The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1428: Reading 'The Nuremberg System' w/ Thomas777 - Part 4

Episode Date: September 29, 2026

60 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Pete reads while Thomas comments on his new book, "The Nuremberg System: Conceptual Bases of World Order from 1933 to Present."The Nuremberg System: Conceptual Bases of World Order from 1933 to PresentRadio 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.

With election time approaching, political ads will be inserted into the episode along with other ads that, frankly, I'm not going to like and you aren't going to like. So please ignore them, skip by them, whatever you have to do. I don't endorse any of the ads that are inserted, but it is another way for me to generate income. So I appreciate you guys putting up with them. If you don't want to deal with them, go to the Picanuenae Show.com. can subscribe through Patreon. You can subscribe through Substack, which is my preferred one. Because with both of those, you get an RSS feed, only Patreon and only Substack give you an RSS feed. There's also a link to my website, Gumroad, and SubscribeStar, where you will get the audio

files that you can download and listen to, or you can stream in most cases through those locations as well. So if you want to avoid the ads, consider supporting the show. If not, just know none of these ads get any endorsement from me. Skip by them. Do what you need to do. I appreciate all of you. Head on over to the Pekignona Show.com. You can get the show early and ad free over there.

If not, here's a show. I want to welcome everyone back to the Picanuano show. Thomas, how are you doing today? I'm doing well. Thanks for hosting me. Of course, of course. We are going to continue the reading of your book, the Nuremberg system.

And let's just jump right in unless you had any announcements or anything you wanted to say. No, that's fine. Okay, cool. All right, picking up where we left off last time. This is in the chapter titled Europe Nomoosin civilization. And here we go. to understand how such perverse circumstances came to pass, and more importantly, why, and to develop a meaningful understanding of the political architecture of the globe since American victory over the Warsaw Pact on November 9,

1989, and why this represents an unmitigated disaster not only for the white race and Western civilization, but all peoples of the world availed to American and Zionist tyranny. We must thoroughly examine the establishing event whereby the sovereign jurisdiction over not merely politics among nations, but over all the affairs of mankind, secular and theological, was unilaterally invoked by Concord of American and Soviet radicals in the ruined city of Nuremberg, Germany in the year 1946. Nuremberg is an ancient city, its first mention arriving in 1050 AD, wherein it is described as a Rijksburg built on the Order of the Holy Roman Empire.

Situated initially owing to potential strategic significance resting between the Franks and the Bavarian Nordga. Nordgo. Nuremberg grew exponentially over the following five centuries due to its location along central east-west trade routes, a notable interdependence developing between it, and the German-speaking Austrian commercial centers to the east. In centuries subsequent, the city of Nuremberg endured all the traumatic upheavals wrought by the Protestant Reformation, the 30 years war in the conflict's long aftermath, ultimately becoming a late-blooming hub of Baroque aesthetic tendencies and high culture. The peculiar irony of Nuremberg, having been the cultural symbolic, if not truly sovereign seat of the Holy Roman Empire,

subsequently becoming synonymous with Protestant resistance to the Catholic League, and ultimately attempting to enter into the formal union with the kingdom of Prussia, progenitor of Culture Kampf, was not lost on Adolf Hitler. We've discussed this before. Like, this was the fight to be, the fight was to become a world power. And that's what we seem to be, that's what it basically the Nuremberg proceedings is to make it illegal for anybody

except the accepted um the accepted peoples to push for world power is that correct yeah that's why it declared that warfare as a policy instrument was criminal and was the and originated from criminal conspiracies that's why it's goofy i mean i mean Hegseth is a fucking idiots. But it was very deliberate to recast the Department of War as the Department of Defense. And it's not because we're all liberal pussies. It's because the notion is that warfare is quite literally illegal and unless it's the United States or Israel perpetuating it for defensive and police purposes. You know, that's very, that's not accidental. And it doesn't derive from some peaconic notion of war being bad or something. And like anybody who

thinks that is a moron. You know, it would make no sense for the architects of the Nuremberg regime and for America according to who, you know, the control group of which is the only legitimate arbiter of hard power. It would make no sense for America to declare, oh, no, that war is a legitimate policy instrument. So now this is the Department of War. Like, somebody seems like I'm being pedantic, but it's uniquely moronic that that's,

that, like, guys like Hegsteth have this great. gross misunderstanding of that nuance. But yeah, that's always been something that's sort of been a fixation of these progressive global. It's this idea that warfare doesn't arrive like the seasons, life doesn't

struggle against life, that there's not intrinsic conflict to within power political affairs, this idea that you can simply abolish warfare as some sort of criminal enterprise and through a combination of social engineering and the threat of punitive violence. When you mentioned American and Soviet radicals,

who particularly are you pointing to in that? Well, there's a bunch of the Soviet judges who were impaneled were a bunch of these guys with the vanguard who presided over Shochers. trials and condemned mass numbers of people to death for what amount of the ideological crimes. You know, these weren't, these people weren't selected for no reason. You know, I mean, Justice Jackson was something of a mediocrity. You know, and again, he, he had reservations, I think going more to a sort of naive provincialism than any deeply thought out ethical understanding of the world's situation.

but I mean anybody who would deign to devise, we're going to declare ourselves the arbiter of some absolute planetary morality, and we're going to put on trial or enemies as if we're as if we're God. I mean, that's insane. Anybody would unironically insinuate themselves into that role is either entirely delusional or they're, or they're drunk on hubris owing the, you know, a commitment to an ideological schema that would seem preposterous where its proponents not in a position to impose it upon everybody else at planetary scale by virtue of their willingness to resort to limitless violence in the service of those principles. That's what I meant.

The praxis speaks for itself. So you mentioned Nuremberg and you mentioned the history of Nuremberg. And we know that Nagasaki in Japan was the center of Catholicism. And a lot of people think that that's one of the reasons why it may have been targeted. Do you think there was deliberately they went to Nuremberg in order to do this? Well, yeah, but it wasn't for a sectarian reason. and it's because it had the particular significance to the national socialist struggle. Other than Nuremberg was a national socialist heartland,

other than outside of Munich. You know, that's why. Okay. Moving on. The fewer embodied the European conceptual horizon vis-à-vis the power political affairs and in particular the new era of Gross-Trump politic more than, any other man. It is impossible to truly unpack and decipher the intentions, ambitions, and ultimate contextual meaning of the Nuremberg world system without a deep understanding of

Adolf Hitler. In particular, his status is a fundamentally historical figure who embodied the zeitgeist of his epoch in a way that is rare in all times, but virtually unheard of in the modern era. Concommonately, the total destruction, occupation, and social engineering regime, which continues in earnest to the present day of the German Reich and its European and Asian allies was the catalyst for an effort to criminalize warfare. Thus so, the reasoning was to deprive ambitious, bad actors of the means to utilize warfare as an instrument of national policy to facilitate power political objectives. Such a prosaic and frankly conspiratorial view of warfare and its ultimate causes is, of course, ontologically flawed in the most basic capacities,

but that did not preclude a victorious United States and Soviet Union from devising the foundational basis of a new order. And that is precisely what was accomplished by the respective delegations at Nuremberg, who presided over the trials of major war criminals. What is remarkable is that the aforementioned imperative, most significantly the scope and scale of the constituent aspects and conditions precedent required to implement, meant the ideological program in a sufficiently thorough capacity was realized so completely in the brief period after the death of President Roosevelt and prior to the final collapse of the U.S. Soviet Concord.

The same Concord that had facilitated the anti-fascist crusade against the German Reich, and consequently the total destruction and subjugation of the European continent, barely endured beyond the final adjournment of the trial of major war criminals that was rapidly convened amidst the literal rubble of the ancient city of Nuremberg, Germany. A diligent historian might suggest, and many have, albeit obliquely, that the entire Rézondetra of the Allies' war effort as conceptualized by the New Dealers, who were just as radical, ambitious, and hubristic as that of their communist allies in Moscow, and motivated by an absolute desire to subjugate and manipulate historical processes directly, could not be

said to have endured beyond the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the subsequent end of the the American Soviet Concord as a primary causal variable, nor is an adequately robust ethical rationale for the creation and implementation of the proposed compulsory juristic paradigm, global in scope in declaring a substantive law of planetary humanity derived from the practical reason and historical experience of humanity in common, and thus binding on all human beings availed to its boundless penumbra. So this will be a recurring subject, but can you explain how Adolf Hitler is an historical figure who embodied the zeitgeist of his epoch in a way that is rare in all times were virtually unheard of in the

modern era? Well, yeah, because he had more in common with 17-11 Mohammed or Oliver Cromwell than he did with a politician. That's why Russell Stoffley said he was a messianic person. It's not in the religious sense in this, in the historiographical. sense. Hitler wasn't a politician. He was somebody who had a world historical mission and circumstances selected him to lead those imperatives. And the stakes were the continued existence of European civilization or its annihilation and subjugation before historical forces that

aimed to annihilate human beings' ability to exist as historically situated organisms individually and at collective scale. I mean, that's why that's why Zionists and their American allies and lackeys. that's why Adolf Hitler is this Erzot Satan figure to them. I mean, part of it's just you know, a kind of primitive political theology. That's essentially reactive and not well thought out, but also they perceive the significance of somebody like

Adolf Hitler, contra you know, a mediocrity like Winston Churchill or a mere politician of the sort that populate, you know, common history is all in sundry of, you know, every nation and empire of the last 2,000 years. That's what I mean. I'm going to ask a question, and forgive me if any of these questions seem basic, but I think they're, yeah, I'm doing this for the people listening in the subs. When you mentioned criminalizing warfare, so who's been a, is that for?

It's the benefit of whoever is the architect of the system that isn't deigning to impose penal liability on any power political challenges. That's it. It's a power play. It's not anything else. I mean, there might be some monastic intellectuals who are naive in their sincerity or whatever. I don't know.

You can argue that either way. But it's not, there's not some, there's not some collective. benefit to stripping people of their ability to live historically, that you're robbing people of basic aspects of their humanity and their ability to come to terms with their own mortality, among other things, by imposing that kind of regime on people. Obviously, the reason for it is for reasons of power and the ability to perpetuate one's own ideological schema on others. and you know from a perspective of subjugation when you mention here humanity in common

and then the in the same sentence you mentioned planetary humanity this seems like you're the basic kind of are you talking about just this being the true birth of globalism where um everything is done under one under one law, one overarching umbrella? Well, I mean, there's some

modality of globalism was inevitable, but this idea of homogenizing people by stripping away human characteristics that allow them to perceive and participate in historical processes, that's an ideological enterprise. That's what we're talking about. There is no humanity in political terms.

That's meaningless. That doesn't exist. There's not some community of humanity that identifies a common interest and historical imperative and community based on the fact that we are all human beings that that's idiotic.

That doesn't exist. And any international law is by definition permissive, not compulsory because it's not possible if there to be a global sovereign that commands the loyalty and you know

recognition of its legitimate. intimacy by every human being on this planet. You know, that that's not, by definition, that's an absurdist fallacy. So anybody would suggest that is either an ignoramus or they have in mind a social engineering enterprise that would be able to render this possible by stripping people, again, of essential characteristics. characteristics that make them human. There's not some, that doesn't mean that there's not objective standards of good and evil and right and wrong derived from practical reason, but that's not a political question.

And politics isn't the business of, of, of, of, of, of, of a morally improving man. And even, even if it were, the, you know, randomly selected judges from the Soviet Union and apparatchiks in the New Deal regime, don't get to just declare the, and so ultimately the arbiters of universal morality. That's ridiculous. Not too big a tangent, I hope. But it does seem like what has happened to the United States and what has happened to Europe, but more so the United States that anyone can be an American.

There's no such thing as like an American heritage. That's part of the stupid on purpose sort of ideological cope also, because when it becomes clear, these poxosos can't stand up to any. of rational scrutiny. So it's sort of this dummy version of, of, of, over, over, over, welly and contrarian contrarianism, you know, declaring pretending you don't know what is meant by national citizenship or by ethnos or by some sort of historically situated identity and declaring that, that legalism has some stand-in for, you know, organic patterns of living or something.

you know i mean if you're going to if you're going to declare that everybody with the right credential belongs to this national group i mean like i said that's it's um it's it's it's dummy contrarianism in service of an ideological postulate that that has no precedent and and isn't rationally situated but yeah i mean it all it all runs together it's just got it's just gotten less and less intellectually rigorous not that it was particularly rigorous to begin with but yeah, that's part of it. All right. Continuing.

There endures a reliably critical perspective among American legal academics as well as practicing jurists that built-in restraints preclude merely judicial overreach tending towards tyranny. This is a traditional basis of the American claims of the mantle of moral leadership. Marlborough v. Madison, the decision which established for all time the extra-constitutional authority of the federal judiciary to avail itself of any, and all acts of state or legislative acts rendered by the body politic through their formal representatives to the scrutiny of a sovereign judicial apparatus is both a preemptive remedy, as was alleged by its architects and their ideological errors, contra the imperial presidency

and the tyranny of the common majority, but it is also the basis of the power of scientific veto over those imperatives that privilege historical attachments and cultural learning over substantial justice. The autological paradox on display vis-Aviz of the American claim to exclusive and absolute political sovereignty over the earth, as well as the claim that the practice of the American regime's ideological schema tends to preclude both moral corruption and unsound decision-making among the putative control element does not represent a propaganda narrative of recent vintage, nor is it a mere rationale for American exceptionalism and its claim

to an exclusive and absolute monopoly on military force. What is, in fact, on display is a claim to rarefied competence in the juristic science of substantial justice, whereby all outcomes derivative of judicial process and presumably any and all policy imperatives related to war and peace decision-making are non-rebuttable and essentially infallible. Okay, so can you give a explanation of what exactly Marbury v. Madison did when it comes to governance in the United States. Yeah, there was an availed access state

and executive decisionism therein, as well as expressly delegated legislative authority, both of which derived from you know, the consent of the body politic.

It availed all of those decisions and imperatives. The this judicial review oversight, which is not constitutionally mandated, only to this sort of progressive conceit that there's this constant danger of executive overreach or an imperial presidency or some sort of quorum of, you know, the body politic, being able to impose tyranny upon the remainder owing to, you know, the fact of the quorum they're able to accomplish.

And within the progressive mindset, something that features very prominently is this idea that the law is some sort of science of morality that's basically infallible with the jurist presiding over this analytical process that ultimately leads to, Dick Tots from the judicial bench you know is somehow infallible if the correct metrics and factors are included and the proper methodology is

implemented. That's why there's this absurd sense in this country where people like the Supreme Court is some like learned rabbinic council and it's immoral to question whether or not judicial review is appropriate. You know and you get these

You got these fake populists like Trump who throw up their hands and acts as if they're utterly powerless to push back against some sort of a high court decision. That doesn't make any sense. And that's not how we do things in the Western, in the Occident traditionally at all. You know, we don't, we don't, we don't have some counsel of rabbis or jurists who we consider to be that, you know, the learned men of the tribe who interpret reality for us and declare what

ethics are. That's nonsense. And it's also a culturally alien tendency. And it's not an accident that that is sort of the that's the basis on which

that's the basis on which Zionists and their allies and as well as myriad other progressives and radicals. It's not accidental or arbitration. that that's the basis upon which they play their claim to an elevated understanding or ability to

interpret political affairs and ethics they're in and develop a scheme that assures substantial justice. This is important. It's not just a trivial point. This is what underlies the entire system. Is this the way they get around

somebody who would act like an Article 2 president, like how we can never have another Andrew Jackson who basically operates as the Constitution would allow, not as a king, but as an executive that can hand down decisions and decide the exception. Well, yeah, I mean, that's why the Watergate, the confabulated Watergate narrative makes no sense. It's the scandal about nothing because it's, the whole narrative of this pretend scandal is this window dressing for this sort of conceptual prejudice and in favor of this idea that there's this constant threat of the imperial executive. And it actually proceeds in Nixon. Like it people would, a lot of, I'm not, I, I'm, I'm, Johnson did some pretty fucked up

things, President Johnson, but I, but a lot of his critics, they, they, they weren't attacking his decision making from a well thought out perspective. It was, there was this idea that Johnson is becoming a tyrant and he's engaged in this kind of overreach that is dangerous to democracy. I mean, which itself is another floating signifier because it makes no, invoking democracy as this kind of, as this kind of approval. word. I mean, arguably is a contextual meaning, you know, within the course of the Cold War hostilities. Because, okay, you can say like, well, you know, there's a, there's a comparatively open

system in the first world, contra the second world, because behind the Berlin Wall, there's this party apparatus that has an absolute monopoly on power, and this is mandated structurally. So, contra that party monopoly is democracy in some procedural sense. but even that is kind of dubious. But obviously today, that makes no sense whatsoever. There's not some competitor system to globalism that is mounting this challenge. So that's a bit upset the scope. But yeah.

All right. This last sentence that I read here, what is in fact on display is a claim to rarefied competence in the juristic sense of substantial justice, whereby all outcomes derivative of judicial process and presumably any and all policies imperative related to war and peace decision making are non-reabutable and essentially infallible. Can you explain that a little more? It's what I just said. It's saying that the judiciary is the guardian of this elevated morality going to their

competence in this kind of judicial science of ethics. That's what I just said. Okay. All right. Can you continue. The International Military Tribunal, which sat between the 20th of November, 1945 and the 1st of October 1946 was a singularly ideological enterprise couched in the appearance, though not the substance, of due process of law. It did not aspire to anything other than to condemn

the German Reich as a criminal actor to declare, according to its own novel interpretations of rules of evidence, discovery protocol, and due process, the government and armed forces of the German right to constitute an ongoing inco-hate criminal conspiracy. The objective of the proceedings was to characterize by way of various offers of proof buttressed by a heavily reliance on pre-existing conceptual prejudices held by the judges so impaneled as trier of both fact and law and facilitated by a prevailing spirit of vengeance. The raison d'etre, the entire rationale for the existence of the National Socialist Party state, as a conspiracy to carry out the mass homicide of the Jewish people on a planetary scale and to capture, dominate,

and exploit by way of ruthless conquest of Leibnizram, and the acquisition of military means adequate to neutralize any actual or potential strategic rival or competitor by development and permanent mobilization of military resources sufficient to project power across the entirety of the planet. The capacities in which the new regime so established as cited by the International Court of Justice in the aftermath of the most devastating conflict in world history constituted a fundamental breach with precedent by virtually every relevant authority and criteria formal and substantive cannot be overstated. Furthermore, the claims asserted by the tribunal were born of an almost preposterous hubris, driving not merely from a tortured and opaque naked ideological tautology, but additionally

and perhaps more significantly from epistemic and ontological assumptions that could neither be falsified nor rebutted, let alone even availed the cursory challenge by the paltry defense afforded the men under indictment, owing to both the all-encompassing yet deliberately vague essence of the declarations of the tribunal and its concomitant consumption of absolute moral authority. The next paragraph you start talking about Western legal tradition. I know we covered this in the World War II series, but I mean, I think it should be revisited. I mean, was there any precedent for an international military tribunal up until this point?

Not in the, no, not according to the parameters that were established by International Military Tribunal, no. And again, the senator, the, the, the, the, the, declaring that your representatives are the vanguard of this sort of universal morality. I mean, again, that's ridiculous. The fact that anybody would suggest that is preposterous. You know, and I mean, you see this today. I mean, the Hague is something of a sick joke. But these abject mediocrities, these nobodies in Holland declaring that they're the arbiters of this absolute morality.

either like the supreme rabbinic council of the planet. Like that's that's laughable. That's delusional, you know, among other things. And it's always been understood that it's absurd to talk about such things and outside of a basic moral consensus. And, you know, again, all internet, if international law can be said to exist, I mean, we're talking about, permissive agreements within consensus.

And beyond that, no proceeding is worth a thing where the defendants once availed to jeopardy, they don't have discovery rights, they don't have meaningful rights to confront their accuser. They're incarcerated and being availed to things like sensory deprivation. You can't defend a criminal case under those conditions. you know um and um that there being no affirmative duty of the prosecution to avail the defense to evidence that there's a tendency to exculpate i mean all these things you know and um so no not in the sense we're talking about well i mean even um i guess yaki was at uh was he at

Dock? Was he at the Dockow trials? No, it was at some of the lesser work arms trials. The dog out trail specifically was the trial of Leipstandardt. For the accusations deriving from the Malmody massacre and some other things. That was essentially its only purpose. And it was odd that it was

the venue was dockout, but that was somewhat incidental. Burton C. Ellis, who was the lead prosecutor, he was something of a literal buffoon. During court recesses and things, Ellis's staff was literally breaking into defense counsel's

quarters and stealing things. Like, it was ridiculous. It was, it was this sort of preposterous comedy of errors. And like during one One of the presiding judges, his cleric looked out the window. Because again, this was held literally in the dockout barracks.

And some kind of dumpy, overweight assistant to Ellis's main prosecutorial team. He's literally, like, climbing over this fence. And they see him, like, they see his badass, like, half hanging out the window of defense counsel's quarters as he's, like, breaking in. You know, and so one of the. clerks is like, what exactly is he doing? You know, like, you can't, you can't make this up. I mean, there was nothing that flagrant on display at Nurember, at least, you know, not in the kind of slapstick way, but I mean, there's the kind of garbage that,

that it would, that had become normal in these proceedings. Right. But in, in most, the most simple form, and again, we covered this in the World War II series when talking about Nuremberg, I mean, they, it was, it was, basically Stalinist in that you see what the man did and then create a crime. Because there was no prohibition, for what they were tried for, there was no prohibition in international, quote unquote, international law. Well, yeah, you can't charge people with crimes that didn't exist at the time of

the incidents under review. But also, like I said, I don't even need to think we, I mean, yeah, that, that was the big objection of Taft and others. and that it's a well-placed objection, and it's a global objection, um, colloquially speaking. But I, you know, again, if I don't, if I don't have discovery rights, if I can't confront my accuser, if I can't, if I can't mount a defense, I mean, it's, any, any such trial, quote-unquote trial is a joke,

you know, um, that, that, that just means I, I, I is the defendants. I'm, I'm there to be, you know, kind of, burned an effigy or, you know, flogged and executed as some evil totem, where by some sort of, you know, some sort of morality play designed to beef up, you know, fervor for the regime presiding over the, over the, the affairs at Barr, you know, can, can pretend as if there's some sort of, you know, for them proceeding underway when in reality it's just propaganda theater and a way to ritually condemn the designated victim before formally condemning him. Right, go a little further here. For context, the Western legal tradition, pastitious, it may be of London, Athens,

Jerusalem, and Rome, derives from the the classical Greek idea and ideal of justice. This can no more be redacted from the conceptual paradigm of justice-quad-justice than Euclidean and Aristotelian foundational mathematics can be disavowed in favor of any purported yet heretofore unknown, more perfect ERISAT's replacement. The cycle of warfare that commenced in August of 1914 and concluded on Shikselstog, the German Day of Destiny, November 9th, 19th,

can only be considered as an almost purely ideological phenomenon. The dialectical process that was the progenitor of the three dominant revolutionary ideologies within the aforementioned conflict was not emergent owing to spontaneous catastrophes within the delicate ecology of Bismarck's diplomatic and military infrastructure that had sustained the European peace since Waterloo and facilitated a mastery of technology and concomitant prosperity. Rather, this process was emergent owing to awareness of power potentialities a man-quam-man as a foundational slate of sorts, metaphorically speaking, upon which political order a truly planetary scale could be rendered by a combination of will and deliberate structuring

of statecraft simultaneous to an equally massive psychological conditioning, homogenous across distances great and small to homogenize the inner sympathies of a categorically political nature within populations of hundreds of millions to billions of human beings. Back here, when you mentioned three dominant revolutionary ideologies in the aforementioned conflict, what are you speaking of? Capitalism, socialism, and fascism. That's what. For centuries and almost certainly for millennia,

the relatively paltry surviving artifacts and purposeful documentation of human political existence precludes a truly complete and verifiable conceptual record, man held a mythical perspective of the world in which he was situated. As the 20th century German jurist and political philosopher, Carl Schmidt elucidated in his magnum opus no most of the earth, quoting here, in great antiquity there is no concept of a planet of human compass and orientation common to all peoples in this sense there was no global consciousness and thus no political goal oriented to a common hope thus a just gentium international law capable of encompassing the whole earth and all humanity was impossible if one speaks of a just gentium in this age it is only in terms of differing spatial

structures, but not in terms of what later, after the emergence of planetary and global concepts, was called the law of nations, just gentium, or international law. In this context, we can regard the philosophical generalizations of the Hellenistic period, which made a cosmopolis world state out of a polis city state because they lacked a topos orientation and thus had no concrete order. So basically what we're looking at here and I mean this Schmidt the Schmidt quote the Schmidt section always hits me hard because if you realize it's only technology technology and intercontinental travel at mass scale is really the only is why they're able to they were able to institute this system.

considering that, you know, just basically, you know, a thousand years ago, no one cared about what, you know, that a, no one wanted to impose their, um, their morality on a Russian, unless they were some, like, you know, weird monk, you know, weird, um, monk that was going out and trying to, um, evangelize or something like that. Essentially, yeah. Yeah. I mean, like I said, the whole thing is alien to the human experience as well as was precedented within, you know, both precedent and potentiality. If you're going to, I mean, if you're going to, if you're going to, if you're going to, if you're going to make the claim that the laws, whatever, can be imposed at planetary scale by naked force to, you know,

know, guarantee compliance. I mean, okay, fine. I mean, you can make that argument. But this idea that in conceptual terms, there's this kind of universal morality. And again, the, the arbiters of it are these kinds of self-appointed jurists who derive from, you know, a handful of structures. created by the dominant regime. I mean, and then you're going to literally going to die on that hill and insist that this is some sort of ontological reality that borders on delusional,

assuming it's not just a, you know, a rhetorical device of convenience or something, made it presented in the course of, you know, policy arguments. It always bothered me as somebody who doesn't really bear down into the minutia of things, but looks at things from like large, looks at the grand scale of things, how it bothered me even before I had any understanding of, you know, any kind of political theory or even broke down, got down into like theological study that how much just the last 200 years of our existence is just seems like this insane anomaly almost like a mistake when you look at the rest of

human of humankind of history it just seems like they're like a virus was thrown into humanity at some point and now we've spawned into something that it is just unrecognizable to the grand history of humanity. Yeah, it's substantially anomalous. I mean, in comparative terms, that's why it's a fool's errand. And pretty much every mainstream academic does this, even people who are arguably somewhat more critical of what's become academic convention than others. They act as if there's some meaningful precedent in absolute terms we derive from the 20th century, and there's not.

You know, that's what's bizarre. You know, like I said, in policy terms, when I realize that people who fill out the officer court, the U.S. military or idiots. And the people who, you know, stick out careers in the Pentagon after 19. 89 are like shockingly stupid. You know, it's not like purplily, they really are. They're unbelievably stupid. But, I mean, even accounting for the cretanist nature of these people, hearing them speak as if massive warfare at planetary scale is this kind of like normal thing that happens

and you've got to prepare for in the absence of conditions, the totally anomalous conditions that facilitated, it's totally bizarre. you know, this idea that for no reason whatsoever, China is going to insist that we must fight the Battle of Midway in 2026 for no reason. So we, I mean, it's a level of libertines of America has the ability to, you know, mobilize for war at scale anyway. But even not accounting for that delusion, the idea that, well, we, we've got to constantly be on guard of Beijing building a surface navy, I guess, in secret, and then deciding they're going to assault Taiwan for no reason,

and we're going to have to fight the Battle of Midway and the Taiwan Strait. Again, for no reason at all, just because this is, you know, something that happens. And it's some sort of normative schema that characterizes power political affairs. You know, like I said, it's literally done. illusional. But also, I mean, it's as if the people never got the memo that globalism

happened and after November 9, 1989, the thing was decided. You know, like don't get me wrong. I mean, conflict is intranity of the human condition and power political affairs will always be

characterized by violence because that's a, you know, that's the currency of power activity. But that doesn't equate to combined arms warring at national scale. That basically never, ever happens, you know. But it's, you know, it's all the reason why it's, it's, it's beyond a fool's errand to, to argue with the regime-adjacent academics. You know, it's like trying to, it's like yelling at somebody who only speak.

Mandarin in English and expecting them to understand things. All right, we're almost done with this chapter. I'm going to continue reading. Yeah. In the pre-modern era, the idea of a teleological unifying theory of politics, independent of sovereign imperatives axiomatically derived from physical space and territorial parameters, wherein an identifiable person within whom sovereign authority axiomatically vested was a conceptual impossibility. There existed no distinction between myth and historical fact, collective memory and symbolic psychological phenomena. The origins of sovereign

power, both its lineage and its intrinsic authority, were inextricably tethered to occulted mysteries and theological concepts, however comparatively primitive. The ultimate source of the sovereign mandate, in common with the territory availed to it, and the founding acts or acts of dominion leading to its capture, capture use and exclusive appropriation, represented as much as much of an unknown quantity as the origin of the language spoken by the ethnos in question. A sacred act or succession of acts by a liminal figure or figures, the shedding of blood in the course of conquest, and the realization of these processes as the fulfillment of fortune, the winning of a bargain to the victor, and, among those ancient populations whose cultural psychology

tended towards the cultivation of religious belief structures, what Spengler designated Magian culture forms, the completion of a discreet covenant with the creator. European political order and ultimately the normative paradigm on international relations in the modern era in formal conceptual terms began and ended with the devastation of Germany. Between the de-fenestration of Prague on May 13, 1618, and the conclusion of the treaties of Osnabrück and Munster on October 24, 1648, a seemingly end. Sectorian War, grindingly brutal and simultaneously tactically complex and technologically primitive, left virtually no Central European territory unscathed. The material destruction, moral desolation,

and bloodshed of combatants and civilians alike span the interior of Bohemia to the Baltic coasts, from Italian riverbanks to the Scandinavian fjords. The general crisis, as the war was sometimes called, touched and concerned every aspect of European life and death for the entirety of its duration. Still, German lands constituted the primary battle space, and it was Germany that was truly broken as a new epoch of power politics at scale arrived the birth cry of which was a sectarian called to arms. There is no true academic consensus on the causes ultimate or proximate of the 30 years' war. A diligent student of the conflict will discover, and instead is a set of variables and documented occurrences that are afforded greater or lesser evidentiary weight that correlates

with influential aspects of zeitgeist at the time of publication, and perhaps more significantly an alternatively charitable or punitive description of the Habsburg dynasty and the character of Ferdinand II. As a deep political crisis developed in Bohemia, which was populated by a Protestant majority, Ferdinand II, a Jesuit trained and educated Habsburg Zion, inherited the Bohemian crown and two years subsequent in 1619 became Holy Roman Emperor as well. A pious Roman Catholic, Ferdinand aimed to remedy the damage wrought by the perceived inadequacies of his immediate predecessors by reinstituting Catholicism as the sole confessional tendency within the empire

and simultaneously crushing any and all religious dissent. Ferdin's designs created a situation where vicious sectarian violence engulfed not just the provinces within the ambivalrous. ambitious emperor's domain, but ultimately the entire region of Central Europe, dramatic lands, and the entirety of the continent itself. It is imperative, however, not to merely assign the discrete ambitions of Ferdinand or any other sovereign, nor the persecution of Protestantism actual and perceived as the exclusive or even primary proximate cause of the conflict cycle. The origins lie in this author's opinion in the preceding century. That ends the chapter. I want to go back to this section in the beginning.

The first couple paragraphs here talking about how a sovereign became a sovereign, as opposed to, which is, it's mysterious, but there's a mystery to it. There's a theological, there's a theological, there's, a theological angle to it, but there's also a warfare angle to it. And that, it seems like that is something that is basically what our history is, no matter what, no matter what civilization you're talking about. Some were more barbarian than others, some were outright savage. But taking this away from us and turning it into a, you know, voting machines and, you know, the sovereign as the ideological, you know, the ideological, creating an ideology over the face of the earth that everyone has to follow no matter how much it butts up against their historical, their historical passions

and how they would live historically. That seems to be something that has devastated, especially the European soul. Am I just misinterpreting? No, that's part of it. And I, yeah, it's ridiculous to declare that political authority derives from some bureaucracy or from, or from proceduralism or from the ability to declare that, you know, you legitimately hold an office. I mean, that's, that's obviously nonsense. You know, that's not, that's not to say that I've got any particular passion for royalty or something. I mean, that's not, that's not the American way, and that's certainly not the dissent. their Protestant way.

But, you know, this idea that government derives from procedures and procedural norms. I mean, it really misses the point. There's an illiteracy there. You know, I mean, some people are well aware of this. And I mean, and that's their notion is to create this sort of overlay a slave morality and mediocrity to everything. as a very deliberate design, but in a lot of, in a lot of cases,

it's, it derives from a kind of monumental ignorance. Right. But also, but also, there's a perverse suggestion about what government is that characterizes the late modern era.

The idea that government is a social engineering bureaucracy that is just entitled to, you know, to take your, money and appropriate your property and wait if we didn't if if if we weren't being policed by these by by the by these mediocrities who populate these offices like

we'd immediately resort to like rapine and looting I mean that that's ridiculous and any anybody who thinks that way is serious problems but yeah go ahead oh no no I was just gonna say um and wrapping up that um there was a lot there in the last couple paragraphs, but they will be explicated further in the next chapter. So I'll leave that for the next time. Yeah, sure. All righty. Well, everybody, go buy the book. It's on Amazon. It's selling well. It's amazing. This is something that our people should be celebrating. And when we were at Thomas's birthday and in Milwaukee two weekends ago people were celebrating it and every I think everyone is genuinely happy for Thomas but also that these ideas are are getting out there

and people that you would not expect to be I mean I saw a and it was it was a criticism but some historian had done a review of the book on Substack. I forget who linked it to, but I'm just like, he picked up on a lot of what you had to say and agreed with so much what you had to say. But then when he disagreed, it wasn't, it was all basically feelings. It just turned, it just turned into, oh, this buddy. it up against my feel so um yeah i'm not going to uh i'm not going to mention the guy's name because i don't want to give him any uh well no i mean that's not that's not a good look i mean people

don't have to like the book or agree with it you know it's not but uh i i don't i don't just say things and i certainly don't commit things to publication that i i don't think can stand on their own terms you know um and yeah like declaring that you you that this like offends you because only a bad man would say that or that's not a good look for a rational adult yeah yeah they'll um he also had to do the uh the thing that so many do um he had to include a picture of you thomas because you know you're um you know your your rock and roll look just isn't good for a historian. But I didn't realize I was like trying to win a beauty contest.

And I was like, but I mean also beyond that, should I dress like Orville Redenbacher or something? Like I don't, I, I don't know, man. Like I, it's not a, you know, yeah, I find that I find that incredibly odd. Like I don't, I didn't, I didn't realize that, I didn't realize we were all like seventh grade girls or something. I just wanted to say that,

yeah, we were all happy for you and proud of you and yeah that was it that was a good time and um no no the reception of the book has been tremendous and yeah i these past couple weeks were just fantastic man i'm very very honored and very humbled yeah all right go by the book it'll be linked in the show notes and in the description in the video and also um real uh real thomas seven seven seven seven 7.substack.com and Thomas 777.com. The T is a 7. And that's where you can find Thomas. Thank you, buddy. Appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you.