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]

Brythonic: And today is Friday March 6th. Welcome to the Tea Time # 6. Joining the stream today from Great Britain is Mark Collett and Unwashed. From Canada is Ronnie Cameron. From USA is Son of the All Father. And from Ireland is Brizer. Welcome everybody!

UNWAShED: Hello.

Brizer: Hello everyone. Good to be here.

Brythonic: Good. And before we start just wanted to ask all listeners to see the legal disclaimer in the video description. And now we can introduce each guest, starting with Mark.

Mark: Hello everybody. It’s great to be here tonight. It’s been a long time since I’ve worked with you Oliver, in fact, last time I think we did something together you had a stream called the Brexit party. So it’s good to be back and it’s good to see you back on YouTube.

Brythonic: Yes, indeed. That was a different time, seemingly.

Mark: It got pinched didn’t it? The name of your group got pinched by Nigel Farage and turned into something much larger!

Brythonic: Yeah, even the font and the logo seems to be very similar. So I wonder if they saw it and thought that’s a good idea.

Mark: Well it certainly worked out for them didn’t it?

Brythonic: Yeah sure. Okay is anything else you’d like to introduce yourself with, or can we move on to the next guest?

Mark: No I think most people know who I am, so I don’t want to hog the mic space. Let’s go around the introductions and get into the main chat.

Brythonic: All right next we have Unwashed.

UNWAShED: How’s it going everyone?

AllFather: It’s going fantastic my friend.

UNWAShED: Excellent! It’s good to connect with people. I’ve been booted off YouTube for a week today, so I do need to rely on other people for the next seven days!

Brythonic: How about you Ronny?

Ronnie: Well I don’t mind taking up some time here to describe my positions and promote myself a little bit. My name is Ronnie Cameron. I run a YouTube channel called Proper Gander TV. I’m based of Toronto here in Canada. I’ve been involved in politics for about like three, or four years now. I consider myself to be part of the pro-White rights, or the dissident Right.

Lately I’ve been very focused around the idea of secession particularly here in Canada, and the US. And I’m happy to be here tonight. I think Brythonic you have an excellent channel. That’s been growing, seems to be growing very fast I must say. And you’re bringing along some excellent guests. So thank you again for having me and I’m looking forward to getting into the topics here.

Brythonic: Fantastic and Son of the AllFather?

AllFather: Hi, good morning, or good evening, wherever you are. I go by the screen name “Son of the AllFather”. It’s just a little bit of a narcissistic joke that I used to use as just my profile before I had a channel. And I was commenting a lot on different YouTube channels, dissident Right channels and some people said:

“Hey why don’t you start making some videos?”

So I did. I have a small channel right now. I have about fourteen hundred subscribers I think, but some very loyal viewers and they’ve been nice enough to include me on some of these chats recently. So I’m a nationalist from the United States. Currently in the what we like to call the northwestern redoubt, up here in the Pacific Northwest. And I focus mainly on demographic replacements, indigenous right issues, and things of that nature.

Brythonic: And last but not least, Brizer.

Brizer: Yes, hi folks. This is Brizer. I was on with Brythonic’s show last week, which was great, with Paul English and Dennis Wise. I run a radio show every Monday between 10:00 and midnight. Which goes out on grissom dot blogspot.com. And we cover all sorts of issues such as mass invasion of our White nations, the JQ, geopolitics, health, all sorts of different issues. We’re doing very well at the moment.

Great to make the acquaintance of the other guys here. I know of Mark alright quite well. Watched a lot of your YouTube’s. The other guys I don’t know, but it’s good to make your acquaintance and it’s great to be here again. So thanks for inviting me.

Brythonic: Very good. And I wanted to jump within two seemingly the most pertinent issue right now is our situation in Greece. And seemingly it’s being invaded by Turkey, with Erdogan calling for ever more invaders to rush into Greece. And apparently Turkey has deployed special forces to fight the Greek border guards [05:00]. And wondering if this is start of a possible war. Anyone has a any comments?

UNWAShED: I’m urging Europeans to change the language on this one. And I think it’s working as well. Is to refer to them as “invaders”, because the footage of how they’re actually acting and what the crowds look like came out too quick.

So the BBC will still do its routine of getting as many women and children out that, yeah, getting the footage of women and children out. But I mean, Mark’s video today was all about how they’ve been caught red-handed.

We already discovered that they were training migrants, I don’t know what you’d rather, I call them, but these people they were training them how to act to garner the most sympathy. But this time around it’s like we’ve been too quick for it. And they all arrived at once and there was just no way to hide what they really are, which is invaders. That would be my two cents.

Ronnie: Yeah, if nobody else wants to right now. I think it’s pretty clear that Greece and the rest of Europe do not want this type of invasion. I think 80% of Greeks plus are opposed to the current levels, or raising it any further. It’s only like two percent of Greeks want more immigration. And this might not hold true across the entirety of Europe, but if you’re talking to dissident folks, if you’re talking to the right wing, I’m sure we would see similar numbers across Europe.

I think it’s also pretty clear that Turkey is pretty much dug their own grave, so to say. They make the excuse that’s the EU has not followed through on their end of the bargain. But basically what’s happening right now is they’ve just opened the floodgates, because of their involvement in Syria. And they’re worried that there’s going to be more Syrian refugees coming into the country. I think they’re already home to around like 3, or for million refugees, which is Syrian refugees. So they’re afraid that they’re going to basically have more than what they can handle. But this is directly a result of their own responsibility for backing the rebels in Syria, right? So they’re just trying to pass the buck on to Europe.

Europe sniffs it out. Europe understands what’s going on. And I think it’s great that Greece and Europe are standing together in solidarity on this one.

UNWAShED: The other issue, is that they’re not Syrian. Like the majority of these people are definitely not Syrian! You can tell just by looking at them.

AllFather: Right.

UNWAShED: And I think that bit of the narrative is falling apart as well. I think people aren’t falling for that.

AllFather: Right I mean, some of the people you saw on Marks channel, the earlier video, clearly African.

UNWAShED: Yeah.

AllFather: And what were they doing in Turkey in the first place? That’s my question.

I’m kind of surprised honestly I didn’t have a whole lot of faith in the, I don’t know what you’d want to call them. I mean, maybe a center-right party that took control there in Greece. But I guess, at this point, they really have no other no other choice given what happened back in 2015 and 2016, and the subsequent rise in popularism, as a result of that invasion. And they see that it’s happening again. They really have, the EU really has no other choice, at this point, at least to pretend, at least, that they are in solidarity with Greece, at this point.

UNWAShED: Yes, I suppose they have to keep up that pretense at the moment don’t they? Because yeah as we say, they’ve lost the optics battle. It happened too quickly. So they have to be like:

“Oh okay we defend Greece?

But that’s not what they want to do.

AllFather: And this is even worse, because they didn’t invite this invasion, so I mean, this was orchestrated and engineered by a foreign power, who has, you know, obviously had some tumultuous relationships with the EU up to this point. And has, you know, been questionable in the way that he’s dealt with his relations with the EU. Speaking of Erdogan, of course.

Mark: I think the thing with Erdogan is really, he’s playing a very powerful card here isn’t? He’s saying he wants more money. He wants recognition. He wants the EU to take Turkey seriously. And if they don’t, he’s going to unleash wave upon wave of immigrants on the West. And as someone so rightly pointed out, these aren’t just [10:01] Syrian refugees. These aren’t just refugees from the Middle East. These are people from all over the world. They’re clearly economic migrants. They clearly don’t want to go back to wherever they came from.

You’ve got to remember, and this should always be made very clear to any of these liberals who are talking about our obligations. Well our obligations to other countries end at France, Germany, Denmark! Countries that border us. Because refugees are meant to settle in the first peaceful nation they reach. Take aid in that nation. And then return home when their country is again stable.

Now Syria is for a large part now a stable country again. The war is all but over. President Assad is now back in control. He runs a secular government. And these people could be returning home en mass. But instead there’s 3.7 million Syrian refugees in Turkey still. And they all want to come to Europe.

So these aren’t really refugees, they’re economic migrants. And as I said, they’re not just Syrians, there are also people from all over Africa and all over the Middle East. And they want to come here, because when they get here, as I say it’s not the first peaceful nation they reach, but it is the nation, or group of nations that give out the most when it comes to benefits!

So this is all about coming here to milk our systems! And it’s also not about coming here to embrace our culture. Another great lie the Left love to say is:

“Oh well then they come here they’re gonna be just like us, because if they want you to be like Syrians, or if they wanted to be like Afghanistan, like people live in Afghanistan, or they want to be like Pakistanis, they would stay in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Syria. But they don’t! They come here, because when they come here they want to be British! They want to live a Western life!”

But they don’t! They want to live in Britain just as they lived in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Syria but with British benefits. With a free house, with free electric, with free gas, with central heating, with travel allowances, with an interpreter, with generous handouts every week, with the NHS, with an education system that bends over backwards to provide everything for people who’ve just arrived!

So they’re just bringing in their own cultures, their own ways of life, setting up a little enclaves. And that enclave is funded and paid for by the British taxpayer!

And these things are all very, very important to point out, because they absolutely undermine, don’t just undermine they completely destroy the leftist argument on this subject! It is very right call them an invading force.

But I think the real scandal about this, and I covered this in my video today. It really is quite touching that you guys watched that. I’m just thankful that you do watch my videos. But the point is the media is on their side. The media are creating, choreographing, and staging photos to make us feel sorry for these people!

And when you look at these photos they’re all the same! They all a close crop, a still image, and it’s always a crying child, a wailing woman! But when you pan out and see the truth these children aren’t in danger! In fact, the parents are holding them over open fires, so they get smoke in their eyes and cry. So it’s a better picture for the camera.

And you can see that our media and the people who run our media, are absolutely complicit in this invasion! These people are committing acts of treason by trying to solicit sympathy from those of European descent for an invading army!

Ronnie: And the migration is absolutely 100% organized! I mean, they’re using buses, mini buses, cars, taxis, coming straight from Istanbul to essentially ferry these people across the border. And yeah absolutely it’s not just Syrian migrants as you guys pointed out. It’s this is a deliberate attempt to flood Europe with an Islamic invasion!

UNWAShED: I wonder whether when it comes as such a huge wave like this all at once, whether it’s actually really helpful for like nationalism, as compared to the drip, drip, approach? Because this has got everyone talking all of a sudden, because it’s an emergency. So in terms of sentiment for the kind of things that we believe, I believe this will help us.

Ronnie: Oh yes absolutely. I mean, the European Commission President, I forget her name at the moment, but she said that basically the Greece is acting like a shield for the entirety of Europe. They’re sending in helicopters, and boats, border guards, all sorts of reinforcements for Greece. So I think [15:01] this really is a symbolic of the unity that is starting to grow amongst Europeans.

UNWAShED: Yeah I mean, it’s super irony that Europe is gonna have to unite, at this point, against the European Union! It’s just a paradox in itself!

Ronnie: Yes.

Brizer: Yeah, I think that also reminds me about five, or six years ago we saw the dead baby on the beach and we had all the photographers were there waiting to see it. And it just smacks of that again. But I think people kind of fell for it the first time. They felt sorry for these poor Syrian refugees and everything and said:

“Oh yeah we should take them in?

UNWAShED: And now we look at the consequences of it five, or six years later. And I think people are going:

“No! No! Hold on a second!”

Turkey is an interesting country, because where it’s situated. It’s a gateway between east and west. And it’s a member of NATO. It also has aspirations I think to join EU. And it’s also quite closely aligned with Russia as well. So it’s interesting to know what Erdogan’s up to there, you know. I think he’s, you know, as Mark says, he’s playing kind of a clever card here. What can we do here, because he knows he’s got these millions of these refugees there and he can unleash them at any point.

So yeah, it’s interesting where this will go, you know. But I think it is definitely, look this is an invasion there at that border, ready to cross. And thousands and thousands of them. And yeah, we got to stop it, because if they come in, we’re gone! Within a few years we will be gone! Because there’s millions of them, ready to come over. And if Turkeys a landing point where they can come through, well there we go!

Ronnie: Well, I know the EU is typically an enemy of ours, right? So I don’t want to mitigate that aspect. We have to be honest with the facts. And they have condemned Turkey’s policies, right? The EU Council put a statement saying:

“It expresses solidarity with Greece and strongly rejects Turkeys use of migratory pressure for political purposes. This situation at EU’s external borders is not acceptable?

UNWAShED: So I mean, we do have to kind of appreciate that for what it is. But again, not to mitigate the fact that the EU is typically not our friend.

UNWAShED: Well, it’s a rejection of what Turkey’s doing right at the moment. And I’m sure they’re not even lying in that, but the end result is the same. And we know that the EU is absolutely fine with that end result. So it’s an empty, empty, gesture as far as I’m concerned!

Ronnie: Similar to what Trump issues in the States, I’m sure.

AllFather: Yeah definitely. This type of thing has been happening at our southern border for four decades, you know. It’s like you were saying that the EU at some times will reveal some kind of shred of truth.

And I remember, I think it was during the, I think it was 2016 if I remember correctly, but I can’t remember what his name was. He was a Dutch politician that was, I think that he was a vice President of the Commission, or something. But he admitted that more than half of the people that were coming into Europe, they were coming from countries where, you know, they could basically assume that they had no reason to ask for refugee status, whatsoever. I think he said it was half, or maybe even 60% of the people. So I mean, that got disseminated by mainstream, you know, globalist left-wing media outlets. I think the Independent actually had an article about that.

Brizer: And I’m wondering like Turkey obviously, that was the center of the Ottoman Empire, and I’m just wondering are they trying to rebuild another type of Empire? And are they working with another (((little country))) in the Middle East to achieve that? Because I don’t know why they’re going into Syria and causing these problems anyway in the first place. So I don’t know if any guys have thoughts on that?

UNWAShED: I like what you say about the Ottoman Empire, because what’s going on right now with these invasions, and then you get incidents like Cologne, New Year’s Eve. That’s what the Ottoman Empire has been doing for 1400 years! It’s just that people have essentially forgotten, or they’ve been brainwashed to not see it! Because they don’t see in terms of different ethnic groups anymore.

But yeah like, you know, Christendom was defending against exactly this! The whole time it’s been around, until now. We got to reawaken that spirit! [20:01]

Brythonic: Erdogan basically was referring to himself as the new Sultan, or something right?

UNWAShED: I don’t know. I didn’t see that, but I know that they think in this kind of time scale. Whilst we don’t.

Mark: Well, I’ll say about this and what it reawakens in people, is it does, this kind of flood, and this kind of scale, and this kind of immediate threat, does awaken people’s natural instincts. You’ve got to remember that. I’m not a fan of accelerationism, because accelerationism is a very, very dangerous thing! Especially when we’re not particularly well organized.

Now if we had a national structure that was all over the UK, and just ready for hundreds of thousands of new recruits, and then there was a rapid accelerationism, that might actually play into our hands. But until we’ve got the infrastructure to deal with that that sort of influx of recruits, accelerationism isn’t a great thing. But this is kind of the best of both worlds, because it’s a rapid accelerationism in terms of migrants of the border, in terms of the threat. But at the moment this threat isn’t actually a viable threat, because these people aren’t getting into Europe. They’re being turned away.

So I think this does show people a glimpse of the future. But at the moment, because these people are being repelled, it’s quite a safe level of accelerationism, because the Greeks just aren’t letting them in. And as long as the Greeks hold the line, and as long as the British people, and people all over Europe for that matter, see the size and scale of the threat, without it actually materializing, without these people actually getting through, and being redistributed all over Europe, I think this will spread a lot of red pills! I think there’s gonna be a lot of people over the last week, or so, and moving forward, saying to themselves:

“You know what? This is a massive problem! We’re talking about millions and millions of people! This is an invasion!”

And when you see specifically tens and tens of thousands of mainly men of fighting age, because there were many of these pictures that sneaked through. A lot of these pictures are meant to solicit sympathy, but some of them do show vast numbers of young men, stood the other side of barbed wire fences. These aren’t all women, children, elderly. A lot of these are guys that you would expect if their country was at war, they’d sign up. But they’re not signing up. They’re coming here to sign up for something different, which is obviously our benefits system!

So I do think this has been a big red pill for many people. And it’s the kind of event that if we were in a more organized state and we did have a national structure, we could have really benefited from. Because I bet, there’s been many, many families, up and down Britain, and in other countries for that matter, who around the dinner table, this has been a major topic of discussion. And people will be very, very sympathetic to our political stance on that topic.

Ronnie: Well said Mark. I completely agree with you. I think this is win-win for both the pragmatists, and the accelerationists, because obviously this does kind of accelerate things. But, because we’re handling it correctly, this allows us to kind of to keep our morale, this allows us to keep a positive mindset towards things, moving in the future. So this is very symbolic of our unity. But it also reveals the very serious nature of the problem at hand. So I think this is pretty much perfect press in terms of being able to galvanize our base and bring us together!

UNWAShED: Another element is that Greece, the people that like to bang on about privilege, they simply can’t do it with Greece, because Greece has been the downtrodden member of the European Union for years, and everyone knows it. So the idea that the Greeks can take on any more people, is absurd! Like their economics already crumbled! So, you know, that narrative that they’d normally like to play of the “privileged White man” and, you know, got to help the Africans, it’s not gonna work in Greece. Because then they’re not privileged at all.

Brizer: I would agree there. I mean, after 2008 the financial collapse, Greece was absolutely hammered by the banksters, you know. And unemployment is rife, particularly among young people. Young people have left. Tourism which is one of our main industries has been hugely affected by this. And so they’ve had 10 years, 10, or 12 years of absolute austerity and are fed up with it! And now [25:01] to see their borders being encroached like this, and all these people running through, they’re not having it.

And so yeah, you’re correct that that whole White privilege, you know, for Greece, well it just doesn’t apply to them. And so yeah, I think it will, it will wake people up big time! So interesting times. As long as, you know, this law of unintended consequences, like things like these happen out of the blue, and this is where we can find a jump in and take advantage of these. So it’s a good point.

Brythonic: Indeed. I just wanted to add in the second point we’ve got about Amnesty International condemning Greece’s measures to block migrants at the Turkish border, as quote:

“Inhumane and reckless?

Is this NGO intentionally part of the overall agenda to flood Europe with migrants, or are they unknowingly playing into the agenda that Turkey and much of the Western mainstream media have for Europe?

Brizer: I think Amnesty are very much part of the whole thing! Part of the whole NGO industrial complex! And you can see what like, for example, what they did here in Ireland with the abortion referendum. They were funding a lot of groups here. So they’re very much part of this. And I’m sure there’s Soros’ money behind it as well. So yeah, when I see Amnesty international supporting, thinking that what’s happening in Greece is terrible and we should do something about it, it’s the same old same, same old, isn’t it?

So we just, I think we just ignore these people! I mean, who the hell are they anyway? They’re just a bunch of overpaid, liberal, idiots, who have not a clue about what’s going on! It’s not at their front door! So yeah, we have to find a way of dealing with these people, these NGOs. Who the hell are they and where do they get their authority from?

UNWAShED: It’s a bit of a mask slip for Amnesty, because I saw that this week. And this is such a polarized issue with so few people on the side of the invaders, that Amnesty come out of it looking like, well, not just looking like idiots, but it’s kind of obvious that they’re in on it. When they condemn Greece, but pretty much none of the European people do, most of the European people are on the side of Greece, all that’s going to do is damage Amnesty’s standing in the eyes of normies, I would hope!

AllFather: Amnesty, you know, this is not obviously the first disgusting thing that they’ve done. They’re constantly reporting disproportionately on basically countries that are, well for lack, you know, more democratic, more open, whatever, more White basically is what it really boils down to.

And instead of kind of compiling reports on human rights abuses that kind of apply to everywhere in the world, they’re gonna focus on majority European countries. And they’ve always done this. I mentioned this briefly in a video I made a few I don’t know a few months ago I think. But it’s called “Demonstration Effect”. What they basically do is they just “guilt”, they overly report on European majority countries, what they like to call developed countries, but they don’t report on any non-White developed countries like China, obviously India, where there are serious human rights abuses occurring! You know, slavery, all kinds of human trafficking, and stuff like that.

Now they’re gonna more focus on something if it makes Europeans and the West look bad. So, that’s basically what they do. They do it with humans rights abuses, they do it with refugees, they do it with women’s rights. They do it with all sorts of things. It’s disgusting, hypocritical behavior that they take part in!

Brythonic: Yes indeed. In terms of things going on in Britain, with these invaders that are ever multiplying, and, you know, our native population ever decreasing, I think there’s the petition that came out. The Grooming Gang Review Petition. I’m wondering if any of you have signed it?

Mark: I do intend to sign that, but I’ve got to say, I don’t think those petitions really have much of a effect.

I think that the big problem here is the people have been really conned by the Conservatives. People think that Boris Johnson is this [30:02] great Patriot, he’s a man who’s going to bring about Brexit! He’s gonna get immigration under control! But really and I was saying this before the election, Boris Johnson was actually saying very similar things to Jeremy Corbyn on several issues. It’s just Boris Johnson says what he says with a lot better use of language. He’s a much better marketing man than Jeremy Corbyn. So Jeremy Corbyn will say:

“Well we want open borders, and we want people from all over the world to come here! And we want to let illegal immigrants vote!”

Well that sounds pretty horrendous, but Boris will say:

“But we don’t want any upper limit on immigration, we just want a points-based system. But we would like to open up the immigration debate to African nations. And speak to them and see who we could, how we could help them come here. Because let’s face it, if we take the best from Africa, what’s the problem?”

And then he says:

“And although we don’t want to let illegal immigrants vote, we do want to have an amnesty for illegal immigrants! Because, you know, if they’ve been here for five, ten years, it’d be unfair to send them anywhere else?

So essentially what’s he said, well the same as Jeremy Corbyn, but he said it in such a way that people are cheering, because he’s used words like “amnesty”. He’s used words like “point based immigration system”.

Well, a points-based immigration system doesn’t mean no immigration. In fact, he openly said he wanted no upper limit on immigration! He openly said he wanted an amnesty! He called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants when he was Mayor of London. He’s more, or less saying that an amnesty for illegal immigrants means giving them a passport, which means giving them the right to vote! That’s exactly the same!

However, I do think we should obviously sign this. I do think it’s a massive, massive, betrayal that the Conservatives yet again, you know, clothe themselves as patriots, but are denying people the truth. And the reason they are denying people the truth is quite obvious, on three levels.

Firstly, it will show, this report will show, that the problem is far more widespread than we thought.

Secondly, it will show that the people carrying out this abuse are overwhelmingly of one particular ethnicity, and our targetting overwhelmingly one particular ethnicity! And, you know, exactly what I mean, when I say that! No need to go into that any further.

And thirdly, it will also show that the complicity of the establishment in these crimes is also much greater than we previously thought. And I’m not just talking about the police, and social services, and local councils. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these orders to ignore grooming gangs go right the way to Gordon Brown! To Gordon Brown’s office, and to Home Secretary’s who have worked under the previous Labor establishment before the Conservatives got into power in 2010.

And you have to remember, we [White nationalists] are quite unique, when it comes to politics, for many reasons. But one of the reasons that we are so unique is, because we actually do despise the other parties for what they’re doing. I don’t want to be friends with Conservatives! I don’t want to be friends with people from the Labour Party, or the Lib Dems, or from the SNP! I despise these people! They are disgusting traitors who are destroying our country, and selling us out!

But all these other parties, treat politics like it’s a football match, or, not a football match, because football actually gets quite heated sometimes. Sometimes you see players have a punch-up mid-match, or attack each other in the tunnel when they’re going off at the end of the match, because of a bad decision, or somebody doing something that’s been an illegal, and the referee missed it. So football does get quite passionate.

It’s more like cricket actually, because cricket never really gets passionate, as it’s quite boring.

And politicians treat politics like a game of cricket. And when they finish their little debates in the chamber. When they finish their elections, they’ll all sit around and have tea and cakes with each other. And sit in one of the numerous bars in the Palace of Westminster having a drink with each other! They don’t actually fall out! They don’t actually have disagreements.

And when one party betrays the people to a greater degree than the other and actually puts the British people in grave danger, the other party that comes in after that party, never exposes their predecessors! They never push for legislation to see their predecessors prosecuted.

It was like Tony Blair. Tony Blair admitted that he lied! He admitted that he took Britain to war on a lie! Yet he hasn’t been prosecuted! And no Prime Minister after him has called for an investigation, or a prosecution into his behavior.

Sure he admitted under [35:02] oath in Parliament that he gave false information, and that all came out in the Chilcote inquiry. But he’s not going to be prosecuted for that.

Yet thousands of British service personnel came home either in body bags, or with terrible, terrible, disfigurement, terrible disabilities, because of his lie! Yet, there he is, a millionaire, free to do as he pleases!

Because these people despite the fact they’re meant to be on opposite sides of this great political divide, to them it’s just a game of cricket! And afterwards they’ll be sat in the clubhouse eating little sandwiches, eating slices of cake, and drinking cups of tea, chatting like their best mates!

Whereas we are very different. And if we got in, we would absolutely tear up the current system and expose the crimes against the indigenous people! And wish to see prosecutions against people who authorized those crimes. And I think that’s fair. And I think that’s also something that makes us stand out as better people.

Ronnie: Absolutely! And I just want to touch on one thing that you said earlier there, but the point base immigration system. We have that here in Canada, and let me tell you it does not work! All it does is just shift the burden from the lower class, or the lower middle class, to the middle class, to the lower upper middle class. Because now you have high IQ, or skilled, immigrants coming into the country, and they’re after your job. They’re after the middle class jobs.

And to be honest, I think this is actually worse than what’s happening in the States with respect to the migration coming from Mexico and Central America. Because, yes, that does burden the lower class, but we have to be honest with ourselves. In the future many of these jobs are just going to become automated. But the middle to upper class jobs will not. And we need to preserve those jobs in terms of making sure that they belong to White people.

So the point-based immigration system, although it may lighten the burden in terms of crime and problems that come along with bringing in lower-class people, but again it does not serve the indigenous people of the UK, or White Canadians, or White Americans.

Another thing that I’d like to just ask you Mark. What are the similarities and the differences between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump? Because they seem remarkably similar on a lot of fronts. Can you just kind of briefly discuss the similarities and differences between those two?

Mark: Well the similarities obviously are quite clear. Both of those men clothed themselves in this veneer of patriotism. And they both appeal, they’re both people who appeal to a broad range of the political spectrum. And what I mean, by that, is Donald Trump appeals to both Republicans, but he also appeals to the form of working-class Democrat. The working-class man who was always voted Democrat, because the Democrats offered the working-class, at one time, offered the working class a better deal. More protection. More rights.

And Boris Johnson does the same. And you’d see this in the run-up to the last general election.

Where as Jeremy Corbyn was going around speaking at mosques and speaking it rallies where it was for LGBTQ, or transgender people, and he was talking about his pronouns, Boris Johnson was the first Conservative Party leader in a very, very long time, to visit places like, fish packing factories, or be seen with White van men. And they loved him and they embraced him. And he kind of bridged that gap between the traditional conservative voter, but also the traditional White working-class Labour voter.

So that’s where they’re very similar. They both appeal to the everyman, regardless of political affiliation, and bridge divides.

However, they are different in also in numerous ways. Boris Johnson is absolutely part of the political establishment! He’s part of the Eaton Club. He’s part of the Oxford Cambridge Club. I think he was part of the Bullingdon circle at university. He’s very much part of what you would say is the old-school British political establishment. Where all prime ministers and leading from bench ministers come from. He isn’t a radical. He isn’t an outsider.

And although he makes noises about the BBC licence fee, he’s very much on board with the mainstream media. Although he talks about Australian points based systems he would never talk [40:00] about building a wall, or talk about immigration bans on people from certain countries.

And in that sense Donald Trump is a far greater asset to us, because although he’s not perfect, you’ve got to remember Donald Trump has done three things that no other leader of a developed world nation, not a major developed world nation, has ever done.

Firstly, he has openly said that there needs to be absolute border controls, a wall, and travel bans! You don’t hear that from any other Western leader.

Secondly he said that:

“The media are categorically the enemies of the people, liars, and they oppose the well-being of the general population?

Again, no other Western political leader since, well not for a long time since there was a guy with a moustache in charge of Germany! [laughing].

And finally, the other thing that he’s done is talked about the “deep state”. Now that’s a major taboo! No other Western leader talked about soft-power! Talks about the infrastructure which our enemies have built up within the establishment, that prevents any political movement in the correct direction. It always keeps the movement going in a more, how can I say, quote-unquote “progressive direction”.

So Donald Trump talking about the deep state, talking about a grand conspiracy to control politics from behind the scenes, that is a watershed moment!

What’s more, people talk about “accelerationism”. Well, no one is more accelerationist than Donald Trump! People think, well if Bernie got in, there might be chaos on the streets. No there wouldn’t. If Donald Trump gets in, there will be chaos on the streets! Because if Donald Trump gets elected a second time, you will see such a wave of protests, such a wave of violence on the streets of America. And that really is accelerationism. But not from the Left, but from the Left being forced into these public tantrums, because they hate Donald Trump so much.

And I think those things make Trump’s stand out. Even though he’s a complete shill for Israel. Even though he’s absolutely let us down when it comes to our very, very, strong anti-war stance, and anti-interventionist stance, he still does more for our cause in legitimizing debate on immigration, delegitimizing the mainstream media, and discussing what was once a conspiracy theory, but now it’s just widely seen as an actual real world conspiracy.

So I think those are some very big differences between the two.

Ronnie: I think that’s a pretty fair assessment. I’m glad that you mentioned there too about him kind of cucking to Israel. Because, of course, there is a man with the mustache in the 1930s who would not approve of Trump in that regard. But I think you nailed a lot of things right on the head. And perhaps we overlook some of the accomplishments that Trump has made. He actually has lowered the overall amount of legal immigrants coming into the country.

And I think immigration right now is perhaps the biggest issue, if not the most central to at least the dissident Right. So that’s a pretty fair assessment there.

Before I pass it on to the rest of the panel, I just want to say I think it would be great to watch a debate between you and Richard Spencer on Donald Trump, and which direction America should go down in terms of secession, versus, you know, can we make America great again. I think viewers would just absolutely love that! And perhaps Byrthonic could host that?

Brythonic: Again, as we were saying the pre-stream, the whole notion of secession is kind of a fringe, I’m not really so keyed up on that whole raft of talking points. But I mean, if we jump into at some point in this stream, if you wanted, if people still wanted to talk about that, or what we’ve been talking about now, or shall we jump onto secession and everything?

UNWAShED: I mean, was the original question about the petition? Because I did have a little observation about that, or have we moved on from?

Ronnie: No, no.

Mark: Just make a quick point, right? When people invite me on these streams I often get a lot of things thrown in my direction. I can sometimes end up dominating the chats. If I’m doing that I apologize, now. I’m trying to give all you guys a bit more a bit more time. So my apologies if that was a lengthy answer.

UNWAShED: No, it was all good. But you said about the petition mark that you didn’t have much faith in the actual petition doing [45:00] anything. And neither do I. I think that even if you get it past a hundred thousand mark, the fact that it gets put to Parliament doesn’t mean anything.

But what is very interesting about this petition calling for, you know, the proper details to be released into what’s happened, is that the numbers have flown up so quickly! And as Mark knows, but I don’t know if the other guys know, my old friendship group, are very much lefties. So I’ve still got one foot that can look on Facebook and see how they’re dealing with this stuff.

And it really is only the far Left that don’t know about the full extent of this. Like it’s only the shrieking, shrieking, feminists, that are arguing against this. Anyone else is now aware that this is an issue. And I think the vast majority of the British public have been woken up to this, and want answers! Which is really good. I don’t know what’s gonna happen as a result of it, but the public are quite unified, from what I can tell.

AllFather: Now the petition only guarantees that they will address the issue, right not, or that doesn’t mean they’re going to release it, right? Just that they’re gonna give an answer, whether they will, or will not.

UNWAShED: The actual petition itself is meaningless, because a few years ago there were endless petitions like this. And I just watched them and so well nothing is happening as a result of these. But what is interesting is how many people have been sharing it, and how much sentiment there is for getting this sorted. It is now mainstream, rather than being a somehow fringe concern.

AllFather: Got you.

Brizer: Yeah I don’t buy into the whole petitions either. I think if you even look at the meaning of the word it means “to beg”! You beg the government to look at different things, and they’re not going to do anything, you know, if you go begging to them! No it’s up to us to change these things, I think.

And I suppose they can play a part in some way to at least get the public discourse going and all the rest of it, and get people aware. But begging the government to change things, you know, you’re going to be waiting a long time for that.

AllFather: Yeah, we do have FOIA, a Freedom of Information Act request, so we can, that’s how a lot of the people got the reports on the “dancing Israeli”, all of that type of thing after 9/11. But, you know, they can heavily, heavily, redact, basically all pertinent information. So it kind of makes the final product almost meaningless at the end, also! I don’t know if they have the same thing in the United Kingdom?

UNWAShED: I don’t know. I mean, as Mark said, this goes right the way to the top from what we can tell. So I don’t think that we’d expect, we wouldn’t expect truth, even if they did say:

“Right we’re releasing you the truth?

You know, this seems to affect every single level, from the local councils, right to Gordon Brown.

Mark: Yeah. And sometimes like I said, I wasn’t gonna jump in again. But sometimes you don’t do these things, because you’re actually going to win. You’re not doing them, because you actually believe that the petition will have an effect. But you’re doing it so the people, so that the general public look at this and say:

“Oh my god! Hundreds of thousands of us sign this damn petition, and these absolute pieces of work, are still not listening to us!”

And sometimes by making these demands, and by issuing a demand that is so publicly supported, it does the government a huge amount of damage, not to the very least answer the demand. And I think that’s what we’re really trying to do now.

I think the important thing from our perspective is to understand why we do certain things, and to understand that there is a tactical reason to do something, that might actually be futile, because it will be ignored, but the fact it is ignored, isn’t futile in the long run for other reasons! If you see what I’ve tried to get at! By them ignoring it, that is one of the most powerful things they can do to actually prove our point!

In fact, let’s say we sign this petition and the government said:

“Well we’ve listened to the people and we’re gonna release this petition, because the people have spoken?

Well that, to a degree, will actually get the government off the hook, because the people would turn around and say:

“Well the Conservatives at least they’re listening!”

Whereas if the government turns around says:

“350,000 people have signed this petition. We only need a 100,000 people to sign it in order to debate it in Parliament. But three times have signed it. And we’re going to debate this for two minutes. We’re gonna laugh at this suggestion! We’re going to absolutely ignore it!”

Well, I can tell you this, that sends a very powerful message to normal people about just how much contempt those people are held in by these overpaid politicians, who make a fat living off essentially legislating for our misery!

So when we do these things it isn’t always, because we are believing that the government is going to act in the way they we want. But sometimes we do these things to expose to the people just how corrupt, self-serving, and evil, this government truly is!

[50:44]

AllFather: And media I’d add. I’d say that’s probably a pretty good tactic to bait the media into covering something like that and just showing just how out of touch they are with regular people’s concerns, as well. Especially left-wing outlets. But then also some kind of conservative outlets could cover, if theoretically, if the government did hear that and the Parliament basically swept it underneath the rug, all of these other more centrist to right-wing media outlets could expose that and bring attention to it as well. And bring more normal people kind of under our wing, if you will.

UNWAShED: Well I noticed that the Independent, which is a hard left newspaper, it’s about in line with the Guardian. Yeah, they’re the two furthest left ones, and that reported on this petition. And I’d a quick read through it. And there was no way for them to spin it. It’s like the message is out there and even these far left papers don’t really have a way to present this, with any sympathy for the other side.

You know, this is a one way thing. And they’ve sort of had to crumble. Because, you know, they’ve been calling anyone who discussed this issue far-right for years, and years, and years, and now they don’t get to! So there’s a definite change.

Brizer: There is one thing that I was doing for a while, I used to send letters into the top man into the Taoiseach we have our Lemire [sp] as Prime Minister and ask him just one question, you know, like:

“On whose authority did you open the borders?”

Okay. Simple questions like that. I send it in by registered mail. It’s not signed for, and they’ll always come back:

“Oh, this has been handed on to some other Minister to deal with?

Or whatever. And they’ll come back with some wishy-washy answer. Then you could write back in again you say:

“No, no. Can you please answer that one question?”

And they never do. And that’s, I think, it’s great, because you can hand us around to people and say:

“Look! I did this. Look at what they’re doing!”

Okay, they’re not even answering your questions. So these people don’t represent you. They don’t care about you. I’m just thinking if we got a huge letter-writing campaign going. I think that could make a big impact. I don’t know what your thoughts on that guys?

UNWAShED: I’m at a loss to what will make an impact, at this point! It looks to me like people have tried absolutely everything. But I don’t know, a petition taking the country by storm can’t be bad!

Ronnie: Well, I think Mark said it best. It’s really just a symbolic. We’ve had similar things here in Canada, where people of sign petitions. From everything to reduce immigration coming from Middle Eastern countries, to trying to boot Justin Trudeau, our Prime Minister, out of office.

And, of course, none of these things are actually going to pan out. But! It does send a message. And as long as we can be honest with ourselves, that, hey we’re probably not going to accomplish too much here that is tangible, as long as we can keep our morale up about it, then we really have nothing to lose, right? It just creates more buzz around it. But to go into it thinking:

“That yes, we’re actually going to be able to say, for instance, boot Justin Trudeau out of office if we sign enough petitions?

No, of course, not. But we have to take pride in the small victories, and raising attention, raising awareness to our cause is a small victory.

AllFather: One thing I’d like to say about Trump. I know Mark kind of talked about Trump and some of the things that he’s done.

The other thing about Trump is that he actually does listen to people and kind of tries to gauge the zeitgeist, if you will. I think, you know, in a lot of ways he is riding this kind of populist wave right now. Whether he’s truly genuine, or not, that still yet to be seen. Obviously, his ties to Israel and zionism are distressing.

But, the other thing that he did was that he actually referred to himself as a nationalist, which is just something that [55:01] almost, it’s almost like a dirty word, or something. It’s something that people just, what world leader has actually called themselves that in quite a long time? Well, especially in the West, I would say.

So he’s somebody who tries to gauge, to at least try to carry carry out the will of his people. Because he understands that he is kind of a part of this populist revolution, if you will. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a revolution yet, but then also just calling himself a nationalist. Gosh! That’s just something that I just, when I heard him say that, I had a smile from ear to ear! Whether it’s civic, or whatever, I mean, it’s still a step in the right direction, right?

UNWAShED: Yeah! In terms of normalizing the language that felt like a great step forward. I remember feeling like I was cheering for him when that happened.

AllFather: And going before the UN and telling them that globalism is dying. And I mean, that’s all, that’s the kind of language that people need to hear. And that’s the kind of language that I think when it’s becoming normalized it’s gonna help our movement, no matter what. Yeah.

UNWAShED: He genuinely moved the dial, whereas I don’t have any faith in Boris Johnson to actually do it. The way that Mark described it earlier, with, it’s just language trickery. He’s a long term politician. The difference with Trump was that he didn’t come from that world, and that’s why people plugged him and trusted him, despite the lies, you know. But with Boris Johnson he’s already been Mayor of London.

What is interesting though, is that he’s on borrowed votes, and everyone understands this, particularly the Conservative Party. They understand that the people that voted for them, only did it for Brexit. And they’re not conservative voters traditionally, the way that you’ve got the Republican base.

AllFather: Yeah, that makes sense. Though, that election was essentially a second referendum, for Brexit, right?

UNWAShED: Yeah yeah, it was. And the reason that the Conservative Party did so well was their slogan was simply “Get Brexit Done!”. And everyone was so fed up of it. And I think the majority of the country, … Well yeah, it was proven that the majority of the country is pro-leave now. Whereas they tried to hawk the line that it was 50/50, and it was split down the middle for the whole of the last four years. And actually it’s been shifting to very, very, pro-leave. But the media has implied that it’s been 50/50 the whole way along. So it changes the narrative, it’s really good.

Brythonic: I just wanted to bring it back to, well we touched upon this a bit before, about the points based immigration system. Wondering why are we having such a system, rather than adopting a family rewards system, or breeding program for native Britons? I wonder if that’s something that is a going to be possible at some point? I mean, if it’s really a non-issue?

UNWAShED: It’s certainly not a non-issue! Because we’re talking about becoming a minority in our own countries. So that matters. But the idea that we have to out-breed other people is also disgusting! I know that in Hungary, and places like this, they’ve given incentives for young families. And that’s great! And that’s what we should be doing. But it’s by no means a cure. And it’s not right to put the pressure on people to have to have more babies. It’s just such an odd situation to be in.

Ronnie: And it’s not like, just to cut in for a second, it’s not like those policies only apply to White people, right? They’re gonna benefit Muslims, they’re gonna benefit all sorts of immigrants. And there’s no real way to incentivize, you know, increasing birth rates specifically with Whites. Whatever we put into place is going to apply to everybody.

And if we try to implement policy that is only going to apply to Whites, well what are we going to be called? Obviously racist, White supremacist! So I don’t see how in the current political climate we’re ever going to be able to turn things around in that regard.

Brythonic: Well in terms of that, you were talking about Trump before, and then that very point is made Ronny, Israel, seemingly is the elephant in the room here. You know, they have the policy for their own people of family reward systems, to keep their native, well keep the jewish population up.

Ronnie: Oh, absolutely! And this works when you have a nation that is pretty much homogeneous, right? If Whites represented eighty percent of the London population, or in the major cities, and yes, absolutely this [60:00] could work! But things are so far gone now.

If you increase the birth rates for the overall population that will do nothing to raise our overall numbers. And that’s what this is about! It’s not really about, you know, specifically the White population of Canada, or America, or Britain. It’s the White population in comparison to the non-Whites.

So that’s really what we have to focus on, and that’s what we have to address. And the only real way that I see being able to address that is by deporting people. Specifically increasing the White birth rates, or secession. And, you know, which one I think is the most likely out of the three.

Brythonic: Mm-hmm.

Brizer: Yeah. I mean, I’d like to see a couple of million Irish Americans come back to Ireland, you know. They can do that straight away. I mean, if you look at the jewish Diaspora they have that right to return to Israel, and they come back and they’re all welcomed in. But not so much for Irish Americans want to come back. It’s quite difficult actually to get back in again, unless they have a grandmother, or something like that, where they have that connection. But if it goes beyond that, it’s very difficult.

And I’d like to see that, because that would help. There’s about 50, 60 million Irish-Americans in the US at the moment. And just a couple of million of them back here, would certainly help out a lot of things. So, I’d be on for that, definitely.

Ronnie: It’s very interesting, European nations want to see more White’s coming in from North America, and it’s the exact opposite here in North America. We want to see more Whites immigrating from Europe. But obviously that’s going to bleed one of them dry, so that’s not really a viable solution. We have to have a solution for the entirety of the White race, in my opinion.

UNWAShED: Isn’t the issue that you would never see the word “indigenous” in any legislation here. I mean, I suppose you’ve got it in Canada but it certainly doesn’t refer to the White population.

Ronnie: Absolutely!

UNWAShED: Yeah. But you’d see all sorts of minority buzzwords written into legislation. So that’s what our battle is at the moment. We’re in a civil rights battle for the indigenous rights of White people. I think it’s taken a while to come to that point where they’re articulated like that, but that’s what we’re in. And then it sounds less extreme, really.

Ronnie: Yeah, I just wanted to ask. Do you think that using that type of strategy, don’t you think that implies that Whites in North America essentially don’t have a right to our land? If we’re going to emphasize the term “indigenous”, as opposed to are you capable of taking over a territory and, you know, setting up shop in maintaining it?

Because that’s essentially what we did in North America. We took over territory. We proved that we could do more with the land. And that’s what entitles us to the land. It’s not based on the fact that we’re indigenous, because all humans are essentially this migrant type of species, right? We travel the world, we take over various territory. And then it’s up to us to whether, or not, we can hold it down.

So I think really hammering down the indigenous aspect of your identity works well for you. But at the same time you would kind of have to say that maybe Whites don’t have a claim to North America. And that puts me obviously and in a very compromised position.

Mark: No, no. Look, the claim of being “indigenous” is the most powerful claim we have. However, in America you are not indigenous. The White people aren’t indigenous there, but the indigenous people are the Native Americans. And you’re not being out-bred by Native Americans!

The fact is White people built America in its current form. And the indigenous people are actually on reservations, they are allowed to indulge in their culture, in their traditions, in their ways of life. And the debate at the moment isn’t whether the indigenous people of North America should take back North America, and the White people should be all shipped back to Europe. The debate is whether Africans, Latinos, and people from elsewhere in the world, should be allowed to flood in and completely take over America from either White people, or Native Americans!

Because, let’s face it, that is what’s happening! It isn’t a matter of White versus indigenous. And also there is the matter that what we’re seeing here, is the fact that people of European descent did completely civilize America and built a stunning civilization, which is now being dragged through the mud.

So I do think there are alternative arguments that can be used to why mass immigration is not preferable in North America. But the fact is, here in Europe, the most powerful argument we have, is that we are the indigenous people. That these are our lands, that our people do originate from [65:00] these lands. That we are the natural people to inherit these lands. And that everything here is actually built by us, as well.

So we do actually hold all the moral cards in Europe. And I don’t think we should discard any of those.

Ronnie: That’s a very good point. I do think that the key point is who built the nation, who created the politics, the culture, etc. And obviously White Europeans created Canada. I think the actual land comes second to the state, to the culture and the things that I laid out.

However, you can in addition to that I had to the fact that, yes you are an indigenous Englishman, where I’m not an indigenous Canadian. So that we do kind of lack that point to bring to the table. But I think we both agree that it’s not necessarily the land that makes a people, it’s the country, it’s the culture, it’s the ideas that those people put forward, and their ability to protect those ideas. So I think we’re pretty much on the same page.

UNWAShED: The question is, who’s being displaced, as well. Like, you know, which peoples are being displaced and that’s White people all over. So as you say, the indigenous claim it’s almost getting lost in the weeds. It’s like, yes it’s the kind of tactic a leftist would use against you saying, you know:

“You are not really indigenous!”

The point is people are being forced to move, because of these great swells of unfamiliar people.

AllFather: Yeah, the one thing that you’ll see is that Europeans, and Europeans only, whether they’re in the diaspora, or in Europe, are the ones who are essentially the hegemony, if you will, the global hegemony is attempting to undermine and subvert our identity. Whether it be in the diaspora, or Europe, it doesn’t really matter.

But obviously in the colonies, in the Diaspora, our claim to preserving a demographic majority more has to do like Ronny was saying with our culture and the politics. Basically saying that if you replace, or if you marginalize, if you will, the population of the founding stock of these nations, and have people from the Third World, whether it’s South America, or Africa, or the Middle East, wherever, coming in here, it will fundamentally change the nation culturally and politically.

We all see, you know, this is another point about the points-based immigration system is, even if you’re importing doctors from China, and tech workers from India and these people will still overwhelmingly vote for the Left, and for socialism. Which, you know, in a country like Ronnie and myself, our country has birthright citizenship. I’m actually not sure about Canada anymore, it is you have to have one parent who’s a Canadian citizen in order to claim right of soil?

Ronnie: I’m not actually sure what it is right now.

AllFather: Okay, so in my country basically you can be from anywhere, you don’t even have to be a citizen of this country if, you know, and your parents come here, they’re both illegal, or they’re just workers, temporary workers, they have a child, that child becomes a citizen. So it’s an insane policy! But it comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to give freed African slaves citizenship. And what it became basically is birthright citizenship.

And so we have a situation here where if we allow people to come in here, these Chinese doctors, and Indian tech workers, like I said, they’ll have children who will in turn, you know, create more demographic replacement of Europeans. So yeah, it’s more about our founding stock, the culture, and the politics for us. But I don’t consider myself to be indigenous to the North American continent, obviously.

The peoples who are mostly out-breeding us are Hispanics. And in some part they are Meso-American. So they actually do have this idea that they are taking back their own land. Not only, because parts of the Western United States used to be a Spanish, and then subsequently a Mexican province, or colony, but they also have this part indigenous heritage. So they do think that they’re kind of taking back the land from us, if you will.

But yeah, so I really think that that it’s important for indigenous Europeans to not let anybody [70:00] try to subvert your indigenous status. Because you look at other groups around the world that are similar to the United Kingdom, as far as, you know, and they might even be the product of ethnic groups in other parts of the world, that might even be a product of an ethnogenesis.

Japan, you look at other countries especially that are like archipelagos, like Britain, Japan, Madagascar, New Zealand, some of these places, there’s nobody trying to subvert the indigenous identity of the Maori in New Zealand. There’s nobody trying to say that the Europeans there are indigenous, or that that anybody that comes to New Zealand is indigenous.

And the British ethnic groups in the British Isles, have been in Britain for far longer, not far longer, well the they’ve been homogeneous basically for the same amount of time after the Norman invasion, that the Maori have even been present on New Zealand. So the idea that the peoples, the White people the British Isles are not indigenous to the British Isles is insane! And it needs to just be stopped! I mean, we need to make these arguments in public.

The problem is that a lot of these mainstream conservative, and centrist, outlets won’t discuss demographics with us.

UNWAShED: I think we’re at an interesting point. In the UK at least, because the mainstream view, or at least a view from the mainstream media, is that there is no such thing as like an indigenous British person, or an ethnically English person. And everyone knows that’s not true! You just apply that double standard to any other country. You would never say that about the people. But that is the mainstream line.

And I just think it’s another point where we can wake people up to the scale of this problem. You know, any normal English person will self-identify as English. They won’t be like:

“Well, we’re a nation of immigrants!”

But, that’s the news that they’ll get from the mainstream. And as soon as they spot that there’s that disconnect, then hopefully they give up on the mainstream altogether.

Mark: Look, there’s really an easy answer to this, as well, right? In 2016 Teresa May let in 650,000 migrants into Britain. That’s how many she actually let in. And she estimates that around 200,000 illegal immigrants came into Britain in the same year. So that would make a total immigration of around 850,000. And this number isn’t completely an all-time high, because in 2019, the Tories let in 379 [thousand] non-EU migrants.

So considering EU immigration was always higher than non-EU immigration in the years we were members of the European Union. But let’s say it’s on a par, for sake of this argument. That would mean that in 2019 around 758,000 migrants came to Britain legally.

Now let’s add into the mix, 200,000 illegal immigrants, keeping it on par with 2016 figures. That means you’ve got around 960,000 people coming into Britain in 2019. So a 110,000 more than came in 2016. I don’t have the numbers for seventeen, and eighteen, sorry, but I’m sure any stati people out there would dig them out. And if you want stats, go to Laura Towler! She’s the Queen of Statistics!

But I’ve given you too numbers there. 850,000 for 2016, and 960,000, or thereabout for 2019. And they’re all under Conservative governments.

Why are those numbers important? Well, in either of those years, as individual years, and we’ll take the lesser number 2016. In 2016 alone, more people entered Britain than came into Britain between 1066, the last time we were successfully invaded, and 1939, the outbreak of the Second World War.

So what you’ve got there, is almost a millenniums worth of immigration being completely eclipsed in a single year of modern Conservative party rule! So when people say we’re a nation of immigrants, not only is that a complete and utter BS claim! But the level of immigration we are seeing now is so unprecedented, it is so off he scale that comparing modern-day, yearly immigration statistics, or numbers, to hundreds and hundreds of years of [75:02] immigration, is actually incomparable!

And that just shows what level of migration was seeing now. And it also shows that when we say things like “White genocide”, or the “Great Replacement”, or “swamping levels” of immigration, we are not, we are not, making things up! We are not over playing things! We’re being honest.

And I’ll read you this:

“Hello Mark! I’m working on a story for Vice about Groyping coming to the UK. In the story we will be reporting that you are, ..”

And then some allegations are made about me. And one of those allegations is spreading racist conspiracy theories related to get demographic trends. What conspiracy theory? You’ve got pushing a million people coming into Britain every year. We are now running at a level where White Britons are already a minority in London, will be a minority in Britain by the 2060s as a whole.

And we are already seeing a situation where White Britons only make up 66 percent of primary school children. And births from White Britons only make up 59 percent of overall births in Britain. When are they going to stop using terms like “conspiracy theory”? Because if it is actually happening, how is it a conspiracy theory? It might be a conspiracy, but it isn’t just a theory, it’s the truth!

AllFather: Well for something to be a “conspiracy” it has to be secret, right? I mean, you know, a theory is also just an uncertain belief, so basically like a supposition, you know, a supposition a set of uncertain beliefs. So, it by definition, it can’t be a conspiracy theory. Especially considering you see some mainstream media outlets and just openly gloating and celebrating the fact that Europeans will be a minority.

But that’s kind of the whole, I think the conspiracy theory that they speak of is that it’s engineered by somebody. That it’s something that’s being done purposefully by elitists or, you know, which I think most of us in this chat would agree that’s the case.

Mark: Look at all these immigrants trying to get across the Greek border. That is a conspiracy! That is something that has been engineered. President Erdogan of Turkey has engineered the latest invasion! This isn’t something that is a nonsense that we’ve dreamt up.

And one thing we have to do, is we have to use laughter to defeat these clowns. If I’m ever invited on a show to debate these people I’m just gonna laugh in their faces, because this is actually happening! The government is saying it’s happening! Leading demographers are saying it’s happening! Other foreign governments are facilitating this knowingly.

This is all playing out as we’ve said. And people using terms like “conspiracy theory” about this, when it can be obviously proven, should be shamed, should be mocked, should be torn down!

If they want to talk about Groyping, well why don’t we Groyp them? Why don’t we go on to their YouTube channels and just keep spamming the demographic nightmare is real! The great replacement is real! Because it is!

[78:30]

Ronnie: Could I just jump in for a second. I think what Son of the AllFather is saying is that it comes down to whether, or not White erasure is a byproduct of the globalist agenda, or if it is the primary goal of the globalist agenda? And I think in the dissident Right we realize that it probably is the primary goal. If not it’s at the top. Where the Left projects it as, you know, this is just simply happening as a result of the need for more migration to stimulate the economy. And as a result Whites are going to be erased! So that’s really what the debate kind of comes down to. Am I correct to say that Son of the AllFather?

AllFather: Yeah. Precisely. That’s I mean, I obviously like I’m in that camp, in the camp that it is being done purposefully. But, you know, it’s just important to kind of address the language they’re using in order to defeat their arguments. And basically what I’ve seen is that they will deny it and they’ll try to gaslight you until they kind of can’t, and then they’re defeated on that on that front. And then what they’ll do is they’ll just move to trivializing it, or trying to rationalize it in some way. And, you know, with by saying:

“Oh well we’ve been colonizing different places all around the world.”

And then basically what you have where you have them at that point is, you know, they’re saying:

“Well, you’ve colonized other places therefore Europe deserves to be colonized.”

And it’s like, okay, well [80:01] Europeans are the indigenous people of Europe so are you saying that two wrongs make a right here? Are you saying that essentially that it’s an eye for an eye kind of a mentality? Which, you know, is considered barbaric, pretty much in any developed part of the world. So at that point you basically have proven that they are just as evil today, as they claim our ancestors were hundreds of years ago!

Brizer: Yes. It comes back to this whole Whiteness versus ethnicity debate again, doesn’t it? Which for us in Europe obviously ethnicity is the thing, because we were born and bred in these lands, and we have our own language and cultures and whatever. And there are certain differences between us. But there’s something else that runs deeper than that, where we have that connection.

And I can understand you guys in North America, because you’re trying to figure out whether you are American? Are you Canadian? Because, you know, you had the indigenous people there before that. Who are you? And, of course, your European ancestors came over three two, or three hundred years ago and they settle a land and they built a country up, so they feel a kind of an identity with that land.

And then when I look at the situation in South Africa with the Afrikaner as the White people in South Africa. They feel African, even though they’re White! And for me, like which is it? Which is most important? Is it your ethnicity? Even though the Afrikaners did come from Dutch, German, backgrounds, is that more important to them, or is it being a South African is more important to them?

Ronnie: I think racial identity has to matter more, right? Like even with respect to the British identity, right? Like you are a mix of Celts and Germanic people. I don’t want to take away from the fact that you are indigenous to England, but your genes haven’t really been molded by the geography in the same way that the native people in Canada have right? You pretty much are either Celtic, or German, in origins.

And so I kind of look at it is that the primary colors of European, or a White identity, we have the Greeks and the Romans, we have the Celts, we have the Germans, we have the Norseman. And that’s kind of how I would categorize it. But we all are the same people, at the end of the day. The differences between us in comparisons to the differences between us and the other races they’re pretty much negligible.

I think national identity is something we can have fun with. Like I can make fun of you guys and say, you know, soccer sucks in comparison to real football, and we can have a good laugh about that! But it doesn’t really mean anything. Where racial identity actually does mean something.

UNWAShED: This is where I had asked, I’d like to ask about Shin Fien and what’s going on there? Because they would be badged as a nationalist party, wouldn’t they? Or historically, I don’t really know. They would sort of brand themselves as all about the Irish, but they’re anything but! Is that right?

Brizer: Yes, at this point, they are. But when they started off initially back in 1919, they were a true Nationalist Party. It goes back to the old days of fighting against the Brits and all that type of stuff, right? We’ve gone through all of that, and we’ve been there, done that. There was a lot of pain and hardship went along with that, but Shin Fien were totally infiltrated back in the 60s by Marxists. And they are anything but nationalists now, or even Republican.

They are kind of always were the protests kind of political party, where people go to protest against the two main parties, which are Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. And we had that in a recent election here there. The Shin Fien vote surged. And they were never that popular really. I mean, they had grassroots support, they’d always get one, or two, people elected.

But they got a huge vote this time around. And the moments there’s a difficulty in forming a new government, because the two main parties don’t anything to do with Shin Fien. And Shin Fien doesn’t particularly want anything to do with them. And Shin Fien are trying to get a coalition between the other kind of leftist parties. And I sometimes I think it might be a good thing if they did get into power with a lot of lefties, because they would really fuck this country big time! And really red pill a lot of people, to say:

“Look! Look what they’re about!”

[85:02]

And then there’s another thing saying:

“Well, they could really destroy this country too, and there’s going to be a lot of hardship.”

It’s hard to see where this will go. There are some new nationalist parties setting up. The National Party is was kind of the main one at the moment. They’re still quite small but they’re gaining ground, which is good, and their policies are very sensible. And they’ve got a good leader by the name Justin Barrett, who speaks very well, and he knows his stuff.

But I’m just wondering do we have enough time, because if another government is formed and they get another four, or five years in, the gates are still gonna be wide open! And we’re gonna have probably an extra half a million, million, people in this country. Which is gonna make things worse! But I do actually honestly believe that things are gonna have to get a lot worse before they get better! It’s gonna have to come to people’s door, to see it.

And we are beginning to see that now. I mean, just earlier today I was in my small town, I was coming back just doing a bit of shopping. And I went past a school, all the school kids are coming out, and I was quite shocked to see, you know, I really was, because every third, or fourth, child coming out there was, … Well they weren’t Irish, put it that way!

And these are all young kids like six, seven, years old. So they’re going to grow up here.

We have a big problem! We have a big problem! I don’t know how we’re going to sort it! Deportations? I don’t know how that can be done. I think we just have to try and protect what we have, whatever we have.

And I think making more White babies is one way of doing it, but then, is that feasible? It’s more and more difficult to have families these days, because it’s very expensive to raise kids these days.

When I look back even though, in the fifties, and sixties, you know, Irish families had seven, eight, nine, ten, kids! And the dad just went out to work, somehow they afforded it. But they’re just making it more and more difficult now for families to settle down, buy a house, and, you know, raise the family. It’s just getting more and more difficult!

So something is gonna have to give at some point. And I don’t know when. And I think it’s just going to be very painful when it does. And we’ve got to be ready for it. That’s unfortunate.

Ronnie: Before, you know, the family would help out with the family business, be it a farm, or what have you. Nowadays it’s not the case, right? It takes an individual to reach their 20s before they can actually start earning a significant income, right?

So typically the kids are just a financial burden, where in the past you’d have them working on the farm, you’d have them working in various areas. And as well the infant mortality rate was much higher. So to ensure that you had a lot of offsprings, you know, kids that would survive you would have a lot of children.

So I do think it would be great if we could add a little bit more nepotism and family values to the White identity, so that we can start working again with family members and friends. Because I think for multiple reasons that’s much more desirable than working for some large corporation.

Brizer: Yeah well they did a number on this country in the last seven, or eight, years. There was three referendums. First one I think was in 2012, which was about children’s rights. And this was basically, in our Constitution, children were protected under the Constitution. And then the state decided to come in and say:

“Well, we’re gonna take more control here.”

And that, sadly, passed, because most people didn’t think it was important at the time. And it passed quite easily.

Then we other gay marriage referendum. And then we had the abortion referendum. I think we all saw the scenes with all these crazy young Millennials were cheering and shouting for the death of babies!

I mean, it was quite disgusting to be quite honest to see that.

And I was just like those three referendums were an attack on the family unit. And there is an article in our Constitution which just states the family, article 40, which is all about the family, and how the family is the foundation of society and cannot be touched! And that’s just being gradually eroded away. And now we’re just we’re seeing the effects of that.

At the moment I’m hearing that a thousand babies are being aborted every month in this country! White babies! Gay marriage is on the increase. But they’re not going to produce any kids.

[90:00]

And then we have a state coming in and stealing children from good parents, because they disagree with different things, or whatever, for whatever reason they feel is necessary to abduct children. And it’s going on in the UK. They’re coming at us from all angles, without a doubt! Without a doubt!

And I think that’s what’s taking people by surprise, because if you just got one problem, you can maybe deal with it, but when you got five, or six, coming at you at the same time it’s extremely difficult to deal with, because people are confused.

We have to take a good step back here and look what’s going on, and realize that our governments are not with us whatsoever! Do not represent us whatsoever! They are in bed with the global, corporate, elite. Who are want to bring in all these migrants as economic consumer units to replace us. And to see the death basically of what we call the White race. Which is going to be, we’re top of the line here!

I think there is a depopulation agenda on the whole, for all races. But I think for the White people we’re number one to go! And they have to destroy the foundations of society, which number one, is the family. And they’re doing a great job here at the moment.

So sad to see but people are beginning to wake up now a bit, and push back. But well, you know, it’s getting people motivated, getting them out on the streets, and doing things, and talking to each other, getting them away from the TVs, and their phones, and stuff and sports, and concentrate! Like we’re at risk here of becoming extinct!

Ronnie: It’s very true. And it this creates a flight-or-fight kind of response that we briefly talked about before the stream. And unfortunately there just really isn’t a fight, a tangible fight, and in many cases a political fight for one to even involve themselves with, right? Like many people in America are frustrated with Donald Trump in the Republican Party. You guys are frustrated with that with what’s happening in the so-called Conservative parties and in the UK.

So there is this sense of, you know, I want to fight, but there’s really no army to join! And so then that creates the flight response. And I guess we could say secession fits along with that. And I don’t want to say that I’m running away from a fight. I don’t want to say that I’m giving up! I’m simply advocating for what I believe is our best chance.

And if there was a fight, if this was um medieval Europe, or whatever, and there was a crusade to join, absolutely I would be there, sword and shield, with my fellow man. But that’s not the way things are right now. And if you try to go down those lines, you’re just gonna wind up in jail!

And they, you know, I really could never advocate for somebody to do the dirty work for me. So, you know, civil war, or a physical revolt, I think that’s very slimy for somebody to preach on the internet when they’re not willing to do the same thing themselves.

So really I think hoping for any sort of physical war, you’re basically just stuck there crossing your fingers, praying that something happens, because chances are you’re not going to be the one to lead it, right? And, nor should you!

So it does seem kind of bad to suggest that we give up a piece of land in order to salvage another, but the Viking mentality is to not engage in a fight in which you can’t win, or which you can’t even form a formidable army. The best thing to do is to collectivise, regather, and then fight once you’re unified, and you can actually win the battle.

So I think secession, although it may seem like we’re giving up right now, we’re just collectivizing to win a future battle that we can actually win.

[93:51]

TO BE CONTINUED

[198:00]