The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1347: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann - Pt. 1 - w/ Thomas777

Episode Date: March 24, 2026

67 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas begins a short series on the trial of Adolf Eichmann.Radio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Buy Me a CoffeeThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas' WebsiteThomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

If you want to get the show early and ad-free, head on over to the piquinones show.com. There, you can choose from where you wish to support me. Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me about this, even though I think on the last ad, I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed, you're going to have to subscribe through substack or through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website, which is right there, Gumroad, and what's the other one?

Subscribe Star. And if you do that, you will get access to the audio file. So head on over to the Pekignano Show.com. You'll see all the ways that you can support me there. And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can put out the amount of material that I do. I can do what I'm doing with Dr. Johnson on 200 years together and everything else. the things that Thomas and I are doing together on continental philosophy.

It's all because of you. And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So thank you. The Pekingona Show.com. Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekino Show. Thomas is back. We're going to take a little bit of a detour, as we do very often,

to talk about a subject that's been at the forefront of Thomas' mind recently. the, what unquote, trial of Adolf Eichmann. So, Thomas, take it away, please. Yeah, it's an important subject matter. It's not just a question of trivia relevant to people who were into the Third Reich and revisionism. It came up because I was talking of burden, and he was talking about how odd it is that

not just formal representatives of Leeku, but apologists for Israel all in sundry and even people aren't Jewish they speak of Israel as being synonymous with the Jews as a people and they talk about Israel

as being the formal instantation of the Jewish people at international law and that's not just a colloquialism or some odd convention that developed over time for ideological reasons. That's very much

coded into the world system. And that was put to the, a lot of things were put to the test with the trial of Adolf Eichmann, including the sort of special dispensations Israel has

at international law. And it also had the force of solidifying and establishing his precedent for all time this anti-fascist convention whereby people are going to be held into court for

allegedly having been involved in what's declared to be what was unilaterally declared to be criminal acts and in the service of the acts as powers and there was weird intrigues around Eichmann and his apprehension and he was something of an odd

target you know to be clear and Hannah Arendt gets into this her book I come in in in Jerusalem is a mixed bag and the one that's very critical of Israel and it's not and it's

and it's blanket refuel to observe due process but in the other there's some weak spots of it and it was very much written for a mass audience and it was very much written according to the convention of political correctness of that time, which was the early 1960s.

And for people who think political correctness just appeared one day in 1990 or something, they don't understand this country. It was around before any of us were born. And I judge it particularly contra, her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, which is a really great book, and the title's misleading. That's actually not what it's about at all.

You know, and it very much has to do with the deep sociology of how and why such profound enmity developed between the Jewish minority in Europe and, you know, European people, particularly as the nation state deteriorated in favor of supernational structures, you know, as a superpower era emerged. And that's an important point that's not well understood, particularly in America, even by historians or somewhat critical of mainstream narratives. The meaning of the Third Reich was that it was a pan-European tendency.

The whole point of it was to create a new order whereby Europe became a superpower. And that process that gave rise to, you know, the establishment of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, and that, you know, in historical capacities, allowed the United States to marshal its resources into an incredible degree of power projection, the side of the state of the United States. seen that was the proximate cause of this horrendous violence that to be clear emerged from both sides you know between Jews and Germans and Jews and Russians and ultimately you know Zionists turn their violent attentions to Daril Islam and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine And that's actually very much an Ernst Nolte point that Hannah-Orent made. And that's no surprise because, you know, she was a higher accolade, just like Ernst Nolte was.

You know, and they absolutely crossed paths. How close or they were, you know, is questionable. I don't believe they're particularly friendly. But they definitely shared an epistemological assumption. assumptions and things. But that's why this is important. And to understand the present situation, you've got to understand the Eichmann trial as precedent because the International Military Tribunal that came in at Nuremberg that stands the configuration of the global regime's legal order. That was only finally

only fully realized in 1989, but the Eichmann trial that established the special dispensations and, you know, exclusive privileges of a Jewish state within that system. And that's not well understood. Not a lot was, is, well, understood at Eichmann either. Obviously, they needed some sort of figure to burn in proverbial effigy. And because they're outside of, you know, men who've served as general officers in the Vermont of VofnsS, there wasn't, you know, the National Socialist leadership didn't really exist anymore. They'd been executed or they died. So deciding Eichmann, what they hung on him, the label was he's the quote, architect of the Holocaust. That's really, really strange for all kinds of reasons.

not the least to which Eichmann was a fairly irrelevant person he he was a young guy you know he when the war ended he was only about 40 or he just turned 41

he was born March 19th 1906 he his final rank was Oberstrmbenfiel which was the SS equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the NATO rank system. At base, he was a policeman, and he served the RSAHA, which was the Reichsearche, the Reich Main Security Office.

he ended up becoming the chief of department 4b4, which was Jewish affairs. He'd come up initially through the SD and the security police as being assigned to spying on freemasons and fraternal organizations that were considered to be subversive, which again was a pretty middling detail. and he was some sort of logistics savant. He could, that was a real strong suit and that's what's remarkable about him. He had a genius for logistical planning and crunching the numbers in his head that entailed moving mass amounts of human beings and material as needed and under conditions of, you know, war or peacetime, and varying degrees of mobilization.

And that owes to the Holocaust narrative, places a premium on, well, this moving around of populations at massive scale, these people were being delivered to their doom. And Eichmann, the savant, was delivering them to their death en masse. So that part of it makes sense, but this idea that he was this,

important personage in the German Reich is totally off base and just odd. To understand what his rank would have been or I mean his clout relative power within the executive of the Reich. Himmler was under Heinrich Muller who came even known as Gestapo Muller, who was the head of the Gestapo.

Gestapo Muller served directly under Reinhardt Heidrich, who was chief of the SD and the chief of the RSAJ, and after he was murdered, Ernst Kaltenbrenner came into the role. Hydric and then later Kaltenbrenner served under Himmler. Himmler technically was second only to Hitler because he was the Reichsphere SS, but Hitler and Himmler were not close. They weren't friends.

They didn't socialize. They seldom saw each other. They didn't associate socially. Handler was a bit of a loose canon who Hitler viewed as being radically dedicated to the cause. He was an old fighter. He'd been at Munich in 1923. He'd come up through Rahm's Free Corps. so his credentials spoke for themselves in terms of his willingness to sacrifice for the party,

but, you know, that was it. There wasn't a personal relationship to speak about between Hitler and Himmler. It's this idea that, this idea that Eichmann was some approximate to the furor had great power that's, that doesn't make any sense. that'd be that'd be like taking some kind of random career Homeland Security man

and declaring that he's the actual power behind Donald Trump or something you know just for context that it doesn't really make any sense what I believe happened with Eichmann and this is pretty well substantiated by this point

by people who want to dig into the record I came after the war, like a lot of people who'd serve the access powers, and not just Germans, but Italians, Crocs, Japanese. Slovaks, you know, all manner of people, they found a new home in Latin America, particularly Argentina, but Argentina also is a very European-coated place culturally. and the Peron government was very friendly to national socialists, as was the Strassner government. So after the war, Eichmann, just by virtue, was a membership and the SS, and, you know, particularly the RSAHA, meant that he'd be a wanted man. But it wasn't really a prior. He wasn't really in anybody's radar for years. then what happened was

there's the publication of what came to be known as the Eichmann papers. Now this came about because in Argentina there's a man named Wilhelm Sasson who came to know Eichmann and he also probably came to know Mengela personally. Mengela is a lot more sympathetic of a figure than Eichmann in my opinion

And because he, Mengelae literally got transformed into this horror movie monster by propaganda. It's totally, totally bizarre. And Mengela drowned when he was swimming as an elderly man. And his identity wasn't confirmed for some years. But so, I mean, he escaped the vengeance of the Jewish state and of the justice. department's OSI but I'm sure he didn't have a happy life where he was living out his twilight years but because it may the deal with Wilhelm Sossin Vellum Sosson was a Flemish National Socialist and from Holland and he joined the

Vof and SS as a as a war correspondent and as a as a as a as a a Dutch language propagandist on behalf of the NSDAP. And he was on deck with documenting a lot of anti-partisan action. So he witnessed some pretty severe stuff. And he may have participated in it in a direct action capacity. I'm talking about mass shootings and non-combatants and the kind of stuff that had was common to the Ostfront on both sides. But Sossin, he was an incredibly shady guy,

and he was almost certainly some kind of intelligence asset for the Bundes Republic or British intelligence or the CIA. You know, he probably did this for cynical reasons. It's hard to imagine a man like, him having any principles. But what Sossin did was he, Eichmann was kind of a naive person. He was almost autistic by all accounts. Sosson befriended Eichmann and he said, I want to, I want to help you to draft your memoirs because you were an important man who was witnessed to history. And, you know, we needed to set the record straight.

So what was produced was this 600 pages of documents, which is mostly conversations between Sossin and Eichmann about the war years, about the structure of the SS on the SD side and the RSAHA side, which at that point was little known. There wasn't much written about it. and the men who'd served the organization were very secretive about it. And within the pages of this testimonial, Eichmann says some pretty incriminating stuff, but not of the sort that people might think.

And what Sossin did was he proceeded to sell these pages to Life magazine, obviously without Eichmann's knowledge. and then subsequently what lands like a bomb in English speaking media markets on the front page of Life magazine is this picture of Eichmann in his SS uniform

and in bold letters it says interview with the devil the architect of the Holocaust and so suddenly Eichmann is on people's radar and uh sas at all but

just clothes exactly where Eichmann lived and to be clear Eichmann to his credit he was still married to his wife you know who he'd brought with him he actually had a young child

you know who'd arrived late in life you know and he was working some sort of office job I think he was working as an accountant for some small machine firm or something. You know, and living in the Buenos Aires suburbs, just kind of minding his own business. You know, I mean, he was living under an alias,

but it's not like he was under deep cover or something. And when this kind of entered the public mind, you know, very suddenly, the question became, Why is this man free? Why isn't he facing justice? You know, this man is the most evil person alive. He was the architect of the Holocaust. You know, so very quickly, this became a priority of the Mossad to capture him

and avail him to a show trial. but first and foremost to interrogate them and and sort of fill in the gaps of what they wanted to know and during the Cold War any and all information of this sort was valuable even though it might not seem so to a layman but also if you're somebody engaged with the historical process whether as a state secret policemen or an intelligence agent or a military man or just a nobody kind of documentarian like me, this is a valuable score, a person like Eichmann. And what's interesting is Simon Wiesenthal, who was proven to be a total liar. I'm not talking about what he alleged about events in World War II, although that obviously

he wasn't credible either. But he made a whole career out of making up stories about being involved in capturing these Third Reich figures, and he claimed that he located Ikemen. That's complete nonsense. He,

Wiesenthal was a nobody who built a career on bullshit and presenting himself as as some sort of Frederick Forrester's, like, novel character. You know, this was completely confabulated. And like I said, two, Eichmann wasn't really hiding, number one, and number two, such that he was under light cover that was all over by the time Sassen sold his testimony to Life magazine.

So on the evening of May 11, 1960, Eichmann, you know, was on his way home from West, work like any other night. And he gets grabbed by Mossad operatives, you know, thrown into a car, subdued with some kind of drug. You know, nine days later, he's been flown to Israel and thrown in a jail cell and available to interrogation for the next 11 months. And on April 11, 19, 19. he found himself in district court in Jerusalem being arraigned on 15 counts including the

allegation that together with co-conspirators he committed crimes against the Jewish people as well as crimes against humanity war crimes and the usual litany of charges that for a solid day at the International Military Tribunal a decade and a half prior, but what was significant and what was novel was this claim that Eichmann had offended against the Jewish people as a people, and that Israel was the de jurey representative at international law of the Jewish people as a as an ethnos or as a confessional and sectarian community. And as a matter of law, that's problematic.

And interestingly, a lot of these Jewish organizations in America, in the Bundes Republic and the UK, this wasn't the case, but a lot of these American Jewish NGOs said, wait, wait, wait a minute. You know, the government in Tel Avivis, isn't the representative of all Jewish people. That's not the way we want to proceed and that's probably not even legally cognizable.

You know, this idea that, to be clear, too, that the claim of the Jewish state in this context, it wasn't that the government in Tel Aviv's, the representative of Jewish people, the nation of Israel. The claim was that it literally was the representative of the Jewish people as the Jewish people on this planet, whatever their nation of origin, whatever language they speak. And if you with specific intent to harm the Jews as a people offend against them, their legal representative, their legal representative as a matter of law, is the Jewish state.

and they can stand in for the Jewish diaspora as a matter of law. And like Bernard and I were talking about, this is why when these, you know, it's not just wackos like Mark Levin or extremists, bigots like Dershowitz, when these people claim that if you're attacking the Jewish state, you're engaged in anti-Semitism, that's not just a colloquialism or a polemical device.

They're saying as a matter of law, if you're opposing the Jewish state, you're opposing the Jewish people. If you're opposing the Jewish people, you're doing it out of some kind of insidious prejudice because the reason why this arrangement exists and why they're permitted these defensive structures that whack precedent and incomparable iterations

with respect to other populations is because the Jewish people are uniquely susceptible to violence from others. So there's a whole set of epistemic priors, and I'm not offering legitimacy to this perspective because it's insane. But the reason why these polemicists invoke that conceptual vocabulary is for this reason. and that's important understand and world opinion I mean obviously excluding the East block but you know during the Cold War

it was the opinion of the free world that is what was considered valid precedent and then when the wall came down obviously that became global precedent everybody in the free world as it was called I mean there were objections here and there particularly among some

Carly significant percentages, but there wasn't some formal protest from the Bond government or from the London government or from Washington or something. So that's just what stood, you know. Eichmann pled not guilty to each count, but he qualified it. He said, I'm not guilty in the sense of the indictment. And interestingly, the judge didn't initially. question him what he meant by that. Eichmann's lawyer, abiding the same

convention as Nuremberg and the Dau trials. Eichmann was allowed to select counsel of his choice and the Israeli government paid him for his time and flew him out there. But that's really where due process ended just like at Nuremberg.

But Eichmann's Willier was a man named Robert Servadus, who was native to Cologne. And he was a heavy hitter. But what he explained to the court later, when the court asked, what did your client mean by this? Servadus said, Eichmann feels guilty before God, but not before the law. and whatever Eichmann did or whatever he ordered first of all, Sarvada said

Eichmann didn't murder anybody. Eichman's never murdered a Jewish person or a non-Jewish person or any person. So he objected on substantive grounds to Eichmann being accused of murder. If you wanted to accuse him of conspiracy, fine, we'll fight that charge, but produce one instance, produce any inculatory evidence, documentary or direct testimony or anything else of Eichmann murdering anybody and interestingly the court the prosecution tried to do that and they couldn't what they came up with was during the occupation of what's now Serbia and parts of Bosnia herzegovina abutting what was the Ndh Hsdman as an SD man it was within his purview to be responsible that leaves another you know at least in the capacity of um

at least in an advisory capacity of how to how to handle antipartisan efforts so there's a memo that ikeman signed off on incident to the minutes of a meeting where he suggested continuing a policy of decimation where for every German soldier killed, hostages would be murdered. You know, the hostages in the instant case were being ethnic Serbs and Jews, who were presumed to be sympathetic to the Chetniks and the communists. And that was what they came up with saying C. Eichmann was capable of murder. at least capable of it, which was trivial in the context, not just because of the gravity of what they were alleging, but, you know, it suggests a real, it suggests that even within the arbitrary parameters of the court in Jerusalem, where a show trial was being. held in the purest sense servadus was a serious guy he attacked where he could and he

made the prosecution look foolish where he could but to bring it back Ikeman aikman's position was that anything he did or didn't do in his role as an overstumbenfiel of the SS serving the SD and the RSAHA, these were acts of state. So, hailing him into court for murder and grounds of acts of state would be like hailing Curtis LeMay into court and charging him with 100,000 counts of murder for firebombing Tokyo. And as Servadis said, Mr. Eichmann is here because he committed acts for which you are decorated if you win and you go to the gallows if you lose, which was true, which is why as well this sort of narrative of the Vancey conference becomes so relevant.

That wasn't particularly emphasized here, but what was is very interesting, and I'm going to get into that, in terms of the evidence presented both. direct, particularly direct testimony, but the way that the International Military Tribunal, 15 years before, had gotten around this challenge, was, as I think we discussed in earlier episodes, they alleged, well, this wasn't a normal government. And these weren't acts committed pursuant to exigencies of war. This was a criminal conspiracy. And from inception, the raise on death.

of the German Reich was to murder the Jewish race. And that's really the only reason it existed. And the Von Sea Conference was the formalization of that intended purpose, manifest as a conspiracy by key actors in the executive branch of the National Socialist Party state. That's an incredibly specious argument. And in a normal court, I don't even think it would be admissible. Generally, I'm not going to bore everybody with evidentiary rules and the nuances. Generally, a criminal law.

And there are, I'm saying generally, because there's nuances to every state and then there's the federal system too. But generally, what is admissible is evidence of planned, most, design in show aspects that relate to intent that removes it from being categorically treated as propensity evidence, which is almost always

excluded, but to extrapolate that convention and say, well, there was this meeting and this meeting is demonstrative of the fact that

the core ideological purpose of a state government was to carry out a criminal act at massive scale owing to nothing beyond malice and perverse moral frailty you know like I said

I can't it's hard me to put myself in the position of a judge because I really don't have any respect for judges. And I agree with what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said judges rendered decisions based on the political climate and a little else. At the same time, I'd be curious as to how an argument like that would be structured, assuming it was, you know, an issue of first impression. I'd probably let it pass. But I've got sympathy for the double, you know. But that's, you know, this is highly significant.

It's not, it's not just a question of lawyer ball and word games. And Eichmann's trial was a show trial in two senses. It was a show trial in the obvious sense in that it was ideological theater who passed off as jurisprudence, but also this was the days of nascent international news. You know, so people weren't seeing live what was happening in Jerusalem because in 1961, there weren't the satellite feeds that facilitated that, wasn't perfected yet. And then a few years later, when it was, it was an arduous process. It was Elvis's Aloha from Hawaii that was one of the first mass broadcast satellite events all over this planet.

But on the evening news, people were seeing footage from Eichmann on trial and legal experts were weighing in on what was happening. you know um and that's substantially that's a that's a whole different animal than going to the movie theater in in in forty seven and seeing movie to own news clips of of you know there are five seconds long of herman garing on the stand when you can't even hear his testimony there's just you know a uh a voiceover as it were you know offering color com or proffering color commentary so There was a, the Jerusalem court had a tougher road to hoe. And also, Eichmann was the only defendant on deck.

It couldn't, the bait and switch wasn't possible, whereby, you know, if, if the prosecuting attorney was bested on, you know, by a witness, they could shift their attention to a weaker link in the proverbial chain the leg was possible at Nuremberg and plusrily at taco and stuff you know so there was that too and also um the social engineering regime hadn't i mean yeah a lot of new deal propaganda had had an incredibly toxic effect and already and american public opinion had been substantially warped, but this process hadn't really come to fruition yet. And there's a lot of people who either on to social prejudice or because they were politically

sophisticated, didn't particularly like Jews, didn't like the state of Israel, didn't think, particularly considering that the Cold War was absolutely raging then, that World War II was some great thing. so there was something of a delicate minuet here and back then unlike today Zionist propaganda was pretty sophisticated it wasn't you didn't have obnoxious idiots like Mark Levin running around acting like some Der Sturmurker you know it's pretty slickly presented and if you get on YouTube I'll try and put together what I think are sort of key clips that are available on the Eichmann trial.

Obviously, these guys and these women who are kind of out front representing these really government, like a lot of them have heavy European or Middle Eastern accents, but they're well put together. They, I mean, they look ethnic, but they don't look particularly alien, you know. It was very, it was clear that, like, who they selected to be on camera, things like that. you know, obviously you're trying to telegraph, see, these are people like you. They're respectable white people who share the same habits you do. They just have a different religion, you know, all of that.

We still suffer that today. Oh, sure. There's a reason why Netanyahu went to school in the United States. Oh, no, of course. But a guy like Mark Levine doesn't exactly relate to Middle America well or make Jews look good. Yeah. I mean, like that's... I mean, that was my point. Like, back then, some guy, if we're working for the AGC or the ADL even,

or some guy or some lady, you know, who was deciding who from the Nesset would appear on the 5 o'clock news, they'd have been mortified if some guy like Mark Levin was, you know, acting like that. that you know um that that's what i meant yeah the this uh the the sort of cycling of a lease from the jewish state to america and um the deep interdependence there you know i were talking with you with the fellow it's like why why why are idf people training you know the minneapolis police department you know i mean stuff like that it it's really very very on the nose but But I, and what's interesting too, this I'll bring it back because this is truly tangential. But, you know, the.

On the nose, I see what you did there. Oh, that was actually a, I didn't actually intend that as a double entendre. But since, yeah, I'll take credit for it. That's funny. But Ariel Sharon, I believe he was an Oriental Jew. His family was from Palestine. You know, he wasn't an Ashkenazim or a Sephardim. And he, he, he, he, he, he wasn't one of these guys from Brighton Beach, you know, who moved the Jewish state after Plan D had, had genocided the, the coveted territory.

And that was comparatively rare, at least among the core of what became. the political culture the Zionist state there weren't a lot of those guys and I find that interesting Moshe Dahan I can't remember he might have had a similar background

but it's the exception you know I just find that kind of thing interesting most people would probably find that I preferful of nothing but in any event Eichman had he had more

support than people might think. You know, and again, Eichmann, the man, he didn't come out as particularly villainous. He came off as kind of nerdy and almost a caricature of the meticulous German. But, you know, he, at the same time, he didn't come off

as particularly sympathetic or charismatic either. There's a very well-renowned French attorney, Ramon, M. Ramon and Jafree. I'm probably butchering that pronunciation, but

he was a really interesting guy and he was a true advocate in the sense that is supposed to characterize the men who sit at bar as defense counsel. He defended a bunch of, There's a right-wing fascist militia in France.

That was some of these guys were on the side of the Reich. Some of them weren't. They were sort of like, their ideology was sort of like the action Francie had been under Moros, but obviously the action froncée had never a direct action capability. but these guys these guys are real bomb throwers and I mean basically they were at odds with both most of them had odds with the Reich

and the the allies obviously but some of them are you know national socialists Geoffrey came to the defense of these guys and defended many of them pro bono

and he made the case in the court of world opinion which is important point, not just in terms of the due process of his clients in the era, but as a matter of historical fact, there was no Vichy France. There was France. The government in Vichy was the government of France. Patan had mass support. De Gaulle had no support. And this idea that

the time was some client of Adolf Hitler. You want to know how many times Patan met Adolf Hitler once. And but for our purposes, I mean, there's a discussion in another day. I've written some about that, but I don't think we've ever discussed it on your platforms. But Geoffrey, that was the crux of his defense, was not, not just of these fascist partisans. and the you know prior to the prior to the

the president of the Patan government and the capitulation to Germany but the guys who served the Patan's regime you know how you can't you can't bring these guys up on charges for treason when they were serving the government of France at war that's perverse as a matter of law

and this idea that there's a man in exile in de Gaul who nobody had ever heard of, who is quite literally a client of a foreign power declaring himself to be the rightful president of France. You know, that's absurd. And Jeffrey was respected as one of the preeminent legal minds in Europe, and he'd actually sat in an advisory capacity on the Allied to control counsel during the nuremberg trials and then subsequent um his old point was there wasn't there was neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over eichmann vis is the state of israel and he said even if there was even if israel had a claim to

jurisdiction the correct way to proceed according to convention and I mean an international law can ever be compulsory because that's a logical fallacy among other things but convention is the source of legitimacy particularly we're talking about penal jeopardy where you know somebody's on trial for their life but also just in terms of due process with respect to any court's authority, you know, the correct protocol would have been to appeal to Argentina for extradition. And the Israeli rebuttal was that, well, Argentina famously refuses to extradite people. Okay, well, why is Israel have jurisdiction over the man of the subject matter anyway?

There was no Jewish state between 1933 and 1945 and a state. first of all, you can't be held liable for committing crimes against an ethnic group or a race. Even if that were possible, Israel isn't the representative of Jewish people, DeJure, for all time. And finally, venue matters. the alleged offenses were committed in Poland and Belarus in Ukraine and Russia. You know, why isn't Eichmann being hailed in court in Poland? You know, none of this is precedented. None of this can be rationalized by appeal to precedent or common sense.

You know, and finally, Jeffrey didn't emphasize this as strongly as Eichmann's counsel did, but Jeffree said, do we really want to start talking about where the acts of state doctrine ends and where a liability for homicide begins? when, you know, the Israeli state was founded quite literally in mass ethnic cleansing. And the U.S. Department of Justice has proffered the equivalent of an amicus curate on behalf of the Jerusalem court, with respect to their prosecution of Eichmann, when this is the same government that being the Israeli. States government that wage nuclear war against Japanese civilians. You know, that raises some questions that people probably don't want to address in these terms. But again, the rebuttal was

an appeal to conceptual prejudices and epistemic priors about the unique and vulnerable situation of the Jewish people and the existential threats they face based on immutable traits that they possess and irrational animosity that culminates in homicidal pogromes periodically. There's a whole series of assumptions one must accept in order to consider the Israeli case for jurisdiction over Eichmann to be legitimate but again the Eichmann trial was the litmus test of these things and that's why it's significant and arguably um in discrete terms of respect to the fortunes of the Jewish state it's absolutely more significant than the Nuremberg trials. Obviously, the former facilitated the latter,

but this is basically the appeal. This is what's being relied upon when you hear about the special status of the Jewish state or the right to exist of a Jewish state. This is what for relying upon so i i assume people who are into my content don't do things like ask questions like why does this matter because you wouldn't you wouldn't be interested in this as oteric if you add those sorts of objections to it but if anybody is on deck harbors those concerns well this is this is why it matters okay this is why it's contextually significant in very concrete capacities, not just as some sort of curiosity. And that's, you know, and that, that goes to show too.

I mean, I can't imagine. I mean, these days you, there wouldn't, you wouldn't find a man who had the kind of prestige of Jafri taking such a position, contrary the Jewish state. I mean, you'll find Europeans who, to their credit, they'll attack the Jewish state for

you know, it's racialism and its hostility to other populations and the categorical violence that avails them to. But that's that's mostly framed

as a matter of you know appeal to Nuremberg logic or the or the purported hypocrisy of the Jewish state it's really sort of a token objection I mean don't mean wrong I'm not I'm not gonna be down on people if they're standing up for our comrades in in Palestine or Iran or anywhere else but I think you know what I mean it's it's a a fundamentally different scope and character and the motivations are different. The prosecution also, they had a problem because initially what they were relying upon, they were relying upon the direct testimony of people who had been in German concentration camps.

and this testimony was contradictory relative to the factual record. Witnesses were contradicting each other. There were people testifying about things such as gas chambers at Ravensbrook or Dockow. And even then, even within the narratives that were extant and considered to be historical as well as legal precedent, it was stipulated that there weren't gas chambers at Ravensbrook and things. Obviously, too, there's the white elephant in the room. If there's a witness declaring, I was at, I was a death camp inmate, and this is what Eichmann was directing.

If you were at death camp inmate, how are you here? I mean, was this the most incompetent death camp ever? So the prosecution was charged with calling witnesses who'd served in the SS and SD, the most prominent of whom are pretty obviously intelligence assets or double agents, to testify, you know, contra Eichmann and seek to establish liability based on things like the Einstein group actions they themselves have participated in and these guys just you know

there'd been a similar they'd been a similar litany of these sorts of witnesses called to testify against Rudolph Hoyce who's the common out of Auschwitz Berkinau

and it was the same kind of thing you know I these are the most evil men who ever lived and they're liars, but you've got to trust them and relevant to this testimony. And this is honestly where a lot of these strange claims come from. The claim specifically, you know, Hitler demanded that we reduced the population of Slavs to 30 million.

Not a single person has ever said that, written that, alleged that. other than this bizarre turncote and probable double agent who testified against Eichmann and somehow despite admitting to participating in the murders of tens of thousands of people was never indicted for any of these things

you know and that this is one example to see that parroted all the time on social media or there'll be some midwit conservative saying like well you you're saying it's okay to exterminate slabs you you anti-white horrible man who says that some some guy

who's a paid witness against against Adolf Eichmann some guy who you know was on the payroll of a secret intelligence service while he was a serving

officer in the SD you know I who is saying these things and you're just you're just supposed to accept this at face value or something. It's not just boomers either. I know people might just wave up.

I'm just, that's just boomers be bullshit. No, I'm talking about like 30-year-old guys who know better. And when I challenge them on these grounds, they'll say, first they'll say him an idiot. Then they'll say, quote, everybody knows this. What does that mean? Who's everybody? And what do they know?

So the rot is deep. and in some ways, as I said, at least in the present conditions, that being, you know, life during wartime, you know, like talking head's song. I'm not making light of it, it's horrible that our Iranian comrades under assault, but they will prevail, but it's still, it's in all the situation, I'm not being flippant about it. But that's why I wanted to focus on Eichmann, because I think many people don't know this. Because why would they? I mean, I know about it because this is my, this is what I do my wife. These are my research concentrations. But I need to go another episode on this because I want to get into the case in chief against Eichmann.

And then we can return to a regular schedule of programming, if that's okay. Sure. I think one of the, the special dispensation for the Jewish people, people who's, you know, I'm, I'm no fan of Chris Christie, but I think he's like legitimately a funny guy. And no, he is. And he's also a man so fat that his last name, he'd his first name. But he, um, he tells a story about how the, the Kushner family, how he became the enemy of

the Kushner family and it kept him out of the Trump administration. And right. The thing in that story that I just, I will never forget, I'll take to the grave, is when he's, Jared Kushner telling Chris Christie that these charges you had brought up on my father, they shouldn't have been handled legally. You should have brought them to the rabbis. Yeah, that's absurd. It's election fraud. Yeah. Yeah, you're not talking about, you're not, you're talking about some minor tax issue or something. Yeah.

Election fraud. There was a tax issue. Extortion. I mean, no, I, that's what I mean, like real criminality. It wasn't just, you know, cooking the books a little bit. Like, unfortunately, it's kind of the norm, you know. Yeah. Yeah, I kind of, if people, you know, taxation and stuff like that, I have a tendency to be like,

is it really a crime? But, you know, these other things that are just, just, when you hear the whole story of what Kushner did, it's pretty fucking diabolical. And they want this, they want this. Yeah. Yeah. And you're just supposed to overlook it like what, you know, like, you know, like I said in the Jeffrey Epstein files, you know, the, let the goyam live in the real world. Yeah.

Exactly. Well, no. That's why I like that film people I know with Al Pacino. You know, Robert Redford directed it. and it is actually a really subversive movie. It made a lot of people mad. It got very limited distribution, but I remember when it came out.

Like Pacino would start as The Merchant of Venice around the same time. Pacino was awesome, unlike faggot retardo Robert De Niro. Like, Pacino actually is an amazing actor, but he played Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. You know, there's kind of a mini Shakespeare revival in the very early 2000s, as I'm sure you remember. So, Pacino was like cartilage heat for, you know, making all these anti-Semitic movies.

But, yeah, I highly recommend people I know. It's a slow burn, but it's really compelling. And, you know, that was just after, there was months after 9-11. and people who are asking difficult questions to be delicate about it. We're absolutely being drowned out in this kind of sea of war fever and outrage and mourning. But there were fractures appearing in the facade. Let me put it badly. All righty.

So we'll get a part two ready for this. And I will remind everybody, go to Thomas's work, go to a substack. Thomas and I have started streaming every Thursday afternoon at 1 o'clock. Yeah, man. 1 o'clock central, the real time zone. Yeah, like getting that show notes if you would. Yeah, I will. And go to Thomas's substack, real Thomas 777.com.

And at Thomas 777.com, the T is a. seven and you can connect to him there and um yeah find him on sub stack's probably the best way to get in touch with him yeah i mean yeah thank you buddy all right thanks thomas appreciate it