmetric warfare between stronger incumbent and a covert guerrilla challenger. I tell you in that case, yes, information is the most important resource. And here where information it is, you have the full malice and wickedness of mankind on display. It's not as if it's just cowardly and base.

The human become vindictive with no limit. And why? Because in matter of information, it come to malicious denunciation, so-called. In other words, where there are opportunities for people to denounce others as rebels or traitors or collaborators, either to government or to rebel forces, depending on who controls an area, and they will be absolutely flooded by nonsense denunciations, you see, which have nothing to do with the conflict. It's usually just people seeking to settle private rivalries. up to getting each other's property, sometimes even just motivated by envy, and many times motivated by fights over women, especially women or, conversely, women's fights over men. I quote now from this book some very amusing examples. Almost all the examples of denunciations

supplied by Paul Osiris, a French officer who had served as head intelligence during the Algerian insurgency, centered on private motivations. Denunciations began to flow in. He is quoting Paul Osares now. Denunciations began to flow in. In the countryside, many Duar villages were in principle hostile to the FLN. Besides the desire to live in peace, they had also private reasons, grudges, usually disputes about women. He adds that during the Battle of Algiers, denunciations were often meant to fulfill personal grudges. These remarks are also consistent with many observations pointing to the trivial character of most enunciations. I skip a bit now and read. The enunciations between spouses and ex-spouses got so far out of hand in Nazi Germany

that in 1941, the Gestapo headquarters in Berlin sent a letter to all local Gestapo posts in which they requested that special attention be paid to the enunciations between relatives, particularly married couples. Indeed, Joshi found that the majority of denunciations that Düsseldorf Gestapo received from women against their husbands were filed by women who had also filed divorce suits. She also found denunciations of men by wives who were involved with other men and for whom denunciation was the best and quickest means of getting rid of their husbands. Domestic abuse and battering also led many women to denounce their husbands as being leftist in order to bring the situation under control. Likewise, Pravda deplored malicious denunciations from angry ex-spouses.

A French country sergeant in Algeria recalls how, during the first days of the Battle of Algiers, he received a visit from a Muslim woman who denounced her husband, a rebel. In fact, she wanted to get rid of him and had set her conditions. She would exchange her information for a warranty of widowship. A captain in the South African Security Police named Michael Bellingen tried to justify murdering his wife in 1999 on the grounds. Anyway, you get the point, and he supplied many other similar examples, awful stories of people in the Spanish Civil War denouncing relatives to cheat them out of an inheritance and so on from the Irish troubles in Mozambique, depressing stories where actually idealistic rebels felt that they were basically becoming mafia dons because the conflict was not brave

armies facing each other on the field, it was gathering information from informants who are losers asking them actually to settle family disputes, kill my son in law, beat him up, he's menacing my daughter, and by the way he's an informant against you and this kind of thing, I mean do you see what this is though? Is this what you want? Do you see the disgusting human animal? But this is what he is, though, this is the human animal. This is civil war, by the way, to the retards who post about it so easily, who want it, it doesn't save your country or make it noble, it just leads to this. And so even when it's resolved, people never fully recover, country just becomes debased even further, trust is never really re-established.

Which unfortunately places I think like Britain are moving toward this. My friend Mr. Star points it out, just the government there is out of hand with what is going on with its paki and other migrants and the animus between them, not to speak between animus between right and left, and all of it happening in the context of a government running out of money. And some other governments around the world may be also similar out of hand, out of their control at this point, we'll see. But reading about the usual goings on in such situations, I'm just depressed. I almost understand the ancient Christian position born of late antiquity, born of the experience of the man in late Roman times, that human nature is so corrupt and fallen you almost need divine intervention for its correction.

But look, I don't go in that way. I think that's actually too hopeful. Thucydides realized all of this in talk about Greek civil wars that took place concurrently with international war between Sparta and Athens, and so I suppose you could call the view tragic that confronts mankind's wicked, lying and fundamentally pathetic nature head on. But there is also cause for hope only in this, in that the great energy shown by at least some during these wars and great enterprise, of course the average human run of animal Lying snake will act in these ways, but there is counterexample of men even in these wars to particularly the rebels at the center of them who are men of cunning and violence and I would only add that when you realize how wretched the

General average run of men is across all history and societies across all time and space and then you compare it to its heights Which you can find maybe a Renaissance Italy and archaic Greece and you wonder how did that happen? or maybe one or two other moments. But then you see there is glimmer of hope in that contrast. Because in human nature is maybe reformable through the act of breeding. I'm saying that the uniformly downtrodden, disgusting animal type of human that you find throughout the world is a bit liberating to realize that it all starts from that. That is just a natural human material that maybe, let's say not Lycurgus, but the previous two or three iterations of Lycurgus in the Spartan state would have had to deal with just this type of lying ape.

And precisely because all peoples are damned, precisely because of that, no situation is damned beyond saving, that no matter how bad things get, race itself, in the good sense, I mean, in the sense that you speak of a horse of race or a dog of race. All it needs are some generations of leaders of foresight to exercise vigilance and benevolent control over a territory, and within that protective shade, something great and noble can be made to germinate again, even from what is lowest in man. I tried to, somewhat, to point back the way to this in my book, although it really is just a book of internet humor, but anyway, I come back soon, maybe with an unusual guest episode next week, And until then, I tell you, Beth out.