Woes: Hello and welcome back to Millenniyule 2021. And I’m now here with Survive the Jive! Tom, … Is it Rousseau, or Russell.

Survive the Jive: It’s Rowsell, yeah.

Woes: Rowsell! That’s what I thought.

Survive the Jive: Yeah, it’s a racist microaggression to mispronounce my name. And I will, …

Woes: Oh, my first of the evening [Laughter]! No, I don’t make a point of making them.

But anyway. Okay, so welcome back you weren’t on last year. But you were on 2019. And so it’s been a wee while. A lot has obviously happened in the world in that time, these last two years.

But you’ve said that you don’t want to really talk about that, because other people will talk about it and certainly will, all over Millenniyule.

But instead we’re going to talk about. Well, we’ll take viewer questions for a start, for certain. That’s on Entropy, Cointree, and Odysee. And yeah, I think people usually have a lot of questions for you. So that should be fine.

And we’re going to start by talking about the Anglo-Saxons, because you were recently at the Traditional Britain, Group’s Christmas Social. Tom and I bumped into each other there. We had a good time. And you gave a speech. So would you like to talk about that?

Survive the Jive: Yeah, I had a great time I love the Traditional Britain, Group. I think it’s so great that it exists! And I said that I started going to their conferences, and dinners, must have been about eight years ago. And seeing some people like Sir Roger Scruton, Jacob Rees-Mog, and others.

And it’s just a nice sort of cozy kind of club, and celebrating some of the good things about Britain. But, at the time I started I was a younger man in my 20s. And I thought, you know, Britain was in a dire state. But god! I didn’t think it could get so much worse! But that it did.

But it was a great honour that they asked me to go and speak. And being that I have studied Anglo-Saxons, I thought that would be a sort of relevant topic. But I needed to explain in what way Anglo-Saxons were relevant to a Traditional Britain, Group, and to British people. And I did that by talking about the ways in which Anglo-Saxons have been invoked in different points in history.

I went through pretty much every subsequent century since the Norman conquest, to describe how the Anglo-Saxons were invoked in that century. And used as part of the constructed identity of Englishness, and by extension, Britishness from the early modern era, and onwards.

And I do say, identity is constructed! That is absolutely true, when the Left say that. But that doesn’t make it inauthentic in any sense. It’s just that’s how things are made. They have to be built.

But I thought it was very interesting to go through that, because I actually disagree a lot with some of the ways in which Anglo-Saxons have been invoked, or the reasons behind their invocation. And the way that they were integrated into identity and the things that we used to justify throughout history. A lot of them I disagree with. And I just find it funny that the Left recently. And I’ve talked about this already in streams and stuff, have tried to ban Anglo-Saxon, and say that it’s got these deep ties to racist ideas. And that’s quite a tenuous claim! I think there are probably some examples that they could use to justify that.

But overall Anglo-Saxon has been really an identity invoked for like quite liberal, progressive, tendencies in the British Isles. So I just want I just thought that was quite amusing.

But yeah, I think the talk was quite well received. And I had a good evening. And it was good to see you there. We had some, we caught up a bit. And yeah, we had quite a late night. So I hope you weren’t too tired for the first day. But I watched the first day of Millenniyule. I watched a couple of the first ones with the Golden One, and the PhilosophiCat. And you did well! So looks like you weren’t too tired.

Woes: Well, yes I did. I can’t remember what time I tried to go to sleep, I went to bed. But I didn’t get to sleep. I mean, I only had about three hours sleep that night, or that day. So it was a very turbulent start to Millenniyule last night. But, you know, I’ll get into a routine, inevitably. So it’s fine it doesn’t matter.

But about the speech. First of all is it going to go up anywhere online so that people can listen to it?

[05:14]

Survive the Jive: It probably will. It probably will. Watch this space.

Woes: All right okay good. I mean, I’ve really enjoyed it. And I think it would be a shame if it didn’t get a wider audience. But it was a nice comprehensive, …

Because I was expecting that it would be, because I spoke at the TBG three years ago. And I think they asked me to speak for like 20 to 25 minutes. They wanted it to be quite brief. So I did that. And I actually quite like that. There are different speeches. And sometimes they ask you to speak for like an hour. Really? And that’s fun. Because then you’ve got a huge, epic, sort of canvas to work with. But then sometimes, as in, well the conference where we first met, Stockholm 2017, they asked us to speak for 15 minutes. And I really enjoyed that! I really enjoyed it! I thought it was a nice challenge! It was like the equivalent of telling a short story, or making a short film. You’ve got to pack a lot into that 15 minutes. I really enjoy it!

Survive the Jive: It forces you to employ your best rhetoric, and oratory,

Woes: And to keep it simple, keep it concise. And I really enjoyed that challenge.

And so with the TBG it was I think I was. Yeah, it was like 20-25 minutes. And so I was expecting when you started speaking, I thought it was going to be the same. But actually it was about 40, 50 minutes? It was different. And it was a much more, … But it needed to be, because it was as I say a comprehensive overview of the life of this phenomenon, of this concept of Anglo-Saxon.

So what would you say to someone, just off the cuff, right now. What does that term refer to? But oh! Well, let’s start at the start. Well is it the start the Brythonics? Is that the start? Or would it be the Beaker* people? What would be the start here?

[*The Bell Beaker culture (also described as the Bell Beaker complex, or Bell Beaker phenomenon) is an archaeological culture named after the inverted-bell beaker drinking vessel used at the very beginning of the European Bronze Age. Arising from around 2800 BC, it lasted in Britain until as late as 1800 BC].

Survive the Jive: Got my Bell Beaker here [raising his beaker of beer]! [loud laughing] I’m representing my ancestors! Cheers!

Well the Brythonics are, … Like the people of Britain today are a combination of like of, very broadly speaking, two different Germanic invasions, and two different broad linguistic groups of Celtic speakers.

Although genetically you can divide them into different groups to the linguistic groups. But the linguistic groups are Celtic, within the British Isles, are Gaelic and Brythonic. And the Brythonic speakers include, … I mean, today we only have Cornish and Welsh. But we included, back in the day, the languages, probably dialects, and languages, spoken across England including Cumbrick, which also was spoken up in northwestern Scotland, up up as far as Glasgow. And also in the rest of Scotland, except for the Gaelic parts, whether Scottish invaded, the Pictish also.

The Picts were Brythonic people who spoke of Brythonic language as well. Which would have been more closely related to Welsh, than to Irish.

So yes, we do descend from them. And we do descend from Germanic peoples. But it varies regionally, how much people have from each of these different peoples.

The Bell Beaker, just to quickly say, is something, it’s not a separate people, like that annoying, Cambridge educated, comedian, Stuart Lee, and his much loved sketch by my blue ticks on Twitter like to post. His talk, his sketch, about Paul Knuckle [sp] I think it was, from UKIP talking about:

“Oh the Beaker folk came. And then the Celts came!”

He’s trying to say all these people, are different peoples.

Woes: Well Britain obviously is a what a “nation of immigrants” isn’t it?

Survive the Jive: Yeah [chuckling]. Well the problem is it ignores chronology. It’s like saying, … To make it quite simple the Bell Beakers came thousands of years before the Anglo-Saxons. The Celtic languages arrived, you know, well over a thousand years later from the Bell Beakers.

[10:00]

And overall, they’re not really different people in a racial, or genetic sense. So the Bell Beakers are, we’re still the Bell Beaker people in a sense. Although there have been other migrations into the island since the Bell Beaker people made a massive population replacement about four and a half thousand years ago in Britain. And that replaced almost all the people who had lived here before. But not all.

And then sometime at the end of, … This is the latest evidence is about to be published by Harvard about it. But it’s what a lot of scholars have said before. The Celtic languages would have arrived with the Celtic.

When we see in the archaeological record, all the Celtic art starts turning up, which is just at the end of the Bronze Age, early Iron Age. So you’re maybe like, 1000 BC.

So yeah, that’s when also now the genetics has shown that there is another genetic change in Britain. But unlike the one when the Bell Beaker one, to, 400 BC roughly, which replaced about 90 percent of the population of the entire island! The one that happened at about 1,000 BC only maybe replaced – the exact figures are going to be probably assumed – it’s about 30 percent. And not in the entire island. Mostly just in the southeast of what’s now England.

And that that replacement, or integration, because they’re mixing of people, probably constituted a new elite. Because otherwise there wouldn’t have been a linguistic change, a the material culture change, the Celtic culture, that the Bell Beaker people adopted.

And they were not genetically from the Celtic heartlands of [word unclear] area like Austria, and Switzerland, and like the northern side of the Alps basically, in central Europe, is like where the Celtic heartland is.

These people weren’t from there, the people who brought Celtic to Britain. Unfortunately, I’m ashamed to say, they were from France and they brought, … We have to accept that [chuckling] it was the French who brought Celtic to Britain.

I’m only joking for those people who don’t understand British humour! Is it’s a long-standing thing to joke about our relationships with the French.

But yeah, when we talk about the Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Saxons coming, and their impact genetically. Anglo-Saxons coming around, in the migration era after the fall of Rome, ….

[12:42]

Woes: There are a set of Germanic traits?

Survive the Jive: Yeah. They’re a confederation almost. But officially they don’t have any proper confederation until quite a long time after they arrive. But they do come in, and seemingly, organize like a well-orchestrated movement, which is yet to be fully explained.

But we know for a fact from genetic and other sources, archaeological sources, there were Germanic people in Britain under Romans. Many of the Roman legion, for example. And they may have like had this idea of like going back, going to Holland, Denmark, Germany and saying to all these different Germanic tribes:

“Let’s all just pile on in, because it’s a free-for-all right now!”

And they remember, you know, some of their big shots probably served in the Roman army in Britain and were like:

“Oh, talk about what opportunities, good farmland there!”

And then they all piled in.

But, when we say how much Celtic and how much Anglo-Saxon? People talk about:

“If we’re 40% Anglo-Saxon, which is the rough estimation of how much the average person has, then we’re 60% Celtic.”

But the problem with that is actually what they’re saying is:

“60% pre-Anglo-Saxon, not 60% Celtic.”

So, as I said, the people who brought Celtic languages to Britain time weren’t actually the original Celts. So we probably don’t have any actual Celtic DNA from the original Celts.

But we have, maybe in the southeast, we have like about 30% from these French Celts. Who, maybe they had some DNA from the original Celts from central Europe too. But these Gaulish people brought it in. And if the Iron Age Britons, Brythonic people were 30% French, and the rest like the 70% British Bell Beaker, then that’s what we mean when we say Celtic. Which is confusing.

Because the term “Celtic” is used fast and loose! People use it all kinds of ways. I mean, all kinds of things. Whereas when I say 40% Anglo-Saxon, everyone knows what I mean. They’re talking about how much DNA came from the Germanic speaking invaders in the migration era.

When you say how much Celtic DNA, they don’t mean how much DNA came from the Celtic invaders! Which is stupid! Because then you’re not applying the same criteria for estimating the same thing. So it doesn’t make sense!

But if you use the term Brythonic then it’s much, much better. So we have about 60% Brythonic DNA. But yeah.

[15:17]

Woes: It’s weird that Anglo-Saxon has become the dominant term then, to refer to the English, instead of Brythonic. I mean, if we are majority genetically Brythonic?

Survive the Jive: Well, nobody knew about genetics until recent the genetic stuff is brand new. So but yeah, there are there were times when people wanted to distance with Anglo-Saxon one was after the Norman conquest where they really focused on Celtic heritage more like king Arthur’s Court that was really popular in court Romance like the Court culture of the high Middle Ages in Britain and in France and wells and wells is in Britain but France as well like and the continent in Germany everyone loved Arthurian Romance it was like the Marvel comics of his day whatever cape [] of his day.

Woes: Oh god! Was it the woes: Harry Potter of his day? Surely not?

Survive the Jive: Maybe I don’t know if I’m insulting Malory, or whatever. But that was partly. Because the Normans wanted to have this like long-standing feeling of like connection to the land that they were the rulers of and by integrating with France and like the Celts and like we’re all together and just pretend that that Anglo-Saxon thing of like those hundreds of years. And the fact that the people, or themselves all speak English. And are called English just ignore that and just pretend that like okay we have this Celtic connection. And then that sort of died down again hundreds of years. And then it came back again something of a necessity with them with. Well not exactly. But when the union happened there was not like English people weren’t rushing to call themselves Celts. But there was a kind of when Wales and England were unified there was like the society of comradian and things where like the society of ancient Britain’s where like in the 18th century like there were like Welsh people in England like calling itself society of ancient Britain’s and celebrating their Celtic ancestry, but also being pro-Britain. They wanted to be part of and unified with England at the same time but the I think like maybe a bit later on there were some with like in the 19th century when kel there was a kind of Celtic craze in the Romanticist kind of thing. And a lot of people then kind of wanted more to be Celtic.

And that kind of survived even to modern times. And some people like Francis Pryor I think he’s very keen on that. And they would like to see themselves Celts.

But like I said. What makes a person a Celt like is it they speak a Celtic language, because we don’t speak Celtic languages, or is it dissent from the people who first spoke Celtic languages well we don’t really have any of that either, so is it just that we spoke we descend from people who used to speak Celtic languages. Well that doesn’t make any sense as a criteria to determine if someone’s something. Because that’s quite arbitrary as a thing. But we’re not Celtic. And what we are genetically and I said this in the speech is to say we’re 40 Anglo-Saxon is accurate if you’re talking about how much DNA do we have from the people who were coming on boats at the beginning in the migration era who didn’t call themselves Anglo-Saxons they called themselves according to their various tribal factions. By the time the term angle Anglo-Saxon was actually in use by the time the England was a unified nation, the angle only Saxons had already integrated with the natives and with. So they were the same as modern people in Britain. So, how much DNA do we have from people who first call themselves Anglo-Saxons all of it is the answer so we’re 100% Anglo-Saxon in that sense. Like if you want I mean, there might be a little bit of introgression of DNA and obviously some people in the cities are not a hundred percent Anglo-Saxon.

Woes: Maybe Afrosex?

Survive the Jive: But what I’m talking about is maybe.

Woes: Yeah did you hear that there was some I think it was a Mayor, or something a black guy who called himself afrosex. And I thought that was actually very funny.

Survive the Jive: They’re the real Anglo-Saxons the real ones!

Woes: The original ones! Yeah.

Survive the Jive: They’re really.

Woes: But yeah, this obviously is something that is very, very complicated very an arbitrary the distinctions in the end are its quite subjective where you draw lines. And so on. So I think I’m certainly not agreeing with the Left. Because the Left will say something is socially constructed it’s something subjectively decided upon it’s arbitrary. Therefore it’s fake! Artificial! Meaningless! And we can just dispose of it.

[20:05]

Survive the Jive: Yeah.

Woes: There is obviously. And then maybe some hardcore Right-winger would say no it’s not arbitrary no it’s not meaningless no it’s not socially constructed I’m slightly really stereotypical there’s obviously a middle ground where the yes these things emerged there is objective truth about them. But there’s also so much complexity and mystery that we have to make subjective judgments. And so it is a social construct. But that doesn’t mean that it’s meaningless, or fake, or that we can, or should dispose of it.

Survive the Jive: No. As I said earlier, identity is always constructed. And the Left knows that they don’t mind identities at all. And, in fact, the people like Jordan pedersen and whatever are always complaining about how the Left like plays with identity politics. They love it! They encourage identities. And they find it offensive when people’s ethnic identities are undermined. And that’s I think in some cases that’s quite justified except when it’s at the expense of ours! Then then, of course, it’s not justified. But they just it’s just they’re one-sided often with like heritage and ancestry is part of identity. And they can pretend would play word games with it when indigenous European peoples ethnic groups invoke their ancestry as a part of their identity. And, you know, word games, or like thought games, or like try to obfuscate and say obviously dishonest things like oh. Well, what is this and what if you have like this ancestry as well does it stop at what percentage does it stop being. Well, it’s like they the same thing could be asked of all the protected ethnic groups that they defend. Like the same questions could be used to undermine their ethnic identities. But they don’t do that obviously. It’s not my business how much Indian blood an Indian man has to have, before he ceases to be an Indian, or whatever like well.

Woes: Then India India itself though. As as we were discussing the other night, India is a mix of different ingredients.

Survive the Jive: Of course, that that then everything is. Every. I mean, when the love say everyone’s a mix they have they’re right. But that’s its like a it’s a truism. It does it obscures the that like every drink is a mix every drink has different things in it that doesn’t mean that whether I give you a glass of water, or a glass of poison is the same thing, because they’re both a mix. That’s completely thing to say.

Woes: Oh god yeah! Oh god yeah. And then the whole thing about well. Because there are different ingredients before, because it’s multiple ingredients therefore there is no totality, because actually it’s this and this. The Left, but also other just pedants have all sorts of ways of missing the point this is something I noticed a long time ago that one of the most frustrating things in debate is when that the other person knows what you mean. But they are pretending not to. It’s there’s a technique yeah, exactly! Well yeah Morgoth can’t give it that name yeah.

Survive the Jive: It’s a great name. I’ve seen it I’ve heard it many times. Yeah, it’s very frustrating.

Woes: Yeah, it’s just. I mean, there are I won’t name names. But yeah, there are people who have done that and that they’re just pissing around! They’re just wasting time I don’t know it’s something that just really offends me I can never believe people who are happy to just waste time and insult them by wasting your time, you know,

Survive the Jive: They’re not serious about their lives they’re not serious about who they are. I’m serious about everything I do I take very seriously. Because I believe that life is serious. I believe in the suit I believe in the gods. I believe in the universe and everything in it has meaning. And that everything you do is very important. And what your existence has significance. So when you if you’re going to argue for something it should be you should take it very seriously and you shouldn’t be dishonest you shouldn’t like play around with arguments you don’t even believe in just for people like to repeat arguments they’ve heard on television they thought were they thought sounded convincing. But then when they try them out and then and it’s demonstrated in argument that it’s facile. They stick to it, or just pretend they don’t understand, because they’re not really interested in actually exploring ideas which is the fountain of a proper argument.

[25:03]

Woes: And, of course, for young people and whenever you, you know, I always envisage some like 18 20 year old girl who’s heard this thing from her lecturer, or she’s heard it on TV and she’s going to repeat it thinking that and this happened a lot on YouTube back in the day you’ve got some and often men as well often young men as well, but the stereotype is it seems best manifested in the female version. Like a young woman who just says what she repeats what she’s heard elsewhere thinking well that I’ve done it I’ve won. And really it’s just for as you said, facile! A lot of these things that you hear on TV. I think the last time you were on we talked about Cheddar Man. And there are still people looking like two years later there are still people who’ve heard this on TV well the original br the original British people had dark skin. So therefore we’re all from Africa and therefore unlimited migration from Africa today is not only a good idea. But it’s not even something to remark upon. It’s just a continuation of the situation that we’ve had for the last five ten thousand years! But, of course, that’s utterly ridiculous! And they must know even while they say it.

Survive the Jive: No they don’t no they don’t know actually, I think some there’s there are, of course, a lot of people who just aren’t capable of thinking about things properly and there’s like also. It’s kind of like you’re geared up like this to make arguments to justify the things that you’re already part of your life and integrate into where you do things. So if you’re literally like gonna lose your job and everyone that in your life will turn around and hate you if you make this decision then it’s not like you’re approaching an argument with an unbiased view of two positions. You’re going to end up like finding ways to try and like have justify a position that would be advantageous to you and that’s what they do. And if they want to say that immigration is good and they saw on television Cheddar Man was black they say not they don’t say dark skin they say he was black which is obviously a legal category, which used by the police. You don’t call if you see a tamil person who has dark skin you don’t say he’s black. You say he’s Indian, or Asian they say yeah. Which is another funny term. But they mean sub-Saharan African. And he wasn’t subtitled there’s never any evidence to show that, or anything that he was even promoted, in fact, I’m more related to sub-Saharan Africans than Cheddar Man. I’m pretty I’m pretty fly for a White guy! They never.

Woes: Are you damn man, or gouda man.

Survive the Jive: Yeah, what the I’m squeezy cheesy man! [Laughter] they never I never would bother trying to argue that with someone like that, because they haven’t reached that conclusion, because they’ve looked at the evidence. They just they’re thinking that, because they know it’s the safe thing to do to own the opposition that you’re allowed to own you’re allowed to argue against these people and be morally and be in the moral right you’ve been given the authorization by your superiors to do that and you can do it quite safely without worrying about anything bad happened to you. That’s why they do that. So it’s not really worth it, because they’re not sort of capable of actual problem like intellectual thought, or engaging with ideas, or anything like that.

So it’s a waste of breath and time. But I mean, for those people what’s effective is another kind of communication strategy really which is it which is rhetorical and doesn’t involve argument. I think it’s more like no other things that. Hopefully I create some of that sort of thing myself. But I’m sure lots of people do. But I mean, Cheddar Man itself isn’t what that whole Cheddar Man debacle wasn’t presented as an argument. It was presented as an image. And that was why it was powerful.

Woes: Do you mean the image of his, the reconstruction of his head.

Survive the Jive: Right yeah. Yeah, it was very yeah very powerful.

Woes: Yeah and perhaps that was deliberate.

Survive the Jive: Oh yes yeah.

Woes: Didn’t you say in the was it in the speech, or was it afterwards that you were saying that the guy in charge of it was had a certain bias.

Survive the Jive: That was after that wasn’t in the speech I didn’t mention Cheddar Man.

Woes: Yeah that’s what I thought yeah.

[30:00]

Survive the Jive: No well he say he published the Tom Booth who worked for the natural history museum among other things he’s a archaeogeneticist he worked in archaeogenetics. And he had published in the previous year I think was 2017 a paper collaborative paper I can’t remember who the other author was. I think it was through ucl through my old university in which he argued that Brexit had happened. And it was he didn’t say why that was bad it was just assumed, because Brexit happened Brexit bad and this may have been fed into, by the way, the media reports on historical peoples in the British Isles as having a kind of continuity with the existing in existing people the indigenous people. And he was saying this kind of narrative creates a sense of us and them and like a division and what needs to happen in future speaking from 2017 is an effort to disrupt this sense of an exclusive connection to these ancestors by like the White people in England basically. So he said that openly is published. You can go and see it. And then the following year he’s involved in he doesn’t make the reconstruction that he was behind the paper. And to be fair I don’t dispute that the likelihood said a man had dark skin I people have often said that like I’ve got angry and said that he didn’t have that skin I’ve never, ever, said that Ted a man didn’t have dark skin ever, in fact, I was the first person to go on the I was in 2017 in April 2017 long before the shadow mountain I was saying that mesolithic Europeans Western Europeans had dark skin. So I was saying this already. So it’s not like it’s completely opposite of the truth to say that I was opposing it what I was opposing was the fact that Tom Booth’s team said it was dark. And they did they had a prediction calculator which made it much darker than any other lab in Europe had ever said that the complexion was. And it was disputed by some of the most prominent geneticists in the world who said they thought that tambu’s team had gone gone too far onto the dark side of how dark he was likely to be although it’s a prediction calculator they don’t know really anyway and even booth would admit that. But then afterwards when they took it to the artist who’s not a scientist they said to him go with the dark as possible. And then when the photographers took photos of the reconstruction they sort of like tweaked it to make it even darker so apparently the actual statue isn’t as dark as the media photos. So you can see it’s like a Chinese whispers of making it dark and darker until you get this image of very, you know, dark skinned.

Woes: It’s absurd! It’s. Like you could end up with just a black square for the photo [Laughter].

Survive the Jive: Yeah, it’s like the placeholder image for when you start a new profile. But yeah, that’s what I disputed and I thought. And obviously they didn’t complain about that even though they knew that that was wrong. And they did complain several scientists complained directly to me on Twitter in 2018 when I was complaining. But they didn’t complain about all the thousands of black people who were saying Cheddar Man is black even though. They know that that was completely untrue that’s like so that’s far from the genetic truth that it’s more accurate to say Boris Johnson is black it’s scientifically more accurate to say Boris Johnson is black than it is to say Cheddar Man is it black it’s black in that sense. And when of said like the first people in Britain were Africans and we were blue blacks were here first she was saying that she got contract with the National Geographic that same time and she argued and I she argued with me on Twitter. And I said to her like you’re wrong you’ve made a mistake you need to retract that statement she’s like no I didn’t make a mistake. All of these people who were having attacking me like little old me getting all this attention from Adam Rutherford, or whatever, and Tom Booth about it. But they didn’t worry about after her saying that, because obviously, even if I had made an error it would be minor comparison to anything after her said. But they don’t mind that Apple hearst has a platform in the National Geographic where she’s spreading completely scientifically inaccurate things. Why don’t they care why don’t they as scientists care that about the dissemination of misinformation in that case, because they have a political agenda. And in that case her misinformation fit their agenda. And my true information didn’t.

So. They don’t care about truth that they’ve demonstrated that absolutely and there and these are people like the BBC get Adam Rutherford out all the time wheel him out as the go-to geneticist, because he’s bought paid for controlled says what he’s supposed to say and will never rustle ruffle any feathers, or anything like that, but people have seen through him.

[35:12]

Woes: … I mean, there is a cliche that scientists are not, you know, Uber rational logical objective that there is always bias. But it does seem quite incredible that there could be this level of bias especially now, because for the last 100 years we’ve sort of well more than that. But it’s when you and I were growing up. I think that there was a general sort of feeling general sense that nowadays we’ve worked out how to be objective we have a lot of stuff is computerized now our data analysis is automated so human bias would be impossible there. But even with when it comes to human judgment we are very diligent there’s probity about the honesty and integrity objectivity. And so on and so I think that. And then that’s borne out by the success of modern medicine obviously current affairs notwithstanding. And so and science just scientific advance. So you would think. Okay, yeah, we must be getting really good at being objective and clear and thorough but really. Well, what would you say about that, because on the one hand you told me that genetic research is really good nowadays over the last 10 years but clearly. There’s also a highly, but clearly. There’s also a highly political, or politicized faction within the scientific community who are looking for ways to advance narratives not truth.

Survive the Jive: Yeah, there are. But I don’t think. I mean, I’m not a scientist in case anyone and that, but in case anyone who is not familiar with who I am is that I’m a historian documentary maker not a scientist but I’m very interested in science I have worked as a science communicator for the World Health Organization. The problem isn’t necessarily always with the scientists although many scientists might may indeed have political biases that every people are biased that’s natural. I don’t think we’re going to reach a stage where humans don’t have bias. And I’m not worried about scientists individual scientists having political biases they are huge it’s more difficult for a scientist to insert his political bias into his work than it is for someone in the humanities where it’s done routinely and pretty much all the time. But beside the way science is communicated to the general public science communications is heavily politicized really politicized and controlled and as it’s part of this cult of scientism which is the desired way that non-scientifically informed, you know, normal people are supposed to regard science which is with deep reverence like a kind of like a cult cultic reverence without really understanding anything. And that’s been very much encouraged by the media. And this is very political. I think that’s the core of the problem, rather than anything in anything wrong with scientists like Tom Booth has a liberal bias he’s a scientist but he would he’s not lying in his work. I don’t think he published any deliberately inserted false data into any of his work I’m not accusing him of that kind of malpractice. I mean, he’s openly talked about his he’s not trying to hide the fact with that Brexit article that he obviously thinks thinks like that article was talking about science communications. So he was telling he was talking about recommendations for how science should be communicated in the media. So I don’t think that. I don’t think Tom Booth’s a bad scientist, or anything I’m not saying that, but I’m saying his bias is a liberal and that he is happier when he saw the his work communicated in a distorting way that reinforced, you know, his political assumptions that he has but and the same is true with people like Adam Rutherford. But he’s really a media figure to talk for talking about science. So I’ve become something of a sight a alternative science communicator as a unintentionally, but the same thing can be said I don’t want to go too deep into it but the science on the Covid virus and on the effects of the different mRNA vaccines isn’t actually very bad. A lot of the people who are critical of the way that the media and the government have tackled these issues post peer-reviewed scientific papers as a way to oppose them and they do that. Because the papers show the data. So that the papers the scientists are still studying and showing what’s right and those and those papers are still being published by reputable scientific journals so there isn’t the problem isn’t so much the scientists and the and as such it’s the media and governments and things like that are really using science and exploiting a the naturally on lack of awareness that people have a quite technical things to just to distort the findings.

[40:18]

Woes: And yeah, I wouldn’t want to comment on that. But I what I would say is I would be surprised if scientists that if their funding did not influence their activity, you know,

Survive the Jive: Of course,

Woes: It comes through Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and all this kind of thing.

Survive the Jive: Yeah.

Woes: But I’m not speaking on that, yeah. But I wouldn’t I’m not going to be smart any questions like what survive the Jive: When you do when you do any regardless of what if you’re going to academia you’re going to do a dissertation on something right you’ve got to make sure that it’s going I mean. If you want to go. If you want to become an academic you’re going to choose a topic that you think will get you attention. So you’ve got to appeal to the sensibilities of existing academics and to where, or if you Like, if you need research funding you’ve got to appeal to the groups that are providing the funding so it doesn’t that’s like the whole academic structure when people about sometimes comment like with this hatchling approach like oh I noticed you sort of implying some kind of woke conspiracy of like Left wing bias in universities can you provide any evidence of that?

Woes: Yeah. And then the last peer-reviewed study of that.

Survive the Jive: Have you got a pair of your study the whole the entire the incentivization of every action you take as soon as you see in higher education is always pushing you towards being further and further towards Left-wing, or globalist views. There’s nothing in the air pushing in the other direction at all, at least in the west.

Woes: Yeah. Okay. Well, I’ve got to say that your background has become non-symmetrical.

Survive the Jive: Oh my goodness. Yeah, I was messing with the thing I better fix that I’m very sorry to the anyone with OCD, or autism, or anything that would upset them. Is it perfect.

Woes: Yeah, okay not quite leave it more over to your right, or it’s going to bother me [Laughter] I don’t buy drilling.

Survive the Jive: Everything is okay. But we were talking about that before we went on air I pointed out how, you know, kubrickian the background was with the Beams. And it just struck me at the time.

Survive the Jive: My red my yule red shirt could be like a flood of blood coming out of a lift if you’re like.

Woes: Yeah, that’s a good image. Okay there are some questions for you and oh. Well, this is out of left field do you ever get flack from Christians if so, how do you respond.

Survive the Jive: Never in real life every Christian who I meet in real life and I’ve told is that I’m telling my pagan they never had any problem with it. Yeah I had known had good relationships with Catholics in when I of from I had good contacts with members of different Catholic factions in Britain, I in Sweden, I was in touch with members of the orthodox church and I had lunches dinners with orthodox priests. And my some of my wife’s family are priests of the Lutheran church. And I’ve never had any issue I don’t I never promoted any kind of conflict with Christians ever. And I’ve always encouraged civility with Christians and but some people internet Christians seem to think like something completely different. It’s like it’s similar to like it’s similar to the idea that some people think that I really hate people from the south of Europe and that I make videos complaining them, or that I, or that I said Cheddar Man was had White skin. I never said any of those things like people have these really clear ideas of me hating Christians hating I never said anything you go through hours of my videos never said anything of the kind I never said anything against Christians. I said I’ve said I have said against Christianity to explain why I’m not a Christian I don’t believe that Jesus is god. It’s very simple I don’t believe that I don’t believe the Bible is a true book. It’s that it comes down to that nothing else it’s not like I have some personal vendetta against Christians. There’s nothing of the kind I’ve never had any problem with them, or any other religion really. But yeah, online people especially the newly converted people who use their new their newly adopted religion as a surrogate for a replacement for a proper identity they become very sensitive. And they see me as a threat.

[46:00]

Woes: Well, first of all, I think. Yeah. The internet does bring out the worst in people there’s no question of that. I mean, people treat you, or anyone in general in a way that they would never treat you in real life if they were speaking to you man to man-to-man face to face they’d never do this kind of stuff. So yeah, that’s true. And then as for the zeal of the convert. I think that’s absolutely a thing. I mean, it’s clearly it’s something that is a cliche for very good reasons because. And you can see it in real time that now people who develop a new world view, or adopt a new world view and it becomes everything to them and they’re obsessed. And then they’ve got to chase out the unbelievers the people who disagree who reject that worldly.

Survive the Jive: And I think part of it, if I may. Interject is, because of a crisis of identity in the West. And I don’t want to be unfair to Americans. But I do think it was at least initially it seemed to be very predominantly an American phenomenon but nothing that’s an American phenomenon ever remains a uniquely American phenomenon for long like it’s in the West and other places as well. But that there’s this kind of thing like they see religion as just like every other thing that we’re presented in this world like it’s a product you buy, or it’s a garment you put on. And this is like the first thing you do is adopt like the phony outrage and like and political opinions of that cookie cutter identity you’ve just put onto yourself. So I’m a Christian now, so I hate pagans, or whatever they decided to do. And it’s like instead of first beginning with the fundamentals of what do you believe. What do you actually believe, because religion is about, or Christianity is very much about belief at least if not of not all religion. But it’s everything’s backwards.

Woes: Yeah you said I mean, also I just on that point. I do think that that there’s a certain way of being nowadays that has I think emerged since World War II. And I think was initially centreed in America. But I think is. Now you can now see it manifesting in Europe which is a certain lack of ancestral awareness of ancestral identity and being stuck into here and now being stuck as a consumer with not even a national much awareness of your national identity it’s just. Well, I’m a consumer I do this stuff I buy that product I use that service obviously they would never say no one would ever see that out loud but.

Survive the Jive: You might not even think it consciously.

Woes: Yeah yeah, exactly! But it’s their way of being is dictated really just by the products that they partake of and I think that you can understand that beca being a thing in post-war America especially laterally the 80s 90s 2000s. But I think it’s now a thing in Europe I think you see people I remember when I was in Norway god when was that 20s yeah 2017.

Survive the Jive: In the before time.

Woes: Yeah I it was a really interesting moment that I’ve always remembered. And I’ve talked about it before where it was we happened to be there for the Scanza conference on the same day as gay pride in Oslo. And so I was watching a bunch of young people going walking along with their banner and whatever to this gay pride march that was about to start and I looked at them. And I thought that these are young Norwegians presumably. But I don’t actually know whether they’re Norwegians and The thing that unites them is that they’re up for gay rights they’re up for gay pride and whatever they might be gay they might not they might probably aren’t even gay they’re probably just young liberals, you know. I mean, they’re like teenagers, or something I can’t really remember now. But they were just a sort of generic modern not even European a generic modern White person and that that was obviously this is just my impression of them from across the street as I watched them walking past I just thought you could belong to you could come from any country and you there’s nothing really.

[50:20]

Survive the Jive: Making sexuality an identity is a part of it.

Woes: And well, or even the attitude towards sexuality. Because I don’t know whether they were gay, or bisexual.

Survive the Jive: Yeah yeah, or like it’s in that case it becomes an opinion my opinion is my identity my opinion on sexuality that I’ve adopted from the media but the I guess we in Britain, I should I do like not to be unfair on Americans, because I know they get pissed off absolutely Europeans like acting like they’re always the worst. But like, I’m not saying we have the mods versus rockers in Britain was definitely Americanized stuff, because it was like influenced by American soul music for the mods and American rock and roll for the rockers but it manifested in a uniquely British way. But. It was basically like an excuse for them like there was nate there was inbuilt native like desires among young men to like let off steam and have some have a few fights which has always been around in Britain. But it manifested in a new way where like you put on the clothing of the product you put you bought the products you bought the records associated with being a rocker, or a modern. And then you had to fight the guy who looked different. It was complete the media made a big thing about it. But they hadn’t really understood what was happening. But I think it was like it was the start of that post-war identity crisis thing in our country where you cease to be simply an Englishman you have to be instead, or even a great level a Londoner, or a Yorkshire man he said you have this other kind of subcultural identity which is really ah plethora of products.

Woes: Indeed and it translates geography as well, you should point out that it’s not to do with any particular city, or any country it’s your attitudes it’s your ideas and the music you listen to. But what I wanted to ask you earlier when you said that when people someone the cliche of the zealous convert who makes his religion the whole of his identity instead of developing a proper identity what that’s an interesting I don’t know if you said it off the cuff maybe you would want to revise it. But what would you mean by a proper identity, because I know that this is something that concerns me when people talk about ethnic, or national. And they said that’s my identity and there are people in our movement who will say that. And I think that’s not quite healthy, because it.

Survive the Jive: Really you can’t just be I like I’m a walk around in a beef eater costume say I am Britain and yeah, exactly! You got it’s a part of your identity it informs your identity you can’t have you can’t authentically escape Britishness if you’re British you can’t say oh that’s not part of my identity if you’re British it is part of your identity. And to be authentic have an authentic identity you have to accept that into it but like it’s not all. It’s not all who you are like it’s not complete is that what you’re saying.

Woes: Yeah, exactly! I was wondering whether you would agree with that I think you would and how you would verbalize it. Because to me a proper identity is an amalgamation of things. And not least your own personal experiences which are unique to you even though other people might well be able to identify with them. But it’s your own experiences your own family your religion your nationality. And then maybe in addition to all of that any ideas that you might adopt, or attitudes, or whatever. But it’s the amalgamation of all of that it’s not just like I am Britain, or I am Christian, or I am a pig and that’s all there is to it. And I think that people do become very that there’s a danger of people becoming very reliant on one particular thing. And then that’s it. That’s what they are and that’s who they are yeah that. I don’t think is healthy. And I think that goes for political labels as well I worry about that. And I did worry about that in like for the last few years about I don’t want to encourage people to just see themselves as, you know, White, or British, or Scottish, or English, or nationalists, or whatever. I want people to have a healthy sense of their own individual identity.

Survive the Jive: Yeah, I agree with everything you said. And I can see why it happens though. Because I feel like I was a bit like that myself when I was young when I didn’t when I was young I was immersed in all the [55:01] cultural milieu of that everyone else was. And I did and I accepted many of the nonsense that that everyone else did before I could start to see through it. But I can even see that people who are who have the wisdom to issue the mainstream media and go for alternative media would still get sucked in, because you to speak frankly you and I as YouTubers have to present ourselves as a kind of a product. And what I have and in so doing we limit and streamline it to make it more understandable what it is calling yourself Millennial Woes is like not always sad are you not always just a Millennial they’re not always. But it has to be simplified so that it can be digestible.

Woes: Well yeah.

Survive the Jive: And maybe. And then people who absorb our content and, or absorb them if they’re young and impressable they might think like oh if he’s if they’re just about one thing then maybe I have to be just about one thing they don’t understand that, of course, there’s all kinds of other things about us that we don’t include into in the online persona, or whatever that’s protected, because we can’t well you see this don’t have everything.

Woes: This is something where I’m quite different from most my YouTubers and recovering YouTubers in that I really did just give everything I just did say everything there’s something that people always say to me is that when they meet me in real life is that I’m exactly as I am in the videos which I can’t I like that I am very, you know, it’s very candid and direct. But that does also come with some risks which I wasn’t quite fully aware of back in the at the start. But yeah, I, of course, I know what you mean that for the vast majority of YouTubers you’re presenting you most people have the sense to present a more simplified version of themselves. Because that’s just how to make something accessible for people. And it’s just common sense. But yeah,

Survive the Jive: I was trying to make some kind of point about like the way that we engage with media and technology forcing us into this kind of it we’re not forcing us but it pushes us a bit towards this sort of a definite process of identity.

Woes: Yeah I definitely agree.

Survive the Jive: Even among we who sort of talk about it notice it and oppose it and try and encourage people to more positive identity we’re still in other senses like contributing to it unintentionally just because of the nature of the technology that’s involved.

Woes: Yeah I remember seeing similar to what I was saying about that Norway experience I about two years ago I stumbled upon some YouTube channel. And it was some young British guy English. But that doesn’t really matter, because he could have been American he could have been Australia it really wouldn’t have mattered he was ex he even seemed kind of trans-Atlantic his way of speaking that there was a certain slant to his accent which is Americanized. And I remember watching him and think he’s about 20 years old. And I thought there’s really nothing to you and I guess that’s a bit unfair to say that about a 20 year old because, of course, the 20 year old is young and, you know,

Survive the Jive: Still finding out.

Woes: Yeah, exactly! Exactly. But I remember thinking you’re on track to be just a sort of walking consumer product. And I’d obviously that is going to be the case with a young person that they haven’t forged their identity very much yet. But I think one of the unhealthy aspects of the modern age of our age is that it actively encourages that it very actively encourages people to identify with their consumer lifestyle.

But I would say though that I think that Covid in the last two years we’re now entering a new era which might be different in this respect. And that people are I think will be encouraged not to identify with their consumer products and their lifestyle as a consumer so much as their duty towards the collective. I think it’s sort of artificial collectivism that’s being encouraged. So I think and I might well be completely wrong here. But that’s what seems to be happening to me there it to match it to my mind I think that this age of sort of rank consumerism is it might be coming to an end I’m not sure.

Survive the Jive: Well I don’t. I mean, you think something more like good old-fashioned communism might appear, or.

Woes: Yeah, well no no not necessarily that. But what I mean, is when I talk about duty towards the collective I mean, obeying Covid regulations seeing yourself as a node in a human organism without.

Survive the Jive: The loss of the individual.

Woes: Yeah.

[60:00]

Survive the Jive: But that’s another kind of it is another flavour of this like the loss of the individual like one of it is. One of them is where you the true individuality which is quite a, you know, might I dare say well certainly some authors who I respect would call it a quite a rare historical phenomenon that occurred in a certain time where the individual suddenly becomes significant in history. But whether, or not, that’s true like certainly I think that the 20th century saw like a kind of as we discussed the kind of degradation of the Western individual where it was reduced to us your purchases and your those kind of things. But that other kind is the loss of the individual in the collectivism. Which I think is probably more I don’t agree with I’m not a communist I don’t want to live in a communist dictatorship, or anything. I do think collectivism is preferable in some ways, because it requires a sacrifice at least you’re saying I sacrifice my own my own what’s beneficial to me as an individual for something else for a greater cause. Now the cause is often phony and the collective is often evil. So that’s what I pose. But the actual principle is that it is something more I think preferable. And to the real almost, you know, bottomless pit nihilism of like consumer the consumer individuals like every we’re all individuals yes we’re all individuals like monty Python that, yeah.

Woes: Yeah, that’s the yeah live yeah I know what you mean I don’t I as I say. This is just a sort of speculative hypothesis of mind that that things are now changing they might not and they might reverse as well who knows it might just be a temporary thing with Covid I’m not sure. But anyway yeah we’ll move on from that, because I’ve just realized that there are quite a lot of questions that have come in. So we’ll just rattle through those oh fife and drum says here’s a thanks for the streams this yuletide. Thank you very much okay Survive the Jive. Thank you for the great speech you delivered on Saturday I just wondered if you could elaborate more on the relationship of the Cornish to the rest of the UK thinking specifically of the Bretons and what you’ve written about dark Devon.

Survive the Jive: I never wrote anything about dark devils really I’ve never said I’ve never written anything about it. But I might have. So I think someone might I think I might know who that asks that question. But anyway yeah I did actually, because someone asked that same question on the night. And I think once again but the funnily enough another a speaker at the Traditional Britain, Group earlier this year sir Walter bodmer was involved in a landmark study funded by the welcome trust called the people of the British Isles. And it was well publicized and did show some amazing distinctions between the Cornish and other people including most of England actually doesn’t have county by county different differentiated genetic groups, because since the industrial revolution moved around so much that England from most of the north all the way to the southeast and most to the southwest is all sort of one group. But Devon is distinct distinguished, because it hasn’t been so industrialized and Cornwall is distinct from Devon so Cornwall and Devon have a genetic line along the tamar river. The speech by. I mean, so water boggling would be better to ask about this thing than me. But I know that the what their that their genetic groups weren’t defined by they didn’t define genetic groupings by ancestral components but other analysis of Cornish samples that I’ve seen done by colleagues not necessarily in published papers but reliable analysis has shown that they do have higher rates of marginally not significantly, but higher rates of Neolithic pharma DNA than other people in Britain and Ireland so that’s probably, because of close ties to Brittany. Because the French have less step ancestry more pharma ancestry. So in that sense yeah that’s what I mean, the corners might be distinguished, because of their higher level of Neolithic farmer ancestry.

[65:00]

But they are also distinguished they would even if that wasn’t the true they would still be distinguished anyway, because of the lack of movement of peoples into Cornwall historically there haven’t been massive migrations into Cornwall. Like the industrial revolution caused people in England to move around a lot but not into Devon and Cornwall some people moved out the cousin jacks Cornish people would be aware of cousin jacks were lots of them moved to Australia when mining was not popular in Cornwall anymore and they moved to Africa like South Africa a lot of Cornish people were mining in Africa Australia places like that. But yeah, they are distinct in that sense. I don’t know I want to talk about dark Devon, because I never actually wrote anything about that. And I don’t I’ll just skip that part.

Woes: What do you know what that refers to, I don’t know, I’ve never heard that.

Survive the Jive: I think it refers to how some people in the southwest of England who an indigenous British people from the southwest of England have sometimes a darker complexion quite noticeably.

Woes: Right okay.

Survive the Jive: But that they don’t form a separate genetic group within the British Isles these people. It’s just that actually is a greater variation of complexion among indigenous British people than some people realize that the fairest people in the pretty much world are probably in Northern Ireland and the northwestern Europe is the fairest part of Europe and but there are some people in Britain natives in Britain who are quite dark-skinned. But and they are generally from the southwest in Devon and Cornwall I don’t know why that is. But there’s an old like folk tale about Spanish city sailors that the armada swimming ashore and but that’s bullsh that’s just not true that’s not what it is its not elevated levels of Spanish ancestry, because sometimes these people are darker than Spaniards. But it’s not they’re not they don’t have like Middle Eastern, or some kind of ancestry like that. And that’s not the explanation I don’t know what it is. But it’s quite interesting and sure someone clever.

Woes: Well, it’s the same there are also Irish people in native IRA obviously I don’t mean modern new Irish I mean, native who are quite dark-skinned and dark like black hair. So there’s a huge diversity with like within that landmass of Ireland between like the Uber pale red hair to at one end and that at the other end.

Survive the Jive: Yeah,

Woes: Okay.

Survive the Jive: There’s quite a lot of diversity within our gene pool.

Woes: Yeah, okay and all right now this one I don’t really understand what this means could you speak to why whg’s may have.

Survive the Jive: That refers to mesolithic European European Western Europeans who means they’re called whgs.

Woes: Yeah right okay could you speak to why they may have had darker skin than shg and ehgs what was the evolutionary reason why whd’s didn’t develop lighter skin. Bloody hell! That’s quite an involved question.

Survive the Jive: Yes sorry, as I said, I’m not a scientist I’m not. But I can tell I do my best but I. First of all the categories for the people who don’t know Eastern Eastern hunter-gatherers essay is ehg shc means Scandinavian Honda gathers whc means Western Hyundai gang there is Western undergath reserve met all these people lived in the mesolithic Eastern hunter gatherers lived in Eastern Europe and up up into Siberia right up that way there and they actually probably that that level a lot of people don’t like that label, because it covers too many people’s and that’s Western hunter gatherers is more well defined is a group of undergraduates living in Western Europe and Spain, Italy, Britain. And then in parts of the Baltic and Scandinavia the two mixed together and they call that scandal Scandinavian hunter-gatherers. But it’s just a mix of the two. The Scandinavian hunter-gatherers despite having ancestry from Western hunter gatherers are generally lighter skinned there’s probably going to be a mixture of influences from the environment combining like the amount of sunlight they get with what’s in their diet. So I would speculate that the whg were getting were living in a hotter part of Europe. A lot of them were living in Spain and Italy whatever the ones in Britain and Ireland didn’t. But so you’d think they’d get lighter skin.

[70:00]

But it’s possible they didn’t need lighter skin if they had very high amounts of shellfish and seafood in their diet. And then the shell middens which are these huge piles of shell shells accumulating over hundreds of years where they just Chuck them in the same car for some reason. But that’s a phenomenon that happens all over the world hunter-gatherers do that for some reason that indicates they did do that. And it’s a wealth of sea food resources and it’s much, much safer, you know, knocking limpets over rock than it is trying to throw spears at a big hairy animal so that’s probably most hunter gatherers weren’t actually tackling tigers they were just walking around on the beach picking up crabs and stuff. And you get a lot you get enough vitamin D doing that. So you don’t really need lighter skin. If you do that. So that’s possibly why possibly.

Woes: Okay all right. You previously mentioned that the 13th century Mongols had.

Survive the Jive: In like typical what you’re talking about is a Greek word used to describe an Iranic speaking people that was then Latinized. And then when in Britain we changed the pronunciation of Latin so in we would pre in British you could say Serbian but the word should be Scothian right. So I say Scothian I say Scothian, because that’s what they would that would be much closer to what the word was, rather than like I there’s no you don’t ever pronounce, as us in an old Latin, or old Greek so okay that’s just not there.

Woes: So okay. Well I’ll use that pronunciation then. You previously mentioned that the 13th century Mongols had sciviene admixture do present-day Mongols have seven escaping admixture yeah can you give us can you give us an ethnic breakdown of present-day Mongols.

Survive the Jive: No [Laughter]

Woes: Is that too complicated?

Survive the Jive: Oh I don’t have it I don’t I could. It could be that it can be done. But I don’t have it to hand. And I’m not going to try and find it now, so sorry but no. But yeah, they got some Scully and DNA I can’t remember how much. But they have some.

Woes: Okay Sergey shoigu talks about cloning ascidian would you support such an endeavour?

Survive the Jive: I don’t understand what for there. But they weren’t some kind of like super race of people they’re just some like yogurt eating horse guys!

Woes: Well I don’t know what this refers to but I’m guessing it’s like with they were talking about cloning up Willie mammoth about five years ago I never heard any more about that whether.

Survive the Jive: It was quite a cool idea. I mean, I don’t. I mean, I can I have mixed feelings about cloning and stuff on the one hand. I think it would be quite cool to clone some ancient animal and let them loose and see what happens but I’m generally very wary of this sort of thing, because in this current climate it seems that some very worrying development developments in genetic modification I don’t like genetic modification in general I don’t I’m interested in genetics I think that a lot of medical breakthroughs can be made with genetics like pharmacogenetics is going to be the future where you’ll be able to make sure that you don’t take medicines that give you adverse reactions, because you’ll be able to tell if that medicine is going to react with your individual genetic, you know, sensibilities. So you won’t have to try and find out things like that is great.

But the idea of like the Dolly the sheep and the Frankenstein food stuff back in the 90s was sort of like a lot of people in Britain were against that stuff and now and now things have just sort of people that kind of anti sentiment is not strong as it used to be. And I know people have been so conditioned to they to now be a little bit more passive about it. But I think they should be they should be on their guard, because it does pose all kinds of threats some we could predict and maybe of many we can’t we’re sort of opening up a box of worms there. So I don’t want them to make a scoopy and, you know, jurassic park, or something.

Woes: Scurvy in park idea did occur to me. All right and then here’s another one. What are your thoughts on the khazarian hypothesis for the origin of the Ashkenazi? I can’t find any evidence to support this hypothesis.

[75:00]

Survive the Jive: It was a hypothesis that was based on sound history. And it was not an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, or anything and it wasn’t pseudoscience it was an honest and quite reasonable attempt to explain the origin of the ascendant team. But it is wrong. And it’s been shown to be wrong in the broader sense that it doesn’t explain the origins of the Ashkenazium by itself. There is a possibility asgard team do have some dissent from converting kasarians. But they’re not genetically similar at all. So it’s not a significant portion of their DNA. And, in fact, even if it they do from what I gather the only one only some of the Ashkenazium could even possibly have some kazarian DNA and it’d only be a small amount anyway. So we don’t need the casas to explain the origin of the Ashkenazi anyway and we and also they asked, because ours don’t explain the origin of that cannot see should I explain any of this to people. Do you think Woes in case they want other people who don’t know the subject should.

Woes: Yes.

Survive the Jive: Is it too boring.

Woes: If you think it would be advantageous yeah go ahead.

Survive the Jive: Well basically the khazar theory is like the khasars were a bunch of step nomads related to the Scothians. But they didn’t speak Iranic they spoke a Turkic language they lived in Ukraine and parts of Eastern Europe on the step and they lived that step lifestyle horsemen, you know, some of them decided it was a good idea to convert to other religions, because they used to be like tangorists whatever worshipping shamanic religion some of them decided to convert to other religions. And some of them elites of among them at least is converted to judaism as their choice religion. And the ascendant team is, or astronautzis are the are the European jews of Eastern Europe who have known a lot most people will know who I’m talking about most if, you know, someone who’s jewish in the West they’re probably esconazi and their origin was mysterious until recently, but genetic studies now show that we know that they sort of differentiate from other jews due to a bottleneck in the medieval early in medieval times I think about 800 1000 years ago. And only 800 to a thousand people one of the numbers is eight hundred one is a thousand I can’t remember which. But so it’s a very small amount of woes: Evolutionary bottleneck?

Survive the Jive: And well yeah an evolutionary bottleneck. But it wasn’t evolution that made the bottleneck it was something else. But for some reason a bunch of them separated and then well they a bunch of them first took native European wives, or like mixed with Europeans women probably from well definitely from south of Europe maybe Greece maybe Italy maybe from anatolia. But that hasn’t been explored properly. And then they move they had so they’ve been Roman jews basically living in the Roman Empire. And then in the well after the fall of the Roman Empire in the medieval era they moved into the Holy Roman Empire into Germany, hence the name Ashkenazim, because it comes from a jewish belief of a giant called ashkenaz who they believe was the progenitor of the German people so Ashkenazi jew just means German jew so in jewish law. So then they are they left Germany and moved out into Eastern Europe mostly and then late much later you say they came back into Germany and parts of Western Europe. But they speak a Germanic language called Yiddish. But yeah, the they don’t have significant amounts of DNA from kassar so the theory is not really it might have a little bit of truth, because there might be some gene flow from Kazaars into them. But that’s not what they’re not casars it’s not a significant part of their DNA. And it’s just not worth clinging to.

Like some people who want to dis some Muslims like it, because they can say oh the Israelis don’t belong they’re not really jews they don’t belong in the Middle East, or whatever, and some Christians like it, because they can say the real they’re not the real jews whatever reason people like it’s not true. So probably not worth thinking about it.

Woes: All right are these another word I don’t know how to pronounce are the Sumerian like the city I like with the skivians. And why did Robert E Howard seek inspiration from them for Conan.

Survive the Jive: No they’re not they’re completely unrelated peoples [80:02]. And why did Robert E Howard do that I don’t know. But Robert E Howard just liked to mix and match all kinds of things, you know, Conan was a chemerian which is a sort of they’re related to, or did you say Sumerians, or chimerians.

Woes: Cimm.

Survive the Jive: Oh sorry I thought you said Sumerian. Oh yes yes they are yeah, sorry they are related to Scothians. Yeah, they were similar people yeah. And why did he seek, because there were barbarian, like chords just the comerians were barbarians the Scothians were barbarians. And he liked that, because it’s epic and cool. I fully endorse the novels of Robert e Howard they’re really fun and good reads. Good pulp fiction. But yeah, I can’t say any more than that.

Woes: Are they what is best in pulp fiction [Laughter] yes sorry all right what was the other there was one more is our variations in skin tone among northwestern.

Survive the Jive: Europeans a consequence of natural selection, or sexual selection yes I’m not sure if neither not if your variations would be the result of mutation, the prevalence of mutation could be the result of selection. If you say if one, you know what I mean, like the existence of it is not necessarily. I don’t know. I mean, the pale skin the ferrous skin the northwest Europeans in general if we specifically a complexion then we can talk about the what resulted in that trait. But if you’re talking about variations of within. And I don’t it’s a bit more complicated. Because I don’t know which one you’re talking about. But yeah, like, for example, fair skin is not sexual selection. I don’t think. I’d say that it is natural selection and it comes in northwest Europe very it’s very prevalent in northwestern Europe after the introduction of farming. Because the combination of the heavy cloud cover and the diet, deficient in vitamin and, requires that we absorb more vitamin and from sunlight. And then you have a selection pressure. And that that actually makes you more fertile when you have when you’re not vitamin and deficient. So obviously the ones who could absorb the more vitamin and are more likely to have more healthy children. So it’s like natural selection as well. I mean, it’s not sexual selection it’s not. I don’t think it’s sexual selection.

Woes: Well although there does seem to be a certain preference for fair-skinned blond-haired women. And it seems to be quite universal.

Survive the Jive: That’s true in all cultures women are preferred to be fair. And pretty much all like in unrelated like in Asia like the women carry in the southeast stage they carry umbrellas around. So they don’t get sun than, because they’re considered and European women used to try not to go in the sun, because they don’t want to get a town, because they’re considered unattractive for some reason now they all spray themselves orange. But it was different and times gone by but the well, it’s the same thing in a way, because it signals prestige like status I can go on holiday and, or all in the old days I don’t have to go to work. So in the field. So I’ve got fair skin. But yeah, I think that that general like idea of fair skin in women being considered attractive and which it remembers in many cultures comes after you have an agricultural society with clearly demarcated gendered forms of Labour which result in women being typically indoors more. And then you start to see things like fairer skin being associated as a more feminine trait within various cultures in Africa Asia and Europe, but also things that like in the Odysee it talks about penelope having strong fingers like as a feminine trait, because they were inside all day weaving so they didn’t just have fair skin they were meant to have very powerful hands from being constantly we don’t associate that with feminine femininity now you don’t say core look at her fingers! Oh no look at her strong fingers. But that’s so things change. But it’s about gendered forms of Labour.

Woes: All right there’s one last well. It’s not even a question. It’s just a sort of statement of enthusiasm:

“Jive I want to go back in time and meet the ancient north Eurasians I find them fascinating!”

[85:00]

Survive the Jive: Cool Yeah. Me too! That would be fun. But yeah, it won’t happen. But yeah, they’re really interesting. I’d like to know what they look like we haven’t got a proper skeleton of one yet so we don’t really know everyone on internet forums like spergy forums all very sure they know what the ancient north Eurasians look like. But they disagree with each other unfortunately so they argue about it. But there’s no skulls. So there’s no real way of knowing what they look like. But I suspect they were Europoid and that I based on the comparison of the phenotypes of the different descendant races who have varying amounts of admixture from them.

Woes: Okay I’ve just realized there are actually two more questions posted. So we can I’ll put them to you. And you can answer them quite briefly ideally because. Yeah,

Survive the Jive: Okay crack on with the next one.

Woes: Well yes there are many people in bose’s chat mainly Americans who still believe in the seleutrian hypothesis can you give them your thoughts on this theory, by the way, I really like jive talks you should do more of them.

Survive the Jive: Thank you well if you had like dive talk so much you’d know that that question has been asked many, many times on talks. And I’ve said it already. But thank you. But I said it again. And again, I don’t believe in the silly true hypothesis. I don’t think that people who do are stupid. It’s like the kazaar theory is a good theory. And it was based on good evidence. But I don’t think it’s true the solution hypothesis is based on similarity of tools from iberia and in parts of America but those similarities don’t have to be explained by a common culture they’re not that similar. And the other thing is there are some there were some skulls like the kennen mcmahon that was appeared European. And that was used as evidence to reinforce the theory, except that now we know that Kennedy mcmahon, of course, would have certain Europoid features, because he’s part ancient North Korea and, as I said, just. Now I think ancient north Eurasians were Europoid population. So I don’t think that was I don’t think there was a trans-Atlantic migration personally across this ice sheet that’s proposed of seal hunters from iberia but oh what do I know I’m not a I’m not an archaeologist. I’m not a I’m not an expert in that topic. But you asked me. So there you go.

Woes: Okay and now another question this might be the last one yes does the austronesian ancestry found in South Americans come from a pacific islander-like population, or a papua and highlander-like population and do we have a time frame for when austronesian DNA entered South America.

Survive the Jive: Oh this one’s really hard, because they’ve only just found out about the austronesian, Australasian not austronesian austronesians and language family Australasian, or australoid the racial anthropological term is australoid which they now don’t like, because it’s racist apparently. But that’s the term austronesian doesn’t mean australoid it means austronesian language but the austro an australoid racial group apparently did live in the Americas. And there’s absolutely no way of knowing how they got there. Some people have said that they must have gone the same way that the Siberian Americans got there, which is via the ice route so, but others say. What if they took a boat I don’t know it’s a bloody long way to go on a boat and it happened a long, long, time ago like much more than 20,000 years ago. So I don’t know whether they were more related to pacific islanders well they weren’t the only pacific islanders who are australoid are some who are mixed populations like the greetos in the Philippines. I don’t know if they were more related to negritos, or to papuans I’d sorry. But I mean, some people even dispute that this australoid signal that’s been discovered in native Americans in South America is authentic. But I think, because they also found there’s two different studies now that found evidence of it so it’s gonna it’s looking like it’s real. And that means maybe it was the original earth civilization of the world was aboriginal Australians flying around the world and UFOs. And they were just founding everything like, they’re the original creative race and we should just let them put them back in charge of everything. At the moment they’re rounding up in camps in Australia for what I understand!

Woes: Yeah. And that’s something that we’ll be talking about again throughout Millennial but it. Yeah, it’s a very strange turnaround there.

[90:02]

Survive the Jive: .. I just want to specify I was what I just said then about Australia aboriginal Australians flying UFOs around that was a joke. And just because I know some people don’t unders they’re not capable of understanding when people are joking. So I just want to say that.

Woes: Okay. All right. Well let’s end it there. And this has not come on for an hour and a half actually it’s been quite a longer one. But thank you very much Survive the Jive for appearing.

Survive the Jive: Pleasure as always.

Woes: Okay and I’ll be back I’ve actually. I think it’s Mark Gullick next let me just check. Yes it’s Mark Gullick next from Counter-Currents. So I’ll be back in about half an hour with him in the meantime thank you Survive the Jive.

Survive the Jive: And. Thank you and good Yule!

Woes: Okay. I’ll be back soon see you in a wee while.

[90:56]

————

Millennial Woes has created many things. And this is your chance to own one of them! A unique piece of work hand crafted by the vile vlogger, to commemorate Millennial 2021.

Millenniyule 2021 commemoration

A hundred hours of highly skilled labour went into producing this animated vector graphic, which can be magnified to any size.

In the iconic Millennial Woes font, it glistens and responds to your touch. And at the centre of it all, a figure representative of 2021, the White Stag!

Symbolizing endurance, discovery, and rejuvenation!

This one-of-a-kind creation is up for sale as an NFT. Follow the link below. And it can be yours forever! This is your only chance!

[70:20]