The Pete Quiñones Show - On the Topic of the JQ w/ Thomas777 - Complete

Episode Date: June 15, 2025

6 Hours and 20 MinutesPG-13This is the complete audio of Pete and Thomas' discussion of the Jewish Question.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas 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.

Ready for huge savings, we'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye, distinctive by design. They move you, even before you drive.

The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Financial Services Ireland Limited, trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. And now, this is over the nation-hamsira. Is leargoal to goa and not great gree in Aundun-Dun, and leant to gaolfe to deirin. In Ergird, we're dig tour chaw-in-voin-hae to funevin-voin-ha. It's a usherad to do so that in all-teichaelic, Gnough, and people, public, 3.5 of a one's este. There are air in court, following this moment

in Airgrid, Ponga-I. I want to welcome everyone back to the Piquignana show. I'm going to take a little break from the Spanish Civil War series and, yeah, maybe have a one that'll go a couple episodes, maybe three. Thomas,

how are you doing? I'm well, thank you. Thanks for hosting me as always. As always, thank you. So this is a subject that a lot of people that we know that we're close to bring up often. And some of the comments I've seen you make are a lot more nuanced than a lot of just the pylons and the, you know what I'm talking about.

So when it comes, I guess really, I know it's so everyone says JQ, the Jewish question. And if we want to even go from there and use that term, when did you first consider it? Well, I mean, based on where I grew up, it was always like at the forefront of my mind, even if not in a developed capacity. You know, I grew up on the North Shore in a town that was like literally half Jewish. And the rest of the people there were, you know, like people who, I guess in, I mean, the rest of the people were who. heard that, you know, the Census Bureau used to call white ethnics, you know, like, so I was, obviously I had a lot more in common with the latter than the former, but I was, I was like this kind of like minority of one, like in this town, okay? And, you know, it, uh, that,

that, that causes one to kind of reflect upon, you know, his own circumstances, you know, if you're at all thoughtful, even as a kid. That's, and that's, you know, and I mean, yeah, I, I kind of an odd upbringing, but it's, these, I mean, I mean, first of all, these people online, and I say that just because they're basically just like internet guys, but have this idea that if you're right wing, you're like the Jehovah's Witnesses, and you've got to like take the message to the people and wake them up. I mean, that's, that's idiotic for all kinds of reasons. That's not what we're doing. It's not going to do what we're doing. But it's also, anybody who's at all engaged kind of with the world, like understands, you know, that America's

basically a Catholic, Protestant Jewish kind of struggle, like, at elite levels. And that, you know, who's on top, you know, kind of varies by epoch, you know, but generally, you know, from 93-onward, like, Jews have been extraordinarily powerful in this country, you know, like, as a discreet, like, demographic, okay?

It, uh, I make the point of people a lot that, you know, talking about, quote, race relations. Okay, outside of the Cold War context, and outside of in the 19th century, you know, these kinds of social division is being exploited as a sort of detonation strategy against the South. That's not the issue in America. The issue in America isn't that, you know,

America is not like South Africa. America's like a giant Bosnia. If it's anything, okay. I mean, so you're not really in the game if you're, if you're talking about like black folk, like there's like powerful political quantity that that's always colliding with white people. But to Michael Jones, he takes it too far, and I don't agree with his ontology, but he is right when you can't talk about, like, the way like, you know, the ADL or the people

in the 60s, you know, the same kind of type of people, same kind of radicals on the NLACP, talking about like white America, you know, like, like a bunch of like, like a bunch of Lithuanian immigrants in Chicago, like a bunch of Irish people in New York and a bunch of like descendants of confederates are part of like this white team that is like, you know, in like, in, and you know oppressing like this colored team like that there's nothing to do with like that that's that's nonsense that's garbage okay and i mean i realized that early on and like when these kinds of like white trash liberals from like fly over country like come at me like that it's like look man like from the time i was like seven years old i realized like in my

hometown i was like a minority of one like no one's getting together like jews like you know like slavic immigrants and people like me aren't like getting together saying like yeah we're the white people. Like, we don't like those inwards. Like, that's not happening anywhere, okay, ever. Um, so I mean, this kind of stuff was always sort of on my mind, you know, and I, I, as I got into like, you know, I developed an interest in World War II, like a lot of, like a lot of young guys do. I mean, these days, I think kids probably get into whatever kind of conflict, like, you know, like, call a duty is focused on. But like when I was a kid, like, World War II wasn't all that long ago, okay. I mean, it was like, well within, like, living memory. And there was guys who'd better.

And they're like in the war like all over the place. You know, and like, you know, there was, it, um, so I mean, I, I got kind of like obsessed with World War II. And as I started deep diving into stuff, you know, obviously there was no internet then, but, you know, I realized most of these books were just didn't make any sense. You know, not in terms like the nitty gritty or discreet, you know, allegations or whatever, but it was just like so hysterical. Let's go again, this is ridiculous, you know.

So I started seeking. out, you know, kind of more, more objective sources, you know, through, like, you know, the IHR newsletter and just kind of like random, like, right-wing zines that come across. And also stuff that wasn't really political, you know, like, if you were into, if you, if you go to, like, the bookstore or the newsstand, it'd pick up, you know, one of those, like wings of the Luftwaffe, kind of like, you know, aviation nerd magazines, you know, there'd be stuff in the back, you know, where you could, you know, like, you know, you could send away for a catalog and, like, third Reich books and it'd be mostly hard and fast like military history stuff but there'd also

be like more deep dive stuff you know there'd be stuff like yaccom hoffman you know there'd be stuff like david irving you know who despite what despite what these kind of professional liars and propagandists like you know the like like miss debby lipschott say like and i guarantee she's never she and her quoteer have like never actually read these books because the way they describe them it's not it's not just it's not just propagandistic it's it's obvious like they've never actually read them but i mean this stuff like Hoffman and David Irving, they're not these like far right wingers or something. I mean, they're definitely heterodox and their take on World War II, but it's not like you're, it's not like you're reading, it's not like you're reading, you know, like, like, like, right wing copy or something that's intended as such. But, you know, I kind of, as time went on, it's kind of like developed a picture of that kind of stuff.

And like when I got on the internet, that's why I got in the internet. I mean, I was a kid. I was like 20 years old. This was like the Usenet days. It was like 19, I was like 1995-96. I got like on Usenet for two reasons because, you know, I was like a teenager, you know, and just beyond. And I was really into like lifting waves and working out. So I want to talk to other guys about, you know, that kind of stuff. But I wanted to talk to guys about like World War II. You know, and there was a Usenet group, revisionist group of like eight or ten guys. And, you know, that's I at least like three times a week you know like at the library you know I'd log on there and like we'd trade like sources and stuff and just like discuss things you know and then uh from

there uh you know as consumer internet became kind of ubiquitous like around like 97 98 um that's like when most people got it in their home at least like we're at least from what I noticed you know um you know, I started, I started, you know, posting on, like, those early, like, forums, you know, like, and, like, IRC chat, you know, dedicated to, like, World War II and stuff. And it, this was also right around the time that, like, Irving had gotten access to, like, Burbel's Diaries, you know, from the FSB. So, like, a lot of stuff was coming out that hadn't come to light before, you know, and just there was, I mean, that's why from there, then, you know, like, had they got into. college and you know in those days like a university library system was still like a big asset being able to access it i mean because even with internet it still was nothing like today where you can literally find like anything ever published um but you know from there like i

whole reason i went to leova university is because i wanted to study you know political theory i didn't just want to study like international relations or like econ i wanted to study like you know the philosophical basis of like kind of political theory and that dovetail a lot of stuff because like um you know uh it it's in those days at least um in my major leo yola guys are like fairly right wing despite it being a jesuit school um same thing with the history department so like if i asked like my professor like if you could run something down for me that probably these days would like you put on some like watch list at your college like it was like it didn't seem like odd or anything i mean these guys wouldn't care it anyway because it's you know like you want to read about that i wouldn't read about it

but it but it also dovetailed with like the stuff i was writing about anyway which is like origins of like you know national socialism and things like that you know and you know that's that's that's basically like my kind of intellectual biography forgive me that was a scattershot but it all it all ties together like the stuff that the stuff that's global in nature like literally you know uh i i contemplated that in in terms of my own life and like okay why is this town i live in like this Like why, you know, why, why, why is the post-Cold War regime, which is still a new thing then, you know, like shaping up the way it is? You know, like, why did discourse organize this way? Like, what's, why, you know, why, what's the source of these kinds of, like, radical tendencies that people just, like, take for granted an American political life?

You know, I can't realize, like, it's all quite literally tied together. Not in some, like, conspiratorial sense, but in terms of a policy trajectory sense, you know, and in an, in an, in an ideologically evolutionary sense, not evolutionary sense. It's not evolution towards some positive goal or sort of improved state of things. But quite literally, you know, it's a structure like deliberately trying to improve upon itself in terms of its effectiveness and its ability to kind of subsume all domains of policy and legislate and executive activity. That's what I mean. But that's that's the making the short story long. That's it. You catch them in the corner of your eye.

Distinctive by design. They move you. even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range for Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers.

Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings?

We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale,

28th to 30th of November. Little more to value. Having grown up in New York City, what Jesse Jackson once called, you know what he called it. Yeah. It was, it was just something that was, you knew Jewish people.

I mean, I went to a Catholic school and we had Jewish students there. Right. And when my brother started playing tennis, when he was like 11 and he got good really quick. He was natural. And so he had to go out to like Long Island and play.

And he was playing. We got to know a lot of Jewish families. Oh, yeah, sure. They would take you in as their own, you know, treat you really nice. But there was something that always, they always just seemed different. And I didn't know really how to explain it. And then when I got older and I moved to South Florida, which is another place that is heavily populated of Jews.

Then I worked for a couple and worked for one for like almost 12, 13 years. And I just, I came to the conclusion. I'm like, you know, when I look at like my family, when I look at how my family interacts, you know, I have a Spanish side of the family, then I have a Slav side of the family. And they're just, they seem different the way they acted around people. And then right around 1998, I, I discovered the Institute for, you know, Mark Weber and David Cole and people like that. And, you know, I started reading.

And I was like, oh, okay, well, something started to make sense, a little more sense then. But, you know, on this subject, it's like you're, you're continually learning. There's continue, you're, there's always new information that's popping up new research. research that century is old that you don't that you know you're obvious go in america people are dishonest about things like i remember william pierce um i don't know not everybody's a fan of william pierce but he had some keen insights he made the point that talking about racial matters and particularly talking about ethnic matters you know especially and especially between like you know um and uh and white christians it's like viewed it somehow like dirty almost like

almost like talking about it's like talking about sex in the Victorian era which is totally nuts but he's like right about that so I mean they like adds a layer too like if you Hannah Arendt you know she was an interesting figure because um you know she was an ethnic Jew and she was a confidant and probably a mistress of Heidegger but um she wrote a lot of really really valuable stuff about why European Jewry collided basically with everybody else, you know, beginning in the 19th century. You know, that's very, very correct. Okay.

I mean, I know that there's a lot of people, you know, especially theologically, we're going to take people, you know, and they deal a lot, you know, with, they literally say like, okay, the division between, like, the otherness of Jews began, like, at the foot of the cross, like what Christ was crucified. I'm not going to get into that. And frankly, I'm not a theologian, okay?

I'm not saying that's, like, not true or something, but that's not really within my wheelhouse. But like Hannah Arendt's point, and Yuri Sliskeen gets into this too, I mean, I'm citing Jewish authors so people can't just like pull it, come, I mean, I could cite other sources on the same subject that whose research is just as tight. But I'm doing this that people can't say like, oh, but those are right-winging anti-Semites. But something, Arrent made the point that Jewry, like, they occupied a strange role, like a strange and essential role.

in the old system, like the early Westphalian system, from the feudal period through like the early state system, wherein there was this weird interdependence between states in Europe, despite them being constantly at war. There was a basic stability. I mean, that's literally what the balance of power was. So you had this population that was not loyal to any particular state, yet that was kind of a communication network between these states, all of whom had the ear of the royals or, you know, of the aristocratic, coterie, you know, that stood in for the royal family, all of which, you know, had access to capital, liquid capital across state about frontiers. Like basically the things that made them,

you know, kind of essential to the balance of power were precisely the things that made them like the existential enemy of European people, like when that system collapsed. Okay. And it's not like there's some goodwill between peoples prior to that. But like Jews had no political power. I mean, this whole thing like really nobody had political power in the way we think about it you know in terms of discrete like lobbying blocks or uh you know organized uh or organized factions that have have the potential to capture the like the literal reins of state that was unthinkable until the 20th century so it's like okay like if you're if you're if you're in french or if you're in germany or if you're in russia where these things are particularly starkly drawn these kinds of social division

decisions like even if like every Jewish person that pale settlement like hates you that's great what they're going to do like shake their fist in the air like it and vice versa like it didn't matter and it's also the degree to which these people live parallel but but not intersecting lives can't be overstated you know Jews kept Yiddish alive for a reason and on the other side they generally didn't speak Ukrainian or Lithuanian or German outside of places like Berlin like you're talking about people who literally spoke different languages, had different folk ways, worshipped different gods. You know, they had different myths of like their own origins, of like the national origin. You know, they had, these were not, this idea, this kind of American line that, well, Jews were like

everybody else and just hatred came about because of scapegoating. That's 100% bullshit. And like, Slisky makes that point too. He's like, look, he's like, people didn't just one day decide we hate Jews because they're racially different and they're not like us, so we don't like them. let's let's somehow extricate them from society that did not happen at all okay like that's just a non-not lie like even even like even the most like philosemitic people who know the topic will tell you like that's a lie that's ridiculous you know the um the exception were uh were uh were uh you know we're kind of like the jews who were berliners and so and a lot of them were kind of insinuated and like erhard milch who was a who's a mishling he's a good example

like that's what his family was like like the man who was garing is the fact of stepfather that's what he was like but honorent also makes the point you know the nazis were not provincial nationalist at all in fact they totally looked down on that so she makes the point when hitler talked about jews he was talking about jews in france in spain in portugal in the pale settlement in you know he was talking about jews in europe in european civilization it didn't matter that jews were like 1.3% of the german population that's not what he was saying. Like, however good or evil, you think Hitler was, he was not saying, you know, I'm talking about Germany, like, us the German people, and only the German people, we have this problem with the Jewish minority. That was not what he was saying. Like, and in fact, like, Hitler made

the point that, you know, these guys, like, he talked about these, like, Austrian rabble-rousing politicians, like, who would try to emulate Koral Lugar, but, like, without his intellect, who would, like, blame, like, Jews for everything were idiots. And, like, that was countering that was counterproductive and plus it didn't make any sense because like that wasn't the problem anyway so i mean like what i'm getting at is like the cope that like they teach school kids in america that being jewish in in europe and you know 1930 was like being presbyterian you know in chicago and today like that's that's totally at odds with reality and and also like nobody used to suggest that you know like even if you you could talk to the most kind of like you know like the

most kind of liberal-minded like pro kind of regime type history story in 50 years ago, like he wouldn't say that. So, I mean, that's one of the things that's really strange about today. It's just, you know, to Pierce's point about it almost being this, like, dirty topic, you're just supposed to believe this kind of like a lie about it, pretend that for no reason at all, this crazy evil guy targeted Jewish people. And then, and that, you know, and that's just the end of it. You know, there's no, there's nothing deeper than that.

There's not any dynamics beyond that. So, I mean, I think that that's part of it, why it's like opaque to people who don't, or an insinuated kind of into multicultural America to be delicate about it in any meaningful way. Up to World War I, and then you have the blockade, then you have the Weimar period. Before that, people were writing about the Jewish question, and it seems like it really concentrated on, like, even if you read some of the, or like, I'm not an anti-Semite. They would clearly say, I'm not an anti-Semite. And they quote, they say, this is what the anti-Semites say. And they, it seems like they're at that point up until World War I and before World War I,

it's more of a curiosity because, you know, they're always on the outside. They're always, they have the ear of power, but they don't have the power. So how does that cross over? once you get into World War I and beyond. Well, what happened essentially was after the French Revolution, that's when states in the modern sense emerged. And a national state, you know, requires a lot more capital than, you know, a principality or a duchy or anything else, like, obviously.

So there was this odd position where this kind of like, there's this odd situation that developed, you know, like, again, like the balance of power was maintained at scale, you know, and this kind of Jewish network of financiers, which was a real thing. Like it's even, you know, is it like the Jewish emancipation laws like came about like to deal with this. This isn't some, you know, conspiracy theory or some kind of crude. shorthand. Okay, these banking concerns, um, the last of which, uh, Bismarck really, like the last time they really were responsible for,

ready for huge savings, well mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th, because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal mustabs, when the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range

for Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services

Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. You know, kind of like funding the war effort of a major power was under Bismarck. I'll get into that in a bit. But, you know, that was kind of like the last major, like truly Jewish banking concern.

whereby Bismarck, when he couldn't get what he needed from, when he couldn't get what he needed from the parliament, you know, he literally like went to them and it's like, you got to, you got to fund this, okay. But that, to your point, that, that created this weird situation where you had modern states, as we know them, they wielded all the sovereign authority of modern states,

but you still had these nobles who were like immutable, insinuated into power and power wasn't really fluid, you know, but the structure was there that, you know, such that if that system, if and when it broke down, there's potential for real disaster. And as obviously, you know, and Carl Schmidt wrote about this, like as the West failing and census broke down, and when warfare, you know, beginning with World War I became a victory your death proposition. And then in World War II, you add in the ideology of Bolshevism, you know, plus the Anglo-American position of like, literally, like, unconditional surrender, we will annihilate you.

Even if, even if Jews as a population had been basically politically neutral, just like having this population that was essentially, you know, like cosmopolitan in nature, you know, but in a way that was totally outside of the majority body politic. I mean, that would have made it, that would have made these people become viewed as like a threat anyway, just like existentially.

But it was also, you know, I know you're like a Sombard guy. You know, one of the points, an important point in Nolte has made this, Ernest Nolte made this point too. Another kind of like lie in America, but it's also, you find, you find other like, you know,

non-American, but Anglophone, you know, know kind of narratives, especially in the UK that say, suggests this too, the idea that Jews are associated with capitalism. That's not really the case. Like banking isn't capitalism. Like financing isn't capitalism. Like one of the things, one of the reasons why something like, something like, something like, uh, some something like 70% of like European Jews, like live in the pale settlement in Russia. And, you know, as, uh, as, uh, As the Tsar's system collapsed, you know, there was really a need for a dynamic middle class to kind of act as middleman between like these increasingly alienated peasants and the kind of failing, you know, monarchist regime. Like that wasn't there because the only people who had the capital to do that were Jews.

And Jews aren't, they're not guys going out building factories. They're guys who are lending money at scale and then investing in things like, you know, like, uh, you like tailor shops and like you know dried goods establishments and things like they're not like the jew of history like as an archetype he's not he's not some capitalistic henry ford type you know at all you know so it's like you're left in russia nobody you have no capitalist class you have guys with money who are totally outside of kind of the you know the majority culture which is a peasant culture you know and these guys the only people in a lot it sometimes i mean frankly like in a lot of places they're only people are illiterate you know like they're so aside from the hostility of like racial

hostility they had towards the slavs their solution is going to be something like the planned economy okay just intrinsically okay like that's why you know and and obviously it was not exclusively like ashenazi jews who like viewed you know the centrally planned economy is the future and like socialism is a scientific postulate, but it makes sense like that would be their solution, you know, so it's like, that's why it's another like canara when people are like, oh, but you say that Jews are capitalists, but they're also communists. No, that's not what people are saying. What they're saying is they were uniquely situated, you know, to create a system, devise a system to, you know, in the midst of a complete and total existential crisis,

sociopolitically, that would be intrinsically punitive to the people that it purported to up to elevate. Okay. Like by design or by accident of fate, that's what people are saying. They're not saying that the Jew is Henry Ford and steroids. These are really, really mean factory owner. Or he's like a really mean guy who invents things. Like, that's not the cliche. And that's not what happened either.

Like, I'm not even dropping a value judgment on that. Like, oh, Jews don't produce anything. That's not what I'm saying. But they're not, that's not how people characterize them. like in the 20th century and the 19th century. And it's not like how they reviewed. Like the Fat Cat factory owner, he was viewed as something also bad

in an enemy of the people, but a different thing. That's an important point, as we'll see as we get into this. Well, it seems like they were always in demand for power. So say someone who was ruling an Italian city state heard about the prowess of somebody who could invest or somebody who could come up with a way of making him money.

They would bring them in. But it seems like a lot of what started early as like the tension where people were side-eyeing was they would go into a city-state like that and they would start to get the ruler richer. but also because of businesses that they were starting, it seemed like they were basically accused of starting businesses that would make the regular folk poorer or would tie them to them by giving them loans and things like that while they're making the ruler richer. Yeah, I mean, usury was a constant, it was a consistent allegation levied and it wasn't incorrect. It was not incorrect. But, I mean, to clarify, the view from the bottom of European Jewry, like, from the bottom, I don't, I'm not speaking, like, ethical terms. I mean, like, in terms of, you know, like, peasantry, the view of Jews that they had was very different than the way, like, the nascent bourgeois and, like, aristocrats looked at Jews.

Like, part of the, part of the compromise, part of the understanding, you know, it was understood that Jews potentially had great power. or in like de facto terms, although they, you know, they couldn't like hold office or anything. Just because, you know, again, like they, they were a de facto, you know, international financing concern. And again, too, like they, speaking of Bismarck, like, he himself relied very much on the quote, court Jews as kind of like an unofficial communication network to Disraeli, okay? and I mean examples like this are myriad but the but the understanding was like jews cannot take cannot take like a partisan side in the conflicts of european christianism and they really didn't want to because at that point it's like why do i care you know if like if some catholic ostracian prince is fighting some lutheran prussian lord like why do i why do i is the court jew why do i care okay i mean obviously things are more complicated than that and people develop loyalties of like a personal and irrational names and nature, but generally, like, they didn't care, you know. But again, as a, it's not to Arendt's point, it's not that, quote, nationalism, like, made people racist, and that's what doomed Jews to this kind of status as, as enemies of Europa. It's that nationalism went away.

It's that what it became was, are you a European or not? There's Europeans, and then there's the Bolsheviks who want to destroy us. There's the Americans, and there's, and there's, allies in the UK who say that they will not accept surrender terms. Are you European? Are you with them? It's like, so here you are, you're a Jew and, you know,

the kind of extended like Jewish family, it's like, there's a bunch of you who've got Roosevelt's ear, then there's a bunch of you who literally, like, are serving in the NKVD in the Soviet Union. Like, how's that going to work out? Okay. Like, it doesn't matter, there could be,

you know, it didn't matter if like, you know this wasn't the case but it wouldn't have mattered if like 95% of european jews you know opposed both america and the soviet union just like just like by their by by kind of like accident of of existential reality they would be like the enemy of europe okay i mean that's and that that's the point like it was not that that's one of the reasons why the whole you know nazis are just dumb racist who scapegoat people um kind of cope like breaks down You know, like, you don't have to be, like, pro-Nazi or something, but the reason for the violence between, you know, Europeans. And I say Europeans because, you know, one of the problems with the, with the quote, Holocaust narrative is that by the time World War II started, there was programs underway in places like Poland, in places like Hungary, in places like Romania, in places like Latvia, Estonia, you know, in rural Russia.

like I this wasn't this this was a European wide thing like thing okay like I'm not being flippants but it's not you know this idea that you know this this was some contrivance of the of of of the NSDAP or that because of a nationalism people suddenly didn't like didn't like didn't like the Jews like that's nonsense and like I said actually like the thing keeping the thing keeping Jews safe or at least like keeping enmity at manageable levels between them and the majority was nationalism. You know, hey, like, you know, kind of like our political reality stops at the frontier there, there, there, there, and there, you know. You catch them in the corner of your eye.

Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range for Mentor, Leon, and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves.

Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 20. 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back.

We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You're apolitical because you can't hold office anyway because nobody can hold those offices. You know, basically like when we go to war, like you finesse, you know, like our asses. sets. That's what was keeping Jews and Aryans on, you know, or Indo-Europeans, whatever you prefer.

That's what was keeping them on like non-enemy terms. Okay. I mean, so that's, that's not disputable, like wherever you fall in things politically. Well, jump back into the 19th century, mid-19th century, you start the first real serious Zionist writings start coming out. What do you think was the impetus behind that? the impetus for that was the stuff you know Nietzsche when he was writing about being a good European I think it's in the birth of tragedy I'm not like a big Nietzsche guy but this is important okay he was in dialogue with a lot of the kind of intellectual uh work product of the day you know both like journalistic and you know and scholarly as well as you know like stuff that was going on

in like highly theoretical you know kind of academic papers and stuff and then um you know very very, very kind of heady, like intellectual quarters. People who had a grasp of the trajectory of political thought conceptually, they realized this was going to be a problem.

They didn't realize the degree to which. They couldn't apprehend the degree of the catastrophe. But Nietzsche kept saying over and over, we've got to find a way to make the Jew a good European or there's something terrible is going to happen, you know, which did. okay so there was one of two there's a couple of things going on um the early as Zionists you know a lot of

them actually were guys of the same kind of in an interesting is a lot more interesting than ben net and yahoo is just kind of like a shitbird was Ariel Sharon like he was not he was he was an incredibly ugly person like I'm not saying that but you know he was descended from what used to be known as oriental Jewry like people indigenous to the Middle East you know you had this population of people in Palestine and even if they didn't have any sort of a historicist sensibility about what the fate what's the fate of my people going to be in Europe and Russia you know in a century their idea was you know what like we would be better situated we'd be better situated if if if we had you know a nation

state you know and and part of it just kind of like part part of it was like provincialism too you know they were period out they were a period out they were at war with their Muslim neighbors. But the guys in Europe who really kind of took on that took up that banner, it was basically secular guys who shared

the same kinds of concerns we were just talking about because they saw some kind of terrible fate befalling the Jewish people owing to like this immutable hostility that was already emergent and that structurally there's no longer going to be control on it. You know, between themselves

and the Europeans that they that they frankly hated. But there was also, there was also guys who were, who were, who were like, you know, very, very kind of committed to Judaism, like in, in theological terms. And their view was like, well, a lot of what's going on with our people is kind of a contrivance. Like, people, you know, they, you know, they take these kind of superficial steps to be discreet from the goyum because they don't like them. And they look at them as, like, dirty or, like, you know, or unholy or profane. But, you know, they don't really know the Torah. They certainly don't know the Talmud.

You know, they speak Yiddish in the home, but it's not even really our language anyway. You know, like basically being a Jew was like a sociological phenomenon and increasingly like a political identity and like nothing more. So their idea was, you know, Zionism, let's bring us back to like where we belong, you know. And, you know, we've got to like return. We've got to return to the Torah, which like Jews have forgotten. And the only way we can do that, we can't do that in Vienna. know we can't do that you know in moscow we can't do that in the pale settlement we can't do that in minsk you know we can only do that you know like in in the land of the jewish people so it was

i'd say i'd say i'd say i don't know because i'm not an expert on on the jewish people at all but i do know something about zionism i'd say it was a fairly even split between like those kind of two perspectives and then obviously you know as um as as as kind of the as the real crisis the inner warriors set in, you know, as, as, as, uh, as, as, as, as the early Bolshevik period, like, it really did become, you know, like, uh, you had these like truly like savage kind of, you know, Czechist type partisans, like throughout, you know, the Soviet Union and they were overwhelmingly Jewish, just like settling scores with, you know, people they didn't like. I mean, then, then, like, all bets were off. And every, and any, you know, any Jewish guy who

wasn't some sort of bigoted extremist or who had any sense about him. realize like this is really really really bad you know uh something terrible is going to happen you know and so there's that too um i can never remember his damn loweth carloath in his letters he's an interesting guy and he was in japan when a lot of this stuff was happening and it was uh he wrote i believe he corresponded even with mercia elioti and like guys who were like on on on like the patriotic right you know but his the stuff he wrote like in the early vimar period you can tell he knows like something is going to happen

you know and like basically like the Jews are digging their own grave proverbially with what's happening and like I on the one hand these like they kind of hit Gaelian in him is like nothing can be done to stop this like the Jew and him I mean and I don't mean that like crudely I mean in terms of his conceptual um

biases is thinking like okay but how can how can this be stopped like how can how can this be finessed you know what's what's the alternative way it's really really interesting and I don't think I'm just like reading into things that aren't there. Like, like, um, people are prone to do these days. I fact, that was a little bit scattershot, forgive me, but there's a lot there, you know.

People like, like Professor Alexander, uh, Cusa, who is basically, uh, Codriano's, yeah, he Cousa, a mentor. Yeah. Yeah. What do you think of what they wrote? Because it's, it's bombastic to, to say the least. And, um, you know, like his, his essay, science of anti-Semitism, there's really hardly anything in there to argue against

because he's mostly quoting like Jewish encyclopedias and things like that. But his, what is the sentiment that led to such kind of emotion as such? I mean, frankly, I think, okay, you're talking about just like, like, existentially. You know, when the reasons I cite Uri Slavski, I don't know why more people in a you know he wrote the jewish century he's the guy who really coined the paradigm of quote mercurians and apollonians you know referring to the jewish people and and the europeans and whose you know um polities they lived in you know he the jews is a commerce oriented people you know who are very much uh you know kind of a magian and spanglarian terms

you know, contrary the, the Apollonians, you know, who are kind of like Dumazel's, you know, subject population, you know, with their, you know, there are societies revolved on agriculture and war and things. Like, he, he, he cited, I'm trying to think of, he, here it is, he said it was these two sociologists, Jewish sociologists, named Zabrois. and Elizabeth Herzog. They took the oral history of a bunch of former, like, shuttle residents, so the pale settlement, okay? And what was kind of, you know, just like regular people, not guys who'd been in the NKBD, not guys who, you know, were, like, fought with Trotsky or whatever. I'm sure some of these people had been communist, but they were just like a, they were just like people who'd been in, like, the shuttle, okay? Now, pretty much every single one of them relayed

in Zabrowski's words quote, among Jews, he expects to find emphasis on intellect, a sense of moderation, a cherishing of spiritual values, cultivation of rational, goal-directed activities, a quote, beautiful family life. Contra, among Gentiles, he looks for the opposite of each item. Emphasis on the body, excess, greed, blind instinct sexual assentiousness and ruthless force and an emphasis on violence the

first list is ticketed in his mind is always Jewish the second is always goyish now people have said that that's you know that's that that's a bias sample or whatever I don't think it is okay I mean frankly life is anecdotal um and again what if you want to know like what people were thinking in the pale settlement okay well Well, I mean, how would you gauge that anyway? Like, was Zabrovsky and Herzog did? It was they went and they talked to a bunch of people who, like, grew up in the pale settlement. And this is what they said.

You know, like, the Goyers, they're brutal. They're violent. You know, they're, they're beastly people. You know, they're dirty people. And, I mean, turn about is fair play. You know, if you talk to a bunch of Russians or a bunch of Lithuanians, a bunch of Germans then, they were told the same thing. I, Jews, they're greedy or dirty people.

You know, they're immoral. you know, they're pimps and, you know, and users. I mean, this was, this was deeply, deeply ingrained, man. Like, this was, and in the case of, in the case of the Jews, again, their political survival and their sociological survival, like as a people kind of depended on erecting even more barriers that already existed. I mean, like, again, too, like, their otherness is kind of like what role they filled you know in the Westphalian order so there's like that kind of like reinforcement if you accept like the kind of Kevin

McDonald model of illusionary psychology but then there's also there's guys who aren't particularly placely minded but they're worried in their own right you know like these kinds of pro designs we talked about like we're losing our culture like you know they're like we're going to speak yiddish we're not going to speak you know we're not going to speak you know we're not they go here to like you know to eat, we go here to eat. They dress like this, we dress like this. You know, like, they walk on that side of the road. We walk on this side of the road.

Like, it sounds like to be funny or petty. That's like literally the kind of stuff that came about. You know, I mean, so it's like you're, you know, you're dealing with people where if any, if anything it had, like, writing in the late modern period, and again, I want to say late modern, I mean, you know, like the later half the 19th century. You don't mean late modern, like something of Marxist or something. but looking at the kind of Westphalian structure is like already kind of coming apart at the seams even digging for World War I. You know, it's like, okay, what's the role going to be with these people?

Everybody realized at some point things are going to like, you know, democratize or some kind of mob rule is going to ensue. I mean, whether you look at things from kind of the progressive viewpoint or the kind of, you know, pessimistic conservative one. But like regardless, it's like everybody saw, everybody who understood these things saw like this kind of space. special role for the court Jew is going to be abolished. And what's he going to do? Is he going to suddenly become like an Italian or a German or a Spaniard? Or is he going to remain this kind of like hostile other, you know, and what's going to happen to him then? Like whatever happened is going to be a disaster. Either he's going to just kind of be this like minority, you know, this kind of like despise minority on the fringes or he's going to decide to make himself the

policeman, which is what had settled scores, which is what happened in the Russian Empire to disastrous effect. You know, I mean, so that's, that's, it's more complicated. That's kind of, that's the basic, like, that's, that's the basic, like, that's the basic, like social infrastructure. And that should not be debatable. Because, again, too, like, everybody on cited so far is a Jewish writer. Okay, I'm not pulling out, you know, of Hitler. I'm not pulling out Francis Yaki. Nothing to be anything wrong with that. But it's not what I'm doing. You know, not like, I'm not dropping, like, right wing copy, right wing copy on people. You know what I mean? And like I said, and in the cases, it Blaski and Herzog, this is what people from the pale settlement themselves said. This is how they viewed their Slavic neighbors. You know, I mean, to take that for what it's worth. You know, oh, that's anecdotal. Life's anecdotal, man. If you don't know how people feel, as you ask them how they feel, okay?

I mean, it's, what would be a representative sample? I mean, I, like, honestly, I don't see what would be more credible if we're talking about, you know, what was in the minds conceptually of people who lived that, you know, and we're part of this. You know, we're deeply insinuated into this whole like paradigm. I'm going to their, you know, their, their, their heritage, literally. One of the things that I, I try to consider when I, when I really think about this subject is the, the concept of always being the other. The concept of always being the visitor. The concept of being the stranger. Thomas Sol talks about how, you know, talks about how Korean grocers get treated in Los Angeles,

because, you know, they're not a part of that community, but yet they own a large percentage of the grocery stores there. And he compares that to how, you know, the Jew would go into an area, and immediately would become mediators. It would be commerce. And that is something that I think is such a good. Well, it kind of creates, it's a recipe for tragedy. also because again and slaskin gets into this too like even in in traditional european societies

even ones where uh only to the military ungoing military situation you know like prussia you know where a kind of outward conformity was valued more than you know a kind of expressive individualism there was always this understanding that like look like yeah obviously you've got to stand with your own people but it's you know the way of christ and just the way of kind of you know, the rational man, it's like you've got to treat people as like individual men, like in business and in, you know, in war and in peace. That's totally contra, like the Jewish perspective. And not just the Jewish perspective, the Eastern perspective, where it's...

Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th, because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal mustabs, When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November.

Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. search Cooper and discover our latest offers.

Coopera, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. What matters is your family and your blood or your ethnosis and is quite literally your extended family, you owe them.

a different sort of ethical treatment than you do anybody else and you're a bad person if you don't draw this distinction very sharply it's like the literal opposite of kind of you know um ethics at scale um that you know Europeans were taught and which was deeply embedded in their culture you know as a set of beliefs that what is what constituted you know like public moral behavior. So I mean, there's like that too. You know, it's like it's that's not, you know, again, that's why it's kind of a, and our rent made this point too, you know, people who say like, you know, we're talking about like, you know, efforts to quote assimilate the, the Jew in the 19th century, that's, you're not in a game if you think that, like Jews not being assimilated and

not being assimilable. That's what was part of their essential function or like bound up with It's like we talked about. You know, and whether it's like a chicken or the egg thing. I mean, frankly, I basically agree with E. Michael Jones. I mean,

if he'll be the token like right wing citer, the right wing scholar that we cite in this hour. I believe that's intrinsic to Jewish culture. You know, not, not goes like, oh, Jews are so bad. I mean,

I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm saying that's, that's just the way they are. You know, but that's uniquely, that's, that's uniquely offensive to kind of like European moors. okay in a way that

beyond the obvious okay and uh and again like in contra or or or in in kind like the way the way Europeans are like is viewed as like uniquely kind of like uncouth like to like the kind of like

Jewish mind or like the oriental mind if you want to like be euphemistic about it so there's kind of like a recipe for you know really really critical and sanguinary hostility between these people, you know, Europeans and Jews anyway. You know, and that's

why it's weird that this kind of situation came about. I don't accept, I think Kevin McDonald's like a good guy. I'm not going to say, and I think he's an honest guy. I think he believes 110% in his methodology. I think evolutionary psychology and Darwinism is nonsense, but

he does have a point, because it's like, this is weird. Okay? It's weird that this came about just spontaneously. You'd think that when Jews and Europeans began having contact, they would have just killed each other. Or the Europeans would have been like, no, you know, out. You know, you can't live among us. Or the Jews would have been like these people are dirty. They're beneath us.

We don't want to be here. Like, we'll migrate to like North Africa and live like sultans. Or, you know, we'll just go elsewhere. Or we'll just be like, you know, the occulted Catholics were in some places like in Japan or whatever. I will just hide what we are, like, you know, from everybody. But none of that happened. This, like, weird symbiosis came about between people who are, frankly, like, mortal enemies. So McDonald's taken part is, like, why would that doesn't make any sense.

Well, was there, like, a group evolutionary reason, like, why that was adaptive? I see his reasoning. I mean, I don't know the answers. I mean, if it's, I, his stuff is worth reading. But that's what sticks out about. He does have a point there. even if you reject Darwinism, even if you reject the rest of that kind of stuff. But yeah, it's very weird.

I don't have an answer for that because it doesn't really make sense. All I can do is kind of identify, you know, I can dissect like what actually happened, you know, and assign cause that variables there like based on the evidence. But I can't, the origins of it don't make any sense, no. It really seems like it would have been a recipe for disaster when you have a, basically a continent that is, in many cases, one gigantic church and a people who talk about their soul and talk about things, the metaphysical, and then they, all of a sudden, they're introduced and interacting with a group that is about intellect, rationalism, and subject.

subjectivity. It just doesn't make any sense that, you know, and people want to ask, people want to say, oh, why were, you know, why were they ejected from, you know, over 2,000 locations? I mean, when I think about that, when I think about a group of people that is religious and being subjected to a group that is subjective, rational, and just basically focuses on intellect, I just don't understand how it even how that even happened. Well, that's why, that's why, I mean, there's a big issue with the conversos

or them Maranoos, like, if you want to, I mean, which is frankly like an insulting term. Yeah. I don't, I don't bother it on language. I'm just saying, like, I recognize that. I'm not just trying to be deliberately like, you know, inflammatory or something, but it is used that shorthand when talking about the situation

of, like, Jewish converts in Spain. You know, like, after, we talked before about how ironically, you know, Spain was really the first, like, was a fainly in state, like a century before the, you know, the 30 years war. But the, the Spaniards, only in part to the experience of the reconquista, but also I think they, like we taught on, Spain had an incredibly highly developed tradition of political theory. I mean, that basically would underlay. It wasn't just the inquisition being mean or whatever, you know, academics, like midway academics they say, you know, basically, you know, they were. forcing Jews to convert if they wanted to remain subjects of Spain that that was keeping them safe as well. Okay, it wasn't, but this idea, but then it was clear that like, well, it's not just, this tension here isn't just one of, one of, one of, one of faith.

There were, and I think, I think even Demoishe wrote about this, unless I'm confusing him with, with, um, unless I, unless I, unless I'm wrong. I believe me at the point, you know, some of these conversals, they probably were like genuine believers in Christ, but they were also Jewish. And being Jewish is more than just, I reject Christ. I mean, that's a huge component of it, and it's irreconcilable with Christendom, don't get me wrong, but it's more than that. It's like an entire ontology, you know, like that, and, and yeah, so I mean, there's, so it's not, you know, like the, all these guns are, I mean, government, even government, when it was a lot more reason. and a lot more frankly elite literally than today.

I mean, government now is a joke, but even then and I know libertarian, but I will say like government generally can't resolve sociological problems and it certainly couldn't resolve something like that. But this is, it became clear to everybody that no, this is not just like a sectarian problem.

But it's also too, again, there was like this weird, there was like this perverse interdependence. Not between most Europeans and Jews, but between the European in ruling structure. You know, and it, I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not even saying like, oh, those, you know, I'm not some like Strasse were saying, like, oh, those dirty proto-capitalists, you know, like, you know, like, betting down figuratively

with the Jew to, like, hurt the working man or the peasant man. Like, I, I don't mean that at all. I mean, the capital has to come from somewhere, you know, and it's, if you, if you, if you have, if you're Bismarck or if you're Frederick the Great or if, or even if you're like a bad guy, like Caesar Borgia, like even bad guys have to abide on the national interest if they themselves want to stay alive, let alone in clout. You know, you like they capital has to come from somewhere. And it just, it just developed that, okay, you know, like, you know, there's you can't go to, you know, you can't go to like the international bank of X in 1750, you know, to fund your war. You know, you go to the, you go to the like the informal network of court Jews, you know, who can, you know, who can provide you with credit on demand.

know, literally across national frontiers. And, you know, so it's not, by the time this system became interstitially kind of bound up with the European political structure, it did, like, nobody could, like, extricate it. But the fact, to your point, too, that it came about at all doesn't make any sense. But, again, I mean, one of the reasons I'm a Hegelian, I mean, Hagell haven't to be right, and people don't recognize that. I need to spend more time in the library and, you know, with, with their own thoughts.

But, you know, that's the cutting of reason. Okay, why is it like that? Well, God made it that way. You know, do I know the mind of God? No, I do not. I try to as much as a man can. That's why I study history, because what is history? It's the cunning of reason. What's the cutting of reason? It's the mind of God in man's affairs. Okay, that's why. Is that a cop out? Okay, fine. Give me your explanation. Not you, you, you know what I mean. We're coming up on top of the hour.

Let's, I want to get into, I want, I want to get into the 20th century, but that's like a huge topic. It's going to take like another hour, even freaking like scratch the service properly. Let's reconvene in a few days. And go over it. Does that sound good? It's your show. I don't want to dictate terms. That sounds good.

Sounds good to me, man. Do some plugs. Do some plugs because I have a feeling this might be one of the first ones people, yeah, this come upon. Okay. You can always find me at Thomas 777.com. That's number 7, H-O-M-A-S-777.com. My dear friend, Jack, our programmer, like our IT guy, we've got to make it, we've got to develop a version strictly for, like, mobile devices, but you can still access it from your phone. It's a work in progress, but pretty much whenever I drop something new, like it pops up there, if nowhere else.

You can find me on Substack. That's where the podcast is. Season 2 is launching imminently. It's Real Thomas 777.7.7.com. Ready for huge savings? Well, mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range.

For Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance, and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria.

Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. You can find me on Twitter. Seekin E. Shall Find. I'm on T-Grant. at Thomas Graham.

So search for Thomas Graham. Number seven, H-O-M-A-S gram. And there's a Thomas Graham Dachry Lounge, where you can talk about things or say that I'm a mean person and you hate me or say that... I'm not going to repeat what some people say, but if you do that, I'm just going to turn on to say

delete you. But if you say, like, friendly things and nice things, you can stay. But that's all I got. All right, man. I appreciate it. Until the next time. Likewise. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekinez Show. We have Thomas here for part two of what we started last week on the Jewish question,

what E. Michael Jones calls to Jewish revolutionary spirit, Jewish tendencies, you can say. But I wanted to start out asking a question, and this is a question from me for you. You said on the last episode that Jews really don't have anything to do with capitalism What would your definition of capitalism be, or can you, you know, expand upon what you meant there? It's a problematic term because initially, I mean, it was an ideologically loaded term by definition, okay? And people like Schumpeter took it on, you know, because that, this was kind of like the vernacular of political economy, you know, the 19th and 20th century. But, you know, it's become kind of so ubiquitous. I consider it shorthand for the process by which, you know, productive means are extricated from the household and transfigured into for-profit enterprises at scale, you know, that are that are discreetly owned, you know, by some aggregate of persons, you know, not.

not in their role as as as as as as as as as as as as officials okay that doesn't mean that like that doesn't mean like people like people say that like you know is china capitalist okay that's a good question but the fact that you know men who serve in the pollitt borough like also you know own you know IT concerns and things like that categorically doesn't sound precluded from being like a capitalist state but it's what you know it's it's it's in what role they are acting okay um that sounds like a distinction that sounds like um a meaningless distinction but it's not but um in um in like sociological terms on like anthropological terms you know like we're talking about production being extricated from the household where people you know um where you know where you know

where where where where value added goods are produced you know by individual households you know for you know, and the surplus is, you know, traded or sold, you know, to reinvest in the needs of the household. And, you know, that's it. You know, capitalism is the process by which, you know, this becomes not just industrialized, but, you know, it becomes a scaled enterprise, you know, whereby, you know, people sell their labor, you know, as both consumers. and, you know, like, you know, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, I'm like, I don't really think capitalism exists anymore.

Um, I actually agree with people, like, Emmanuel Wallerstein, you know, like, these kind of, like, post-Marxist leftists, actually do have some insight, not on, like, social things, but, like, that's why, that's why, that's why he's guy to people talk about the quote, working class. It's like, what, what's the working class in America? Is it, is there some factory where 100, 100,000 people, people work and then at at at at 45 a whistle blows you know and um if they go on strike you know like it can it can sabotage the american economy because you know we're exporting widgets and automobiles the rest of the world like that's not happening you know like there's not and like a binary paradigm like on the other side too it's like when people like like like like would like

Trump supporters a desantis types like call like you know call the managerial elite like marxus like that's ass and I and like they're not like Marxists are people like Eric Hanacher and and and and Walter Ubrick. They're not, they're not people like AOC and like Joe Biden. Like that's retarded literally. But that's, um, you know,

the, uh, that's what I think of when I, when I say capitalism. I mean, the point Sleskin makes is that, um, you know, when we think of the middle class,

um, especially in historical terms and especially, you know, as the driving engine, of modernization, you know, that that didn't happen in the Russian Empire, in his opinion, you know, because the class that had access to liquid capital were Jews. And Jews don't, that's not really the way they do things. You know, these are his words, not mine. You know, like he, you know, these so these good there was like this kind of there was this like scatters there was scattershot efforts to kind of

try and um you know by by by these uh you know by by these um by these jewish financier types and by these you know families who held a lot of like fluid capital quite literally you know but they it's like they weren't they couldn't it's like they couldn't do anything with it they couldn't transform these kinds of transnational contacts you know and these sort of these sort of close like ethnic bonds with other. It's like it didn't, they couldn't transform it in anything. It's like they were part of, you know, um, it's, it's like they very much were part of the old system. That's why like immediately, you know, they, like I made the point before, like aside from political hostilities and sociological phenomenon related to, you know, how related to identity and things, like the reason

of why, um, you know, so many Jews became insinuated into the Bolshevik apparatus. was because that was like their solution. You know, these weren't guys who were, you know, who had some tradition of like, you know, independent yeomanry or, you know, it's not like they, it's not, it's not like, you know, they were, they were of the same sensibilities of, you know, the people who became the middle class in Western Europe. But also, too, and I mean, Slensky touched on this,

so he doesn't deep dive into it. You know, Jews were basically expelled from Western Europe after the middle ages. I mean, everybody knows the story of Edward I first, who was kind of mythologized and then we Braveheart. I mean, Braveheart's a silly movie. Like, it's, I mean, I like it, but it's, it's like totally bad history.

But the guy, I think it's the guy who, I think it's, it's not David Niven, but it's one of the, it's, and the guy who plays Edward I, people remember that performance. And I know, a lot of right-wing people are like, oh, yeah, I'd read the first, you know, he expelled,

you know, expelled the Jews in 1,200 AD. It was, uh, it wasn't, it was like, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, like 12, 280 or something. But, um, but the point is, like, that, that, that happened like all over Western Europe, you know, so it's, you know, um, Sleskin, he, I got, when you could sort of read into that is like, He's basically saying that, you know, the absence of, the absence of this kind of Jewish elite at scale, you know, is what facilitated, you know, Western Europe's transition from, you know, feudalism into modern capitalism. I don't accept that, by the way. And, but, you know, there is something to what he says. it wasn't as brutal as in the Islamic world.

Like, Johann von Leers made the point, for those who don't know, like he was basically like a Shustafelan anthropologist. And he was a language. He spoke like 13 languages. And after the war, he ended up in Egypt, and he converted to Islam and served in Nasser's court. But he was a big admirer of Islam, and he viewed Islam as the dialectical antithesis of Judaism,

okay, being a good Hegelian as he was. And there's something to that because in, like in the Ottoman Empire, like, and especially in the Levant, like, Jews were literally, like, locked behind the ghetto wall proverbially and literally in some cases. And they, you know, they weren't doing business. They didn't have the ear of the Sultan or of, you know, the local or the local mofdi or anybody else. You know, it was just, they were, they were just, you know, like completely excluded. like in Europe like the Jews who did remain like basically you know like we talked about like they became insinuated into into the European court like in a critical way but there wasn't there wasn't some like French or English or um uh Austrian equivalent of the pale settlement you know like

something I can't remember the statistic but something something like 70% of Europe's Jews like lived in the Russian empire and almost all of them lived in the pale settlement you know the degree to which you know Russia was a huge. The Russian Empire was a huge state, and Jews are something like 4% of the population, which doesn't seem like much, but at scale, that's an incredibly large population, okay, in relative terms. You know, but that's... Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back.

We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design.

They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euros. search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited.

Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. But in any event, I didn't mean to be scatterbrained. but the um like what capitalism is i mean i to bring it back uh a terrestrial manufacturing based system of value added products you know primarily uh primarily uh primarily for export you know as part of a national economic structure like that's the way i think of it okay um and that's the reason

why people you know people like pat chote who's i mean he's a heterosexual economist, but he's very much like a Hamiltonian and Frederick List type economist and a shumpeter type. And that's pretty much my simbaths fault. They're not my sympathies, but I think that they're correct. You know, their whole point is that, you know, capitalism, it's not just that it provides like upward mobility and things like that, which obviously are good things. But, you know, science and technology are the, you know, that's the life's blood of development. And capitalism is really the only structure at scale that, like, incentivizes those things. So it's not just a question of, like, you know, people not having jobs anymore or people not having upper mobility.

You know, if you outsource all of your, all of your manufacturing needs to China or something, you're like literally dumbing down your population and you're slaying the golden goose because you're removing the, you're removing the profit motive from these endeavors. And that's happening now. You know, like guys who guys have skills in the sciences. They're basically dropping out and doing their own thing. I mean, there's guys like Elon Musk, which is dope, but how many people is he employ? Like a few thousand. I mean, like it's, you know, but I digress, yeah.

I just wanted to address something that someone asked me. I had said that because of my brother becoming a tennis player at a very young age, that I was exposed to a lot of Jewish families and they treated me very well. Well, one thing I noticed was, you know, all of those tennis families weren't Jewish families. There was one family in particular that was like Wasp royalty. Like their family name is on a military installation in the Northeast. Yeah, yeah. They're like more respectful of the brethren.

Yeah, they've been here forever. And I guess one of the first things I ever noticed was the interaction of one of the fathers. And the Jewish father was, he, great guy. I mean, his son spent summers like with us. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But he was, he acted out. I mean, he would just like act very not distinguished.

And when you looked at the way this, you know, old wasp, you know, founding stock would look at him when he did that, it was like. it was like he was looking at a total like someone from another planet. Yeah, it was like it was a reaction. Yeah, it was a reaction that was very much like, you know, you can give people money. People can get money, but that doesn't give them breeding. That doesn't give them, you know, it doesn't give them class and everything. And so I noticed that. And then I moved to South Florida and I worked, I said I worked for a Jewish gentleman for like 13 years and I worked for another one in between that time. And I just noticed

that there was, I mean, it was all about the dollar. It was the only thing he talked about when I was sit in his, I was sit in his office. He actually said like differentiated Jews and Gentiles to me once like verbally, you know, talking about how in commerce, how they would act. He's like, you know, we go to a restaurant and my Jewish friends, they don't really, as long as they get good portions, They don't care about the quality. My Gentile friends care more about equality. And so I started seeing all of this. And I'm like, this is really, really odd.

And then I said, you know, I started reading different things when I, when I discover like Institute for Historical Review and everything, there were articles on there that were talked about, you know, just would analyze the history of like Jewish thought and things like that. So it was, I was able to at that time. get a better understanding of, you know, what I'm dealing with when I'm, when somebody is my boss and I have to answer to him and they're acting what's seemingly irrational when it comes to money. And money is just like everything to him. Well, the thing, um, a movie I refer people that I refer to a lot and I recommend to people is the Wolf of Wall Street. And people misunderstand that film. Because first of all, a bunch of people bash it because they're like, um, you know, oh, what? Why did they kiss DeCarpio was Belford?

Because that's the way he sees himself. And that's where like, it's like a Roshaman thing. Okay, you're seeing the movie from his perspective. That's why like he's awesome. All of his associates are slees bags. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back.

We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design.

They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Cooper and discover our. our latest offers. Cooper. Design that moves.

Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. But the key stuff is like when he's at lunch with Matthew McConae, who's like the playboy, like, Wasp guy like at the firm he works at.

And he's like getting all of him. You know, but he's also like, McCona's always drinking. He's like, he's like, he's, like, he's, like, he's, like, he's, like, he's, like, totally looks up to him. Like, that's the way kind of like American Jewry, like, looks at wasps. Like, like, and that's why also, like, the, the Jonah Hill character in that movie, you know, like, he literally looks like a guy, like, out of, um, uh, you know, it's, like, ridiculous. He's got, like, a cardigan sweater.

You know, he's got his, like, teeth and ears. You know, he's like this dude like like like desperately trying to like emulate like a wasp. You know, and he goes on and gets a Rolls Royce, you know, and like, it's like, but that and it's not like exaggerated. Like if you read, I think Billivore is a sleazy guy, but he's he's, he's, he's honest about being a sleazy guy. And, you know, like when he, if you like read the book that film's based on, he gets even like more into that. Like, he's like, you know, these guys were like a bunch of like wasp. want to bees, but they couldn't really pull it off. You know, like in the way that, say, like, um, you know, obviously like, like some of these,

the people who somewhat disdainfully were, you know, referred to as the shanty Irish in the old days. Okay, like if you're like some south side shanty Irish, you know, you could pretend to be a wasp and pull it off. Okay. Like assuming, you know, you were good at that kind of thing and, you know, you, uh, you had a skill set that would kind of lend itself to being insinuated into those environments. but yeah that's that's a very real thing and i saw at first ad like where i grew up man like i there was

there was there were very very few like waspy prod like really there weren't any in my town there were a little bit north but uh but i saw um you know but when we would when i would observe like the jews i knew because like you know they were like half the population like you'd see that too they'd be like you know like like like in awe of these uh of these um you know kind of like like like white bread waspies types and you so you find that too to lesser degrees in some other immigrant communities but uh with them it's like really really really pronounced you know but it's also they i think sociologically you know we made the point before that you know um as late as uh you know as late as like the bismarck era you know bismarck's um his uh his kind of unofficial like

communication lined it to Israeli, you know, was like, you know, the court Jews he kept around. You know, that kind of relationship doesn't, it's not just based on convenience. Like, like, Jews is kind of like natural need to like, kind of like, say, you know, there's like a, there's like a hostility, but it's tempered by this kind of like, almost sort of like cringe admiration for like royalty. I mean, like that's, or what they, or what stands in for it. Like, I'm not, I'm not trying to be punitive in that regard. I'm trying to be totally objective. I'm not saying like, oh, you know, the Jew like fan girls over people he views as betters. I'm not saying that at all, but I'm just saying like there is something, you know, more that it's not, it's not just some kind of like stereotype or whatever. Yeah, absolutely.

Where are we going to go today? Where do you want to start? I mean, I was going to get into, I mean, we can go wherever you want. I mean, I assume the reason why I stopped where we did the other day was because I was going to get into the, you know, the lead into the Second World War. And, you know, what's commonly referred to was the historians debate, you know, between like Nolty and Habermas and, you know, kind of like the sociology of Bolshevism and, you know, kind of like the entire. Yeah, I mean, I was going to get into some of that stuff and wrap up what Slezkin, you know, kind of his contribution to the topic as it relates to our decisions. discussion, but we can cover whatever you want.

Yeah, let's get into, let's get into the Bolsheviks. Yeah, you know, like we, like I said, like Schleskin's all point, um, the Jews and the Russian Empire, in his words were, quote, unable or unwilling to develop long industrial capitalist lines. And again, quoting Sloskin, quote, so that the net result of their activities was a scattered, inefficient organization of consumption without an adequate system of production. The Jewish positions were an obstacle for a normal capitalistic development because they looked as though they were the only ones from which economic advancement might be expected without

being capable of fulfilling this expectation. Because of their appearance, Jewish interests were felt to be in conflict with those sections of the population from which a middle class could normally have developed. Now again, like I said, it's kind of like the dog that didn't bark. And I don't think I'm reading things into Sliskin's narrative that aren't there. But again, you know, the majority of Jews were expelled from Western Europe in the Middle Ages. So by omission, he's basically saying, you know, their absence, you know, was not a sole proximate cause of, you know, the transition of Western Europe, you know, from feudalism to, you know, industrial capitalism, but that it was an essential contributory cause. You know, like I said, like I, if in fact that's what he's suggesting, and I believe it he is, that overstates the matter

of, and frankly, it's rather like Judeo-centric, but he's not wrong. You know, it's an important point. Um, you know, and it's also too, though, like the, one of the, um, you know, the, uh, a lot what Jewish wealth was based on, but not exclusively, of course. You know, like in the pale settlement and in places, you know, like modern, what's now modern day Poland and Belarus and Ukraine, you know, it was, it was Jewish firms and concerns and a monopoly on liquor sales and things. Okay, like it was the things traditionally associated with vice. And I mean, I know like the kind of the post-marked. kind of,

an, identity and leftist claim is that, oh, Jews were forced into these roles. Like, that's ridiculous. That's like saying that, like, the old mafia was forced into gambling and running numbers. Like, obviously, yeah, I don't disagree that it was a way that nobles in some of these backwards places would play people off against one another. But, you know, again, like, like, Sletsky's point is that, you know, if you've got, like, a liquor business or whatever, like, which, you know, in those days was

very much kind of like a gray area as a matter of law you know you can't you can't just like transition that into uh in this that doesn't just like lend itself to you know to to innovation you know or it's not it's not like one of these old like old companies that you know like started out as like a leather tanning business and then you know like 150 years later somehow it's it's like making optical instruments for aircraft or something okay look if you're if you're selling people vice like you're not you know it's not um it's not facilitating you know innovation and the way we think of, you know, truly capitalist enterprise is doing so. And I think that's important, okay? It's not me being some like moralizing Presbyterian or

whatever. Like I, and it's not to say it's, it's somehow impossible for, you know, profits that are, you know, sort of viewed as ill-gotten gains by, by traditional, you know, derived from quote, ill-gotten gains and traditional lives. It's not to say that it's like somehow categorically impossible for those to be converted to productive capital or utilized in a way that you know is developmentally not official but generally it doesn't happen it uh not jumping ahead a bit the uh a point Kevin McDonald made and I don't really disagree I mean like what like we've talked about I think um I think uh I think um I think um I think McDonough

Donald, he's honest in his methodology, even though I think his epistemic priors are, are kind of not really adequate. I'm not even going to say incorrect. But for those that don't know, and I'd be surprised if there weren't people watching who didn't at least have a rudimentary familiarity with Kevin McDonald's. He's an evolutionary psychologist. So he looks at biological bases and sociological phenomena derived from those biological bases to explain human behavior at scale, particularly the behavior of ethnic groups, okay? And he's focused a lot on Jews. He's written a trilogy on Ashkenazi Jews and their relationship to Europeans and then later, you know, they're experienced in America. But McDonald makes

the point a lot that Jews or Mercurians as Sliskin, you know, would characterize people who you know, similarly developed culturally. There's an odd collision of kind of this sort of like dry rationalism. There's a tendency to like desacralize everything.

But it collides with this kind of like primitive tribal faith in almost like big man figures, you know, like quasi-mescianic figures. You know, whether it's the rabbi or whether it's you know, the soddic or the I don't know how the hell you pronounce that, but like the

village hancho in the pale settlement um and this kind of thing lends itself to uh to uh to uh the it's it's kind of like a perfect storm of factors that that led do bolshevism um because i mean what is bolshevism like on the one end it purports to be a science you know it kind of strips away any um any anything uh any any non-empirical phenomenon you know from uh it's analysis of human affairs, its value system is entirely rooted in a schema of labor and capital. What kind of stands in for the soul is, you know, the dignity of the person and the person's prime, and like ontologically, every person is just a worker, you know, and they, and everything else, you know, all the kind of humanizing characteristics are super structural, you know,

according to the Orthodox Marxist Leninist. But at the same time, there's this kind of apocalyptic belief in and, you know, in creative destruction. You know, and they abolish God, but, you know, one of the ways Marx and Engels, like, stood Hegel on his head, you know, was because, you know, the advance of history, like, stands in for Providence, you know, and it's just, like, immutable and, like, not totally knowable as, you know, as any kind of, like, mystery cult. and the adherence of such things would would posit.

But it's also too, like, like communism, it relies upon these, like, kind of like rabbinic figures, you know, and even like Stalin, like, if somebody Stalin was the antithesis of kind of like, you know, if the listeners will allow it, the Jewish interpretation of communism, he's still, like, Stalin was a lapsed and, like, a fallen seminarian. It's like even he was like this kind of, he was like this priestly figure. You know, I mean, you don't, you don't really see that on the right. I mean, yeah, there's, there's cult of heroism on the right, absolutely.

And the way to understand the ascendancy of Adolf Hitler is, as a messianic figure. But there's not some, but I mean, that, that owes to the perceived rightly or wrongly, like piety of the man himself. it's not suggested that there's not this like body of work that was purported to be like, you know, this kind of like new science of the right wing whereby, you know, there's this kind of like, you know,

coterie of learned men who you know, who, you know, who were looked to like interpret these things. You know, like that's very, that's very much like a Jewish tendency and very much not like an Indo-European tendency. Like hero worship is a different thing than what I'm talking about and that

McDonald was talking about. Um, the, uh, but it's also too, um, you know, again, by no means we're all the Bolsheviks Jewish and we'll get into some of the hard numbers in a minute in key roles and institutions. But if you're going to, whatever your motivations are, whether they're benevolent, whether they're malicious, whether they're guided by reason or, you know, a sort of frantic irrationality. if you're going to organize human affairs at scale, particularly amidst a punctuated crisis, you know, like the fall of the czarist regime, there's a certain ruthlessness or at least sort of detachment, like ethically, I mean, and suppression of emotion required to do that, because,

you know, you're going to, you're going to deeply disrupt millions of people's lives at the very least and probably, you know, your decisions are going to lead to arguably the premature deaths of possibly millions of people. Okay. So it does make sense that a population that didn't really identify with, you know, the native majority would be capable of a deeper level of ruthlessness. You want to look at it that way in devising the Bolshevik state. And I'm not, saying that the Bolshevik state was devised by men with good intentions. I'm saying, though, just from a detached analytical perspective and, you know, attempting to sort of understand in a more complete capacity, like why Jews were so overrepresented in the, in the revolutionary cadres that

facilitated, you know, the construction of what became the Soviet Union. I think that's, I think that's highly relevant and it's certainly not accidental and it can't just be chalked up to you know ethnic animosity although it's a big part of it but there's a structural component to this also um that i think uh cannot be um overlooked uh it's also um you know and that's and that's also at the end of the day um you know e michael jones who we touched on Last time we recorded, and whom you mentioned a moment ago, you know, he makes the point, as does McDonald, as does Schleskeen, and so does a rent, in their own kind of more subtle ways, you know, they, they tend to characterize ideally, you know, Christian ethics, you know, they, they don't really distinguish between, you know, human souls. That's not to say that, you know, race doesn't matter or that, you know, your family doesn't matter or that we're all the same at all. Okay. I don't want to get into a side. I don't want to get sidetracked into some debate based on people's misunderstandings of these things.

But Jews stand out because they worship, like, literally a tribal god. You know, so ethical calculus doesn't really entail anything, you know, in practical terms beyond, you know, is it good for Jews? and they're not wrong when they say this, like all these thinkers that I just referenced, okay? It's a little more complicated than that, but that is kind of like the core metric. And frankly, in the short term, I agree with Francis Yaqui, 1953 is kind of the critical year

of the split between Soviet Jewry and the majority. But until, definitely until that point, the Bolterog Revolution was good for Jews in all kinds of ways. You know, there was an act of elimination of any remnants of the old order. It was literally wiped away. Okay. And like before we went live, I was talking about Ernst Nolte and, you know, what's kind of been known is this story. debate. And whether you accept Naltese methodology or not, what is indisputable is that one of the

reasons why the later modern era was so brutal was because politics became total. You know, the causes of this are kind of outside the scope of what we're discussing today, but it was a combination of material factors, concrete sociological variables, but also ontological and epistemological ones. Orwell, who I think in 1984 people kind of missed the key, what's actually important in that book. But when O'Brien is torturing Smith, what does he say to him? You know, Smith is like, look, I'll do whatever you want from now on.

I'll behave myself. O'Brien's like, no, no, no, no. It's not about that. He's like, you can make anybody behave by enforcing compliance to threatening them. you know, or taking away things they love or by hurting them. He's like, I don't want you to comply. I need to eradicate your will to resist. And beyond that, I need there to be nothing left other than a love for Big Brother.

Because politics, it's sort of a, it's a variation on the anthropic principle for the people who read a lot of philosophy and particularly Wolfgang Smith and are familiar with what that means. Okay, but politics. only exists in the minds of humans. They're the vessels of these ideas, without which these ideas can't be said to exist. So if you're truly aiming to create a new reality, a new political reality, you've got to eradicate the ability of human,

minds to conceptualize what came before. And if they can't be educated to purposely forget that and those things, they've got to be annihilated. Okay? And that that's key to understanding

the Bolterk Revolution. And if you're a dedicated Bolshevik again, like most of whom, like most of whom are not Jewish, okay, that's not what we're saying here. if you're a dedicated Bolshevik and you're also Jewish, in my opinion, and I think the statistics bear that out in terms of the number of Jews who voluntarily insinuated themselves into the police apparatus as literally executioners for the NKVD, if you're not just a dedicated Bolshevik but you're a Jew, that looks like a pretty appealing prospect. You know, it's like, hey, these people who hated me and who I also hate, and these kind of hundreds of years of disdain for me and my people and the God that we worshipped, you know, I can wipe that away in one fell swoop.

You know, it's, I can, I can kill my enemy. I cannot just kill him physically. I can kind of like eradicate any trace of his existence on this planet. Because what's left, even like his physical descendants, there'll be like empty vessels. you know there'll be people who exist totally outside of history you know and they can be they can be made malleable in any way that we want um and that's exactly what happened if people think that sounds like science fiction well i mean it's not um and uh so that's that and that's key to understanding that's key to understanding

the degree of enmity between the German Reich and and European jury. And we can get into that. That's probably something we should leave for episode three. If in fact you're able and willing to go for an episode three on this topic. Absolutely.

Yeah. But if you read, you know, again, I tend to agree with David Irving. Irving's point is that for Adolf Hitler himself, like the quote Jewish question ended in 1933 and if, you know, when the National Socialist Revolution happened because then it didn't matter anymore. But that's a different question. But, you know, whether you accept that or not, when you read things like the Commissar Order or when you read the text of Himmler's, the Reichsphere, you read the text of the post and speeches. That's key to understanding what happened in terms of violence at scale against Jewish non-combatants.

You know, the Jewish world of social existence was the progenitor of communism. So as long as European Jewry is alive, that idea is alive. that idea is alive Europe's existentially threatened because the raison d'etra of Bolshevism is the eradication of the European way of life. And

prior to, before a shot was fired in the Second World War, the Bolsheviks had exterminated on categorical subjective terms between 10 and 20 million people, you know, peaking between about 1935 and 1938, you know,

the, the Gula system was a death camp system. It absolutely dwarfed any comparable structures that existed in the Third Reich and Allied states. So,

thus, the Third Reich's war against Jewry after June 22nd, 1941, was an effort to exterminate the exterminator.

and that's incredibly severe and brutal and I'm not being flippant about it at all but the way this is characterized is entirely misguided but I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves but to kind of bring it back and forgive me if I'm like going in too many different directions you know again the I wanted to be clear that like most most Jews in the pale settlement or elsewhere were not Bolsheviks. However, the prominence of a Jewish elite within the movement can't be overstated. In the all-Russian Central Executive Committee, which was elected at the Second Congress of Soviets, in red October, literally, October 7, October 1917.

By the 62 representatives of the party, like 23 were Jews. I mean, that's an absurd over-representation. You know, and particularly conspicuous was in the Cheka and the OGPU,

which were the, which were the precursors to the NKV, okay? The by the 1930s, or by by by 1930 rather um 42 of a 111 like top like old GPU and checka and later nkbd officials were ethnic juke's um 12 there was 20 nkvd directorates by the time the nkvd but by the time you know the secret police elements were consolidated into the nkbd there was 20 directorates the kgb like later like maintained this basic structure you know um and uh 12 of the 20 directorates were we're headed by ethnic

jews you know and most notably those directorates in charge of state security um you know they're just like the order police you know like the criminal police you know those in charge of the labor camps um and you know the the death camps um which is what the gulag is of um, euphemism for, um, as well as resettlement, you know,

and the, and again, the, the, the nationalities problem is Stalin referred to it euphemistically. You know, this was a big, um,

this was a, this was a huge priority of the Soviet state, you know, but it's, you know, but again, too, you know,

it makes, it's Jews in the early days of the Soviet system, you know, and prior to, prior to Stalin essentially, you know, purging them in 1953 or thereabouts. They were basically in charge of, you know, the nationalities. So, you know, obviously, you know, they were in a position to spare their own co-ethics of this same kind of, you know, deculturating treatment or, you know, ethnic cleansing and

a little bit name. So, I mean, what develops is not. a picture comes into high relief, you know, not of some, that is some sort of grand conspiracy. That's like the favorite cope or the favorite, it's really just like a malapropism of the regime these days. It's ubiquitous and media. If you say something that they consider it unacceptable, they say

it's a quote conspiracy theory, which doesn't make any sense. Just like in definitional terms, it doesn't make any sense. But what I'm suggesting and what McDonald's and Sliskin were driving at, you know um is that you know there there was there was a basic self-interest here to to that that's obvious to how to outcomes and and and where the bull the were the jews who were insinuated into the bolshevik apparatus like where they found themselves this was not accidental okay and like it obviously owed to you know um you know to to epistemic priors and how they felt about you

you know, um, their own, uh, their own kind of self identification as well as, you know, how they felt about, you know, the majority, um, who they were, or the majorities, rather, I mean, it wasn't just ethnic Russians. It was, you know, it was, it was Kolox. It was Cossacks. It was Turkmen. It was Uzbeks. I mean, all these ethnicities all in sundry, none of whom, uh, none of whom the Jews liked or had, and some of whom they had, they, they absolutely hated. And, I mean, turn about being fair play. I mean, they were hated by these people in kind.

But a portrait develops as something very, very sinister that you don't have to be some kind of hard revisionist or somebody who sympathizes with the Third Reich in history or somebody who just, you know, has some sort of

like general disdain for the Jews as a people. Like, it's not required to accept those things or those things are are laudable to accept what's being postulated here you know and again everybody i've cited who substantiates these things other than mcdonald um and other than nalti you know has been a jewish um thinker it's something it's basically indisputable is what i'm getting at okay like how you interpret the uh the root causes these things i i suppose it's you know more charitable and repunitive depending on where one falls

but it's but the raw you know the raw data um and the facts of what happened isn't um isn't disputable and again too the the the worst excesses Robert Conquest do I consider to be the

kind of permanent authority on the Soviet death case the bullshit death camp system um you know he wrote his his kind of seminal book was the great terror it's called the Great Terror Stalin's purge of the 30s.

The first edition came out in 1968. A subsequent addition dropped in the 90s. And there were he broke down the Gulag from the top down. There's 53 Gulag camp

directorates like facilities, okay, like actual camps. And 423 labor colonies like forced labor colonies. And the Soviet Union is of March 19, 40. Okay. Again, 1938, probably being the kind of zenith of megasidal activity. Conquist estimated probably 20 million people had been exterminated. Okay. This, he was basically exonerated by the Soviet archives. There's all kinds of people who try and impeach his credibility

and attack his numbers or claim that this is a just. disconfabulated and it's all wise. But that's a different argument. What is accepted is that by pretty much everybody is that at least 1.8 million people died in

Soviet death camps. It's far higher than that, but that's the bare minimum of accepted attrition numbers. But the point being that the point being that there was an organized campaign of categorical extermination of people based on subjective characteristics in the Soviet Union. And this went on for two decades, reaching its zenith between 1930 and

1938. Okay. And again, too, the men in charge of the directorates that were primarily charged with um you know with these um with these goings on were uh were ethnic jews in an institution where they were massively overrepresented anyway okay um so even if one rejects kind of the epistemological model of uh bolshevism you know emerging from the jewish world of social existence or or being just a product of the Jewish cultural mind, even if you don't accept any of that, for whatever reason. It can't be denied

that what essentially amounts to a force of Jewish executioners and highly placed party commissars were systematically exterminating people who they believed to be the standard

bearers of the European way of life. you know, or the or the Christian way of life or simply you know, people who retained you know

an ancestral memory of what came before. You know, they had to be exterminated and they were. And this is the key to understanding what befell European Jewry from 1941 and 1945.

Like this is not me saying, like, oh, so the Jews deserve what happened to them. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not, I'm dealing, I'm dealing in proximate causes here. And I'm dealing in, you know, the dialectical process of history. And particularly history as, you know, the historical process as, as experienced by nations at war, which particularly in the 20th century was an especially intense phenomenon. for everybody involved, okay, you know, whether you're talking about a proverbial prince or a pauper. And that is the key to not just historical revisionism, in my opinion, although I'm probably a heterodox revisionist,

but that's also the key to understanding, you know, really the 20th century in its aftermath and what and why in the state religion, you know, like Adolf Hitler and fascism, is sort of the stand-in for Satan. You know, it goes beyond merely, you know, casting him as like a Haman figure, and it goes beyond merely, you know, people, like Jews as well as non-Jews, on the far left, you know, looking to nullify their secular enemies.

It's way deeper than that. It's way more highly symbolic and it's way more historical. But when I say like historical, I don't mean in like accurate terms. I don't mean in like thoughtful terms. I mean, quite literally premised upon, you know, historical phenomenon that are rapidly receding from living memory. But in historical time, I mean, a century, you know, 80 years or a century is a blink of an eye, man. you know it's um if people think this is just going to like fade into the proverbial ether you know in a decade or something they're wrong like if anything i think it's um i i think it's just

don't don't get me wrong like it's definitely it's it's definitely um been compromised the ability of the regime to sort of insinuate uh into people's minds that this is some like absolute like postulate um in the way that was possible like 20 years ago like that's no longer possible, but it's people who think, like, oh, well, why even talk about this? It's just going to, like, evaporate, you know, from people's, um, from the, from public consciousness or a story and it's not going to happen. That's ridiculous. But, um, that's about all I got. I mean, I got a lot more than that, but I, if I, if I dive into the nitty-gritty of, um, the Reich. Yeah, and like, you know, what's, what's known as Holocaust,

stuff like we're gonna be here all day so yeah that's something I hope I wasn't you scatter shot or whatever like there's a lot here and I sometimes it's not just advancing age like sometimes my mind goes like random places so forgive me if that wasn't like linear and easy to follow or whatever I did remember a question from Twitter yeah people asked what what can they read on right-wing Higelianism I mean, in my opinion, like, like, Hegelqua, Hegel, like, is right, quote, right wing, okay? I mean, the, we talk about right Hegelianism because Hegel became, and this is totally misguided, but Hegel became associated sort of in the public mind with Marx, okay, because, you know,

I mean, I mean, for obvious reasons, okay? And it's not like people in America are even, you know, 40, 50 years ago were sitting around reading philosophy like even even in most college curriculums when such things were a lot more serious than today um the uh some of the true like right hegelie i mean interestingly there's a book by leo strous and joseph cropsy and i i am not a strousian in the least anyone who's not totally ignorant like realizes that but they wrote this huge volume called the history of political philosophy, which is very, very good. Because it's literally just like the scribes,

you know, it's kind of a, it's kind of a capsule summary of all these political theorists, like ancient, medieval and modern. Their discussion to Hegel is pretty good. There's a book I had that I'm trying to remember the damn name of,

but it covered Ficta, Hegel Schopenhauer, just like a bunch of like German thinkers, okay? And it, uh, it dealt a lot with, you know, the conservative revolutionary movement, you know, and how this, uh, drew upon Higalianism. But, I mean, the fact is, it's any, you know, the reason, like, like, Celine said that Stalingrad, who were right and left Higalians met the settler differences for all time. Like, anybody, I mean, like, like, like, anybody who, anybody who, anybody who's truly right wing is, like, a right Higalian, you know, I mean, because you're, you know, you're, you're viewing the historical process.

as the hand of God in history, you know, and you're viewing the development of culture as, you know, as, as the work of God, you know, like in man's affairs. And to try to dismantle that, you know, or to try to insinuate man into the driver's seat, proverbially, you know, or to suggest that, you know, or to suggest that there's, you know, like a secular model for government that, uh, they can somehow, like, like perfect man. I mean, these, these things are uh that that's that's that's that's that's incredibly sacrilegious you know it's beyond even blaspheming it's it's something very very insidious um but uh you'll have to give me a minute if you want like a proper like a literal curriculum of like the dissinguanianism which again

is basically like hegel guiseghegel you know and left hegelianism and there are There were rather left Higalians who were not Marxist-Lannis, but this, I can't, I can't spend this all the top of my head. You got to give me, like, at least until tomorrow. And I'll carry out, like, next time we can be, I'll create a source list. Okay, that sounds great. Give your plugs and all on us.

You can find me always at Thomas-777.com. It's number seven, H-M-A-S-777.com. I'm on substack real Thomas 777. That's substack.com. I'm going to update people on what's been going on on substack. I mean, nothing bad or is in our way or there's nothing wrong. But I'm in the process of, I'm like reskinning the whole, I'm re-skinned the whole brand. And we're dramatically increasing our production budget and just everything that goes into that.

so it's going to be a few weeks before I'm able to launch like season two of the podcast that's why there hasn't been like a fresh pot episode I'm sorry about that but um it's i'm a two-man operation it's me and like my dear friend and partner in crime was like my editor and who's like the you know genius behind like the cool stuff that we do um because i don't know about any of that shit but that's why that's why there's been like a lag and um I've been recording with my dear friend Pete Canones a lot, and I've been trying to catch up on these long-form manuscripts. So, like, if it seems like I'm inert, like, I'm not. Like, a lot is going on.

But that's why when I do launch season two, there's going to be a huge dump of, like, free freaking content that previously was behind the paywall. And as soon as I'm able, I'm going to remove everything from behind the paywall, it's as low as I can possibly make it while not eating a loss. Okay, it's $5 a month. I will make it totally free when I can, hopefully before the end of the year. But free me for rambling. That's what I got. Oh, and I'm on Twitter, too.

They tell me nobody's being like, just permaband anymore from Twitter. Those motherfuckers, like, literally banned me nine times. And when I never once, like, violated TOS. That's how my shit is still, like, my tweets are still locked. Okay, I'm convinced that if we're to unlock it.

Like, within a couple days, we'd just be arbitrarily nuked. If I become convinced, you know, in another few weeks, if it seems that they're actually, they've actually backed off on censorship, I will, like, open up the timeline, okay? I'm also on T-Gram. I want more people to join the T-Gram. T-Gram's got its problems, okay, but it's better than freaking Twitter. You can find me on Telegram as Thomas Graham, number seven, H-O-M-A-S-RAM. So come hit us up there.

That's all I got right now. I don't know if you saw this on Twitter today, but Musk put this out. He said, to address extreme levels of data scraping and system manipulation, we've applied the following temporary limits. Verified accounts are limited to reading 6,000 posts a day, unverified accounts to 600 posts a day, and new unverified accounts to 300 a day. That seems very weird and random. It is.

And I've already had at least one person. I think it was Mandrill who was like I'm already seeing data reached when trying to read things. Yeah, that's goofy. Yeah. So there's all kinds of goofy bullshit going on with that. I mean, there's a million to one reason. So like, like Twitter is fucked. I'm trying to get people.

So like trying to get people off crack or something. Like they won't, like, give it up. I don't know. It's like, why, man? It's like Twitter fucking hates us. They're, they always fuck with us. Like, why, why can't you just, like, put it down? I mean, it's not, it'd be one thing if it was like, if it was like, use net days and, like, Twitter was using that.

And it's like, well, shit, man, like, we got nothing else. Like, why, why fuck with it, man? It's like, why? Why can't you give it up? But, you know, I'm trying to phase it out. And I'm going, sometimes this summer, I'm going to, subsstack really, substack's really the one right now, man. No, exactly. And at some point, I'm.

to phase out Twitter entirely, but for now, I think it's, I think it's a way to, like, reach people who we need to, you know, and again, we don't, we're not to fucking join with witnesses, you know, we don't want to reach a billion people, you know, but there are people we do want to poach who are, who are worthy, and that's what we're trying to do. But that's, yeah, that's, okay, yeah, that's, that's all I got, man. Thanks again. We'll reconvene whenever is clever. Yeah, thank you, Pete. Thank you. Yeah, man. I want to welcome

Hi, I want to welcome everyone back to the Peking Yenaz show. I'm going to keep that in there, so people can see that I'm in no way perfect, and sometimes I'm just a stuttering prick. So how are you doing, Thomas? We're doing very well. I've got my Felix, the kit, mug full of coffee, and I've got a bunch of bottled water, and I've got a bunch of intellectual energy that has nowhere to go. but outward.

So I think we're, I think we're in good shape. Well, this is part three, and at the end of part two, you said today that you wanted to talk about in reference to the Jewish question and the Third Reich, World War II. So just go. I know you're ready for this. I mean, we covered, we covered some of this. You know, when we were dealing with, when we were dealing with the Third Reich and particularly the person of Goebbels, and then subsequently when we were dealing with the trial of what the Allied occupation authorities, there were the men that, the allied occupation authorities categorized as major war criminals, you know, which was, there was many war, there was many war crimes trials. But obviously the most prestigious one is in terms of the status of the defendants, as well as the one that was, you know, intended to establish, you know, precedent in the most controlling way, you know, was Nuremberg. And, you know, and we, we dealt with that.

We dealt with the nature of the charging instrument and, like, why it was arranged as such. It wasn't just to cast the defendants in the most punitive light imaginable. That was part of it. But, I mean, that's always that that's always the. that's always the um the impetus for uh for criminal indictment you know it's um it's um i mean that that's that's it's raison dutra but one of the things one of the reasons why it's difficult i mean even like good not notwithstanding good faith and notwithstanding you know the um the the problem of the you know deigning the to put your enemies on trial

you know, the absence of moral consensus as if there's, you know, a kind of universal and transcendent, you know, human law that, you know, conveniently, you know, the allies were suited to interpret, you know, as kind of the representatives of all humanity. But aside from all of that, political affairs, we're not talking about the kind of conduct that we think of as being actionable in a court of law. We're not just talking about the complexity and scale of it. You know, political, political occurrences are, I mean, there's aspects of it that are within man's sovereign control, but that's the whole thing. There's just aspects of it. So if you're, you know, and then on top of that, there's the acts of state doctrine, which, among other things, really the only, really it's self-defeating, you know, know, to deign to try your enemies, because essentially you're availing yourself

potentially to the same sort of jeopardy, okay, if you want the precedent you're establishing to have any force at all. So just as a matter, this is a pragmatic affair. You know, it's imperative to find a way around that potential liability. And the way the Allies did it, and don't get me wrong, I think some of these zealots actually believed this, but that's, you know, in terms of the men who, you know, constituted the prosecutorial team as well as the, as well as the trier of fact, you know, the, the panel of judges. I think some of them actually believed in, were zealots who believed in, you know, this kind of, this kind of zealots moral paradigm.

But I think generally it was it was basic self-interest, okay? And I'm not even assigning a judgment there of a punitive nature or otherwise, but that's just the nature of politics, okay? And, you know, power activity under color of law is this power activity. Okay, so, you know, one must protect oneself, not just in the moment, but, you know, moving forward in terms of, you know, the narrative. structured and the precedent established and the potential to oneself be held in jeopardy in the future. So how does one avoid all of these things? You know, how does one remove, you know,

compromising the act of potossibility of fatally compromising the acts of state doctrine? You know, how does one get around this kind of messy business of, you know, due process, you know, prohibiting, you know, exposed facto, the availing of, of defendants to the liability for exposed facto laws that were not extant at the time of the conduct alleged. You know, how do you, how do you, how do you, how do you, I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank. how do you um how do you how do you how do you how do you how do you remove this in the realm of ordinary politics in epistemic terms okay well the way you do that you say you know well what the evidence is going to show judges trier fact that this wasn't really a government at all it was a it was a criminal conspiracy okay the whole raise on detro the only reason the only reason

it existed was they carry out criminal acts that are so outside the bounds not just of moral decency as it's understood, you know, by the community of humanity such that we have the representatives of. But it can't even be said to have had, you know, what's understood conventionally as political objectives in mind. You know, it had at a homicidal objectives in mind at scale. You know, its objectives were a kind of planetary conquest, the purpose of which even that was secondary you know to visiting vengeance upon those identified um

or slated for destruction okay um and so that's that that became the core of you know the NERBring indictment and that became the narrative um which uh Jackson most strongly but um the the you know the every every the representatives of all four powers, you know, were committed to demonstrating such that they were capable of doing so within the parameters of reason and the bounded rationality of, you know, the indictment itself and, you know, the selective introduction of evidence to substantiate that.

And obviously they were advantaged because, you know, or conventional due process didn't rain in the Nuremberg courtroom. You know, the, there was no, there was no, there was no proper discovery. You know, like the defendants were not available to, you know, the benefits of due process by any meaningful metric. But beyond that, it's a, it's a strange proposition. Okay, even if you think of the third right in the most blackest colors, that's just like a weird suggestion.

Now, admittedly, legal reasoning is, you know, I know everybody hates Dershowitz, but he does have certain insights. And I'm not like praising the man at all, okay? Like, so I don't want people to say stupid things in the comments. And John, you, who I'm not particularly a fan of, but, you know, he's got a very good understanding, not just of a constitutional law, particularly as regards executive power, which is a lot more complicated that people think.

You know, it's a, it really is, okay? But the, you know, you is always making the point that there's a self-contain, and Oliver Wendellon, Jr. made this point, too. And he's another guy who's unduly maligned, despite, you know, his kind of critical, quite literally critical insights into not just the law in theoretical and theoretical on practical terms, but, you know, his criticism is taken on a judicial review as in, as intrinsically corrupt, just, you know, by, by virtue of, uh, it's subjugation to, you know, to, to, to, um, you know,

conceptual biases related to the, you know, um, politics of the day in any given epoch. But, um, like you, makes the point that, you know, even, uh, even in the best of a pop, even in the best of all possible worlds where you, you know, had the best conceivable jurists in court, you know, who truly were committed to identifying the truth of what occurred in the case at Barr, you know, and proceeding according to basic standards of fundamental fairness, there is as universal as any human values can be, or any values held by discrete human population can be, There's just by nature of the law, how it's conceptually structured, there's a self-contained reasoning to it that doesn't really translate to the real world. You know, that's the point that people like Dershowitz are always making is that, and Holmes, too.

Dershowitz actually borrows a lot from all overwindle Holmes. I don't want people to take that. So you're like, see, I do all Gwendo Holmes is a fuckface. Like, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying when Dershowitz says like something that's actually like on point, he's generally borrowing from homes. Or he's generally borrowing from like a better man who was a constitutional scholar or, you know, some of these guys who were immersed in like legal realism or law and economics in a way that is insightful. But, you know, he's always making the point that like the law is not a science. You know, that's the reason why there's a peculiar relationship.

of actual scientific evidence to the, you know, to the, you know, to the judicial process. And especially in criminal law, there's weird things like criminal law, race judicata, and collateral estoppel, it doesn't exist in criminal law, really like double jeopardy is the safeguard, but that means they're going to be totally inconsistent jury verdicts. Because it's like, well, you know, double jeopardy is basically all you're entitled to, and that precludes not just, you know, gross miscarriage as a justice, but, you know, also, you know, it doesn't, you know, an duly privileged state such that, you know, a man who finds himself in jeopardy has no chance at acquittal. But, like, contained within that rationalization is an understanding that the law is not a science. And basically, like, what you can persuade the trier effect of on that day with this defendant in that court, like, that's what matters.

Okay. So there's a self-conscious understanding within the law, at least in our tradition, such that it can still even be said to exist. Okay, that we're not dealing in some, you know, empirical methodology to, you know, draw out facts at the expense of, you know, all conceptual biases and all impulse. and all influences that are going to move the trier effect to render judgment outside of pure analytical reason. Okay.

So, to on the one hand say that, well, we've got to create a stable system that's not only stable but just. I'm talking about the Nuremberg Tribune, tribunal to say that, you know, we've got a, you know, we've got a, we've got a, we've got to, we've got to, we've got to structure a, you know, a kind of governing morality of, of, of, of, of consensus, admittedly like a

victory's consensus, you know, it's got to be, it's got to be basically premised on what was being asserted is a reason and a kind of universal ability to apprehend a reason across cultural, political, linguistic, ethnic and racial and religious sectarian lines. But you're going to accomplish that by saying we're going to prove that the defendants at Barr, we're going to prove that they're outside of our community of humanity that we have sort of declared. you know and we're going to prove that they were not you know they they were they were not actors engaged you know in the business of state crafts at all but they were the perpetrators of a monstrous criminal conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen um and uh that's a preposterous

inconsistency um now moving ahead like why why did i revisit all of all these Nuremberg concepts, you know, both of a theoretical nature and of a kind of more concrete, expository nature. Well, essentially what 20th century history is, okay, and not what it actually is, but let me rephrase that. 20th century academia from at least the late 1950s, And that's not accidental. There was, um, Ednauer, um, was chosen,

uh, as consular for the, um, nascent Bundes Republic for a reason. Because he wasn't really a liberal. Uh, he was an unusual guy. And he was anti-fascist in a way.

But, you know, he, uh, he also said that, you know, the, the veterans,

the Verimic and the Vof and S, deserve respect. you know, he, um, even though Otto Reamer and Hans Rudel, Hans Rudel famously called him, quote, Rabbi at an hour. But like, Rudel was a kind of uncompromising guy. But my point is that, you know, um, this was also around the time when like Yacin Piper and, um, a bunch of, uh, lesser war criminals were, um, were kind of quietly pardoned or just, you know, their sentence was manumitted. Like, Piper went from being on death row to a nominal life sentence, you know, to being cut loose after like 13 and a half years. And this was because the Berlin crises commencing, I mean, there's several Berlin crises, but the crisis cycle emerging around 1950s, 58, Washington very much thought that World War III was going to a half. happen. If World War III is going to happen, first of all, you can't be constantly, you know, using

the Bundes Republic as your pinata and talking about how the Germans are those evil, evil, evil people ever. But you also need, you need, you need game officers and NCOs. That's the combat experience, but fighting the Red Army. And if they're all in jail, we're not doing you much good. so though that's kind of why in the 50s you know um things seemed everything i'm not talking about just the kind of one-dimensional stuff that i find kind of foolish you know like uh that was being promoted by you know joe mccarthy and roy cone um i mean there was there it was um the tenor of discourse as well as just conceptually uh the eyes in our era was an outlier in all kinds of weird ways, okay? So that's why

when we're talking, when what I'm about to suggest, and I realize I'm going like all different directions now, it seems like it'll come together in a minute. But what I'm getting at is we're talking about 20th century historiography in the West, okay? I mean like Western Europe, you know, the, and the, and, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, we're, we're talking about it, we're talking about a dialogue on what court historians call the Holocaust and what, um, you know, people like Yakim Hoffman, with people like Ernstanti,

with people like David Irving, with people like Christopher Browning, who's a little difficult nail down for all kinds of reasons. And what their, you know, and Norman Davies, and all these men have just, I've just named off.

They have all different kinds of perspectives, but they reject at least in part or in total, or they object to fundamental aspects of the narrative of the 20th century of in the 20th century you know there was all of these traumatic disturbances at scale that led to warfare and the breakdown of the Westphalian system but also all these revolutionary paradigms emerged you know because technology was disrupting man's life and forcing him to reevaluate hierarchies you know from social hierarchies the political ones you know the ones between the sexes and you know what this led do was

you know, it led to the emergence of the Bolshock Revolution, which went too far, but these men had good intentions, you know, and the reactionary response was this criminal conspiracy hatched in Germany that arbitrarily blamed, you know, the Jewish race, using the language of the Nuremberg laws, arbitrarily blamed the Jewish race, you know, for all the ills of modernity. And, you know, from there, after capturing, you know, the race, you know, the race. reins of state in in Germany you know they they went mad with power under the tutelage of this you know spengali figure in a lot of Hitler and they went out they set about on a on a mission of world domination you know to enrich themselves and to purge all other races they deemed inferior

but most importantly it was a criminal conspiracy to murder every Jewish person on earth that is the court history narrative okay what academia was and is still some I mean what academia is dead conventional academia okay in the regards we're talking about but the 20th century into the 21st century before you know kind of um conventional like brick and mortar academia became like obsolete in terms of uh you know the common man's understanding of these things or the educated layman rather and um ceased to be the forum within which you not just learns about these things but you know kind of engages with them in a discursive capacity like that was like the prevailing narrative because it was they was just enforced as such by the boy the bully

pulpit and other things and everybody outside of that um you know, was, you know, was kind of considered to be, at best was considered to be, you know, presenting like heterodox and not particularly respectable opinion. And like at worst was, was suggested to be some sort of fascist, you know, who held sympathies for the regimes in question that were responsible, you know, for the aforementioned, you know, homicide. conspiracy of world conquest um and you know the only reason anyone would have sympathy for such things would be if they themselves you know like held the same sorts of moral you know suffered the same sorts of moral defects it sounds like i'm oversimplifying things but i'm really not okay um but that what i'm getting to is and i'm actually bringing this back now to the topic in hand i i'm i swear i'm not going senile and i'm not having a a a schizophrenic episode or any

such thing one of the reasons for a primary reason for um not just the creation of that narrative but the kind of zealous defense of it it wasn't just you know well you know jewish interests became bound up with you know this this this uh this apartheid state of israel that that was, you know, always inflaming world opinion with its annex and, you know, was always kind of beleaguered by its enemies. So, you know, world opinion kind of had to be, like, shorn up in its favor in creative ways. I mean, that, that was part of it. That's one of the reasons why after 1967, even more of this stuff became ubiquitous, you know, particularly on film, that's when the term Holocaust entered public lexicon. It's based on a TV movie, literally called

Holocaust. Before that, you never really see it anywhere. But really what the raison d'etra of it was and is, you know, the insistence on this narrative being, you know, like a literally like theological truth is it just cuts off any discussion of the source of, you know, Jewish and European, Jewish and Christian, you know, Jewish and Aryan or Indo-European, if you will, it completely just cuts off discussion of that dynamic and of that paradigm and of causes contained within that, you know, determine the course of, of human affairs at scale where both populations are are um are geographically situated in common okay um and yeah obviously there's conceptual biases they're in because there's you know um extremely ethnocentric jewish people promoting this identity and then there's

people who just aren't particularly thoughtful at all who aren't jewish who just kind of like go with whatever is sort of like the the court narrative or whatever is you know the um the uh the political theology the day. But then there's also there's post-Marxist left-winger who aren't Jewish, who don't have any connection to Jewish culture or Jewish people really. Like they really, really believe in this.

And I think it's because they don't really have anything else. You know, like post-Marxism, I mean, when some of people, I made the point about Foucault, other than other than a couple

of journalistic pieces, including one he wrote about the Iranian Revolution in 79 because he was on the ground there. It was like impactful in the sense that, you know, he was like, this isn't like what people have, this isn't something that's been seen before. It's kind of outside of, you know, the kind of topsy-turvy, you know, bastardized hegelianism that, you know, leftist chalked all, all, all, um, apoccal events to. and it's completely out of left field compared to what you know, the the kind of post

the kind of post 1945, you know, like Cold War right suggested that you know, revolutionary impulses were always like, you know, communist sympathetic.

But other than that, he never really produced anything at all. And even that, like, yeah, I mean, it was kind of like, it wasn't particularly deep or anything. But, For like magazine journalism, it had a little more depth. My point is it like Foucault, Foucault and Marcusa,

Lomorso Vucco, they were kind of like the, you know, they were like the zenith of like post-Marxist, like, thought. But there, it was, you know, nothing there. You know, it was, it was like an onion. It's like, you know, three dozen layers of nothing. And they, at the end of the day, they're self-consciously aware of that, you know, or they were. I don't know, the post-68 left is, is it, I don't want to truly hide like a discussion and, and shoot off on this tangent. But they, they don't really exist anymore either, although, like, their, their, their, their contribution, if you want to look at it like that, you know, kind of like one out, like a bastardized variant of, uh,

of what they posited, kind of became dominant. You know, like a lot of people's epistemic priors, like, oh, two things postulated by them. But, you know, my point is, like, these people, they kind of latched on to, like, Holocaust theology because they didn't have anything else. And it also, in some ways, and it's interesting, because this does cause problems, like, within the enemy camp. Like when you do find these kinds of crazy, like, gay guys, or when you do find somebody just, like, random, like, loony feminists, they're like, oh, see, like, they just singled out the Jews. Like, they single out gay people today.

Or, like, this is the way, like, women are treated because, like, people want to exterminate women. You know, like, the people who are the true kind of guardians and, um, and, um, of, of, of, of, you know, the historical narrative, they're like, uh-uh. You know, you're talking about something truly exceptional. You know, you're talking about something that is nothing in common with any other, like, moral evils, you know, of even those, you know, perpetuated by fascists, you know, who are the kind of stand in for, not kind of, who are the stand in for Lucifer and, and, um, in, in, uh, in, in, in, in woke ideology. okay but the um you know so there's not it's not as if it's you know like some kind of like house

like united in in good faith terms but that's why that's another that's something that people tend to neglect it's not just like oh people don't know the truth of world war two like it's not just i i get called like um people think i'm being like a dick or think i'm being like some snobbish dickhead i like i don't i don't think anybody can call me like a snob man if you like look the way i live my life and stuff, okay? But I, the reason why, like, I disdain, like,

kind of like the political hoi-poly. I'm not saying, like, the hoi-poller, like, well, I'm saying, like, more than these people in,

like, all kinds of ways. What I'm saying is that generally, like, people are too disengaged and just not built for understanding politics on any deep level, you know, um, and,

uh, they're not really capable of it. But it's also, you know, added to that, like people, they develop uh they become invested in kind of attaching their own um kind of their own uh their own uh their own conceptual biases you know to um you know the some of these prevailing uh some aspects of the

prevailing narrative, even if that's not intended by, you know, the, like I said, the true kind of architects and guardians of, of, you know, the, the, the, the, the truly dominant political theology. And that's like what a lot of wokeism is, okay? But the, what, why this matters is not just, um, because, you know, like we're always talking about and as happened in the war itself war two if a people's any people's ability to live historically is destroyed you know it's like it's as if you're it's as if that it's as if those individuals as well as you know the culture that they are the bearers of as you know humans being the vessels of you know all all all things

conceptually regarded you know if you eradicate that you're you're wiping them off the face of the earth you're I mean just in you're wiping out their entire historical existence and I can't spin off on this here because it's just too it it its own discussion and it's just too complicated. But, you know, consciousness is key in an individual as well as communitarian capacity for culture to exist. And that's also, there's a subtle understanding that when we're talking about consciousness this in the modern era we're we're talking on things related to the soul okay and even if you don't believe in you know even if you're like agnostic whatever and you don't you don't believe in

you know like um the they're kind of like aristotelian um or uh or um or um or biblical you know concept of a soul you know you're talking about the ability of people um You know, to kind of, it's a thing that mitigates the knowledge that they're going to die. Okay. And when you're talking about a culture whose epistemic priors are something deeply and intimately shared in common, something that's rarefied and discreet to that population, you know, something that is very, very linear. it's not really clear where, you know, kind of one man or one woman's memory ends and another begins. I'm not talking about anything mystical or corny, but especially, too, as like a lot of, you know, things are revealed about the human genome and things like epigenetic memory are kind of demonstrated to be truly heritable.

I mean, it's what we kind of always knew is kind of being borne out even by the, even by the self-limiting, you know, parameters of the scientific method. Okay. So when you're talking about eradicating people's ability to live historically, you're talking about something monstrous. You know, you're not just talking about not letting people celebrate Christmas anymore. and they really like Christmas because they get toys. Or you're not really just talking about, well, people prefer to speak, you know, people prefer to speak like Aramaic and, you know, not, you know, not some other dialect, you know, because there's things we can express in Aramaic, like when you tell, like, you know,

sexy city that you love her, it's way more impactful. No, like we're talking about the literal, you know, kind of discrete transmission. of a of a prior consciousness, you know, over generations in a way that's timeless. So even as, you know, individual people die, like, they don't really die, you know, until, you know, truly, like, the end of time. And all, I mean, all, like, race and ethanol is, like, all worldly things is, is not permanent. but you know what I mean like it there is a some sort of ultimate resolution um achieved in death whether we're talking about individual people whether we're talking about persons at scale and you know some communitarian enterprise based on identity and you know shared epistemic priors

there's a natural course, if undisturbed, that such things follow, that I'm convinced is transcendental in and of itself, but that's, you know, not that that's way, way, way outside the scope what we're talking about. But like what I'm getting at is that this existential and total collision for lack of a more sort of poetic way to phrase it between Jews and Europeans or Jews and Westerners or Jews and Christendom it's it's it's

it's not just tremendous I mean it's it's fundamental to the experience of what it is to be human okay and because the West, whether people want to accept it or not, is, you know, the center of the human cultural universe, because it's around, it's the, it's the, it's the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, human cultural activity orbits, um, you're, you're, you're talking about something of, of, uh, you know, of, of

unfathomable importance, not just to the people involved directly, not just to people who, you know, are self-identified, you know, Jewish people or people who are, you know, people who are, uh, ethnically German or, uh, in America, you know, ethnically white, or for the immigrant type populations, ethnically Russian or ethnically, you know, Spaniard or left, you know, whatever. You know, basically everybody who partakes of, you know, the Western way of culture in, you know, in terms of any, any and all epistemic priors that shape their own discrete consciousness and that of, you know, those who they, you know, are, are connected to. Identitarian

capacities Obviously, you know, those people, like their own insularity has been compromised and thus their ability to transmit you know, the kind of epistemological thing, like, you know, consciousness at scale that we're talking about. But that doesn't mean it's completely gone.

fact it's very much there which is one of the things that you know proves a a fatal obstacle to you know perfect integration and they kind of just you know rendering beige and um unconscious of the whole planet but uh you know the the importance of this in just human terms in historical terms, in moral terms, in absolute terms, it can't be overstated. We're not just talking about something like weird, like kind of macabre trivia that, you know, weirdos like Ernst Zundel or, you know, like, you know, eccentric to, like to terrorize people like Thomas are into, you know or um you know and it's not just stuff that like you know these crazy jewish guys who can't like let go of of uh you know of um of their kind of um primitive and and uh and fundamentally uh

punitively adversarial view of the world i mean all those things might like might might be like be true too but you know there's a reason why I, if nothing else, you know, this is, uh, this, again, this is, this is the core of, um, the regime's narrative, okay, everything else is secondary, you know, um, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, I'm, now, that introduction went a little longer, to say the least than I wanted to, but I, but I, um, what I, um, what I wanted to get into today, today in more concrete terms is what at the um we got we got into last time you know sleskeen uri slesky and i know somebody on twitter the other today maybe or a couple days ago was asking when we were citing um some statistics on um the representation or over representation

rather of Jewish Bolsheviks you know and the party apparatus itself but most this was most pronounced in the police apparatus you know in the NKVD

which was you know a precursor of the KGB as well as the kind of you know, the police bureaucracies and, um, and, uh, executive administrations that, uh, were in charge of, you know, like state security, you know, and essentially, you know, sussing out political dissidents and dealing with them, usually with a bullet in the back

of the head, you know, not just in charge of state security and the police, but also of labor camps, of, you know, resettlement, you know, and like we, that was the, That was the preferred euphemism in the Soviet Union for ethnic cleansing, you know, the nationalities problem or resettlement. So, you know, we're talking about, you know, it's not just, we're not just talking about like, oh, you know, there was, there was a disproportionate number of Jews working for Gosplan or, you know, or in, you know, the XYZ, um, design bureau or whatever. you know it was they were very much like the the the sword or the the executioners of um you know the the communist part what became the communist part of the soviet union um and i made the point setting robert conquest who's basically unimpeachable i highly recommend him you know just on on his own terms.

You know, he made the point, as early as as 1965, and he revised his book in 1990, when, as I think I also discussed, the FSB was allowing certain people access

to the Soviet archives, including conquest, including Mr. David Irving. But despite the kind of histrionic you know defenses of people like of people like

Chris Hitchens or I think of them as a late grissy bitchens but you know despite their lamentations conquest was was basically exonerated and his

his claim was is and always shall be the quote the jabbers that um was that the Soviet Union was it's a Google like system was it was a system of death camps okay um you can't you can't you can't you can't exterminate 10 to 20 million people in in um in less than a decade with uh the lion share of them you know being annihilated in a three four year period you can't do that by accident okay and that's that's preposterous anyway, but, you know, and Conquest, he's not some sort of like,

what aboutism, or he wasn't just some like, what aboutism, Cretan, you know, going around, waving around is, you know, his calculations or what have you. I mean, his point was, as was an oldie's point. This was shocking, not just since barbarism. and something that if one were to if one were to if one was truly witness it,

particularly one of a sensitive heart, like it it's it's awe-inspiring in the most horrifying way. Like even just like I don't think I'm like a weak guy

although I am like a bookish dude who's very much an introvert. Like there's time, and pouring through these like reams of data about this type I started feeling like physically queasy or I start getting

like racing heart and like chills and stuff like I'm not trying to sound like some some fag or something but I mean like if you truly contemplate this at the scale indicated it's unbelievable it's uh

like this voracious it's like this voracious this factory of death that cannot be sated. I was imagine in my mind, like, there's one of those old cartoons. I think it's actually from Ireland during the 1920s. You know, they had a pretty robust labor movement, you know, and it's like a metaphor for, you know, the worker trying to keep up with the demands of, the industrial

economy you know and I'm desperately hoping like his body doesn't give out or he doesn't become ill or something so it's like this it's like this muscular like guy and he's shoveling coal into this steam train

you know like the fat cats or like sitting back just like watching him he's definitely like shoveling more and more like in my mind like when I read you know about the zenith of the Soviet Union's megaside I you almost like imagine like human beings just being like shoveled into this like gaping maw or like this fire or something

i mean that's like heron is bosh like and i don't i don't want to capitulate to um you know uh the tendencies of a restless imagination and you know become as pitiable as the enemy and and um in painting these kinds of like, Hironi's Bosch, like, you know, horror shows and pretend, like, see that's history. But there's something, there's something awesome in, not in, like, the worst way. It was like awesome, I mean, like, awe-inspiring, but in, like, a horrifying way about it. And this is, you know, this is what, this is what the men who became the architects of the Third Reich this is what they were bearing witness to. It was the like the end of the world.

Not like in the world. It was the end of the world. Okay. So I missed that backdrop, that's all totally redacted, unless you're, you know, a self-motivated, you know, student of,

um, historiography. Um, but, you know, um, in a moment what the implications

of what I just described were for, not to be flippant, but the German Reich and Romania, Croatia, Hungary, the several access states. And again, not to be flip and a crew, like

returning to serve and annihilating Jewish civilians, or Jewish non-combatant, civilians isn't the correct term regardless of age sex or overall health or um or um combatant status like like what you know what what led to that is is again like completely redacted so this is this is viewed in isolation as some sort of spontaneous murder conspiracy but you know at um at nuremberg and if you go to any of these quote Holocaust museums

was alleged that all the ones I've seen is the Nuremberg narrative. It's that this murder conspiracy of the Third Reich to kill the Jewish people

or the Jewish race it was always in the mind of Adolf Hitler and the control group of the NSAP but the architecture of it and the conspiracy, the literal like inchoate aspect of the crime that was the

Third Reich was hashed at the Vonsi conference on January 20th, 1942. They even made a movie about it with Kenneth Brana of all people as Reiner-Hydric. Like kind of the Brana is actually a pretty good actor. But that's ridiculous. I mean, it's just like ridiculous.

Like that's... Yeah. I remember I remember when in drop. Like it'd be it'd be like It's almost as off base as like casting like a black guy Is like It's that naughty Six foot six foot three

Just most intense looking guy Yeah Hydra was just like an unusual like looking person too Like I mean for better for better or worse You know but anyway but the That is like the court narrative And There's not really much there. I mean, like we talked about in the episode on Nuremberg,

it's basically a lot of galighters and security state. Functionaries, you know, who are, you know, kind of viewed in a particularly sinister and punitive light. Obviously, you know, Hydrick first among them as chief of the, the SD and just frankly, a remarkable figure, but inarguably a very, very dangerous and frightening man. I think that goes without saying, where I want to sympathy. But what's really peculiar about this is if you read the actual historical, what's presented as the historical record, which interestingly, there's more truth to this in terms of its interpretation than people would think that I'd allow.

And I'm going to explain this in a minute. But the first instances of, you know, the categorical destruction of Jewish non-combatants, it was July 28th, August 31st, 1941 at the Pripyat Martias. in Ukraine. Now this is notable for a lot of reasons, and not the least to which, Herman Fageline, who was one of the last people in the Fyro bunker, and who was an incredibly seedy individual, and he ultimately married Eva Braun's sister.

And he's a notorious womanizer, just kind of degenerate lout. ultimately in the final days Hitler had come to hold him in a kind of well-placed contempt When Fageline was found having stripped his uniform off

And he was drunk in the bed Of one of his many mistresses You know Hitler's like Okay bring that motherfucker fucker here You know And he had him like hauled back to like the furor bunker And he gave

him uh he gave him the um ultimatum of uh either uh you know drumheads court marshal in summary execution or uh um picking up uh picking up a k98 or a machine pistol and you know going out to fight the red army you know which at that time was about all of you know like 15 20 kilometers from from the pure bunker um i mean this is just needless to say the ward didn't and well for poor herman fageline but fageline was um a very very skilled um equestrian is that what you call a horseman an equestrian or the equestrian like the act okay um and um fageline and his father had been tapped early on to develop a a shoot-staffel

cavalry corps of sorts which initially had pretty much like a ceremonial parade ground function like this wasn't just a cover but as Barbarossa jumped off fascinatingly in my opinion

the SS cavalry regiments which later on in March 9042 became 8th Vafen SS Florian Geier who's on my shirt. Do you see the horse head on one of the sheets?

Okay, that was the standard of Florian Geyer, and it's a horsehead because they literally were a cavalry division. And what they, the kinds of duty they found themselves charged with later was a little more varied. but some of this mission orientation remained. If you want to, if you, if you're trying to control populations, okay, whether in, and literally in an anti-partisan capacity, not, you know, I'm not using that as euphemistically. But if you're trying to do that too, if you're, you know, if you're quite literally behind the lines, you know, dealing with guerrillas and dealing with, non-combatants just in varied capacities um you can control people on horseback you know

chicago PD like they still like you know field guys like on horses you know for crowd control so july 19th 1941 that's those cavalry regiments one and two um they were deployed along with the first SS Infantry Brigade. And at that time, the Vafn-S-S-S was nascent. It was organized around the brigade structure. That was like its core. Like there were like SS divisions, Vapen-SS divisions. But they hadn't, you know, they had not, they were few in number.

And they didn't, like the Vavent SS-S-S-S-S-S-Divisions. as we know it, like, is, like, indicated, like, on my shirt, all these heraldries. I'm not trying to be corny. It's just I just realized I didn't, like, do it was intentionally, but it was organized on the brigade structure. And, like, prior service guys, like, that, the double cut, they'll understand why that was. I mean, that's not just not something at wheelhouse, but I don't want to get into, like, this long run an explanation of why.

This isn't a military science discussion, nor am I qualified for that. But the, uh, as is KIAER regiments, July 19th. They joined the first SS infantry brigade, as well as the 162nd inventory division and the 2502nd inventory division of the Vermacht, of the here. They were deployed to the Pripyat Marshes in Belarus, the city of Ukraine, I believe, in Belarus. And they were joined by Einzatz Group B. Einstein's Gruppen were anti-partisan elements but they were also charged with

pacification of territories behind the lines. They generally followed the Vermacht and the Boffin SS at distance. Ultimately, They were generally the formation, not exclusively charged with carrying out things like the Commissar Order. They became, they were purposed as, and this revisionist who say this is not true, and they're being dishonest. They were purposed as an element to, you know, that was charged with ethnically cleansing, conquered territories, you know, whereby the populations and quite, you know, due to immutable characteristics or due to having been radicalized, you know, by, by Bolshevik cadres or whatever, like, they could not be pacified. So they had to be categorically exterminated. I'm not saying, like, within the bout irrationality of the Third Reich. I don't want people jumping all over me saying, how do you? I mean, I don't really care of that. That kind of makes it hard to have serious discussions, you know? But Einstein's group B, um,

joined the Faglines cavalry, these here infantry elements, and this first SS infantry brigade. Overall command authority was granted to HARTS UND POLITZIPSI, HIR, Hire SS and police leader. Not a WAPAN SS general. an SS general. Not an army general. The rank of a higher SS and police leader,

it was somewhere between a gall lighter, like a wartime gal lighter and a general officer responsible for a contested military district. But that's exactly what it was. part of it owed to the formal acts of unity. I mean, you know, that a lot of which were pushed through on the heels of the Enabling Act, which DeJure created a unity of party and state, but for limited purposes.

in limited structural capacities. And most often, it related to assimilating localized police elements into the SS in some capacity. And bringing the police authority that the SS had been afforded by this process, like bringing that to bear over, you know, military forces in limited mission-oriented capacities, okay? So what I'm getting at is this was not accidental. Like, this force that was assembled here and with the higher SSN police leader who was in charge, who was granted overall command authority, was Eric von Dumbai. Zalewski

Zalewski on July 28th Himmler conveyed a special order to Vondembach Zaluski and

the language of this is important as well as considering it in context okay it's July 28th 1941 Barbarossa is proceeding, it's exceeding expectations, okay. Like the Vermacht is, is, is conquering the Soviet Union and annihilating opposition by leaps and bounds. Okay, so this is important for reasons that I think will become clear momentarily.

this is not some desperate situation as was developing, you know, by the winter of 1942, okay? This was not a case where, you know, like the Demandis pocket, where, you know, a formerly, incredibly game division was still, you know, was still fighting, was still fighting like savages and devils, but, you know, other kinds of discipline were breaking down, like massacres were happening. Like, none of that was underway. So just keep that in mind. But the plain language of the order, and this is not disputable. Von Denbach-Zelivski, Zolewski, I'm sorry. He was ordered to harshly exterminate the Pripyat-Swap region's population who, quote,

exhibited disagreeable attitude to Germans. It specified people who, you know, were so disposed. Men were to be shot, women and children were to be deported, livestock and food was to be confiscated, and habitations and residences were to be burned. on the other hand and this was explicitly stated quote elements of the population showing agreeable attitude to Germans

were to be spared and possibly even to be armed if need arises okay now Himmler's orders were passed to Fageline through a SS Brigade Fuhrer Kurt Knobloch who met with

Fageline and Baxiluski on the 28th of July in I can never pronounce the name of the town but they'd start a quick command post of sorts

in Belarus near the Trippiat-Marsh region you know that was operationally forward okay um Fageline interpreted these orders

that I just read aloud as follows um enemy soldiers in uniform were to be taken prisoner you know presuming they were unarmed um

enemy soldiers or partisan enemy soldiers out of uniform or partisans were to be shot outright. Jewish males of fighting age, with the exception of a few skilled workers whose skills were desperately needed,

such as medical doctors or, you know, like, leather workers or, like, mechanics. With those exceptions, Jewish males of military or fighting age would be shot outright. And this was accomplished this was accomplished by dividing the operational area into two sectors. One IEG bank of the Pripyat River, according to the map. The first cavalry regiment taking the northern half, the second cavalry regiment coming up from the south.

and um the uh the uh the uh first s s infantry was the sweep in from the east the uh the uh the the the here vermic elements were to back them up presumably um now here is where things get strange okay the only real scholarly treatment of this other than just kind of like casual references you'll read you'll read a book by you know some

Ed Bisham type you know like the destruction of European jury and it'll be you know they'll talk about you know July 28th August 22nd you know there was there was an Einstein group action where 22,000 people died.

You know, Fageline was in command. And then it'll, there'll be like little asterisk, you know, like where, you know, on the map this occurred. But like, that's it. The kind of seminal, and I'll get into, like, what's strange about this in a minute. The seminal kind of description of this, which is accepted as, like, the factual historical record, it was written by a man named Henning Piper. He's dead now.

Okay. He was a German jurist, a very college guy. No relation to Yakum Piper. And he was born in the 30s. He was born too late for military service. But I'm going to get into Piper's biography a bit because it's relevant. Okay. If nothing else to demonstrate, he was a highly credible guy otherwise.

He was a long. serving German jurists and a judge, as we said. He was born around 1931, 32. Early in his career as a judge around 1970, he served on the Brownschweig Regional Court, which is a court of judicial review, okay, and this is in 1970. He dealt with a number of high-profile cases on review, okay including including some death sentences that had been handed down by what was called the sandergert or courts of special jurisdiction in the third rike uh the sandergert had an odd mandate it wasn't always clear you know where their authority began and you know where they had of a more traditional you know kind of criminal and municipal courts um ended okay but something particularly in a place like

the boondis republic and especially during you know like the denotification period and especially just you know in old europe generally if you were somebody who's you know mother father brother uncle, you know, had been executed, you know, by a Sondaghert court, you could probably pretty easily get a, you know, an order of clemency granted, okay, so that, you know, the family name would be cleared, you know. And there's plenty of judges, obviously, who just rubber stamp, oh, anything laid down by a National Socialist court was just illegitimate. Right. Okay. Well, Henning Piper wasn't like that. Like, he didn't just rubber stamp these things.

And he made a lot of people upset because he wouldn't just declare that, you know, decisions handed down by son to Garrier. courts or other national socialist era courts, even those directly, again, insinuated into the party. You know, he very much came down and came down on the side of this was the legitimate government of the German Reich. You know, that doesn't mean that all is lawful. you know, that doesn't mean that there's a presumption of, um, of legitimacy, but it doesn't mean the contrary either. So what I'm getting at is that Piper, he was not some crazy anti-fascists seeing Nazis under his bed. He was not some crusading guy out to kind of like write historical wrongs by, you know, refighting World War II, you know, from judge's quarters with his pen and, you know,

and an endless appetite for judicial activism if you follow me. Okay. But why am I getting at this? Well, here is what Piper claims happened at the Pripyat Marshes. According to Henning Piper, on August 1, 1941, Himmler notified Fageline by Telegram and said that the night. numbers of Jews killed at Pripyat Marshes were far too low. Subsequently, Himmler issued a regimental order, which Piper identifies as order number 42.

And I know Irving, David Irving, has taken this up directly, and I don't know if you can still access it. His website's wonky and really hard to, like, navigate. But that, my point is, like, I've not researched this specifically. I'm in the process of it now, but what Piper alleges is that the language of order number 42, it called for all male Jews over the age of 14 to be killed outright. And all women and children were to be called driven into the swamps and drowned. Now, there's a couple things wrong with this.

Heinrich Himmler is not accountable to anybody. He's not Ernst Medina in the Republic of Vietnam in 1968. He doesn't have to stack up a, quote, body count. Like, who, too low for what? And again, I'm not trying to be flipping. And why would he just change his mind? You know, why, again, he's not only not accountable to anybody, but what the private person is to be insinuating, like, let's suppose that like he was.

Like, wouldn't he err on the side of caution and just be like, that's it? Everybody hears an enemy combatant. Everybody hears a partisan. They all die. And finally, why, why, why is he calling for women and children to be, quote, driven into the swamp and drowned? He's got at least three regiment-sized forces of infantry, arm to the absolute teeth, and supply lines are splendidly intact. you're you're gonna potentially

traumatize your men by having them drown women and little kids and not shoot them I mean does do you see where I'm going with this if something's wrong here it um he goes on to continue that

um to describe that the water in the pripeate swamps was too shallow so it proved impractical that drowned the women and children, so they were frog marched to dry land, and then they were shot. But again, this doesn't make any sense. And furthermore, I thought that the onset of, you know, the Holocaust was the Vancey conference.

You know, and finally, the way the evening. used to block used to characterize the Holocaust. They didn't call it that. And they said, I think as we discussed before, their attitude was the Soviet people, you know, like they defeated fascism, and they paid a terrible cost. They lost 20 million of their, 20 million Soviet souls, okay. They didn't distinguish between Jews and non-Jews. You know, they didn't distinguish, you know, Kazakhs or Tajik's or, you know, Ukrainian, like they, they didn't, they didn't make draw such distinctions. They might have an official records. In fact, I'm sure they did, but they didn't, that's not the way they presented history. Now, with the Soviets always claimed, and this,

and nobody really contested this, which is another thing that pokes holes in the Vancey narrative. October 22nd to 24th, 1941 in Odessa. We've talked before about how Romania was basically the Reich's best ally, not just because Ion Antonescu was personally extraordinarily loyal to Hitler. But he was a very game commander. He was a holder of the Knights Cross or the Iron Cross, among many other things. but Romania, they, about a quarter million men joined the Vermacht in assaulting the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, which is a huge commitment for a country the size of Romania.

But in Odessa, there was large areas that were actually under Romanian authority, you know, like military districts, okay? for the largest and the most hotly contested was the transnistria government or governor it and during the autumn of 1941 through uh you know like winter winter and spring like late late winter early spring 9042 it was it was under Romanian military control uh like later it was for a time was under like you know Romanian civilian control like police but not military control and then and then um when uh when the access were on the retreat it was it was it became a military protectorate again but it's but that's all that's a very confused history but the trans ministry of governorate um on october 22nd 94 1941 was under direct Romanian military control

It was located between the Dynester River and the southern bug or boog. I don't know how you pronounce it. Boog River or Bug.U.G. On October 22nd, 1941, there was what had formerly been in NKVD, like headquarters. and that's where the uh that's the romanian um uh the commander of the of the governorate um that's where he set of his headquarters as well as the aboriginal headquarters of the romanian 10th infantry division which had like settled in to like settled in there and they were uh they were a pretty crack formation i mean they'd been in heavy heavy combat well on october 20 on october 22nd um remote-controlled bomb, IED exploded. It had been planted there by sappers before the city had been, you know, surrendered and abandoned by Soviet troops. The whole building collapsed.

It killed 67 people, including 16 officers. And it killed the commander of the whole city. A guy named Yohan Glogajanu. So, and this was a disaster. The Romanians, you know, the hot blooded Romanians, but beyond that, I mean, they, like, imagine, like, imagine if in Vietnam, like, imagine during, like, the Tet Offensive. Like, there's, like, like, Westmoreland had been blown to hell by, like, the Viet Cong. I mean, like, think about that.

you know um the response uh um was a direct or the commandant of um of uh romanian forces in theater a guy named uh nikolai tatirano he received a direct order from ion antonescu you know marshal antonescu you know the um the military governor for all practical purposes of Romania. He wasn't the president or the prime minister or the consular. I'm not trying to be punitive. I'm trying to think of the most accurate way to describe his office. He ordered immediate reprisals against the Jewish population and known communists. the Romanian army was immediately backed up by Einstein's Gruppen,

who arrived on the 23rd of October in Odessa. They proceeded to kill between 5,000 people. They just swept through Odessa's residential areas, you know, like sussed out like all residents, regardless of age. sex, overall health, political affiliation, and then just did just hang them. You know, some were frog marched out to a field that have been used for drumheads, court marshals, and summary execution as sappers, and nearly 100 men were apparently just

like sees and frogmarched out there and shot. about 200 more people of both sexes were apparently executed in the Slipadga neighborhood. And about in Moldavanka, another 251 residents, both sexes were just shot. And finally, in Alexandrovsky Prospect, the 400 townspeople who lived there were were um the word were shot according to some accounts they were some of them were um were forcibly corralled into a some kind of burn like structure and and just burn alive i don't know if that's embellishment but frankly it wouldn't surprise me considering the circumstances you know

this was total war um in a um military district where men who'd been, you know, in in heavy, heavy action against the Red Army, a well-respected, a well-respected general officer, you know, had just been murdered, you know, along with his entire staff. You know, these men were not just enraged, but they had to be very, very frightened. And when people are frightened, they become bloodthirsty. but I think I've gone on for probably way too long. And I'm sorry if those are two scattershot.

I swear it's going to come together more when there's a more kind of complete picture. Like I hope nobody's disappointed in this, kind of the trajectory that this episode took. But there's more to the story, but we need to get into that later. You know, and again, I hope it's your, it's your show. I hope you're not disappointed in the outcome. But, yeah, this, this is backstory to everything that's, to the wrap-up. Yeah, I think, yeah, I mean, and like I said, I think, there wasn't really a context for it when we were doing our World War II series, you know.

I mean, there was, but just would have, it didn't really fit, and it's too, it's too it's too much of a dedicated focus but frankly it was a pretty macabre topic but I mean there's some of history is macab you know like I was researching the

Camer Rouge because I'm writing Steel Storm 3 now that's one of the in addition to running my nerve we're writing Steel Storm 3 and with like fiction you got you just kind of like it was straight with air it's hot it's like oh I got a great I feel like writing this freaking story so whether it's three

in the morning or you just do it But a major plot point of the Steelstorm books is one of the main characters' fathers was fighting as the Camero Rouge. And it takes place in Cambodia. And that's macabre stuff. But it happened. I mean, it's not very, I can't, I can't call myself a historical writer and say, oh, I don't want to, I don't want to get into that. That's, that's, that's, that's macabre, that's, you know, so. That's my, by people can take it or leave it. Well, I mean, we've gotten to the point as a culture that talking about what, you know, the realities of, I mean, there are people who wonder how there can actually be war in the modern day when that's just been the defaults of all mankind in the history of mankind.

Well, yeah, and it's also the, I try to emphasize the people, again, it's not just, there's epistemic priors that, you know, shape everything people do in the world and the way they structure. their values, you know, on matters prosaic and profound. This is all bound up with the experience of the 20th century and the war. And, you know, it was not an ordinary conflict. You know, I mean, I can't, I've got to even emphasizing that to people. It's not like just, I mean, and this also, this is 100% what is, responsible for the present day and you know just people's entire conceptual vocabulary this is where it derives from you know like i said we're not like guys just like sitting around we're not just

guys like fixated on like the crimey war or something we're just like you know this is really important stuff just you know everybody should know about it i mean it's like literally like this is this is um this is the basis of um you know it's the spirit of the edge the zeitgeist yeah and everybody uh These the epistemic priors of everybody from, you know, the, uh, for, you know, from the prince down to the pauper. But that's, um, every people have heard me talk enough for, uh, for today. I mean, I'm tired listening to myself. And for I'm just tired, man, frankly. Like, I'm elderly.

Hey, you want to just do a couple of plugs? Don't get, don't stop? Yeah, man. People can check me out on Tgram. Um, my. My T-G-Gram channel has been pretty lit lately. It's Thomas Graham. Number 7. H-M-A-S-Gram 777.

Buy me on Substack. Real Thomas-777. That's Substack.com. You can hit me up on Twitter. I'm easy to find there, but my shit is locked. It's locked because even though I never buy T-OS, they just like ban me, like, constantly. And I believe it's because some...

some some fuck, some, like, fuck-faced or, like, or some, like, insane, like, lesbian or something, like, sees me, like, tweet. Like, I like bananas. And she's like, that fuck said he liked bananas. That's not, we can't tolerate that. He should die. And then, like, then some, like, Twitter fucking Poon jab just, like, nooks me. I mean, that's, like, how I envisioned it happening.

You know, maybe it doesn't mean it happens. I'm not just, like, talking. It's happened nine times. And I never once violated TOS. And Twitter, Twitter is, is, is fucking, garbage, but it, it does, like, serve a purpose. And that's one of the reasons why, like, we literally are plugged in, like, thousands, tens of thousands strong, like coast to coast, not because of Twitter, but because of, like, social media platforms, you know, and our ability to exploit them to positive effect. But other than that, I'm playing catch-up on all kinds of

shit. Um, and I'm trying to launch my, um, season two of the podcast. I got some, I got, I'm piling up like dope content, but it's got to be edited. It's got to be skinned. Just please, please be patient. The brand just me and like my dear friend and crime partner, Rake. It's like just us, like doing all this. So it takes time. I promise I'm not just like fucking off and like, you know, resting on my laurels. But it's going to be a little longer than I want before things before fresh stuff um like drops and not like long long it'll be in the next like few weeks i promise it'll be you know before summer's end but thank you for bearing with me and i am sorry um but it uh again it's where we're like a two-man operation you know just shit takes

time and i mean quality takes time but that's yeah that's enough of me rambling man thanks again for hosting me um yep it's always uh it's always great and it doesn't It, like, really helps me with, you know, all in my research. Like, it really does just so, you know, it, like, I'm not just saying that. Like, it's a huge, huge, like, blessing that you invite me on to do these series, man. That's all I got. No, I appreciate your time, man. I really do.

You know, I appreciate your friendship, too. So, um, boys. We'll talk soon. Yeah, man. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Kenyana show. after a hiatus for both of us, I'm back with Thomas. How are you doing, Thomas? I'm very well.

Thanks for hosting me. I'm glad to be back at it. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people are waiting for part four of this impromptu kind of series that we set up. And what do you want to talk about today? I was going to get a bit into the Nuremberg-Law's. which was the basis really of the entire anti-Jewish apparatus of the third right. Everything in the moderate state, whatever the ideological configuration of that state may be, any executive action originates legislatively, okay, even if it's just a nominal,

a nominal invocation, you know, of emergency power or something. It originates conceptually with a constitutional process or with an extra-constitutional process that, you know, by consensus is agreed to represent, you know, an expressly delegated sovereign power of the executive, okay? There's inherent problems there, particularly, I'm not even speaking, like, ethically or anything, although obviously that emerges, too. There's limitations to what one can accomplish with the law. You know, it's just not, it's not something that has, like, intrinsic to it to its reasoning. There's just built-in limitations, okay?

especially when one considers that the law it would or it's the core of it the core of any legal code is uh is conceptual definitions okay like defining what the subject is of any piece of legislation okay um it's meaningless to declare that

you know what you want to accomplish or what the purpose of this law is okay that's why like in our system If you pull the legislative history, you know, particularly things that originate in committee, okay, of any body of legislation. You know, they're talking about like civil rights legislation or, you know, the federal narcotics schedule or anything like that. I mean, you can understand kind of what the tenor of discourse is or kind of like, you know, what kind of narrative. was dominant at any given epoch, but that doesn't tell you anything about, you know, how the law is going to be structured. You know, where the rubber meets the road, what we're talking about is categories, discrete categories, of a conceptual nature that, you know, can be discreetly identified and defined.

So, you know, Carl Schmidt got into this and pretty much everything he wrote. And, you know, there is a metaphysical aspect to the friend-enemy paradigm. I mean, obviously, we're talking about, you know, a formal state of war under the Westphalian system, you know, where you have a state that's very, very robust in its mandate onto a very strong rural consensus, you know, based on a very homogenous kind of identitarian concept of self among the body politic. you know if you're literally at war under those conditions where there's the enemy kill him okay yeah you know um that the men wearing the other uniform you know who were attacking or the enemy but if you're talking about something uh like the conditions that um you know where in the third

rike was emergent i mean this becomes very convoluted okay even if somebody accepts entirely what kind of the raison d'etra was of the third Reich. Okay. Even if you accept entirely this idea that, you know, the Jewish world, the social existence, you know, had created, had given a rise to Bolshevism. You know, and Bolshevism was a violent repudiation of the European way of life. And in practice, you know, it was exterminating Europe as an entity. Okay, even if you accept that,

It's like, okay, well, who is a Jew? You know, is a Jew a guy who goes to synagogue? Like, is he a guy who, you know, identify, like, thinks Jewish things? You know, is he a guy who, you know, who identifies with Zionism? You know, is he a guy whose mother is Jewish? Like, is he somebody who's, you know, like, part of a racial group? Now, the Nirmar laws, what they decided on was very interesting.

because intrinsic to it, intrinsic to the code, it was not this one drop rule kind of thing where anybody who had any Jewish blood was excluded from the national community and, like, hounded and targeted for destruction. What it actually did was it built in incentives for people who were, you know, mishlings are part Jewish to assimilate biologically for like a better way to characterize it into the national organism like what do I mean by that um the uh the Nerva laws were actually only two laws initially it's September 15, 1935 a special session of the Reichstag passed two laws one was the law for the quote protection of German blood and honor that forbade marriage and extramarital relations between Germans and people who were identified as Jewish.

It forbade the employment of German females under age 45 in Jewish households. Secondly, there's the Reich citizenship law and it declared that only those persons of German or related blood like germanic blood that was its own body of of of law that uh you know as um people are never want to point out we want to cast the regime and most punitive like possible um arguably it relied more on you know ethno-linguistic categories and biological ones but that's not important for discussion now um it the right citizen citizen citizen Law declared that not only could, you know, only Germans or Germanic, like adjacent populations to become citizens, the remainder were classified as state subjects without any citizenship rights.

Okay. Now, who was a Jew? Okay. A November 14th supplement to the Nuremberg Laws, it set out the racial categories of Jew. Okay, a racial Jew was a person with at least three Jewish grandparents, okay? A Michelin first degree with somebody who was half Jewish, a quarter Jew, and so on, okay? But what was bizarre about this is that, I mean, according to what most people would perceive was what I mean, anybody who was three-eighths to half Jewish

they'd be forbidden from participating in certain party organizations they'd obviously be forbidden from you know joining the Shustafel but they would be citizens okay um and they'd have all the they'd have all the citizenship rights as somebody with no Jewish blood

okay so obviously the implication is clear. They wanted to dilute Jewish blood out of the national organism. That's a very, very different thing than some kind of one drop rule, if you follow me. And interestingly,

well, there's two things that are interesting. Something to supplement the November 14th, 9035 supplement also declared was that people who are not of Jewish race, but who practice the Jewish faith. They were categorized as Jews under this schema. Okay. And interesting, at least to me, the halaka, the rabbinic law on who is a Jew. It was much more strict than defining who is a racial Jew than the Nuremberg laws were.

Any person with a Jewish mother is a racial Jew. Now, with the status of Halakha is today, vis-a-vis other more contemporary methods or criteria, that's ambiguous, but I don't read or speak Hebrew. I am not at all an expert on Israeli law, but I do know that this lead, what the criteria that they rely upon has led to some peculiar outcomes. Most notably, if people remember these Ethiopian Jews who invoke the right of return and were met with very profound resistance by the Zionist state, they submitted the genetic testing. And these people are, according to, you know, if one views race in primarily genetic terms, these people are racial Jews. Okay. But obviously, they're very, very different than the majority of population in Israel. And this, you know, this, this is a prime example of how, you know, I'm not just thinking of all the, like, race isn't real or something.

Obviously it is. But in political terms, in cultural terms, it's a lot more complicated than simply reading somebody's DNA. Okay. I mean, it goes without saying, but again, it, it, it, the, the purpose of the Nervor-Lug, was was built in to the identitarian scheme and that scheme obviously was tailored to assimilate Jews biologically, okay, which is fascinating because it cuts against kind of the entire, the entire narrative that was presented at, you know, the Nuremberg trials and subsequent, this idea that this one drop rule wasn't place and anybody with any quote Jewish blood was hunted down and things like this um i'm not just playing lawyer ball here this is fundamentally important um and it's something uh that uh it's something that um you know this idea of identity being a primarily like racial characteristic you know like

in in this i'm not trying to plug my own work product but uh the piece on you just that I just submitted, you know, a couple months back to the asylum magazine on eugenics. Where I cited Lothrop Stoddard, because however anyone feels about Stoddard. He had an audience with Adolf Hitler, and he was able to bear witness to things like eugenics courts that, frankly, just most, most outlanders were not permitted to. And he made the point, like, wow, this is really weird, because you know, in America, in the UK, in France, in the rest of the, you know, developed Western world, you know, eugenics was a progressive enterprise and it was based, you know, on social hygiene.

And like, you know, it wasn't, it wasn't looking to identify, you know, in by a lot, concrete biological terms that lent themselves to legislative remedies. It wasn't aiming to identify, you know, metaphysical characteristics in these terms. You know, it was a very different thing. And again, you know, as Stoddard said in his, I'm quoting him directly, another misconception is that the Nazis regard the Jews as a distinct race. To be sure that term is often used in popular writings and many ignorant Nazis may believe it, but the scientific men do not defy obvious anthropology. that this is highly significant, okay, because again, it suggests a totally different concept of eugenics and what the purpose of eugenics are. You know, a kind of sociological enterprise aimed at alleviating, you know, behavioral ills at scale, you know, versus a way of, a way of.

of you know a way of um a way of devising um you know political and legislative solutions you know to it's a high political matters you know really in a friend and enemy um relations um now most significantly um this the final um supplemental decree to the nuremberg laws was article seven Article 7 declared that the fur and or the Reich's chancery by order of the fur could alter the status of any person identified by law as a Jew with the stroke of a pen. Okay. Such was the case of a Feldmanchel Erhardt Milch, you know, who was not just the architect of

of Lufthansa and really kind of the first, not kind of, he was the first, you know, commercial airline CEO, but he was, he was the hero of the Battle of Narvik. He was, you know, he really, and he was an aviation pioneer, just like an incredible guy. Um, and very much a totally dedicated national socialist, but he was also, his father was Jewish. Okay, that's indisputable. Um, I know some people will cite, you know, David Irving, the rising well, the Lufotha is in all but title or in all but name.

The oral history and a biography of Earhart Miltch. Like Irving got to know Milsch personally and, you know, took down, you know, hours and hours of his testimony and a Milch didn't want to dig into painful

topics. Um, and, uh, he, uh, he, uh, he swore Irving the kind of silence about, um, his parentage, but for the, uh, official record of it, which the official record being that, um, um, um, Milch's, uh, father was not really his father, but he was the progeny of an extra marital affair, um, which is bizarre. Uh, but, but, But it's a bizarre alibi, but this was a bizarre body of law. And when one considers what the purpose was of, you know, the Article 7 exception, it makes perfect sense that, you know, what would be suggested was that, you know, something of you know something of a morally questionable nature would be the truth

and this is why you know by all accounts you know this man's father was Jewish you know of course nobody would want to admit to you know being the the child of an adulterous affair but all of that notwithstanding what is documented is a approximate

150,000 racial Jews served in the Vermeck between 93 and 949-45. There's a guy named Brian Mark Rigg. He wrote a book called Hitler to Jewish soldiers. However anyone feels about him as in terms of his politics or whatever, his methodology is sound in this regard. I've very diligently, consulted his sources and they're accurate. He cites a 1944 staff document

laying to personnel. It lists 77 officers of captains rank or higher who are of mixed Jewish race or married to a you. It included two generals, eight lieutenant generals, five major generals, and 23 colonels, and of course, Erhard Miltz, who was a field marshal. On all 77 of these declarations asserting that, you know, these Article 7 declarations included in the personal files of these men. and Adolf Hitler personally signed these declarations for all of them.

Okay. And this is interesting, too. And I'll buttress the point in a minute. David Irving makes the point that Hitler basically viewed in legislative terms and in terms of the law within the Third Reich itself. He viewed the quote Jewish question as solved after 1935 because, you know, a racial Jew no longer had any political rights. So the thing was done. Now, of course, there's a Hegelian view of the origin of Bolshevism, you know, again, as being the progeny of the Jewish world of social existence. but that's something of a different thing.

And stuff like the Commissar Order, you know, the Vermecht and the Vafanaassus and the Einzats group, and they were just as merciless towards, you know, non-Jewish racial, racial enemies on the Oshd front as they were to Jews. Okay.

Within the Reich itself, Hitler, after 1935, was not running, around, you know, declaring that the Jews had to be dealt with, because why would he? And I refer people a lot to the December 11, 1941, speaks to the Reichstag. Not just because it's Hitler's declaration of war against the United States, but as I made the point before, you know, he invokes very much a Prussian war mythology and political heritage. And speaking of, you know, the third Reich is literally the legacy regime of the Prussian state.

You know, well, he himself was a Habsburg Catholic. But also, he speaks about Bolshevism generally. He's not mentioned Stalin. He speaks of Churchill and kind of this sort of passing contempt. He talks about Judeo-Bolshevism in reference, but it's basically him saying that, like, FDR is like our moral enemy. You know, and that a constellation of forces, you know, one of which is the traditional enemy of Europe, which now has taken the form of this, you know, barbaric ideology that's literally like barbaric because it's, you know, whipping, you know, the primitive east.

into a frenzied or a fever. You know, obviously again, you know, like he assigned, um, he, he assigned, uh, you know, the Jewish discursive, um, process as being the progenitor of that, but he doesn't mention Jews as Jews, okay? Um, and that's highly significant. this is anecdotal but when we're talking about these kinds of great historical

personages I mean first of all life is anecdotal people are free to argue with me on that but if we're speculating about the subjective sympathies or ideas or prejudices of a singularly powerful man such as Adolf Hitler or a Mohammed or a cromwell or Stalin or an fDR these things are highly significant Hitler's best friend in the inner warriors was Emil Maurice Emil Maurice was a watchmaker by trade he'd met Edolf Hitler in 1919 when Hitler infiltrated the German world party that was under the leadership of Anton Drexler.

So Maurice was an old fighter of old fighters. In fact, Emil Maurice, his membership number in the SS was two. And that was only because Adolf Hitler's was number one. So Emil Maurice was literally the founder of the SS, okay? He was Hitler's personal bodyguard, he was Hitler's personal driver, and Hitler probably, during this period, spent more time with Maurice than anybody else, okay? And kind of tragedy and fashion, Maurice and Hitler fell out because Maurice confirmed, to Hitler that he was having an affair with Geli Ravel.

I believe Geli killed herself because Hitler forbade her to see Emil Maurice, and she felt she couldn't live without him. Maurice was a very dashing ladies' man type. Maurice was also a Jew, okay? Even after, much of the chagrin of Himmler, even after Hitler dismissed Maurice for the Gellie rebel affair, even after Gellie committed suicide. Hitler refused to allow the SS to persecute Maurice. He refused to undo his Article 7 certificate. Okay.

So again, if, you know, as court history tells us, as, you know, Nuremberg tells us, supposedly, Hitler was a singularly obsessed just Jew hater and this is all he thought about, and this was the raise on debt for the Third Reich. Why is he living his life like this? And why is he doing it openly? And why is he standing down as his chief of police

and his hangman, Himmler? You know, I mean, I pose this question to actual academic historians, and they say, oh, Hitler was a hypocrite. Okay, that doesn't answer my question. my question, you know, um, so there's that. And I mean, people say to me, like, why is this important? They'll suggest I'm just like trying to rehabilitate Hitler or something. I'm not doing that. And why is it important? Well, again, you know, like we discussed in our World War II series,

and like we discussed in this kind of, you know, mini series, um, the claim is that the Third Reich was not any kind of ordinary government, it was literally like this homicidal conspiracy, the purpose of which was what was to murder dues, okay, for whatever reason, you know, whether because they were identified as, you know, the progenitors of Bolshevism or whether they were just scapegoated, you know, like what, what, how, whatever the reported motivation was, this is what is alleged, okay? And this, this isn't just like a sort of, um, you know, secondary allegation or something. It's quite literally the core of, um, it's quite literally the core of, uh, of, of, of, of the Nuremberg, like, theory. You know, um, without that, it, it comes apart. Okay. I mean, without, you can still arguably, you know, make the case for things like aggressive war. Um, but again, like that doesn't, like, like the tie that binds and the thing

that supposedly the factor that supposedly removes Hitler and, you know, the inner party of an SDAP from normal considerations or ordinary considerations and privileges and immunities of a national government is what I just said, okay? But again and again, you know, we come back to these documented realities, you know, some of which out of subjective you know sort of personal decisions of the fear

some of which are demonstrated you know by like I said you know the the intrinsic logic of the Nuremberg laws you know to literally you know force Jews to assimilate

biologically which cuts against this entire theory of um of liability. Okay. That's why I focus on these things. It's not just because I've got my own conceptual biases,

because I've got a legal background. It's not just because I'm a ghoul or something. And again, I'm not even making some sort of case about, you know, my view of race. And it's not, it doesn't matter how I view race. Okay. We're talking about the bounded rationality of the Third Reich and what it was trying to accomplish and how that is different than what is alleged about it and what is alleged about these

processes and their purposes. And at the same time, I will add this too, because this comes up a lot. You know, a lot of people, and in our circles I noticed, a lot of people cite Julius Evelas. critique of fascism and national socialism. And there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, Julius Evel is great. That's worthwhile stuff. And the text in question is a serious thing.

You know, it's not some flippant ideological spreeed. But the point I make to people is that one of the reasons why communism developed the momentum it did. Okay. is that uh scientism had deeply penetrated the conceptual horizon

of the entire developed world and that wasn't just accidental and that wasn't totally misguided okay you kind of got to look at Bolshevism or Marxist Leninism, okay? You've kind of got to look at it like this. Okay, there's kind of an algebraic logic to it.

It's like, okay, no, it's obviously gobbly gook. It's not a science. But based on what was known in, say, 1920. It's the understanding was like, okay, well, we don't, we can't identify all the variables that would go into a planned economy at scale, but obviously at some point we will. It was understood that things like the 1929 crash happened because the velocity of money and, you know, the pace of decision making, aggregate decision making, like information awareness

could not keep up with that. Okay. That's why there wouldn't be another great deprivation. today. Okay, there are going to be other catastrophe fees, but like that would not happen because you literally have like moment to moment information awareness in a nearly complete capacity, at least potentially. Okay. So it was understood that, you know, at some point a lot of these processes at scale are going to be rubberized. Okay. So, you know, it's like if not, you know, take a more serious work that actually holds up like like cybernetics by norbert norbert whiner you know and put itself in the mind of even somebody like james burnham in like 1925 1930 you you would think like okay at some point yeah like why why why why would why would why would we lead you know things like the

price mechanism to just like spontaneous chance and trying to you know and trying to and trying to in trying to desperately like manage outcomes they're in like we could we could just identify what you know what the proper input is, you know? I mean, that's not the way economics works, but, you know, it's understood why people has took that for granted, okay? So, like, within that, milieu, if you're trying to understand, like, why is this enmity between peoples? Like, why does the friend enemy paradigm emerge? You know, okay, what is it to be, like, an Aryan or a Jew? Okay, well, it must be, we don't know what it, we can't identify all these, all these properties yet, but it must be something in your blood, which was a synonym man for DNA, but they didn't understand DNA yet.

You know, it must be something genetic, okay? It's, uh, so it's part of your race, okay? Not race, like, you know, in, in anthropological terms, but, you know, like your lineage, all right? Um, that's mischaracterized, too. It's like people will pull, I mean, even today, when people should, I mean, wherever you fall in the political spectrum, like people, this, this, this, this, This is fatuous. Obviously, people would be like, see, like, the Nazis were these, they were just as crazy as the communists. Like, they thought that people, you know, you could identify these identitarian phenomenon, you know, based on blood.

It's like everybody thought that. Like, America thought that. Japan thought that. Britain thought that. France thought that. You know, the leading minds of the era thought that. Like, you know, the most progressive liberals thought that. Like, everybody thought that.

You know, I mean, it's like, it was just taken for granted. you know so that that's on to keep in mind too like it um that's not a sale you can't make the case for you know the third rike being you know unduly fixated on race and things and like the jewish question but the manner in which they approached it that was there's nothing like peculiar about that and as i made as the i made in my and again i'm not trying to show my own stuff but that was the entire point of my submission to the association to the association asylum magazine is that that kind of reasoning was in fact a lot more deeply insinuated into the you know into the american um uh into the american public mind you know then it was in a place like

germany you know that's why why are you guys saying like jews ever been race like they they're not they're not they're not they don't commit street crime they're not prone to drunkenness you know they're not they're not black people like what what do you mean you know because that was totally at odds with like the whole the whole idea of like American eugenics is you know race qua race doesn't really matter except as you know how how we manage people socially at scale for the purpose of governance and how we like alleviate you know social ills and suffering you know so we don't need imbeciles we don't need you know black folks who are primitive and can't look at themselves we don't but it's but you know but beyond that you know if the if the end result of

that like taking into some kind of crazy counterfactual dystopian extreme if he had been just like this kind of literally gray race of totally non-creative people but who are like excellent worker drones who don't beat their wives to like the kind of gullent progressive

eugenesis he'd be like oh this is wonderful you know we have our like perfectly functional you know human ant farm you know and that's that's basically communistic you know so again it's you know we see this kind convergence between, you know, supposedly like scientific minds in Moscow, you know, trying to configure a state apparatus to, you know, manage hundreds of millions of people. And their congress in

Washington being like, yeah, that's, that's, that's the right way to go about things, you know, the planned economy might be nonsense, but the rest of this is a very good, is a very good, you know, is every sound kind of structure, you know? And that's key. So it's not just splitting hairs, you know, when people say it's like, oh, Nazi eugenics. It's like, honestly, like, I don't even, it's, it's, eugenics, that's something you can't really extricate from, you know, kind of like the capital L, like, liberal progressive mind.

like what the National Socialists were doing, it was informed by eugenic reasoning, but it was really like something different. You know, like it wasn't, it wasn't, um, you know, saying that, uh,

you know, we've got a, we've got to like identify, you know, the, um, we, you know, we,

we've got to identify like, you know, the, the culture bearing stratum, you know, and cultivate that so that Europe, can survive, you know, and continue to produce, you know, high culture for the next thousand years, you know, and leave a prudial legacy even when we're gone, you know, based on these kinds of aesthetical principles of culture. Like, it's not at all what Francis Galton was up on. It's not what people like George Bernard Shaw were talking about. I mean, it's a totally different thing.

Like, they would look at that as like, that's insane. And Stoddard was more sympathetic than they would have been. I mean, Stoddard was very much like a man of kind of old rite. But even he was like he, he was looking at, he was literally like bringing witness this like, you know, this like eugenics court in the Third Reich and saying, you know, I'm being silly, but not really saying that you're doing it wrong. and then like as a when he had his audience with a hitler you know he talked about Hitler like he was some kind of high-flying very serious like very dangerous like kind of shaman figure you know like that he didn't really get you know like he wasn't like oh wow this guy's great like he's you know he's always talking about you know like perfecting uh the human genome or like perfecting or knows he's

perfecting human blood you know through there all these you know great scientific measures and things like it was a totally different tendency you know and that's kind of the key to understanding these things and um that's also and i mean again like i didn't i didn't i didn't i didn't mean to just go off on some weird tangent about you know the nature of uh of national socialist race laws but the way it's presented and not just in pop history but the way it was presented in open court at the International Tribunal was basically, you know, this is just a eugenics model, but it's doing bad science and it's going to haywire, you know, in a way that we wouldn't do it. And it's because they hate Jews and view them as this other race, which is

insane and doesn't make sense. And that's totally off base. As is again, This idea that, you know, uh, Hitler was this like singularly obsessed, uh, you know, biological eugenicist who, who ate, drank and slept, you know, uh, anti, like rabid anti-Jewish, um, sentiment, you know, um, and I,

till I go to the grave, I'm going to continue to drive that point home counter court historians you know knox i need to rehabilitate Hitler um but because um they're telling lies

or they're presenting a narrative based on contemporary kind of conceits and ideological um fascinations that's totally at odds of what actually happened and um you know

I know that I think this is misguided, but a lot of people on our side, they look at the table talk as not being valid, which I don't understand because direct testimony is the most valid, especially for purposes of discerning the subjective intentions, some of these prejudices of the declarant. Why is it that Hitler rarely speaks of Jews? in the table talk. Why is it in the second book, which Hitler indubitably wrote, unlike Mike Kompf, like, why is it not just like endless discussion of Jews there?

You know, like, how come in his speeches after 1933, it's just not a motif? And I'm not some out and out. I mean, I reject the paradigm of the Holocaust and I reject that term, but, I mean, a bunch of people command me on our side who get mad because I fully acknowledge that Himmler's post and speeches in October 1943, that's not a mistranslation, when he says, you know, to the assembled higher SS and police leaders, we're talking about, quote, the extermination of the Jewish people, you know, he means that. That's exactly what he means in literal biological terms. But that's a different question.

You know, and that's also when the Reich finally was approaching total mobilization. Conspiracies abounded that culminated in the July 20 plot. You know, a true race war had emerged on the Ostrefront. and after the Commissar Order I mean that all bets were off Okay That's the context to understand that in But there's no way you can euphemize that or say it's something it was not

So I'm not some Ernst Jundel type He's like oh none of this happened this is all lies At all Okay But I'm sure people just continue to say that I'm nitpicking or whatever Or that You know

or they'll suggest I'm like somehow terrified of having an unpopular opinion so I'm trying to just like finesse things or whatever it um that's um that's about all I've got for today um I'm getting over being sick which is nobody's problem of my own but um I got behind on things um I promise when we reconvene I'll have more to talk about um Well, you talked about not denying that these things happened. It's the old trope. It's the old meme. No one once asked why. You know, why did these things?

Well, yeah. And that's the whole. So I make the point. One of the reasons I study Vietnam so much, it's not just because, you know, if you were a Gen X, or as you know, because you are one. like Vietnam when we were kids like was very insinuated into the culture and like the older dudes who we looked up to like had been in Nam. And it's also, I mean, that's when the Cold War truly went hot. I mean, more so than in Korea, in my opinion. And people misunderstand me when I talk about like Pinkville and Milai and, you know, Ernst Medina and Ameriol Division and Lieutenant Kelly. The logic of the free fire zone and the strategic hamlet, and like Kelly himself said, you know, I considered these people to be, you know, like representative of the communist idea.

And in killing them, I was killing the idea, you know, and free fire zones, you know, like the rules of engagement being, you know, anybody was a fair target regardless of age, sex. overall health, like uniform status. That's not any different than what developed in the Ostrand in Belarus and Ukraine. It's not. Okay. Like, I know people are going to come back and be like, oh, but, you know, LBJ and McNamara weren't trying to exterminate the entirety of the Vietnamese people. It's like, well, their victory metric was the manufacturer of corpses and Vietnamese corpses

at that. Okay. I mean, you're, you're really drawing distinctions without difference. You know, and people also misunderstand them. They'll be like, oh, so you're saying a murder of a bunch of Nazis? I'm like, no. I'm saying that your Nazi boogeyman is not what you want it to be, you know. That's the face of modern war.

And 20th century modern war at that, which was, you know, total war. Not just in terms of, you know, mobilization apparatus and things like this. you know it it was ideological war it was um every every every every every every human being was a target potentially because they were the vessel of the enemy idea you know and in a total war of ideology you know the only way to destroy the enemy idea is to destroy its vessels and those vessels are human beings. And if those human beings are women or kids or old people, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, but you know what I mean? Like in, I'm talking about within the logic of such things. And that's why war is a very terrible thing. But that's a different question, you know.

I mean, all kinds of terrible things happen. You know, that's why we, we live on earth. We don't live in heaven. You know, we live in a wicked place. But yeah, that's, um, again, I hope. I hope people kind of understood why I wanted to discuss this specifically. And I'm aware of the fact that anybody with a legal background is going to have certain conceptual biases. So I hope this doesn't seem like an incomplete analysis or, you know, it's kind of like esoterica only of interest of people who sort of like share my own research emphasis. But I think it's important in just like a categorical way to the topic, you know, especially because the war truly resolved in a reconfiguration of world order based on a juristic model, literally.

Okay, that was premised upon assumption. is that we are unpacking here with this um you know these past like several um sessions but uh well um I've got an idea for um a final entry in this JQ series if you're amenable to that um I want to talk about what's that absolutely okay yeah yeah yeah um I'll Yeah, yeah, I think I think you'll approve. I'll, um, but, uh, people will see, know what I, and what that entails, like, when we record it. But will, uh, will TC being a flash, man, like this week, anytime you want? Like I said, I, uh, and, uh, I'm gonna, I'll, um, I'll address the subscribers on Substack.

I really am sorry, man, because people, people, like, I'm trying to phase out, like, the subscription fee totally, but I'm not quite there yet. It's as low as I can have it be without, like, eating a loss. But I'm hoping when I drop season two, when I drop season two, all, everything but, like, the fresh episodes is going to be free. So they'll access, like, all the old episodes for anybody can for free, okay? And I'm hoping by 2024, like, by New Year's, like, I won't need, you know, the $5 freaking one subscription, but that's literally as low as I can make it without, like, eating a loss.

I'm sorry I'm still like maintaining it. But, um, my point is, like, people show me a huge amount of love, like, literally. Like, it's, I, I'm really, really taking it back. Um, but they also, like, drop their harder money down to, like, access what I do. And I don't take that lightly. So I'm sorry, like, I've been on a hiatus. And then I got, I didn't need for it to be as long, but I got really fucking sick. So, forgive me for that.

I'm dropping some fresh stuff in the next couple of days, including my Nico Klau interviews. I think people will dig that. But I got lots of good stuff going on. And I'll plug my platforms here, if that's okay. You can find me at real Thomas-777.7.com. You can find me on Twitter for the time being, at least. my tweets are protected but I unless you're like an obvious op or like a shit bag I'll approve your follow request um it's at number seven HMAS 777 underscore official

I'm on Instagram seeking you shall find I'm uh I'm on TikTok like sleighs that might sound I'm trying to get I'm trying to hit bitch with myself to like video because you know the whole reason I set up the damn YouTube channel is because I want to to start shooting video um i i felt like kind of a faggot getting a tic-tog account but i mean like people like short-form videos and that's i mean we utilize what we have so i do have a tic-tok so i'm a i'm going to start uploading stuff there and i um oh and i i got huge love for the new york crew they know who they are like like legit man like there was incredible the kind of hospitality that you all showed me and I love you guys.

But that's all I got for now, man. And like I said, we'll record another episode on this whenever you want. We'll get it done this week. Thank you so much, Thomas. Always. Yeah, likewise. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Cagnonez Show. Thomas is here and we are going to wrap up this talk on the JQ.

How are you doing, Thomas? I'm very well. Thank you. Cool. All right. So what directions do you want to head in today? I wanted to talk about the context of Zionism, both in terms of the political and sort of moral environment in which it originated, as well as why it was problematic for the founders of the Zionist state. you know, to try and finesse what was in a purely objective terms, a remarkably brutal and exclusivist enterprise, it was problematic for them to try to sell this in the Court of World Opinion. Okay. And it remains the case today.

And this isn't an ordinary case of, you know, a people just asserting a kind of robust nationalism or something that, you know, is disdained by, you know, liberals or something like that. at all. It's a very, very unique case. Ernst Nolte, you know, who was very much a Hegelian, and obviously I'm sympathetic to that view over others in terms of what constitutes the process of history and zeitgeist. But he made the point, and I think this is indisputable, that the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, and the state of Israel are totally abnormal states. And they all originated out of the same nucleus of kind of of a of a conceptual discourse. Okay.

That's that's that's irrebuttable. So if people who claim to you know represent a right wing perspective or something say like, oh, you're just being a liberal because you don't like, you know, nationalism if you're Jews are doing it. That's not what the state of Israel's premised upon. and even if it were, I don't really see how that matters, but that's something I come across with people who don't really seem to understand the kind of nuances of what Zionism became and why it's not some kind of robust, you know, like right-wing tendency.

But it's also, I mean, even if it was, like, the reason why, like, guys who are, like, out and out, like, radicals, like, Dershowitz, the reason why it's not a consistent if it's going to be Zionism is because the whole theory of Zionism isn't that. hey, like being a nationalist or like a racialist is a good thing in and of itself is that Jews are an exceptional people and fuck everybody else because, you know, we're chosen and we're entitled to, you know, these defensive structures because the rest of you are our enemies. Like, that's literally what it's premised upon. You know, it's not, it's not premised on the kind of reasoning that like a place like South Africa or like Tudjman, Croatia, maybe more properly would be. You know,

and people who claim otherwise are being fundamentally dishonest. Like, I remember, this was years back, but I remember attending this thing just out of curiosity that was, you know, held at this, kind of, it was held in Ravenswood, this one restaurant. And this is around 2007, I think, these accounts of conservative citizens and, like, American Renaissance types. So they held this event and Serge Trifcovic, like, showed up. He was this guy who was involved with the Rockford and did this big like Chetnik. And he goes in this talk about how

great Israel is and Israel's like a model for like all nationalists and especially because you know they're opposing like the Muslim horde like just like total garbage. You know what I mean? Like it um I called him out on it and I didn't win any friends doing that among these

weirdos who organize the event but it's you know it's incredibly it's incredibly misguided when people posit those things, you know, especially if they're, you know, trying to dress it up in some sort of, you know, right wing veneer or something. I think that's faded to a degree because it doesn't really have a conx anymore. Like the neocon moment passed, like as quickly as it was emergent. And people who shriek about, you know, like how much they hate Islam, you know, is people very much see through that for the kind of,

you know, provincial epilogia that it is. But, uh, well, let me ask you about that. Can I ask you about that? Because, yeah,

we, Muslims here, we seem to have a whole lot less problem with the Muslims we have here than the hordes that have been sent into Europe in the last, you know, 20 to 30 to even 40 and 50 years. How do you square that where, you know,

because there's always somebody going oh dear born rich go no when these guys when these when these when these bizarre like Zionist types like um like geared wilders talk about Islam like they're talking about these like shit bag refugees

that basically end up in Europe when you know like Libya, Egypt Lebanon like empties out there jails like Castro did in like 1980 or whatever like these are like the dregs of Somalia the drags of Lebanon like the drags of Egypt like random criminals who, you know, when the shit at the fan in Iraq and the Levant, you know,

declared themselves like refugees. Like, it'd be like saying that like, it'd be like saying like the Aaron boys like for the cartel or like Catholic. I mean, it's like that's the issue. You know, they're not like normal immigrants. And they're not, and probably a lot of these guys are like never even been inside of a mosque. I mean, there are like psychos who wash up on European shores who do do crazy things of like a nakedly kind of like terroristic nature.

but it's exceedingly rare and I mean that's I okay I mean yeah obviously those guys shouldn't be emigrating either but it's not this idea that there's this like calculated quote islamic invasion of europe and they're like the traditional enemy of Europe like that's absurd and it's also like it's like why it's like why is the issue with these people that they're quote islamic I mean like they're it's like if they were nominally coptic would that be okay like that they're like shit bag you know undesirables like it doesn't that's the issue plus you don't anyone any any European who's like okay like literally okay with the fact that like America's annihilating Europe pursuant to this like social engineering regime that's been underway for 80 years like that's okay but the line in the

sand is oh Islam like that that's that's that's ridiculous you know and that's um like it's it's not even a cope it's it's a kind of treason by omission so I mean that's what it is. Like, you're not, like, the doing to proximity and knowing to, like, the peculiarity a certain political development, you know, like the, like, the

shitbags from North Africa and the Middle East who end up in Europe, or, like, the shitbags to end up here from, like, fucking Nicaragua and Mexico, like, that's what it is. You know? And, like, when you meet, like, a squared away, like, Lebanese Christian here, it's because he's, like, a normal person who, like, immigrated for normal

reasons. Like, that's the difference. generally. No, that's great. That answers the question. So you can keep on, uh, sorry to interrupt, you can keep on going. No, no, no, no. I, no, I appreciate the give and take. Um, I, uh, in any, meant one of the things I want to, I want to tie up loose ends today, um, in the topic, but especially too, I want to, I want to talk about, like, what Zionism is. Like, some people just invoke it as kind of a shorthand for, like, Jewish identity. or for um you know uh any kind of any kind of any kind of any kind of jewish politics you know that uh or either originates with you know the the jewish world of social existence or kind of jewish philosophical tendencies like that's not really accurate with zionism is a discrete thing of very much like of modern innovation you know and like late modern innovation of that like Zionism we know it essentially came to existence in the 1880s and um it was it was it was it was it was it was the underlying concept of it

it theater hurtzel was who was kind of recognized as the father of zionism you know he basically looked at like the jews the pale settlement you know uh and uh elsewhere but obviously you know like we talked about kind of, you know, the vast majority of European Jewry lived in the pale settlement, as well as, you know, like Ukraine and Poland. Like, he didn't think that Jewish identity could survive the 20th century based on the way things were going. You thought Jews would rather be forcibly assimilated or that, you know, they'd just be defecto, kind of locked out of political life and thus would kind of like just abandon Judaism.

But he also, like everybody else, kind of among the intelligency of the epoch, like he talked about, like, he also viewed like traditional religion as kind of dying. You know, so like his idea was, you know, we've got to preserve our ability to live historically as Jews, but, you know, like the Jewish religion is it doesn't really matter anymore. And, you know, it's not going to help us, you know, survive the coming challenges anyway. So basically he like racialized Jewish identity, okay? like basically like this is what the zaynus perspective became was like to be a jew means you're of the jewish race you know and you're of this discreet like semitic tribe i point out to people again and again what the reason is why the term anti-semitism is telling is because it's deliberate like people don't accuse you of being anti-jewish like that's a zionist conceptual um that's dionist conceptual vocabulary like they're saying like i am a discreet race and you're against my race you know not you're not against you know you're not against you know you know know my theological orientation you know you're not you're not against you know like my cultural heritage and you know and you're not you don't like oppose my values based on you know historical sectarian difficulties you're against my race okay and that's not just nomenclature that's highly

significant because um that's not that's not the way that jews even like nationalistic minded like exclusivist jews in political terms that's not the way they characterize themselves okay Now, mind you, in defense of early Zionism and people like Herschel himself, these guys didn't have this idea of, you know, we've got to return to Palestine, you know, and ethnically cleanse everybody and create this kind of like racial military state. That wasn't like in their contemplation. you know, for a lot of reasons. I mean, I don't think that's what they wanted to do with that point. I think Herschel, I mean, he was obviously a Zionist. I mean, he was really the first Zionist, but he didn't have some violent hostility towards, you know, the people indigenous to Palestine. And as we'll get into in a minute, one of the reasons why it's a grand lie, when Zionists claim today, like,

you know, Palestinian is a fake identity. Okay, the Arabs who live in Palestine have been there since the Roman period. Okay. Like I'm not saying in all times and places that some kind of claim a superior title. What means that you would just like deserve to occupy the land? That's not how politics works. But if, but it's Zionists themselves. We put that in contention with their right of return.

Okay. Like if Palestine is the homeland of anybody, it's the homeland of people who've been there for three thousand years. Okay, and some guy whose grandparents lived in, you know, lived in the pale settlement is not one of those people, okay? It, there was some ambivalence about what a Jewish state would look like, but basically, you know, as the 19th and the 20th century, like the intrinsic understanding, the implicit understanding was that the orientation towards Palestine,

you know, between Jews and indigenous Arabs, as well as the Jews who were who themselves are native to Palestine, would be consensual, like something would be worked out. You know, without, you know, without, without abiding, you know, any demands of, you know, the, the, the, the Ottomans or the British or anybody else who was asserting, you know, some kind of right to rule the region. Now, the Jews who retained a staunch religiosity, you know, like Orthodox Jews today and the ultra-Orthodox, as they're referred to kind of, in media shorthand. Like in the Jewish religion, the name for Palestine is Eretz, Israel. Okay.

That's always been viewed in the Jewish religion as a place of holy pilgrimage. I mean, obviously, if you believe biblical archaeology and anthropology, that's, you know, the Israel-like homeland. So, I mean, it's got a huge significance in the Jewish religion, but it was never envisioned as like a future secular state okay and in effect jewish tradition i mean if you abide uh you know if if you abide the jewish religion um it clearly instructs the jews to await the coming of the messiah at the end times okay at which time they can they return to eric's israel the sovereign people in like a perfect jewish theocracy as like the obedient servants of god and the chosen

people, you know, that's why there's Orthodox, increasingly, who aren't just not Zionist, they're anti-Zionist, you know, because it's, it's a heresy, you know, it's a gross affront to, you know, to, you know, to religious Judaism. And that's, that's not just like a kind of interesting footnote, like it's essential. Because again, you know, these guys, these, these guys who, originated in the pale settlement in Belarus and Ukraine, you know, who, uh, you know, who couldn't trace an ancestor to the Holy Land for, you know, the preceding like 2,000 years or whatever, like, how come suddenly like these guys are like supposedly, you know, the like the true, the true like Israelites who are entitled to, you know, return. Like,

it's nonsense, you know. And again, like I said, I'm not even saying that like in absolute terms, that's some kind of like superior claim to it's a you know to political right or something you know that's because i don't believe that but the proponents of the sinus respect of themselves like this is what they're claiming you know um now of course um this was a problem because for for for for the science movement because uh especially then like these days i'm not going to report to have any kind of any kind of deep understanding of kind of like Jewish opinion generally

in this country okay but I there's what you get there's signals that indicate that this remains the case you know even Jews were totally secularized

like they realize there's limitations on how much they can how much they can truly attack polemically and discursively you know, like their Orthodox of brethren. I mean, not just because of the optics of it, but there's some kind of understanding that the Orthodox are like carrying on, that they are like a vanguard of like, you know, actual Jewish tradition, okay, perennially.

So it's like this weird kind of collision of worldviews that would seem irreconcilable, but that, you know, are dependent upon one another in political and existential terms. And that's important to keep in mind. It's kind of fascinating if you're somebody who's interested in kind of social anthropology and things, an identitarian phenomenon. But, you know, in order to, but the design has realized at some point, and this had a lot to do with, you know, what occurred from 1917 to 1945, you know, the designists came to realize that if their project was going to come to. to fruition um the the the the biblical territory that they covet it had to be like reinvented it had to it had to it had to be presented and conquered as uh as you know as as as as a as a as a cradle of a new kind of like racial nationalist movement okay now you know and in their

mind like if if if the people if the jews indigenous to the holy land you know what what traditionally the people you know called oriental jewry if they couldn't be radicalized you know well you know there was a ready-in-waiting emigrant population you know in central Europe who was a kind of right for that kind of of indoctrination and what have you okay um and this was also um this had particular appeal to ashenazi Jews like subliminally or not because the Zionist claim or design what zionism required basically was that uh you know the the design of settlers had to view Palestine as being occupied by strangers or you know like racial aliens you know which which meant in this

context everybody not jewish but specifically you know Palestinian Arabs you know who mostly them were moslems are the Christian minority among them you know and that's a lot easier of a cell to a guy you know who uh has lived this whole life in Belarus or the pale settlement or Poland or Germany as part of this kind of strange outlier community who's going to be a stranger in a strange land no matter what when he finds himself in the Near East than it is to some guy who's lived his whole life, you know, as an Oriental Jew like in Jerusalem or whatever, you know, with, and he's used to doing business with and possibly even like breaking bread with like Arabs, you know. So this, it's very clear, you know, why kind of like the

Ashkenazim became the proverbial, you know, vanguardists of the Zionist movement. And as I'll get into an minute, there's a military aspect to this also. But that's important to consider, okay, because there's often, I've noticed among people who aren't, don't particularly know kind of like the deep lore of Zionism and the history of the region, you know, the last 150 years, you know, they've got this idea of, you know, like, Palestine being kind of like Bosnia, like, oh, you have this, like, Jewish population and this Arab population that have just, like, lived side by side for, you know, 2,000 years and don't like each other. Like, it's not what we're talking about, okay? Like, yeah, there were and our, like, tensions between indigenous

elements, but not, but that's not what touched off, you know, the, the racial, the racial, the racial, cleansing of Palestine by by Zionists and that's not this this not what gave rise to contemporary discourse in the state of Israel it's not it's not comparable to you know like a Yugoslavia situation or something you know and that's that's fundamentally important and as part of this too and there's a guy named I'llian Pap or Pap I'm terrible with pronunciations but he's a palest You know, a writer and he's very much kind of like a secular humanist type So I don't really have any time for a lot of this polemic but his a his historiography is very sound and it's well sourced and it's actually pretty insightful

And he makes the point that you know Congress with what we just mentioned not only did kind of Jewish racial identity have to be hardened, you know, cultivated and then hardened if the Zionist enterprise was to, you know, kind of take root and develop and flourish. But the Palestinians themselves had to be dehumanized in kind of peculiar ways, you know, like it, they had to cast them as kind of people not even capable of statecraft. And, you know, like I've heard, if you pull propaganda from the era from like the 1940s as well as today, there's kind of this constant refrain where like they talk about Palestinian Arabs as if they were like a bunch of bedouins but who are kind of like Apaches and just like are crazy and attack everybody. Like, but it's this totally at odds with history. You know, like it wasn't, you know, Palestine was, you know, for centuries, you know, was a, you know, was a, you know, was a, you know, was a, you know, was. a protector of the Ottoman Empire as you know the Ottoman Empire as a seat of Dar al-Islam you know for

for millennia um it was it was like any other you know it was it was like any other it was like any other statelet okay i mean it wasn't this idea that you know it was it was like people living in stone age conditions or people who didn't you know have the conceptual vocabulary to understand politics that's completely asinine and one of the reasons why um One of the reasons why, as we'll see, as we'll discuss, one of the reasons the British took it upon themselves, despite the basic enmity between themselves and, you know, the radicalized Jewish population on the ground and mandatory Palestine, the British Army trained a lot of these Zionist elements, you know, in modern combat techniques. because they were the British were singularly paranoid about you know an Arab uprising and people particularly in the Hussein family and others and Husseini I mean Hussein is it was the grand moved to Jerusalem I don't get ahead of ourselves but you know these were these were

noblemen who were very very highly insinuated in the eyes of instruction when it existed and subsequently were able to get audiences with people like Mussolini and Edolf Hitler himself because they weren't like a bunch of primitives or something. Okay. Like this this needs to be said because again the perception people have, even people who don't share Zionist prejudices or whatever. They've kind of absorbed certain features of this confabulated propaganda narrative just because there's nothing to kind of contradict it in a world media and most people frankly don't you know

unless they're in the service or something or unless they're wealthy in vacation in Dubai people aren't like visiting the near east you know like the only people I know who do other than those categories are like very religious people you know um so that's important but uh speaking of the husseini clan sometime between 1905 and 1910 um or right or right or right or there, several Palestinian leaders, they identified Zionism as potentially a very threatening movement. Now, mind you, the Ottoman Empire still existed at this time, and Zionism was not really something that had great political momentum, but again, like these guys in the Palestinian leadership coteries, you know, who, who, uh, in 1930s,

for the men who developed or constituted what can be called like the high Arab council you know which was you know kind of like a representative political body of a of Arab Palestinians they kind of saw the way things were going okay um and they saw it as a kind of Jews from without the Near East appropriating kind of like a European colonialist drive but they realized it had an additional edge to it in that it was this kind of highly racialized, you know, movement. You know, and, you know, they were kind of shouted down by, you know, kind of the, I'm not trashing Arabs here at all.

They were kind of shouted down in the fashion that tragically kind of happens in Arab societies by like, you know, a mercantile class that had disproportionate power saying, you know, what are you saying? Like if these Jews with money, if they want to buy land, I'll sell them land, you know, like, are you telling us we can't do business as we want to?

You know, and, you know, it, but what remained, though, especially, you know, among common people,

and especially in Jerusalem, um, was a, you know, a very strong. belief that, you know, something disastrous was going to befall Palestine and Zionism was going to be the catalyst. What happened, what the only action that was really taken in that regard was, there was

Hussein, Syed al-Husani, he was the sole Palestinian member of a, the Ottoman parliament, he was, among other things, incessantly from about 1911 on, we're trying to convince the Ottoman government in Istanbul to totally, if not totally prohibit Jewish immigration into Palestine to like limit it, you know, and to be aware of, you know, the demographic balance potentially being tipped owing to, you know, what amounts to a racial colonization effort under color of just doing business or something okay um said al hussein he actually said in open session in the ottoman parliament on the 6th of may 1911 quote that the jews intend to create a state in the area that will include Palestine Syria and Iraq and uh that's fascinating again this is 1911 okay

and you know the the the mighty Ottoman empire are still very much intact now who was saeed al usani This is the same El-Husani clan to whom Amin El-Husani belonged. Amin al-Husani was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who became an ally of Adolf Hitler. And after the onset of hostilities, he became a wanted man. Obviously, the British were out for his head, among other things. He was able to emigrate to Berlin. Okay. The Al-Husani clan, they were Jerusalemite Arab nobles, and their lineage was traced to Hussein even Ali, who for those that don't know, was the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Okay, these were heavy personages. I think Amin al-Husani is a fascinating figure, and he's very, very much slandered, more so than other kind of secondary figures on the axis side.

I find him and Vidkun Quisling. They were both brilliant individuals, and they were both, they're both just, like, savagely kind of caricatured and panned, and there's a reason for that. But I, it's not, obviously, like, the way it's characterized is propagandistic and intended as a punitive device.

But when Zionist types today claim that Darul Islam was allied with the Axis Powers, that's true. Okay, for all practical purposes, that's true. And there's a book called Islam and Nazi Germany's War. Despite the title, it's actually an incredible book. It's very balanced. And if you're understood in, not just Al-Husani, but you're interested in, you know, Islamic Vaf and SS formations, you're interested in, you know, Arab forces under Vermont command in theater and the the least you're interested in any of that or just like you know the the the rites of you of

Islam and Arab people like it's it's an incredible book I can't praise it highly enough but all this is kind of background that I wanted to drop for what the founding of Israel itself constituted okay because again it's it's portrayed as kind of oh you know 1948, this war happened. And, you know, because Palestine, Israel became independent of the UK, then this war happened, you know, just between, you know, Arabs and Jews, and the Jews won their freedom or whatever. That's totally at odds of the reality. The cleansing of Palestine occurred between in earnest.

I mean, this is, this was and is an ongoing process, but it's most punctual. iteration and most purposefully directed operational enterprise was between April 6th and May 15, 1948. David Ben Gurian, who was really kind of like the grand warlord of the NASA and Zionist state, he'd he completely abandoned anything approaching a conciliatory tenor as regarded discussion of, you know, the Palestinian problem. In the development of what became known colloquially as well as operationally as plan D, he listed the names of Arab villages, you know, just civilian population centers that just, Jewish troops had occupied as a conquered military objectives, essential of the security of, you know, the nascent Jewish state. Okay. And as we'll see, as we dive into the record, there's very much a kind of of Milai style like euphemism like invoked here.

Okay, like as an ongoing capacity. He, on April 6th, 1948, for context, there was very much a communist and socialist and socialist-leaning element to the original Zionist coalition, which was one of the ways that, you know, factions like Haganah and Ergun were able to procure, you know, Czechoslovakian and Soviet small arms and things, but also how they were able to kind of finesse world opinion and favor of their cause. The Angkorians war cabinet, there was a, there was members of his stodgerutes

there were the kind of Zionist labor movement the strongly socialist-leaning members of their executive said they questioned strongly the wisdom of attacking peasants rather than confronting

the attendees the high men of the landlords basically like in the you know, in the, in the kind of, in the kind of neo-feudal structure that reigned. What Ben-Gurian's response was, was that, I do not agree with you,

we're not facing offenders. We're not, you know, our enemies of the Arab people themselves. Okay, this is a race war. And that changed things. Okay, like from then on, you know, within the command structure as well as the kind of political control group of the nascent Jewish state these these kind of laborite and these kinds of socialist movements even ones with pretty staunch

Zionist credentials but he said like we're not we're not going to attack Arab people as Arabs because you know we're we're awaiting you know the historical obsolescence of these structures that you know put us at odds with other you know workers or peasants typically you know kind of marks as a boilerplate um like that that was that was over okay now when plan d was put into effect um hagana which uh had gonea more than any other arm zionist element on the ground in theater was the progenitor of what became the IDF. They had more than 50,000 troops at their disposal, about half of which had been trained by the British Army

during the Second World War for two reasons. As mentioned, it was this ongoing terror of an Arab uprising, but also there was a very real possibility of the Vermont conquering the Levant, okay, you know, during a, during the height of the Africa core successes. In which case, the British would need proxies

in theater. Okay, and obviously, like, they were literally at war with the Arabs, and, you know, even were they not, and because they were, like, the, you know, the Arabs had thrown in their lot with the Axis. So you had, like, Kaganah had,

they had some very crack in game fighters under their command. Okay. About half of whom, you know, had been trained in theater by the British, and even those that, you know, were new,

were fresh volunteers. These are like very radical guys. Okay, these were guys who had imbibed Zionism of, you know, the most kind of racialist sort, you know, for, you know, as they, as they, you know, were children and approached manhood and everything. You know, they, again, like, they were kind of the Ashkenazi, like, spearpoint of a, of, um,

a Zionist movement. Um, now, secondly, and this is kind of brilliant, I speak in Machiavellian terms. I mean, obviously, I'm not, like, praising this that this happened, but the, um, this that shouldn't need to be said, but Ben-Gurina had the idea, as well as, uh, you know, some of his, um, military staff of, uh, of, uh, building isolated Zionist settlements in the midst of densely populated areas, which on the one hand would be hard to defend in times of active tension. But it had the effect of dispersing, you know, Jewish population centers, you know, throughout what would become the battle space. And those people would just kind of be like radical. localized in situ. Okay.

So presuming mobility, you know, and presuming a very capable fighting force, and presuming, you know, combined arms and a degree of operational sophistication, like, if these places could be defended that would create a very, very, a very favorable kind of situation, okay, in terms of what Haganah subsequently IDF had at its disposal, okay? That's highly sophisticated. And also, in my opinion, it's actually very British, okay? So, I mean, it's these guys like Ben-Gurion, you know, they were thinking, they were thinking very proactively. And they were learning from, you know, they were learning from a people who, you know, in the, in the British army, who, who kind of mastered the art of,

subjugating people when grossly outnumbered and when you know supply lines direct supply lines couldn't necessarily be relied upon you know to rapidly reinforce and reconstitute in the field you know it's in this and in a secondary strategic sense you know again it helps to bring supplies these kinds of far-flung, like, Zionist outposts, that couldn't always be guaranteed. But once, uh, but again, like, once the country was in flames, like, and once, like, war came as, you know, was always the intention. Um, the Western approach to Jerusalem, which, uh, passed through, uh, numerous, you know, like densely populated Palestinian villages. Um,

that, that, that was, that was very hard to safeguard. Okay. But, but, if you had like widely dispersed um you know jewish settlements with game fighters um that would advantage you like presuming other factors are present you know and being able to in being able to assault um Jerusalem or defend your people there or whatever okay um towards that end uh the first area chosen for putting plan D into action was on the hills of the western slopes, the Jerusalem mountains, about halfway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This serves a model for future campaigns.

And it also, in my opinion, and I don't think I'm just like reading facts into the record. It was also isolated enough that in those days, the speed of information being what it was, it was isolated enough that if if it became a kind of quagmire or a fiasco you know it it could basically be finessed or hidden from public view you know um but it uh what's um most remarkable is that every brigade the sign of the operation was asked to prepare to move into to Mazav Dalit.

Like Plan D, you should for Plan Dahlit, okay? Mazav Dallet refer to the state of mind required to implement the orders of plan D. Okay. In the literal language of the general orders, quote, you will move to State Dallet for operative implementation of plan Dallet. This is the opening sentence to general orders to each formation involving the operation. Okay, what this translates to in like real and non-euthistic terms is prepare for an ethnic cleansing operation. you know, you're going to be killing people without regard to age, sex, or overall health. Secondarily, these orders instructed that the villages which you will capture, cleanse, or destroy will be decided according to consultation with your, quote, advisors on Arab affairs and the intelligence officers.

So basically, like, if anyone is to be spared, that's not up to you. That's up to the cadres and the commissars. and if they say everybody dies, everybody dies. If they say you're going to spare these people and just cast them out of the desert to burden Arab forces with a desperate and now de-housed civilian population, you're going to do that.

But we will not do is refuse orders and question orders related to the operational implementation of Plan D. The Palmak, they were the special operations element. of Haganah. Their orders, the Palamak

consultancy, sort of like their general staff. They met at Bangarion's home to finalized directives personally. Their orders were more clear and less euphemistic. Quote, the principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages

and the eviction of the villagers that they would become an economic liability for the general Arab forces. And finally, the operation was novel because it was the first operation in which all the various Jewish military organizations like those constituted

of indigenous Oriental Jewry, those constituted of the Ashkenazim, you know, those a Fagana of Ergun, those of the stirring gang and what have you um it was the first jewish science military operation where all these organizations endeavor to act together under a singular command and again this provided the basis for the future idf and it was utterly dominated by eastern european emigrees you know who'd uh a lot of whom were veterans of world war two

and interestingly you know it wasn't just their trigger time that suggested them as being essential for these roles this the commander of one battalion in this operation

a French operation whose memoirs were fairly or like somewhat often cited on literature about the war because he kept a very he kept a very voluminous war diary He was Uri Ben Ari. He mentioned two things in his war diary of political significance, that, quote, melting the diaspora as into one coherent, like, racial organism was one of the key goals of the operation, you know, and of course, in no small measure because these men would be, you know, bloodying their hands together with mass killing.

But Benari, he was a young German Jew who had arrived in Palestine just, after the World War II. And his unit was, you know, a crack formation of Palomac. And he would liken himself again and again in later years as I was no different than, you know, a Russian officer, quote, fighting Nazis. And he'd refer again and again to the Palestinians, you know, who, in this case, most of whom are defenseless, including elderly, like, women and kids, as Nazis. You know, I'm not making this up. This is his own words. You know, and you get an understanding

kind of of the racialized perspective here, you know, and that should disabuse anybody of these kinds of, you know, ideas that, you know, Israel is some kind of like secular humanist state or something or that it's like Sweden of the Middle East You know, I mean, this is, um, these people, uh, were waging a race war and they were doing it in a way that was very above board. I mean, within their own, you know, command structure and things.

And, um, and the record bears that out. This wasn't just like boasting by some like, you know, by some like, you know, macho idiot and his, I mean, I mean, this, these were his own, I mean, if anything, like, you know 1948 was not today and you know considering the demands of

of um politics of the day I mean if anything you would think that he'd be euphemizing these things you know not bragging about them in that way but um the uh I mean anecdotally like I

um I um I'llian pop in his book uh one of the first one of the first of many villages that fell into around Jerusalem that fell under Jewish control during Plan D was a Castile which means literally the castle. Despite its suspicious name, it wasn't some massively fortified, you know, like Palestinian stronghold. It was a, it was just, you know, another mountain village that located on the last,

I believe the last like mountain peak like in the final approach to Jerusalem. But so obviously it had, you know, strong strategic significance. But, you know, like everything else at the core of Flandi, it was a massacre. Apparently today there's a monument to Haganah that Israel put up the site that, that leads like the absurd of beliefs of some great battle or something. Okay. I mean, again, for Connics, it'd be like, they'd be like erecting like a plaque. to like America College Division at Mili. Like, you know, I mean, it's, there's something, there's something very unseemly about it.

And it's not me being some like liberal or something, okay? It's, it's, this is very much based on a lie. Okay. And that's the intention of it. You know, it, um, the, uh, I, uh, behoove anybody too who, um, you know, like I said. I mean, if anybody, I get like, hate me all the time when people saying crazy things, like over email and DM and stuff. people who aren't ill

intention like that. I mean, if they want like my sources on these things, I mean, I'm happy to provide them. I mean, I'm always saying that and I mean that. The reason I don't like list them out is because that wouldn't be appropriate to this kind of give and take we have here and, you know, who the hell wants to read a bunch of end notes in the

in the description section, you know, of an Odyssey or a YouTube video. But I am more than happy to profit them if that's what's, uh, what's warrant is. That's about all I got for today. I suddenly wanted to get into about Norman Finkelstein

and kind of the controversies in the 90s around him and people like Gilad asked Mom, but Frank, I'm in a lot of pain right now. So I'm sorry to cut this short, but we should take it up another time. If that's okay. It's fine with this now. Yeah, yeah.

Of course, that's not a problem. If you want to hit up anything to promote real quick, and then we'll end this. I unlocked my timeline on Twitter. This is an experiment. You know, if I get zero rushed by, like, hostiles and creeps and, like, genetically defective people,

I'm going to lock it again, but for now, and it seems appropriate now because, like, Elon is, like, turning Twitter into, like, some super app with, like, a porny name. I mean, we'll see where that goes, but you can find it. find me on Twitter at at Real R-A-L, all caps, underscore number seven, H-O-M-A-S-777. You can find me on Substack, RealThomas-777.com.

I'm on Instagram, seeking you shall find. Obviously, my hiatus is over. That's why, like, we've been recording this stuff. And, you know, a bunch of other people have invited me to participate in. and really great stuff. But I am working on season two of the pod. I don't want subscribers and people to think that I'm like going lax in that regard. I'm in the process editing, you know, my Nico Klaus stuff right now.

And there will, when I get back from Amaran on the week of the 13th of August, I'm going to start recording for season two. So just please bear with me. Like good stuff is coming. I decided and my crime partner and you know

my Colonel Tom Parker Rake he and I decided to really kind of look up our game in season two like not just sex it up in terms of making it look and sound better but you know really kind of like bring the brand up to a higher standard because it's just me and him

this takes time and this takes money and it's underway but just please be paid It's coming. That's all I got. And again, I don't mean to cut this short. I'm just having kind of a rough day. Just to reiterate, you want to do another one with on Finkelstein and a couple other things and maybe answer some questions? Yeah, let's do it a Q&A, man.

And like, yeah, this will be the finale. Let's do a Q&A on the topic. And yeah, I'll just drop what I wanted to kind of at the intro and like interspers with our conversation. If that's cool, I mean, it's your show. I don't want to dictate the terms. But yeah. That sounds perfect. That sounds perfect to me.

All right. Okay. Thanks, Thomas. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekinez Show. We will be concluding the series on the JQ with Thomas. And we're going to do a Q&A, and he's going to talk about a few things, a few subjects who were on his mind,

like kind of clean up kind of thing. But to start it all off, I will ask a question. And I think I hinted at it when we talked last time. You had mentioned that Johan von Lee, said that Islam was a dialectical antithesis to Judaism. And I wanted you to talk a little more about that. Bon Lears was an important personage. He's kind of like knowledge of them as kind of esoteric, which is kind of twofold.

I mean, he was, he was a bona fide philologist, you know, of the, you know, the, you know, the, like, academics, particularly. particularly people engaged in kind of like the deep study of linguistics and comparative anthropology you know um that the kind of the last crop of of that kind of classical integrated discipline you know the study quite literally of culture and cultural origins you know the those who populated the third rike that was the last like that crop okay um von leers uh he was a member of the shoot Stoffel. He spoke something like 13 languages, okay? And the,

um, he personally lobbied for, uh, for, uh, for Middle Eastern people, Jewish to be exempt from any, um, exclusionary race laws, okay. Um,

in, you know, in other words, he lobbied for them to be treated the same as any, as any non-Germanic, like, outlanders, okay?

and he was largely successful at that. Part of that was because he I mean part of it was because he was something of an orientalist, like any kind of philologist would be particularly that epoch. But there was a pragmatic aspect too.

I think that some people within the Reich had a sense that the Turks should have been more actively courted as allies. It just wasn't in the cars for Encarra to go to war at that point. But so there was that. But I also, Von Leers had a strong interest in the Near East.

And he had a strong interest in mobilizing Islamic populations, you know, into like a bona fide fighting force. And some of that happened. You know, Central Asian people were actively recruited from 1943 onward. You know, we talked about, we talked about, I mean El Hussein, you know, and the role that he played, which was, you know, a significant one. But, I mean, that's kind of the context to understand by Lears. He wasn't just like an odd ball or something.

like he was very much engaged with the geostrategic and political situation um and uh one of the um one of one of his major research interest was islam qua islam okay and ultimately he converted to islam when he found himself in the court of nasser after the day of defeat he changed his name to omar amin and um but he viewed religiosity in very hegalian terms. You know, he looked at it very much as, you know, kind of part of the superstructural, um, architecture of cultural development. You know, I mean, I think he very much believed in God, but he, you know, he, he had like a, he had like a philologist and an anthropologist kind of view of religion. And a view of Islam was this. Like, Islam is, um, it's a constantly oriental religion, okay, and the fact that it's like highly integrated. There's an undue emphasis,

I don't mean this punitively, but there's an undue emphasis from an accidental perspective on command and obedience. You know, it's a theological doctrine. It's also a military doctrine. It's it's, it's heavily juristic. You know, it's, there's something very like complete about it. But it's also massively ecumenical. You know, the idea is that, um, you know like like islam is universal you know because you know it calls for submission to god you know uh god's dominion is is is is is boundless you know um like every every race that you know every race every ethnos every tribe you know they they're under you know ala's dominion it's like distinctions aren't made there in like in the eyes of god like that doesn't mean that

like you know that doesn't mean that you know like your family and your tribe and your nation isn't important, but these things are totally secondary to, you know, your obligation, a total submission to God. That's really kind of the opposite of Judaism, which dictates that, you know, the, you know, that God is the tribal God of the Jews, that other people, like, aren't, you know, they're just, you know, they're not even barbarians, like, they don't even really feature into the equation, you know, like, the, uh, you know, the Jews are the only, like, real people in the eyes of God, you know, like there is, it's just, it's just like, it's just like the total kind of like repudiation, you know, um, and it's also the, uh, you know, like, like Judaism, like

rabbinic Judaism in a lot of ways, it's characterized by the, like, the exception, like kind of ways around, you know, both the mosaic law as well as, uh, you know, as well as the dictates of the, of the Torah and things. You know, and that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's grossly at odds, you know, with, with Islamic, uh, tendencies, you know, um, like that just wouldn't even fit. I mean, it's both like, it's both, it's both, it's both, it's both heretical as also just, you know, kind of like conceptually offensive, you know, and, um, but aside from those kinds of obvious divergent characteristics, you know, um, von Lear's view was that, Islam essentially developed, you know, as the Arab heartland, you know, the peninsula, like, Peninsula Arabia. As it was kind of developing into, like, a genuine, like, cultural form, you know, Islam became kind of a unifying catalyst. and obviously like these people had been like at odds, you know, with with jewelry for, you know, generations. So, I mean, the way it just kind of, the way it, like, that kind of, that kind of cultural discourse and that kind of, you know, ongoing paradigm, it just led to, it, it just led to, it, it,

It just led to conditions whereby something like Islam would emerge. And it would axiomatically be a kind of total repudiation of Judaism. And that's also why I know there's like there's guys who will always weigh in. We discuss this who the kinds of guys who see like literally Jews under their bed saying like, oh, the Ottoman Empire that was actually Jewish. And like, you know, the court of the sultans was, you know, shot through with Jews. The Ottoman Empire is not a good example. of what kind of Daral Islam, like, represents and represented.

It's an outlier, like, culturally, linguistically, it's very much, okay? Secondly, it's not true, like Turkey, the Ottoman Empire is not just controlled by Jews or whatever that's stupid. But it's also not what we're talking about. You know, like we're talking about kind of like the origins of Islam quite Islam, you know, in dialectical terms, like how it emerged and why. And so Von Weir's perspective was this. It was, first of all, I mean, he actively, he was active in the publication of a political,

periodical called Derveig, okay? And Derveig was actively consumed by the National Socialist Diaspora. You know, like guys in last. Latin America, you know, guys, you know, in Spain and Portugal, you know, who were largely, you know, given amnesty, like, even if they were wanted by the Allies. And Von Lear's contributions to it, you can find a lot of that stuff. It's not translated. So if you can't read German, it's kind of slow going. but um you know he very much had an understanding that the non-aligned world the non-aligned world had to be cultivated um he didn't speak a lot about the soviet union but uh he it's pretty clear

that he had um it's pretty clear that he had uh you know a similar kind of orientation as um you know people like auto reamer did that um even though the soviet union obviously was nobody's friend. It is some sort of concord had to be reached if Germany was going to be free of the allied and Zionist yoke. But he mostly taught

with the non-aligned world. And, you know, the Islamic world in particular owing to the founding of the state of Israel and all that that that that entailed. And the fact that, you know, it was a

however, you know, this was still, too, this was, you know, like the Eisenhower era, there was still argument internal to Moscow as well as Washington. It's like where the kind of proverbial line in the sand should be drawn respectively as regards to sphere of influence. Like obviously the Monroe doctrine controlled absolutely on the American side and the line in the same of the Soviet Union was the inter-German border. But beyond that, it wasn't clear like, you know, what constituted like a transgression that would give rise to you know to a war you know in the in the third world you know so a lot of this is up for grabs um it's figuratively and literally and von leers's point was you know look uh you know um

as a bulwark uh not just against uh bolshevism because he reasoned that you know darrow Islam and particularly, you know, the peninsular Arab lands in the Levant would be like particularly resistant to communism. And they were. The only true Marxist-Leninist state, Arab state there ever was was South Yemen.

Okay. And that was tenuous. It was kind of a rump state. That as a, it's interestingly, guys have been fighting under the banner in the Yemeni Civil War under the flag of South Yemen now, like this one militia. and interestingly the Russians have been very much insinuated into you know fighting that conflict by proxy

and I find that really interesting you know what that's a tangent but the point is that you know it wasn't there was unique potential among these nascent era political cultures in von leers's mind and also just um you know as uh as the Islamic world came to assert itself you know it gets again, like, he saw, like, no possibility of real compromise between, you know, Islamic societies and Judaism. You know, like, basic, like, even it's not even that, like, you know, like the, he wasn't suggesting that, you know, people like Nassar, or, you know, people like, people like the Assad's or what have you, or even, you know, people who came later like Saddam. He wasn't suggesting that these people were going to, like, go out and, like, pull. program like Jews to death or something. This point was that they just,

it would, it would, it was just an impossibility that, you know, Jewish interests, whatever, be able to penetrate, um, you know, the, the political culture, um,

in, uh, in sociological terms. You know, so we put a premium on that. Um, and, uh, I think he was right. Um, how they would,

look where the rubber meets the road, I think you're seeing it right now. Okay. So I think he's an important figure. That's why he references to him actually feature into my science fiction for people who are looking for seeking and they shall find. But, you know, there was a, I consider one of his ideological. dissentist to be a man named Ahmed Huber. Ahmed Huber was very close to being indicted. He was a Swiss national. He converted to Islam when he was a young man,

but he identified as a national socialist. You know, and he was involved, he was active with a national socialist party. He still at the Cold War, but he was also like very much a practicing Muslim. And he was an investment banker, like by profession. And it's believed that he wasn't involved in the actual like washing of al-Qaeda funds, but it's believed that once those funds were, you know, kind of like laundered as it were,

like Ahmed Huber was able to, you know, multiply the assets of a of these front companies and whatever and, you know, to a consistent profit. that's uh that's neither here or there or the purpose of our conversation but my point is that um von leers wasn't just something like weird eccentric like whether you agree with that perspective or not like whether you think it's crazy or not like it it's a serious tendency and there's an internal logic to it that for a man who was like a very very hard right hegelian um who also had you know um philist logical tendencies and, you know, a kind of belief in, you know, historical processes and deep culture is the progenitor of political life in conceptual terms. Like, it makes sense. Okay. So I think that's important. And, you know, the issue with the West has a complicated relationship to religion, you know, because it's, you know um like even uh like even very like kind of radical christians um you know like very like like fundamentalist bible prods you know

like their view of like jews would be that basically like you know we won't do business with them we're not going to like live among them but you know it's almost a variant of like given to Caesar what Caesar is owed you know it's like it's not there's not some structure, even among fundamentalist Christianity, that, you know, would, like, somehow exclude Jews from the body politic. Like, it just, like, doesn't exist, you know, like, dialectically. Like, the, so that's important. Then plus two, I mean, even a traditional Catholic viewpoint, you know, like, you don't look at Christ as, like, your model for government. Because, I mean, that itself is that, that's a kind of gross idea.

idolatry, you know, like, a government's not, is only legitimate so far as it abides the natural law and fears God, you know, so, um, the degree to which, you know, a government is in line with with Logos and Christ's Logos incarnate, you know, that tells us about, you know, whether it's a legitimate regime or not, but like nobody would suggest that, you know, nobody, nobody, nobody would suggest that, you know, like, oh, like you, you know, like, you know, like, you know, the, the Pope should simply be like the emperor of Europe. And, you know, he should be basically like Napoleon, but, you know, with, but also like an emissary of God.

Like, nobody would suggest that, you know, and that kind of thinking is alien to kind of the, to the oxidants. So, I mean, there's all, it's, it's highly complicated. And I don't, I don't read Arabic, somebody at disadvantaged. But, you know, that's my point about Von Leer's. And that's why I hope to write about this in the future, like long form. But again, because I don't speak Arabic. It's difficult.

And I don't know. I feel like a dilettant. But, you know, some, if I could connect up with, I mean, I got like a dear friend of mine is an Iranian guy. He was a friend of ours. And I know some other people are good with languages. It wouldn't be impossible. But I'm probably not the best man to take on that project. But that's what I'm getting at with respect to Von Lear's. And plus also, I want people to understand that the relationship. of the Third Reich to alien societies was complicated and nuanced, you know. It's people have a simple-minded view of it kind of on both sides. I mean, I'm not just talking about like Symbolidensu and bide propaganda all day. And I'm talking also people who I think frankly should know better. But that's that's what that's what my interest in the man and his ideas owes to. and that's kind of the Castle Summary version of his ideas as they were. Do you think it was pretty much the foundation of the state of Israel

that made evangelical Christians, Protestantism, embrace dispensational eschatology? You know, the Jews are God's people. Israel needs to be refounded. The temple needs to be rebuilt in order for Jesus to come back? Or do you think there was something else in the time that really allowed Christianity to fall prey to this, basically, heresy? It wasn't the founding of Israel and of itself. And it's also a newfangled thing. There was weirdos, like British Israelism, this kind of weird, phyllosemitic kind of crank tendency that also suggests.

that like the English people were themselves were one of like the lost tribes of Israel. Interestingly, that's where like a lot of Christian identity nonsense comes from, as well as a lot of Christian Zionism. But it really, after the Sixth Day War, that's when kind of the full, in 67, that's what kind of the full court press of, in PR terms and in propaganda terms, began with respect to Israel. You know, like I made the point on the stream that we did a couple months ago, not we at the old glory club and us us liberty like israel didn't really feature on american voters

radar before that i mean some people were like well it's important you know to make sure the communists don't get a foothold in the in the levon so so long as israel collaborates with their efforts you know that's fine you know there's other guys who in some kind of very simple-minded way were like oh they're the good guys because they were the victims of war too but this but like like out like Zionism among you know non-Jewish people that didn't really exist until like the 70s you know and then these churches these quote-to-churches that popped up overnight and we're kind of reached their peak around you know 9-11 like that like that like that hagi guy that was very astro-turfed okay like I that was not like an organic development you know just like one day these guys so. suddenly had like endless money they had like a whole kind of like media empire behind them like in those days when DVDs were still like the primary medium you could like call a number and they send you free DVDs like full of this kind of like you know Christian Zionist propaganda

like that was that was very that was very much yeah you know um Jewish NGOs and like Zionist NGOs like covering their bases in my opinion because it doesn't it like there's been Sensationalism, like, literally doesn't make any sense. You know, like, it doesn't derive from, like, any tendency. Like, it doesn't derive from, like, Bible Protestantism. It doesn't derive, it doesn't derive from any Catholic tendency. Like, nobody thinks that. It doesn't, it doesn't partake of any, like, theological school.

Like, even, even, like, a minority element or something. So, I mean, that's my opinion. It was part of the, um, the, uh, like, um, Zionists in this country, I believe in a that's one of the reasons why IPEC is so important it's not just because it kind of buys senators and legislation but like Zionists in Israel are like really tone deaf like if you any if you look at their propaganda like this directed towards like the west it's just like cringe and weird like IPAC basically these guys job I mean aside from the traditional kind of like wheeling dealing and and you know paying people off and stuff their their kind of primary role is the develop propaganda and narratives that can kind of be finessed into American cultural space. Okay. And I'm kind of like joining it to this kind of weird dumb down like kind of like self-help

oriented like faux Christianity of like Joel Austin, but kind of the more like unsophisticated version and like saying to people like, oh, you know in the Bible you read about the Israelites and Galilee and where Jesus was from like, oh, that's Israel. and see, Israel's a real place, and you've got to defend it at all costs. Like, that, that very much was a work, okay? That's my take on it. And that's why it's faded a lot, too. You know, like, those guys, like, hey, you just don't have cash any more, really.

You know, and it's not, these people don't, like, mobilize these, like, remember in, like, 2000. Like, those idiots, obviously, like, loved, like, Georgia. or George W. Bush, Bush 43, you know, and they, like, like, staged, like, big rally. It's, like, not only huge, but, like, substantial. You know, they could put, they could put, like, you know, people's butts and seats. And, like, they can't really do that anymore. You know, it, um, it, uh, and, I mean, even people who, uh, even people who support Israel, like, zealously, it's, like, uniseemly to, like, too zealously, like, advocate, you know,

in public, you know, like, they do it in astro-turfed kind of like subtle ways, you know, obviously, but, like, even like Lindsey Graham, I mean, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's an, he's an, he's an, he's an incredibly grotesque, like, a foonish person. But even people, like, even people who, like, are totally pro-regime, you know, even people are, like, pro-Israel, like, they, they, they talk about him, like, he's cringe, you know, like, it's not, like, being some, like, forming at the mouth, like, Zionist, like, it's not, it's not a good luck. It's just not, you know, like that that moment passed like a long time ago but that's that's the way i i look at it and it's also a lot of them i'm not saying bad things about catholic people at all i mean how could i like

oh i mean look where i'm at like all my friends are catholic okay but they they don't really understand bible protestantism and like they don't you know um they don't understand kind of like how it odds with established Bible prod denominations, like people like Hagey or even Joel Osteen are. You know, like if you go, if you go to like a reform like Presby Church, you know, it's people would think it's pretty extreme, okay, by like contemporary metrics. And it, nobody sits around like damning the Jews or something, but it's very, very, very, very, anti-Israel. This is like the subtext of things. You know, and it's it's very, very tethered, you know, to, you know, the Bible is the only true authority. I mean, and the

inner witness. But I mean, it's like this idea that like Protestantism is like, you know, some ancient Episcopalian lady minister like talking about how wonderful gays are, or like Hagey sweating out, sweating buckets and talking about how much we love Israel. That's like, That's this weird like pop culture derivation, you know, kind of passed off as just another like sect or something. Like it's not, it's really, really, really at odds with, you know, Protestantism as it exists as like a living faith. You know, so that's, that's important. What do you think happens from here? I mean, it's obvious that pretty much we live in the spirit of this age is Jewish.

Talmudic, people are asking, how do we break out of this? How do we overturn it, you know, without getting fed posty and cringe? But, but I mean, it's happening, though. I mean, like, nobody takes the government seriously anymore. The regime is literally dottering old people who can barely stand, like sputtering and shrieking and lisping about how if you hold a sign in Washington, D.C., like, you're an insurrectionist. You know, they're, when they're not calling for like five-year-olds, you know, to have their genitals surgically mutilated, you know, they're declaring that, like, Israel is the greatest country on Earth. And, you know, we, we, we've got to have sanctions on half the planet. You know, we've got to, we've got to, we've got to fight irrational wars against Russia.

you know, we've got a, we've got to absolutely guarantee you to like the racial purity of the holy Jewish state, but it's also a democracy. Like, nobody believes this stuff anymore. Like I'm talking about, you know, I'm not talking about, you know, the kind of Hoy-Polloy who aren't ever really in the game to begin with. But that, you know, like, what could, what could anyone possibly, I mean, I wouldn't advocate people take violent, illegal action against the regime or any any any any any person legal or actual anyway but like hypothetically speaking like what could anybody do to the regime is not doing to itself you know what I mean I like I said the other day on a live stream um you know the the IDF really got kind of exposed and that the myth of its invincibility was shattered in 2006 um it uh Israel lost

Big in Syria, which was one of the catalysts for the orchestration of this war against Russia. Like the timing of it. You know, and it's like I, the Netanyahu is viewed as a crook and as a dangerous person and as an unhinged bigot, which is all accurate.

But even if he wasn't, and even if Leekud had kind of more credibility as as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a rational uh regime you know the this 2023 is not 948 there's not there's not there's not a generation of young jewish men who've been radicalized because they grew up in in some you know in some polish ghetto you know imbibing communist propaganda and zionist uh bigotry you know who want to kill all the Nazis, you know, like the, Israel's not going to fight some like endless race war, like some endless bloody race war in Palestine, you know, and slaughter people without regard to, you know,

distinction between soldiers and civilian and say like the hell with the world community and, you know, just like stack up bodies until, you know, they've had to terrorize everybody in submission or they've annihilated enough people that, you know, their enemies can't reconsitude. I don't see how they could meet that objective anyways in practical terms, but if they could, people would just be, people would be like appalled by it. Not because people are like morally or something at all.

I mean, but it, it would be, to say it would be hard to seemly doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. So it, and plus too, at some point, you know, what keeps, the reason why Israel can maintain this kind of perverse you know a constant state of emergency

um is because it's got you know just when you've got like a spigot you can turn on and you know that to the stack endless American dollars you know you're kind of excused from behaving like a rational state

and you know um and accomplishing workable interdependence with your neighbors or at least sustainable patterns of non-aggression and basic cooperation with respect to sovereign and territorial rights. I mean, eventually, like, America is not going to be able to do that. You know, like, eventually the money runs out.

Okay, and it's already starting to happen, you know. So, uh, Israel's going to have no choice. You know, it's either going to have to become a normal state or perish. And, um, and also, you know, but that's not really, that's definitely going to, like, harm Jewish interests, like profoundly. Like, profoundly. Like, not be wrong. Like, profound. I mean, the Jewish state is a rare case of a truly evil regime, like it shouldn't exist.

You know, it... But, you know, it's not gonna... The kind of... The Westphalian system has been dead, you know, for 80 years. The post-Westphalian system that retain these kinds of trappings of heart. borders, you know, and, um, and sovereign governments, you know, being the true, uh, kind of power political, the truly exclusive power political actors. That was kind of like kept alive by the peculiarities of the Cold War, you know, like that time has passed. Like having a, uh,

having a, you know, having a, having a Jewish racial state that's like oddly situated, um, in geostrategic terms um that's not that's not that's not really going to serve a one's interest as a people in the in the by the middle of the 21st century it's going to be it's going to be something of a liability um now of course like what it does retain is that um if you control a national government that's nuclear armed and at least it has you know however comparatively small and scale a genuine like combat capable military like yeah that confers a certain amount of like intrinsic power okay but it um but again like an absolute and it also obviously it allows one to it allows a people to act in sovereign capacities like to impact you know world events okay um in a way that obviously is not the case if that uh configuration of power doesn't exist but like in historical terms

you know it's not like if you know assuming Israel's in you know in like 17 like 50 years or saying like 40 years you know by like late mid century you know a state of Israel's force to just kind of become a normal state you know that's ethnically you know mixed and

you know basically they have to abide kind of like the majoritarian the political will of the majority and body politic. It's not like, it's not like the Jews of people are going to just like fall apart after that, but that like they're going to you know, and it's the point of people too. Like Israel's kind of a shit hole. You know, it's not like the reason it exists

is, um, the ultimate, like we talked about like the original kind of like theory of Zionism was that it would resolve it would resolve a lot of problems Jews had in terms of their ability to, you know,

assert some kind of tangible representation in political affairs and uh it would provide like a kind of structure to guarantee their like racial posterity and perpetuity but it's not uh you know and again too like just not just in terms of prestige but in actual concrete terms when israel goes under yes it's going to hurt the jewish people but they're not going to like it's not like jews are all streaming to like move to Israel now okay like it uh like nobody really wants to live there man You know, I mean, like legit. I'm not just being sarcastic or something.

So, I mean, you're still going to have a quite potent Jewish diaspora situated, you know, in the world cities, you know, as they are now. And you'll still have the Jewish population of Palestine, you know, and they're not going to disappear. you know and um it despite what net yahu screams like arabs aren't a much of insane people who are like developing nuclear weapons to you know to to annihilate old jews i mean that so i mean they're going to have uh they're they're still going to constitute like a uh a kind of privileged minority within the levant that you know as a demographic category like continues to control like a lot of capital so i mean look at it like that but yeah but again it is it's an evil regime and it has to go and it it will it should be a priority of uh the destruction of

israel as constituted um and forcing it forcing it to be liberated and and um placed back into the hands of of of of of of of Palestinians i mean that that absolutely should be a priority But that's not something like Armageddon's scenario or afterwards, like the planet changes totally or something. All right, cool. So you said there were a couple things that you wanted to hit up yourself. You want to start talking about Finkelstein? Before that, I wanted to speak to something else. One of the fellows asked me over a direct message.

He asked me if I'd ever written anything in a dedicated capacity on the Dreyfus affair. That would require its own, you know, its own episode to like fully flesh out and in all of its detail and things. At least everything material. But what I did want to speak on it a little bit and reiterate some of what I have written about it just in the response to his query. And I think it's, I think it's materially relevant just in general. The thing one of the drivers affair is that after,

post Jacob and France, you know, like as, I mean, France never truly normalized, you know, after the Jacob and Revolution, even as,

even as a kind of patriotic sensibility, you know, like return to the national life. You know, when I say it never normalized, it remained, um,

its institutions remained kind of up for grabs, okay, in a way that was not the case. and any other in any of the other continental powers. Okay. So the issue with Dreyfus, it wasn't, it wasn't like this O.J. Simpson kind of thing,

if you'll forgive what might be kind of like a crass metaphor, where people were vociferously debating whether Dreyfus was actually guilty or not. The issue was the way people were characterizing it in mass capacities, you know, and on the one hand, you know, had these kind of like Neo-Jacobin types who seem to just kind of like instinctively and axiomatically, like come to the defense of any Jew who was put under any kind of scrutiny, like regardless of, you know, any evidence of his own, um, of his own criminality or malfeasance, you know, and that, that had the, that had a, that had the effect of really infuriating

you know, uh, kind of was then the new French right, you know, um, who held the position that arguably, you know, like no Jews should be able to procure an officer's commission anyway.

You know, so this thing took on a highly symbolic character. And, um, you know, France, to people who, to people who were advocating what we think of as a quote,

propositional society, you know, uh, they, they, they, they, towards this kind of myth of, you know, anti-Semitism and, oh, well, you know, one of the reasons

why reactionary institutions are corrupt is, you know, they just, you know, they have contempt for the dignity of the person and they just judge men by their race or by their confession. And we all know that religion is dead anyway and that it's, you know, itself like, you know, an obsolescent tendency. Like, that's the way to understand that drives a fair. You know, I mean, I, um, and I'm not an expert on the on the matter um and it is a matter some people do develop an actual expertise on you know like on both sides of the divide it's really kind of fascinating and there's um like the sociology of media in like a modern sense you know that there's a lot to be derived from from the case you know it's really significant not just to people who have political interests such

that we do. But that's the way to look at it. It took on, like, drive-as-the-man came to not be particularly significant. You know, and it wasn't just, it wasn't even like a case, it wasn't even like a Leo Frank type case where, like, make a mistake.

I mean, there was, there was, you know, political sympathies and paradigms writ large, like, orbited around, like, the case of Leo Frank, but at base, like, the issue with Frank was, like, is this man guilty of what he has been charged with? um you know and the drives affair became like like again like it's almost like drive has ceased to be like a person or like ceased to be a criminal defendant or ceased to be a fallen you know officer you know lesser aristocrat you know so that's um that i think that's kind of the first uh that's kind of the first um instance of the phenomena too of its kind you know and uh it it owed uh you know um there was been only means like man

literacy then or anything but like there was enough there was enough literacy among kind of like the body politic including some of the hoi-poly that you know these uh you know people people developed you know like a strong position on the matter in a way that wouldn't have been the case before other than you know other than other than you know other than relating to you know truly like impactful things like you know war and peace matters and like basic things relating to national survival but um i just want to get it out there because like when this kid i don't know he's a kid when this dude like um positive this question um he hasn't been the only one like in the last like actually like several months like it's come up a lot other people asking me like why is it so

important or you know is it is it just um you know a situation of uh you know people holding out drive is there some sort of early victim of you know intolerance or is there something there And that's, yeah, like I said, it warrants a dedicated treatment on its own. But that's sort of the very superficial take that I can proffer right this minute without having, you know, dived into the research on it. I mean, I have researched it, but kind of oblique to other things. But that's that. I raised Finkelstein because, well, there's a few things.

wanted to talk about how, you know, I made a point that Zionism, I mean, it's always had, it's always had a problem with optics as we think of it today, okay, or it always seemed, there was always something unseemly about it. I mean, for reasons that I think should be obvious, you know, um, Finklstein in particular, for those that don't know, he was a DePaul University professor. in 1996 he wrote a book called the Holocaust industry which uh you know it was it was a pretty scathing a little polemical text there's only about 200 pages long but uh it was chock full of you know um facts figures and data and at that point that was uh there was a real push to kind of um you know bring about

you know for you know compensation to be remitted to you know people who were alleged to be you know aging Holocaust survivors you know at Finglstein's point was like you know how can there be like

how can there be millions upon millions of these people and he kind of teased you know just like I mean as a Jew too he was interested in this he's like what's the real like story behind this you know and say lo and behold he found out that anybody any Jewish person who was alive, you know, at the time, like, was being included as a quote survivor, like the descendants of people who were purported to be survivors or being

counted as survivors. Like, this whole thing was an elaborate shakedown that really had no substantive merit, like even if you believe in, you know, kind of the narrative that gave rise to the, you know, creation of these liabilities in the first place. You know, so Fingles sign, you know, according to him, he basically held pretty conventional opinions on the matter before then. You know, but then he started just like diving more and more into these personages, like, like, um, like, um, L.E. Zell and realizing the guy was just like a fraudster. He was just like made of stories, you know, like when he, he claimed he was at camps that he

wasn't, like he claimed, you know, he was in countries. He wasn't, you know, he was literally just like a con man, you know, um, you know, and then Finkelstein said like, well, okay. Maybe, maybe Elie Wiesel was just like a bad actor, you know, but then again and again, these kinds of seminal stories or biographies around people like him. Like, it became clear that like all of them were basically liars, you know, and, and then there were guys who actually did have horrible wartime experiences, but they had no interest in, you know, like Jews, I mean, but they had no interest in like the Holocaust industry, as Fickles Sank called it. So, like, they were shunned, even though, like, they'd been. you know they've been like POWs in german camps then when like their confessional heritage was discovered you know they were uh they were sent to actual prisons you know and then like when uh after the day of defeat they were then like captured by the soviets and sent to like

soviet prisons as collaborators like guys with truly horrible lives but who rejected uh you know the the holocaust narrative and all of its attendant sort of um you know claims so i mean they they were just kind of like cut out of the, cut out of the equation, and they, they, they kind of lost their status in the eyes of these, of these, um, you know, a Holocaust survivor NGOs. So, I mean, the whole thing was, uh, you know, uh, very corrupt. I mean, this might seem like obvious to us, but, you know, as I made the point in the 90s, this was, you know, and he was writing this book, this book dropped in like 1996. He was writing it in like 92, 93, you know, and he, uh, this, this kind of data was not easily available, okay. Um, um,

If it sounds corny or like he was being dishonest, you know, saying that like, oh, I realized that APEC was lying about these things. It wasn't, it wasn't as easy as sitting down and spending an hour, kind of like doing deep dive research, you know, on Google. It was, you know, you have to go to the National Archives. You'd have to go, frankly, you know, ideally you'd have to, like, you know, physically, like travel to Europe and see what the Bundes Republic would allow you to access. you know, you'd have to see if you could, you know, obtain documents that were housed in Poland, which was then kind of a basket case as a transition from, you know, communism was underway. Like, there's not just, this was not something people would just do, okay? And the bully pulpit of, you know, of, of, of traditional media was, I mean, it was, it was, it was, it really,

the zenith around the very early 90s that we've talked about you know like Gulf War era you know and it it uh during the Clinton era it really it really had a stranglehold okay so as time on on finklestein um a lot of Palestinian um you know uh advocates and like human rights types kind of like gravitated towards him you know and he became a figure of uh he became very much targeted you know he lost his job at DePaul and um he uh this was post 9-11 this is around uh between like 2003 and 2006 that's kind of when um that's kind of when the big push uh to uh to remove people like finkelstein from public life came about you know and that's also around the time like around 2006-d that's something like walton meersheimer wrote the israel lobby you know i remember vividly

when Ahmadinejad visited the United States, you know, ahead of state, he went to Rutgers and this kind of pitiable, like, little guy, like, literally, like this, like, like, five-foot-two dumpy university type. He was, like, literally went into this, like, red face sputtering rant when he had to Osama Dinajad, like, insulting him, saying that he hated him, that he was, like, you know, it was disgusting in his words that this man was allowed in America, like, really, really just, it was bizarre. Like, the guy, like he was having a seizure or something, you know, and then, and then Ahmadinejah takes the podium begins to speak, and it's kind of like Greek chorus, you know, not, not Hoy-Polyte types, like a bunch

of academics and grad students. They were like yelling and booing and swearing, like some WWF wrestling crowd or something. Like, it was totally insane. And I remember being kind of disgusted by that. but then like when they had to do rounds online like people got really mad they're like what the fuck is wrong with these people you know it's like they were responses like first of all they're clown secondly like this guy's ahead of state like whether you like iran or not or you like like this is not how you act like that's the way insane people would act you know i mean and it um it really you know kind of like uh that was kind of a critical moment when uh when the design is movement And if we can even talk about it as such, like, I mean, it's, it's, it's accomplished its, you know, its ambitions as a, you know, and as a state configured according to its program, obviously.

But if we look at it, if we look at its enduring mandate as to, you know, finesse, you know, its image in the court of public opinion, they just, like, totally fell on their face. you know in terms of how that in terms of how that uh in terms of what the correct way to proceed would be like in the information age okay and that really really really hurt them i think okay um and that's why now it's like night and day like you'll i mean basically like it's like nobody likes israel you know like nobody thinks them as like this kind of heroic state that against the odds is you know triumping against them against some kind of brutal indigenous element that's beyond a reason or you know and obviously uh the um the the cold war paradigm like helped them in some way but i think uh i think that's significant because like again like fecklstein like he wasn't you know he wasn't like a cowardly guy obviously because he you know he very much went against the grain and made himself a target of some very powerful people, but he wasn't like a combative guy. You know, like he came off as kind of this like soft-spoken, kind of sensitive professor type.

You know, and these people like Dershowitz were like shrieking about it. He's a piece of shit. You know, and like the, the Ahmadinejad thing and the, you know, the kind of, just the kind of lunacy of, of, I mean, John McCain was a complete idiot. I mean, in addition to being like a horrible person. and an evil person. He was like just really, really, really stupid. And like, you know, he, I remember, like, when Chuck Hagel was appointed secretary of state,

like, became under this, like, blustering moronic, like, insult tirade about, like, how dare you criticize Israel and your quote, on the wrong side of history. And even some people, like, looked at him, like, what are you talking about? Like, it's, first of all, it's like, that's a, that's a, that's a commie canard, the, quote, wrong side of history. like he's not even like like you don't even if you're like the biggest Zionist the politics in the world that's like not how you

employ that statement you know but it's like people just increasingly it became just like a bad look to hit your wagon to these people you know and um that was a key uh kind of tipping point

after 9-11 really in like the first especially like in the immediate aftermath like after the dust settled when there was still this kind of fervent support at least in some sense for re-engagement with the Near East. You know, they had to wait, if immediately, like, you know, these NGOs had gone into action saying, like, okay, like, you know, we need to rethink our relations with the Arab world because Israel. That would have backfired, obviously. But if they'd been savvy and intelligent about it, they could have really kind of gotten their way on a lot of,

on a lot of sticking points, you know, and they really could have sort of spun things in their own favor. That's why I talk about that, you know, kind of narrow temporal window as, you know, holding so much significance. And they completely botched it. I mean, to say they botched it doesn't even begin to scratch the service. I mean, they did they did the opposite of what they should have done. You know, and it also, but it's also, too, I mean, people, the narratives on which these things are premised, like it, you know, I, like the entire enterprise, you know, like we, like any curious person can kind of dig through the lies of, you know, that constituted the narrative. that propped of a post-war order. But even people who aren't particularly, you know,

don't have those kinds of bookish tendencies or research shops. There's just a basic suspicion of any official narrative, you know. So the fact that the fact that the Zionist enterprise became so inextrantly linked, you know, to policy. I think that that would have, that, that would have, um, just kind of instinctively cause people to begin treating it like anything else.

Like, um, you know, like something that obviously is, I mean, they might not understand that, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the minutia of, of why, um, you know, but they'd look at it as just another instance of,

you know, know, a policy that appears on its face, irrational, or at least against the common interest, you know, that obviously profits, you know, some privileged minority of people, you know, political sectarian or otherwise. So that's important, you know, just kind of the contrast. And obviously, like young people, they have no way of knowing that because they weren't alive then. But when I when I talk to people you know my age and older

when they speak about the matter as if this is like 30 years ago and this is some like insurmountable kind of like monolithic just a thing like conceptual thing that you can't

be surmounted and can't be cut down to size proverbially or or can't, you know, or its proponents can't have their credibility impeached, you know, that's this total nonsense. That's, that's what I wanted, that's what I wanted to touch on, you know, it, um, like, I don't think, for example, I, uh, I saw him a friend of mine the other day and, um, he made the point in 93, 93 and 94, you know, Schindler's list was held out as this great film and it was just like lavish with praise, you know, like, it was. was, you know, people had, like, with some combination of, like, Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind, but also, they treated it, they talked to discuss it like it was some, like, quasi-religious experience to see it. It's just a bad movie. It's like, everybody in it speaks English with

these kinds of, like, corny, sort of, like, you know, generic, like, evil accents. You know, there's kind of, there's, there's cheap camera tricks, you know, like a little girl in, like, red, like, I miss the black and white. It's, uh, it's, uh, it's, uh, you know, that, the, uh, the, uh, the totten cop for bond the types at the concentration camp, they, on the one hand, they, they, they're presented as, like, bumbling idiots, you know, like, Colonel Klink or something. On the other hand, like, they're just unbelievably evil for no reason. Like, I, I think a film like that today, it would, first of all, like, four-chant

types to just, like, make it a meme, just, like, just, like, tear it apart by making fun of it, like, day after day after day after day. but even but even most moviegoers I think they'd look at it for what it is like oh wow this is very transparent and shitty and this is ridiculous and you know

just just kind of in poor taste not to the subject matter in of itself but because the obvious intention behind the you know it's this movie's creation you know so So the world is totally different in that regard.

You know, and I emphasize that to people because they're not going to care if people are, quote, like, black-pilled. If that's their, if that's their sensibility, that's their problem. And we don't want, like, losers who, like, sit around, you know, who enjoy sitting around, you know, feeling like losers, like, among us anyway. But it, you know, they, they're not, they don't really grasp things in comparative terms. and they don't really see a profound. The shift has been in, you know, kind of conceptual life writ large in political terms and everything related to that.

Yeah, I mean, Schindler's list was also just bad propaganda. I mean, anyone could have, anyone can go to Wikipedia now and, like, look up goat and see that, you know, he was, like, arrested by the SS for being a, being a, being a, abusive and just basically being a criminal. And for corruption. Yeah. It was also bizarre because, like, I'm on goat. He was actually, like, he was an alcohol. Like, it was like this ugly fat guy.

And in the movie, he's like this dashing, super handsome guy, like, played by Ralph Fines. And he's, like, seducing girls and, like, acting like, like, Count Dracula. Like, it's, it was, like, almost, like, pornographic or something, you know? It's like what? And, yeah, I mean, it was also. And it's like, why I focused on him? Like, yeah, it was bizarre. Like, if you're going to, you know, a guy who's dismissed for, you know,

you know, being unfit for command. And yeah, for for brutalizing prisoners, which was against the law, and for corruption, you know, and like acting like he was a, like the film, yeah, they portrayed him like he was like Reinhardt or something. Like he's this guy who's just like cloud throughout like the Great Drven Reich. When a reality, he was something about nobody. And yeah, the whole thing was yeah, even stuff like that, you know, was, was, was bizarre. I mean, frankly, if you want, if you're going to make a propaganda movie in that vein, the, the antagonist, you probably should have made the antagonist like Christian Wirth. And it really was a brutal guy. And focused on the, um, the development of the Ainsets grouping.

And, uh, and prior to that, uh, you know the the the euthanasia program um that uh um you know availed uh like the terminally like you know mentally retarded and and other such afflicted people you know uh insane people and things to uh and that there's a huge revolt against that like in the court of public opinion that's why the program was stopped. So, I mean, that, that wouldn't deliver the intended narrative and complete terms. But that, but if you wanted to, if you wanted to convey something like that, that would probably be the best way to do it, like, the painting the regime and the blackest terms,

I mean, you know, like it, yeah, but it, but that, I remember vividly, and like, even, like, Seinfeld, like, Rift on how they're going to see Schindler's List. Like, it was really, it was really, you know, kind of like a cultural phenomenon. But like I said, objectively, you know, it's just like a bad movie. Like, I'm not, I'm probably willing to acknowledge when I see slip propaganda, you know, I find it to be, you know, horribly destructive in its purpose. Like, it's just not, but it's not bad. It's just a bad movie.

You know, like it's, and something like that would never, um, but would never, like, get over today, you know, it would, uh, you'd see it like on, cable or something and like uh there there'd be you know people who'd already you know spent a lifetime imbing the kool-aid and not thinking critically who are kind of like 30 years behind the rest of us would be like oh that's a really good movie like those damn Nazis but like nobody but i mean nobody would nobody else would take it seriously so yeah that's just that's just kind of what i want to do um bookend with i was thinking and this is totally up to you um um I'm going to, I'm going to fit it into this, in the season two of mine phase, or if you and your listeners have no interest.

I wanted to do a dedicated, um, episode on, uh, Islam and the Third Reich, you know, um, and Johann von Lears and everybody, uh, in that, uh, in that milieu. And, uh, speaking of the Einstein's group and Paul Blobel, Paul Blobel. he played a role in the establishment of SS Imam schools being built to train Muslim SS chaplains and things. The whole thing is fascinating at least to me, and I don't think it's just a fringe interest I have. I think it's important to develop a complete conceptual picture of, the situation that Muslim and particularly Palestinians found themselves

in during the war years. And how after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, you know, Dharal Islam, at least, you know, the Sunni core of it, the Sunni and Arab core of it, had to be viewed. It's not as if like this kind of civilizational form just disappeared because it's,

you know, because it's because it lost the state that represented it. You know, and like I said, I believe it's appropriate to look at that population as being part of the Axis powers. And I mean, Al Hussein, very much representing them as not just, like, as a discrete and insular people, not just as a political faction. So that's sort of thing about And like I said, I'm not

upset or offended If it's not something topically that You know, you want to cover on your show I'll just insinuate it into mind phaser Season 2 when appropriate Or I'll do like a live stream out of something If you want if you wanted to do that I mean, we could do a live stream together on it

That might be Yeah, yeah I'll release it on my phone more Because it's one of those It's one of those things that most people don't know about So no, exactly. And what they have for it is colored through the lens of propaganda. You know, but it's, it really is a fascinating topic and it's an important topic.

And the Veltpolitik of the of the German Reich is important. Even if you don't have a discreet interest in Islam. And the Near East, you know, there was a real, you know, world politic to, you know, the, you know, the, the sensibilities of a of a war planners and policy planners in Berlin so yeah that's very important that's uh that's about uh all i've got on uh all right well hit hit up some plugs and and we'll end it yeah we'll do um i'm at uh on substack uh i'm at real thomas 7777 that's substack i'm at real thomas 777. That's substack.com.

You can always find me my content on my website. It's number seven, H-M-A-S-777.com. It's a work-in-progress, but it is up and running and you can find content there. There's just a,

I need a, like a cell phone and tablet version, and we're working on that, but you can still access it from, like, your mobile device. It's just like the layout isn't as easy to navigate. You can find me on Twitter.

I've unlocked the timeline for the time being and people have been behaving themselves. It's real all caps, R-E-A-L underscore number 7, H-M-A-S-7777. You can find me on Telegram at, it's Thomas Graham, 770. 7777 and again number 7 h1 as gram 777 i'm going to nashville this weekend for the amaran conference and i'm going to stream from there and when i get back um that's when i'm going to start season two of the mind phaser podcast and dive back into my own content in earnest because as i've uh notified people of i was on hiatus for uh about a month month and a half this summer, so I needed it, frankly. And also, I don't, I, quality over quality,

I think is the order of the day, especially if you have a brand like mine. But I'll alert people, I'll keep everybody posted on my journey to Amaran on like Twitter and on Tigram and stuff. And when I get there, I'll announce the stream and, you know, I'm going to try and catch her as much footage as I can. So I think it'll be, I think it'll be, I think it'll be, I think it'll be pretty compelling stuff. Well, I guess I'll see you in a couple days then. Yes, sir. And thanks again for you all right. Thanks, man.