The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1355: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann - Pt. 3 - The Finale - w/ Thomas777

Episode Date: April 12, 2026

60 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas concludes 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.

Royal London Ireland, award winning, year after year, after year, after year. For the fourth consecutive year, Royal London, Ireland has won the overall financial services excellence award by Brokers Ireland. Because real excellence isn't a one-off. It's something you deliver again and again. When it comes to life insurance and pension products, choose a provider you can trust. talk to a financial broker or visit royal london dot i.e forward slash fine broker. Royal London Insurance Act Trading is Royal London, Ireland is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. If you want to get the show early and ad free, head on over to thepec Kenyonez Show.com.

I'm going to say this slow because I know a lot of you are doing this at one and a half speed or two times speed. if you want an RSS feed. It is only available if you subscribe through Substack or Patreon. You will get the audio file if you subscribe through my website, Subscribe Star, or Gumroad. And the links are all there at the Piquinoes Show.com. I just want to give thanks, continued thanks, to all of you who support me and allow me to do this

and be able to put out the amount of content I can do and hopefully the kind of quality that keeps you coming back. So I'm only able to do this because of you. So head on over to the Pekinguena Show.com and you will get the episodes early and ad free. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekina Show. Thomas is back and we're going to talk more about the Eichmann trial.

How are you doing today, Thomas? I'm doing well. Did you have a pleasant? than Easter. Yeah, it was restful. Yeah, we just hung out. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, I like Easter a lot.

I mean, it's obviously an auspicious day, but especially here, you know, it really is when spring announces itself and things come back to life. So you really get a sense of its significance. I think I mentioned earlier, obviously, the seminal treatment. other than the various documentaries that have been made because the proceedings against Eichmann were filmed, you know, pretty much in their entirety. And Simon Wiesenthal launched his career, essentially, by insisting that he was involved in all these intrigues to capture Eichmann, which was a total lie. Simon Wiesenthal was a career liar. People who want to insist that I'm just suggesting that slanderously owing to partisan sympathies, I can produce all the receipts for the man's decades of lying.

You know, that's one of the reasons why he's not much mentioned anymore, even by arts Zionists and apologists for the ex post facto regime of penal jeopardy that hailed these people into court. in the case of Eichmann quite literally kidnapped them. But Hannah Ernst Eichmann in Jerusalem is really the semi-economic treatment of it. It's not nearly as good as her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. It takes quite a bit more of a conciliatory posture towards the Zionists

than a lot of her other work product did. I don't think that owes just to her confess. professional heritage or ethnocacterian heritage because that doesn't seem to color most of other work product it was very much unthinkable to openly defend Eichmann but reading between the lines the the the secondary title of the book is the banality of evil which is very overwrought but again reading between the lines this idea that Eichmann, who was really kind of a mediocre personage, he was a police

bureaucrat. The idea that this man was the sort of shadow executive of the Third Reich, or at least of the internal security apparatus, is really laughable. And Eichmann wasn't stupid, but he was just

average in every sense. And he he ended up in the SD because he admittedly didn't think that he was particularly well cut out for military conventional military service he confused the security service which was the SD Securits deinst

he confused that for what was the personal security detail of the furor and other personages within the executive chain of command of the party. You know, so when he volunteered for this kind of duty, you know, he essentially thought he'd be a police bodyguard to these high-profile personages. Instead, he ended up working as a cop and writing reports on what Freemasons were doing.

But he didn't really understand national socialism beyond a very functional sort of bureaucrats aspect of it. And he wasn't an old fighter. So this idea that a man who had no connection to the years of struggle and who deliberately sought out a bureaucratic posting, you know, after he failed to realize his ambition of, you know, being assigned a glamorous detail outside of the Vermeacht. You know, the idea that this man was somehow pulling the strings of this regime is especially ridiculous.

And something I'll get into a lot of this mythology that's deliberately promulgated by people for either cynical reasons or out of ignorance. this idea that the Reich government or aspects of the Schuchstaffel and specifically the SD were allied with Zionism. Really, that comes in the fact that Eichmann's testimony and the testimony of others substantiates this. Eichmann was enamored with Zionism because he didn't really understand national socialism. He didn't really understand Zionism. He was, I believe he attended Theodor Herzl's funeral. I say that because there's conflicting reports,

but he held a lot of these Zionist intellectuals in high esteem. He sought them out after he developed a rudimentary fluency in Hebrew and Yiddish. He was just out of the loop. And for the people who are going to come up with these anecdotal examples in rebuttal of officers within the SD chain of command. and quite literally ransoming Jews to some of these Zionist personages and allowing them to emigrate to Palestine that really derived more from personal corruption than anything else. You know, when these neocons or these Chetnik types insist that the Third Reich was allied with Darl Islam, that actually is true.

And we've gotten into that in prior series. the furor did not have this notion that, well, let's hand Palestine and the Levant, which held profound Jewish strategic significance. Let's hand this over to this organized hyper-militaristic Jewish cadre, then let them curate military and political power at international law. and exploit and dominate our Arab allies and, you know, kick the Europeans out of the Near East. That's ridiculous. You know, the Madagascar plan, which really had legs until 1943, because the year 92 changed everything in terms of political and

military developments, I mean. But the reason why the Madagascar plan was the favored solution is because it was intended to become basically this island, this giant island ghetto, whereby European

jury was going to be locked behind this proverbial and in some ways, in some capacity, this literal wall like they were when you know they were captivated

by the umyads you know like that was the intention the intention wasn't I mean let's let's be honest here like people the way national socialists

viewed the Jewish diaspora they didn't view them as undesirable immigrants or something they viewed them as this incredibly dangerous political actor that to utilize the biological metaphors that people of the era favored were like this virulent bacchalist that it attached itself to the Indo-European cultural organism

and was murdering it from within you know this idea of oh the problem with Jews is they're like Mexican and there's too many of them here, or whatever these symbols think, that has no bearing on reality, or the conceptual aspects of the political controversy. So, you know, in the fact, Eichmann was so out of the loop, that's why he actually thought that the Zionist enterprise was somehow viable from the respect of a national socialism,

in terms of policy or in terms of, you know, broader ethics, which is why, too, you know, Eichmann's testimony where he obviously, Arendt gives credibility to this perspective, this idea that, oh, Eichmann was feigning ignorance because he was just lying. No, he wasn't. Eichmann was not in the loop. so even these large-scale actions involving annihilation therapy and the categorical killing of Jews,

why would Eichmann be privy to that? You know, that's not the way military and police chains of command work. And also, he didn't have the respect or the cloud of the authority or the personal connections to be advised of these things in operational terms so as to curate a truly complete conceptual picture. So, I mean, that's the thing to keep in mind, too, is that Eichmann just wasn't. that bright, you know, and he, he wasn't this supreme evil, you know, that was ironically,

you know, characterized by the banality of a bureaucrat. He was what he appeared to be, you know, and in the absence of an Adolf Hitler or a Gering, or even a cloud, or even a clout Barbie to burn an effigy and send to the gallows so as to reinvigorate the Jewish case for martyrdom in the court of global public opinion, you know, Eichmann would do. And he was who was available.

You know, it's, um, and that's really what characterized, I mean, obviously this was the most high profile and the most sort of spectacular and dramatic and flagrantly criminal, you know, the kidnapping of the man from Argentina, but there just, there weren't a lot of

there weren't a lot of potential defendants available anymore for these prospective show trials. That's why around the time he was murdered, you know, he went down fighting. Yakin Piper, he was one of the few high-profileged.

file uh vafn s uh commanders alive and when ikeman was shanghai auntie pavillich was uh i think pavlitz was murdered in 59 59 or 60 he was shot by this

chetnik partisan and uh but then he he lingered on in poor health for a year or two and then he died but i mean he gone um the major war criminals had all been hanged at nuremberg that men's so designated the the leibstrandert boys had been for all practical purposes manumitted although not clemency because the berlin crisis meant it you know it wasn't feasible to pursue that penal strategy against

against uh germans with combat experience so obviously we're going to form the core of the the the the the bundesvre you know ikeman was who was around and when he ended up on the cover of life magazine because uh sassen had uh sold this sensational story of this man as you know this sort of demonic figure the fix was in and

you know tag you're it with Eichmann being it you know and I the fact of the matter too is

I don't think that there was that deep understanding of Eichmann's psyche before he was availed the custodial arrest, but the sort of lack of

any real impact outside of this fantasy narrative presented by Life magazine and things, it stands the reason that these Israelis who back then were pretty adept at propaganda. It wasn't like today.

You know, they knew that they knew that Eichmann wasn't going to embarrass any, wasn't going to embarrass the court like Gering did. You know, Eichmann was kind of out of his depth, uh, categorically, whatever courtroom he was going to end up in, you know,

and, uh, particularly, uh, you know, Eichman, Ikeman knew he was going to the gallows and yet he, he still complimented the Israeli court for being comparatively fair vis-a-vis the,

uh, the Nuremberg proceedings on the, Zakao proceedings. He wasn't being ironic. I think Eichmann really was that much of a dummy, but also it I think the Israelis were a bit more slick and how they presented things. Eichmann's lawyer

who was Robert Servatius of Cologne. He really was kind of the mouthpiece that Eichmann needed, but he had a fool for a client. You know, and

he proffered his zealous defense, even considering the absence of meaningful due process. You know, and he, he stated in open court that Eichmann was going to go to the gallows for things that, you know, the IDF and the U.S. Army penned medals on people for if, you know, they were serving in their respective ranks. you know ikeman

ikeman served a government that lost a war that was characterized as a moral crusade by america and and world jewelry and this is why you know my client is here which are balls especially in

um you know literally standing in uh a courtroom in downtown jerusalem the uh Servatius has wanted the crux of his defense and had Eichmann been more cooperative or had a better understanding of nuance. The way Servatius tried to present the defense nonetheless was that under the existing German legal system, Eichmann had done nothing wrong. You can't charge individual.

men with acts of state and assign a discreet culpability and sainter therein. That's problematic even if you're talking about a sitting executive. It's preposterous if you're talking about a mid-level subordinate like Eichmann, who is under a duty to obey at time of war. you know um because that there's no precedent for that and even though ikeman wasn't uh serving in the vermont he was serving in a critical military role you know in the service of the internal security apparatus whether anybody accepts as legitimate or not what the government was serving identified as critical and existential national security

interest doesn't matter. The ex-state doctrine doesn't hinge on some appeal to, you know, universal reason as to what is necessary and proper in times of war. You know, by definition, these things are going to be governed by self-interested and ontological. factors that, you know, are historically contingent and related things that are subjectively imperative and only subjectively imperative. You know, relating to identity and belief structure and way of life and culture and custom and things like that. You know, so in other words, too, if, uh,

Eichmann was the only one charged. He's the only defendant who was charged in this way. Two, regardless of the, I mean, the Nuremberg indictments were preposterous, but they were very clear that they were alleging that a criminal conspiracy existed within the Reich leadership, and the men so hailed into court and named of the indictment constituted the control group of the Third Reich, okay? And it came to something like the Docow trials, The claim was that Sep Dietrich, through Piper, had committed pretty straightforward war crimes.

Specifically, the massacre of American POWs at Malmody, the execution of French hostages, and the deliberate targeting of civilians, and that the men under Piper's direct command, Piper being subordinate to Seb Diedrich and Comcroft Piper were aware of the illegality of these orders and carried them out anyway. This claim that, in contrast, Eichmann was some sort of shadow authority within the Third Reich who devised and sought the implementation of a murder conspiracy of Gloucels. proportions, hatched at Vancey, and that acts and omissions that otherwise would be acts of state, he is personally liable for, as a matter of law, owing to the role that he served as an executor of the aforementioned conspiracy, that makes very little sense, even within the sort of perverse logic of what came before. And this was problematic.

And that's one of the reasons I was always attracted to this case. I studied it a lot in law school. And I had this evidence, I'd want to drop personal anecdotes that we'll bore people. My evidence professor was this guy

named Ralph Rudner. He was this orthodox Jew. And he had mixed feelings about me because that was one of the few A's. I got in law school. I did well in that class. And we'd engage each other a lot on various subject matter because he was an appeals guy too, and as this were my interestly. And he was gasey's appellate lawyer among other things.

And he and I would talk about the Eichmann trial a lot. And it, I mean, I was, obviously, I was, I was well aware of it before then. You know, I, I was in my early 20s in law school, and I, my research interest and my political fascinations were already pretty set by then. But I didn't understand the, finer points of procedural nuance and things. But I went to a weird, like, fourth-tier toilet law school because I got a full ride there.

But also, you know, I did, the law library that John Marshall shared with the CBA, it was like the Chicago Bar Association of Library as well. So he had really good resources. and it wasn't even until my second year that we got LexisNexis and Westlaw and stuff. So you were still looking stuff up and these giant, like reference books, to find like a squib as to what your case authority was. But they also had a lot of historical materials and things.

And so I spent an enormous amount of time deep diving into the Eichmann trial. and I wrote a paper on it for this international law elective that I took. And thankfully, it's anonymous grading in law school. Otherwise, I probably would harm my grade because the teacher was like a DEI hire. In any event, forgive that little anecdotal tangent. Eichmann, as I said, Eichmann sort of sabotaged his own defense unintentionally by not abiding that theory of the defense. And even if there, even if one isn't deprived of due process in a criminal proceeding that constructively amounts to war crimes, you're basically, you're carrying a, you're carrying a, you're carrying an affirmative burden in part, even if that's not formally what is

precedented or declared. It doesn't matter of law or precedent because you're always putting on something of an affirmative defense. You know, and they're de facto, there's a shift of the elementary burden. But, like him, his own attitude was that he couldn't be indicted for murder because he had he had nothing to do with murdering anybody, you know, Jewish or otherwise. Or he'd never killed any human being even in military combat because Eichmann never served in M. Inset's.

You know, so the proceedings became bogged down with pouring over the sassin documents, which were purported to be an admission by party opponent. and thus admissible traditionally. So the prosecution was endlessly reading these statements, these learned statements that Sassen attributed to Eichmann. I mean, stuff that just on his face is incredible. Like, you know, I can happily jump into the grave, knowing I murdered 5 million K words, you know, like stuff that nobody would actually say,

you know. And then in more substantive terms, it became a matter of the Israeli prosecutors digging out endless memorandum and battle space sit reps about the security situation, you know, and the seizing of hostages and decimation and retaliation for partisan attacks. and I mean to connect a direct order to kill Jewish civilians that emanated from the proverbial desk of Eichmann. What they came up with, they can't remember if I mentioned this in the past, a man in the staff of the foreign office named Franz Radamacher. Franz Radamacher was something of an unofficial liaison. to the SD and the foreign ministry

because he had knowledge of Yiddish and he was something of a regional expert on the Balkans and so his work product is scribbled in the margins

of a lot of internal documents relating to the situation in Yugoslavia. You know, the Bosnia and Bosnia Herzegovina and occupied Serbia, essentially, you know, because the NDH was a sovereign state. There was a note, one of these such notes,

penned by Radamacher, refers to an oral order by telephone, and it essentially reads, paraphrasing, quote, Eichmann proposes shooting with respect to suspected partisan, activity, the prosecution claim that, well, the subject matter here is that Jewish hostages are to be taken

and in event of a partisan or Chetnik attack Serbian hostages or Jewish hostages respectively are to be murdered. And, you know, this was by order of Eichmann. The problem

was the incident in question, or at least the statement by Radamacher, it took place in the autumn of 1941, as Barbarossa was well underway, and German victory appeared to be at hand. But the Serbian part of the former Yugoslavia have been occupied for a good six months already,

and the army, the here, was dealing with a very severe situation relating to parts and activity and asymmetrical warfare, and this endured throughout the duration of hostilities until 1945. It's really fascinating because it was like a very different war than the Ust Front or what ensued you know, after the, in the final war when the, when France and the German Reich itself became a battlefront. But, you know, it wasn't, Ikeman had nothing to do with,

the German army's chain of command. He had absolutely no say in how they were to proceed or would proceed with respect to these, you know, constabulary security matters and responding to partisan attacks and, you know, and occupied, in territories they're occupying with hostility. if Eichmann had deigned to tell some Vermacht Genaal or Feldmarshal how to do things, he would have been left at. But that wouldn't even occur to him. You know, so it was, it was a bizarre sort of reach.

You know what I mean? I don't find out of believe that Eichmann was suggesting the categorical destruction of some population. or some hostage group or category. But this idea that Eichmann, who basically was a police lieutenant colonel, he's not only organizing and plotting the Holocaust, he's seeing that it be implemented. He's, you know, some kind of savant who's plotting movements of, you know,

millions of people, you know, arranging how they're going to be sent to their death. He's calculating the numbers in his head. He's coming with quotas. When he's not doing that, he's giving order to the German army. He's micromanaging the anti-partisan effort in Yugoslavia. You know, is this guy Superman or super Nazi? You know, it's ridiculous. You know, and also something, even most of these Vad Vashem types and the like acknowledge,

including Raul Hilberg who Eichmann's defense team had the good sense to introduce

statements from his writings he wrote the book The Destruction of the European Jews which along with

it's slightly more intellectually rigorous than the crap put out by Shire but it's in the same vein

it's not a really credible book but by the metrics of Hilberg and of the Jerusalem court and what was being alleged, even Hillberg acknowledged in the former Yugoslavia in occupied Serbia and Bosnia, the people who were hit the

most hard were ethnic Serbs. You know, this idea that Eichmann was sussing out racial Jews under the Nuremberg laws for annihilation and of all places Serbia that's very much reaching. You know, that that just wasn't really that wasn't really characteristic.

I mean, don't get me wrong. Excuse me. There were ethnic Jewish partisans in Serbia who were actively engaged against the Vermont and the

SSSD security element and there were instances in Agavik from Yugoslavia of decimation and the killing of hostages and I'm sure there's multiple instances of

the people in question being so categorized owing the Jewish race but it it's just like a bizarre exemplar of a supposed evidentiary exemplar of

of Eichmann's bad conduct towards the Jewish race, if you follow what I mean. So that the testimony and the arguments over evidentiary minutia became very bogged down with this kind of

stuff. You know, like I said, Eichmann didn't, do himself any favors in this regard. And such that there were concentration camps, not including Yacinovatch, which was administered by the NDH and the

Ustushusha and was, that warrants its own discussion. And I don't want to court controversy with a ten general discussion of that right now. Such that there were camps that housed Jewish and Chetnik partisans in occupied Bosnia and Serbia. They've been set up by the military governor of the region, who's a Verma Ginnahal named Franz Bonn.

And these were male-only camps, and they exclusively housed the Jewish and Serbian males who had been accused of partisan activity or sympathy, you know, and again, if Franz Bonn, who really had the power of, you know, pilot in as the, you know, the governor general of occupied Serbia and Bosnia, like the idea that, he'd have to seek out a policeman of lesser rank and ask his permission before he shot people in the camps he set up as laughable. In fact, Bon or Baum ran into trouble because he took initiative to deport large numbers of people without. consulting other commands, equivalent commands, so engaged in theater. You know, he, he proceeded, I mean, not only was he not obligated to consult with the SD or Eichmann before he did anything, not only did he substantially outrank Eichmann anyway,

but he, he acted as a lawn to himself as he saw fit, as military governors often do, when they're dealing with these kinds of occupations whereby ongoing hostilities are the reality. You know, so it was a particularly, it was a particularly foolish example or attempt to impeach Eichman's credibility or to introduce inculpatory evidence, while at the same time rebutting, you know,

was assertion that he never issued a murder order. But it goes to show you that there really was nothing to this case in chief other than a sensationalist article and a lot of conjecture. And plus, too, I don't want to sound like I'm playing piggy Clinton lawyer ball, but in translation, what the note indicated emergent from the foreign office liaison, what it said was that Eichmann, quote, proposed shooting. I mean, that's, that that doesn't sound like an order to me. So, you know, and if, if the theory of the case is,

this man had Supreme Command Authority, not just that he was party to a insho conspiracy that doesn't rise to the level of satisfying the elements as a matter of law or as a matter of common sense.

But, you know, we don't even need to get that far because this was an army affair and this is relevant to, not just for obvious reasons, of culpability, but at this time, in part owing to reasons of politics, and part owing to reasons of appearances, and in part owing to maintaining the internal logic of what was claimed at Nuremberg, and subsequently, the prosecuting authorities had very deliberately distinguished between

the Vermat and the party and the security apparatus that served the party in the form of the shootstaffel so now

now being the then present where Eichmann was defending himself under well under a penal jeopardy in um jerusalem and the the prosecuting authorities are essentially claiming that

there was no such distinction you know the there there was no discreet command structure you know there there was there was no categorically discreet domains of authority relating to this final solution which at the effect of categorically implicating the party apparatus and its security apparatus, while largely exonerating purely military chains of command and the men who were so availed to those authorities. So on its face, it's contradictory. you know and uh franz rockamaker who again he was the he was the right foreign ministry liaison in the balkans he was regularly subordinate to the chief diplomat in theater martin luther who in turn was

regularly subordinate to yacquem von ribbentrop who was you know executed at nuremberg but he was a civilian you know so i mean that further confuses things too because not now you're implicating uh you know a civilian chain of command into the into the army and then saying that um ikeman somehow had authority over both it it doesn't make logical sense um rata macher was later tried uh in the Bundes Republic. And it was a strange convergence of factors that led him to court. His testimony was that, regardless of what was said

or wasn't said, because some of the same testimony was introduced at his trial, you know, he said, quote, the army was responsible for order in Serbia and had the authority to kill or not kill rebellious Jews by shooting, which is entirely plausible. And the Bundes Republic court, I don't have the record in front of me, but I did read it thoroughly. I could not find a substantive objection to what was alleged therein.

You know, no state prosecutor swooped in and said, you know, weren't you subordinate to Eichmann, and both you and the army were in turn subordinate to the SD and nothing like that. This claim starts and dies in Jerusalem. You know, and again, I realize at criminal law, the only, there's no true race judicata or collateral estoppel. Like the only race judicata is the double jeopardy prohibition, at least in our system. but that I'm talking about the historical record. I'm not talking about what arguably can slide by in a court of law,

owing the, you know, the odd nuances that control in terms of precedent, you know, and that imbues it with an independent significance of historical and factual nature. I hope I'm not boring everybody to death, but this is important here. It's not, it's not, you know, like when, when autists, you know, play, you know, play, uh, ridiculous games with, you know, the chemical composition of the, of the masonry of Birkenau or something. You know, this stuff matters because they're supposed to accept that, you know, what the proceedings like moves available to represent good law that's, you know, well-precedented within the relevant body jurisprudence and it's anything but. um you know and that which this does not beg the question would ikeman have pled guilty if he'd been indicted as a mere accessory to homicide but then again i that that would have been that would have been a totally different set of circumstances being alleged and presumably he wouldn't have been facing the gallows.

You know, and Eichmann to his credit and there's an earnestness sometimes the stupidity. You know, Eichmann was testifying, as I said, in the outset of this conversation of the truth as he perceived it. And I, you know, you can't extricate the claim of like when representing a supreme command authority within an unprecedented, literally global conspiracy of murder, from the fact of him being availed to this kind of jeopardy at all. You know, and that's what removes it from a question of mere jurisprudence and whether or not due process was honored and all these implications. You know, you're, you're talking about among other things, aside from the basic injustice and peculiar essence of these proceedings and those that came before it, you know, you're, you're talking about what amounts to people making an outlandish and at-based theological claim about history and then insisting that this is some sort of race.

rational process being applied to ensure that man's justice has realized based upon appeal to what they're insisting is a factual record. Meanwhile, they bandy crazy Judaic concepts about burnt offerings and, you know, unprecedented evils and conspiracies of world domination, it's oddly incoherent. It'd be like, I don't even know what it would be like. Could you just call it myth-making?

Yeah, but it's even more strange because myth-making happens all the time and people don't pretend that, you know, it's happening within the context of some logical court proceeding. you know, I mean, the law is strange anyway, and particularly the reverence assigned to it, particularly by Jews. But it, it'd be almost, it'd be like a guy, like, writing, like, some, some, like, romantic poem to a math problem or something. You know, it's, it's, it's a collision of methods and, uh, framing device, conceptual framing devices that are totally at odds with, the essence and purpose of what is underway, you know, in, in terms of subject matter and,

and, um, the alleged intention of, uh, those convening the proceedings in the first place. And, um, there's, there's something oddly oriental about it, too. Um, the, uh, the testimony the theater mounds was presented in absentia he was the minister of education and culture in vivaria and he wrote uh extensively on questions of law and ethics and people's duty of obedience and the burdens of command and things like this and he famously stated quote the command of the fur is the absolute center of the present legal order, which people then and now hold out and hold similar sentiments out as examples of the bestial and authoritarian nature of, you know, these, the Prussian Martinette or his Bavarian or Austrian counterparts.

When in reality, I mean, that's in, I mean, you can say that, and be absolutely correct that the command of Abraham Lincoln was the absolute center of the present legal order of circa 1863 in the United States. But, you know, this, the idea that Eichmann within that paradigm

had some affirmative duty to behave differently or to deliberately strike a posture of insubordination is somewhat absurd. I mean, even if, you know, supposing for a second, you know, we take leave of reason and accept that

Adolf Hitler was this homicidal maniac who lived only to launch a world conspiracy of murder against jury. You know, like, even if I were to lobotomize myself and become enamored with fantasies of Jewish martyrdom.

It, the, what was just described as constituting the essence of the sovereign legal order during the warriors that's indisputable. And this is just otherwise is simply not credible. I'm pretty clear to assign such an affirmative duty to somebody like Eichmann,

who, as we acknowledged in terms of rank in terms of domain and responsibility in terms of the office that he served really was something of a really was something of a of a not just not in eminence but really was something of a non-entity within that system but that's about all I got for the unfortunate Edolph Eichmann. Cool. Well, that was, um,

this was the episode that I think that I got more out of than anything, so. No, it makes me happy. And we can we can talk about Eichmann more on the on the stream this week. If the subs want to talk about it. I want to, excuse me,

I'm sorry I keep coughing. I'm feeling like 200% better, but I have some respiratory stuff is still working. It's all out, you know, so I hope it wasn't too annoying or bothersome. Fewer the subs. But for the stream this week, I want to talk a little bit about this cadre. I'm trying to build, you know, I'm trying to create a, among other things, a home for guys who are very dedicated partisans, but maybe don't fit into the OGC model or some of

these other fraternal organizations who are doing guys. work. I love the OGC. They're my best friends. But it's not the right fit for everybody. And some of the guys who need a place the verbal table within the new resistance

requires some sort of formal structured representation. I believe. And I'm trying to get that off the ground now that I'm feeling well. And people are asking questions about sort of where we are in existential terms. So we'll talk a lot about that. You know, that's cool. But, yeah. Oh, I mean, I wouldn't, if I were you, I wouldn't want anything to do with OGC.

I've been told by people on the internet, anonymous people on the internet, that the OGC is run by American Jewry. So. That's awesome. All right. Go find Thomas on Substack. That's where he hangs out and posts mostly. That is real Thomas 777.substack.com. You can go to his website, Thomas 777.com.

The T is a 7. And we'll be back on the live stream on Thursday. And we'll be back with another episode. I think we have another series we need to finish. And then I'm Paul Potts and Democratic Camp, too. And then I recommended a subject for you. next that I think the subs will be really excited about. Yeah, no, and it's important because it relates to some of the other stuff I just raised.

Yeah, no, that's great, man. Yeah, well, we'll get right into that stuff too. And yeah, thanks again for hosting me. And again, I want to read up my gratitude to everybody for being patient when I was ill this past month. So I'm trying to put out as much quality content as possible. So be grateful to Pete and burden and the other guys for revealing platforms to me because that's a huge help. Oh, thank you, Thomas. Talk to you later.