Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Canona Show. Thomas,
Speaker 1: it feels like we haven't talked in like four or
Speaker 1: five weeks or like a month or so.
Speaker 2: Are you doing I'm doing well. Yeah, it's been a minute.
Speaker 2: Even for me. I realize, I realize my content workflow
Speaker 2: isn't what yours are or Jay Burdens or some of
Speaker 2: the fellas is like I I I probably, I probably
Speaker 2: look it probably makes me look like a special ed
Speaker 2: kid or something. In my defense, I you know, even
Speaker 2: when my health was better, I I tend to favor
Speaker 2: highly conceptual topics and that kind of requires deep dives
Speaker 2: like on my end to prepare that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: But you know it, I remain impressed by the fact
Speaker 2: that you guys managed to be able to bang out
Speaker 2: the content you do with the value you do, and
Speaker 2: it's always high quality. But yeah, I'm gonna drop the
Speaker 2: st rep on my sub stack. But yeah, since since
Speaker 2: I've been back from Arkansas, like I haven't, I haven't
Speaker 2: done ship, like I haven't answered people's texts or emails.
Speaker 2: This is supposed to be my big week to catch
Speaker 2: up on some long form stuff like like none that
Speaker 2: I was getting done like, I'm sorry for that. I
Speaker 2: have not been feeling well but today and I and
Speaker 2: I and I agree a series, or at least i'd
Speaker 2: like to over three episodes, but at least two on
Speaker 2: the subject of Earns Noblety, not just his thought and
Speaker 2: kind of his particular school of revisionism, but what he represents.
Speaker 2: You know, he was a student of Heidiger, and he
Speaker 2: became very close to the Heidiger family, and that's important.
Speaker 2: It's important not just put Heidiger in context. And I
Speaker 2: generally agree with people including Leo Strauss interestingly, who I
Speaker 2: don't have nice things to say about in terms of
Speaker 2: his ethics, but he did have insight into like the
Speaker 2: Western intellectual tradition. Heidiger was kind of the last continental philosopher,
Speaker 2: I think, and Nolty was very much the error to
Speaker 2: that tradition. You know, that began with people like meister
Speaker 2: Eckert and continued with iv Zy Hegel and Chopenhauer and Nietzsche.
Speaker 2: And that that alone renders him a significant personage. But
Speaker 2: it's also people don't really understand what revisionism is. It's
Speaker 2: not just a matter of taking narratives that have been
Speaker 2: mythologized by ideologically committed peoples and institutions that have been
Speaker 2: able to utilize a bully pulpit, you know, to kind
Speaker 2: of force those perspectives on you know, on I kind
Speaker 2: of the historical canvas generally. But it's also why these
Speaker 2: controversies came about, oh to a certain crisis in in uh,
Speaker 2: in the Western concept itself. No, I don't just mean ontologically,
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of you know, questions people pose
Speaker 2: themselves severally and collectively, you know, like who are we?
Speaker 2: Like what what what is our culture? You know, like
Speaker 2: what do we do we believe in God? I mean,
Speaker 2: those things are away important, but I mean the the
Speaker 2: collision with modernity and made no mistake, it was a
Speaker 2: collision of Western man and the catastrophes that ensued from
Speaker 2: this that can't be overstated. Okay, and Nolty his brand
Speaker 2: of revisionism is very much grounded in there describing that
Speaker 2: process and identifying the twentieth century and you know, the
Speaker 2: kind of the intellectual paradigms that were emerging in the
Speaker 2: twentieth century and the kind of great ideologies that gave
Speaker 2: rise to the the Second World War and beyond. Those
Speaker 2: are those are derivative of this process. And the reason
Speaker 2: why people develop a sort of blindness about this is
Speaker 2: twofold in my opinion. Part of it is, obviously there's
Speaker 2: a there's a there's a dominant narrative about the Second
Speaker 2: World War that the current regime is a very it
Speaker 2: has got it's got a very strong interest in sustaining,
Speaker 2: not just because it it derives its moral legitimacy from
Speaker 2: this narrative, but in in ontological terms, the way the
Speaker 2: world is structured morally, politically, in just an absolute conceptual terms,
Speaker 2: you know, derives from this narrative. But beyond that, there's
Speaker 2: an inability, particularly in I think Anglophone intellectual traditions, to
Speaker 2: really understand condone philosophy, like even when the even when
Speaker 2: the variable is being described within that tradition, you know,
Speaker 2: touching concern Anglophone cultures as much as they do you know,
Speaker 2: Germanic or Francophone ones, there's a there's an inability to
Speaker 2: really sort of approach those things on on the correct terms.
Speaker 2: Like even if even if I'm not even talking about
Speaker 2: accepting the postulists they're in, I'm saying that there's this
Speaker 2: there's there's an entirely different conceptual vocabulary for approaching these things.
Speaker 2: And it's not just because you know, oh the you know,
Speaker 2: the English and the Scots are are pragmatic. That's not
Speaker 2: That's not what it is. I mean that that's like
Speaker 2: a shorthand for you know, kind of university type to
Speaker 2: teach history of philosophy, your history of science courses. That's
Speaker 2: we're talking about something both more opigue and more kind
Speaker 2: of deliberate, deliberately maintained. You know. But really, when Nolding
Speaker 2: dots to out revisionism, he's talking about what exactly happened
Speaker 2: in the twentieth century, okay, And he's talking about what
Speaker 2: exactly national socialism and fascism represented contra capitalism and communism,
Speaker 2: you know, and this was not I mean, anybody who's
Speaker 2: educating on the subject, you know, knows that national socialism
Speaker 2: had nothing to do with nationalism. Whatever that means that
Speaker 2: that got the thinking was dead anyway by you know,
Speaker 2: by by the turn of the twentieth century. You know,
Speaker 2: it wasn't just it, It wasn't it wasn't a matter
Speaker 2: of you know, quote unquote scapegoating people, because that doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense, you know, I mean, even if even
Speaker 2: if one accepts kind of court history claims that for
Speaker 2: no particular reason this Habsburg, Austria and the format, Hitler
Speaker 2: just decided he didn't like Jewish people for for some
Speaker 2: social reason. You know, that wouldn't be people would people
Speaker 2: wouldn't respond to some some man's like petty like personal biases,
Speaker 2: like why would they? That's not that's not the way
Speaker 2: things work. Okay, and uh, finally understanding how they kind
Speaker 2: of dehumanization, the process of dehumanization at scale whereby human lives,
Speaker 2: the horror of of human lives to the you know,
Speaker 2: at at the level of millions, because ceremonies extinguished, like
Speaker 2: cease to cease to be impactful, you know, like why
Speaker 2: that happened, and why that was inevitable and how there
Speaker 2: was a mirror of what preceded it in the case
Speaker 2: of the Third Reich, and as the war situation deteriorated,
Speaker 2: the onset of the categorical extermination of people who were
Speaker 2: identified as standard bearers of the enemy idea. Okay, these
Speaker 2: are the concerns that are already has so when we
Speaker 2: talk about revisionism, we're not but we're not talking about
Speaker 2: arguing over like gas chambers whether they existed, and things
Speaker 2: like that because you already lost. You've already lost a
Speaker 2: proverbial plot if you're doing that, Like, yes, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of there's a lot of perjured testimony relating to
Speaker 2: the instrumentalities of execution and things. Yes, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of hyperbole that stands in for you know, actual documented events,
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing should be rebutted. But that's
Speaker 2: not what we're talking about, okay, and you're not in
Speaker 2: the game of your own notion is basically, you know,
Speaker 2: I accept court history, but you know this is wrong
Speaker 2: because this many people couldn't have been killed. Like that's
Speaker 2: now we're talking about. And if you're counting, if you're
Speaker 2: counting casualty lists, or you're or you're aggregating estimates of
Speaker 2: counter value attrition as as some sort of like atrocity contest,
Speaker 2: you know that, I mean that, that's that's incredibly perverse.
Speaker 2: But it's also not you're you're missing the point, you know,
Speaker 2: So I know people will be like probably to them,
Speaker 2: they're like, well, how's an oldie revision is he doesn't
Speaker 2: do what earned his undilted or does and just claim
Speaker 2: none of this happened, So it's not a real revisionist.
Speaker 2: He was some kind of troll. It was some sort
Speaker 2: of pre internet troll. And don't get me wrong, like
Speaker 2: I there's a place for that, like Tom Metzker was
Speaker 2: was in some ways one of those two. But that's
Speaker 2: not that's not real history. And I realized I'm digressing,
Speaker 2: But Fred Leuchter is a guy you should look into
Speaker 2: if you're concerned with instrumentalities and and kind of a direct,
Speaker 2: evidential rebuttal of some of the claims we're talking about.
Speaker 2: I mean, Laker's got something with a tragic background owing
Speaker 2: to uh, the fact that kind of like Alex Jones today,
Speaker 2: Laker was very much singled out for destruction by the
Speaker 2: regime when when his when he when he when he
Speaker 2: when he developed a high profile which he did not
Speaker 2: cultivate at all. But some that's kind of upset the
Speaker 2: scope for we're talking about. Robert Fwerson is another one.
Speaker 2: If then I guarantee in the comments section or whatever,
Speaker 2: people are gonna say that like I'm not I'm not
Speaker 2: giving a fair shake or whatever the to what they did.
Speaker 2: The people that considered to be kind of like you know,
Speaker 2: the the authors and and writers who constant divisionist Cannon
Speaker 2: but getting into what are are subject for the day,
Speaker 2: A lot is made of of Heidegger's purported affinity for
Speaker 2: national socialism, and even people who are something like the
Speaker 2: Heidiger they seems understand that the claim is, well, Heideger
Speaker 2: was attracted to Nazism, you know, because he was a
Speaker 2: German patriot, and then when he realized that these were
Speaker 2: horrible people, he retreated from that. And or they or
Speaker 2: they claim that, you know, he he coveted directorship of
Speaker 2: Freiburg University and this is a simply a career decision
Speaker 2: or something like. None of that even comes close to
Speaker 2: the truth of the of the situation. Heideger was concerned, first, last,
Speaker 2: and always with the crisis of Western civilization. Okay, and
Speaker 2: this and his opinion had been under way at least
Speaker 2: since the Third Years War, and probably why well before.
Speaker 2: In terms of the kind of cultural mind. My your
Speaker 2: notion is that the function of culture, what culture is?
Speaker 2: The culture relates directly to the question of being. This
Speaker 2: translating exactly what he means by being is difficult. It's
Speaker 2: one part logos, it's one part qualia, it's one part consciousness,
Speaker 2: it's one part sentience. But the way to understand and
Speaker 2: the kind of short hot.
Speaker 1: Shorthand what's quality.
Speaker 2: Quillia is basically with people who study consciousness, if they
Speaker 2: define as like that intangible factor that like makes humans human,
Speaker 2: it goes to something beyond self awareness, but that it's
Speaker 2: like ill defined in in quantitative terms, but it's basically
Speaker 2: that combination of, you know, the ability to reason abstractly,
Speaker 2: self awareness, the and the ability to act intentionally like
Speaker 2: they're in that that that makes up like the human
Speaker 2: consciousness has distinguished even from the most intelligent animals. Okay,
Speaker 2: it's a neuroscience term. I believe that's its original kind
Speaker 2: of provenance. But you know, in fundamental senses, being is
Speaker 2: always kind of this question that that that's that, that's
Speaker 2: that's that's ever present. Okay, You're thrust into the world,
Speaker 2: you know, as a baby, and based the process of
Speaker 2: your mind developing is the process by which you know,
Speaker 2: you come to understand being. You know, and even like
Speaker 2: even the most dullwitted human being, there's times at which
Speaker 2: you know he's he's metaphorically speaking, startled by the strangeness
Speaker 2: of his existence in the world. Okay, that's eye. The
Speaker 2: most primitive societies have some notion of God. Okay, even
Speaker 2: if it's just some idolatrous mock up of a bull
Speaker 2: or something, because you know, we we slaughter the bulls
Speaker 2: and from there, you know, we can eat and then
Speaker 2: we can survive. So that is God. Okay. So being
Speaker 2: to Heidegger and to traditionally Aryan Man or Indo European,
Speaker 2: if you prefer, the kind of neologism was always an
Speaker 2: open ended question. You know, it always uh, it always
Speaker 2: it's it's the vantage point of it is uh always
Speaker 2: involves man kind of steering into a conceptual abyss. Okay,
Speaker 2: even that's not That doesn't mean it's intrinsically sinister, but
Speaker 2: it's existentially disturbing because it's unknown. Okay. Now, in Heideger's view,
Speaker 2: man comes to live historically because this is how the
Speaker 2: question of being is answered, or at least this is
Speaker 2: the way that it's reconciled with human existence. Moment to
Speaker 2: moment man experiences time. You know, time is time basically
Speaker 2: governs in both prozacon profound terms like everything man does
Speaker 2: in an individual capacity as well as UH in a
Speaker 2: in a an in a collective one okay, and moment
Speaker 2: to moment man is forced to make decisions, and what
Speaker 2: braggets all those decisions is time and thus death. Man's
Speaker 2: always confronting his own is just oblivion generally as well
Speaker 2: as his own death. Okay. Now, what mitigates the terror
Speaker 2: of that, but what also allows man to kind of
Speaker 2: conceptualize what being is in both his day to day
Speaker 2: existence as well as in transcendental terms, is that looking
Speaker 2: at one's existence backwards from this very moment. Now, there's
Speaker 2: an infinite number of aggregate decisions that led to this point, okay,
Speaker 2: rendered by my forebears, rendered by people who I've literally inherited,
Speaker 2: you know, everything from the way I speak to my
Speaker 2: folk ways. You know, it's like my biological aspects. There's
Speaker 2: this chain of existence literally stretching backwards to the very
Speaker 2: moment I wish my insistors became human. That is essentially,
Speaker 2: again an aggregate of endless decisions rendered that constitute decisions
Speaker 2: within that temporal bracketing and the process by which you know,
Speaker 2: questions are posed second to second, moment to moment, hour
Speaker 2: to hour, year to year, decade to decade, epoch to epoch,
Speaker 2: and as we come to understand these things in aggregate
Speaker 2: and as an aggregate process, a dialectical phenomenon comes into
Speaker 2: conceptual view, okay, and that's what it is really to be. Okay.
Speaker 2: It doesn't resolve obviously what it is, but it places
Speaker 2: it in a context that is at least rational within
Speaker 2: and it's bout it temporal terms, and that mitigates the
Speaker 2: terror of just you know, living in a in a
Speaker 2: world of the absolutely unknown, in which all beings and
Speaker 2: objects and phenomenon are are just mysterious and threatening and
Speaker 2: you know, totally unknowable according to the senses and in
Speaker 2: the human mind. Now, that's a basically Aristotylian view. Okay.
Speaker 2: I don't want to go off on a how how
Speaker 2: exactly that is, because then we'll be here for weeks,
Speaker 2: But that that understanding of of a dialectical process and
Speaker 2: the temporal bracketing of that process is basically Aristotelian. Contra
Speaker 2: was essentially a Platonist view, and ultimately what became the
Speaker 2: Christian view, which is that being is this kind of presence,
Speaker 2: this transcendental presence, okay. And you come to know that
Speaker 2: presence through a combination of you know, pious commitment to
Speaker 2: knowing it and through divide grace, both of which are
Speaker 2: totally outside of temporal consideration. Okay. Now, it's not for
Speaker 2: me to argue in order to in order to hideger
Speaker 2: suggest that there's not preestlye type men or or or
Speaker 2: literal prophets who can apprehend this and you know, come
Speaker 2: to know God in this way that I there's no
Speaker 2: reason to believe that that is not possible. Okay, But
Speaker 2: in the terms and context, we're talking about the way
Speaker 2: in which cultures develop around the principles that I described. Specifically,
Speaker 2: the way the West developed it basically repudiated. It was
Speaker 2: basically itself frompudiating postulate, you know, like as as the
Speaker 2: scientific perspective and as the as scientism as what thing
Speaker 2: Smith called it, and as you know, the kind of
Speaker 2: conceptual biases of rationalism crowded out all other ways of knowing.
Speaker 2: You know, It's like, okay, well we we we came
Speaker 2: to understand the world is just you know, being populated
Speaker 2: by various beings that we can empirically interpret and identify.
Speaker 2: And like within that paradigm, where where is God? You know,
Speaker 2: you can't identify God in those terms, not because there's
Speaker 2: not you know, indicators of God within the you know,
Speaker 2: the the physical world or anything like that. But you're
Speaker 2: it's a totally conceptually, it's it's a totally different vocabulary. Okay.
Speaker 2: So when you remove man from historical time and then
Speaker 2: you remove him out of these practices that at one
Speaker 2: time allowed him, you know, to apprehend being as a
Speaker 2: divine presence, you're you're basically throwing him into chaos. Okay.
Speaker 2: That that creates conditions whereby every decision he's rendering precedes
Speaker 2: x niolo. Okay. This leads all kinds of pathologies. You know,
Speaker 2: it leads to people, you know, it leads to social pathologies,
Speaker 2: you know, in banal terms, you know, because social capital
Speaker 2: breaks down. It leads to the deterioration of authority because
Speaker 2: why why would people conceptualize authority as deriving from anything
Speaker 2: other than convenience or you know, or power. Power. But
Speaker 2: most most importantly, what it does is it forces people
Speaker 2: to organize themselves according to what is noble and what
Speaker 2: can allow them to recapture temporal boundaries. And that's basically
Speaker 2: that that which is technological. Okay. And this leads to
Speaker 2: uniquely insidious outcomes, okay, one of which was communism, which,
Speaker 2: aside from yes within marsis within Marxism, there's absolutely athno
Speaker 2: sectarian prejudices. They're in like you know, all throughout it,
Speaker 2: but in absolute terms like whether the rubber meets the road.
Speaker 2: As practice, what marcis Lennon isn't dictated was basically that,
Speaker 2: you know, being is simply labor. You know, it's it's
Speaker 2: this process of work and of working, you know, by
Speaker 2: which man can shield himself from the elements and feed
Speaker 2: himself and you know, avoid avoid pain as much as
Speaker 2: you know, is can be reasonably as much as within
Speaker 2: the realm of reasonable expectation, you know, until like a
Speaker 2: actually he dies and that's it, you know, and there's
Speaker 2: an internal object to that that is pretty remarkably consistent.
Speaker 2: I advise people read dust Capital because I made the
Speaker 2: point of people like Marxism, Marxism is nonsense, but it's
Speaker 2: actually very well thought out nonsense. Uh, they're a bundle
Speaker 2: of that as well. You know, it's completely self referencing.
Speaker 2: But I mean that that's the shortcoming of every of
Speaker 2: every modern ideology like capital eye, like theology, you know,
Speaker 2: in the proper sense because by by categorically by definition
Speaker 2: it's reference points are are beings, are are quantifiable objects
Speaker 2: so there's really there. It's it's you're talking about the
Speaker 2: complete ebolition of metaphysics. Okay, the kind of the kind
Speaker 2: of mirror of commun was capitalism. Now there's there's a
Speaker 2: problematic term. I know people will say, well, capitalism is
Speaker 2: just occur a coin, a term coined you know, by
Speaker 2: Marxists themselves, and it appeared to stuff like Comy's manifesto.
Speaker 2: That's true, but there is it's shorthand for the technological perspective. Okay.
Speaker 2: That perspective is basically that material progress is basically potentially
Speaker 2: infinite you know, the world. It's it's it's kind of
Speaker 2: a perversion of the anthropic principle. It's that, oh well,
Speaker 2: you know, man can perceive how to exploit all these
Speaker 2: objects in the world around him, and even his own
Speaker 2: body to maximum plenty, you know, the maximum pleasure, to
Speaker 2: basically infinite wealth. And that's that's basically the key to
Speaker 2: being Okay is this.
Speaker 1: Where where would where would transhumanism be on that scale?
Speaker 2: It's an extreme manifestation of the latter what I just
Speaker 2: described and key to transhumanism. It's so it's intrinsic to it.
Speaker 2: So it's not like it's emphasized, I believe because it's
Speaker 2: proponents just take it for granted, this idea that oh,
Speaker 2: well there's you know, as as we advance, we're gonna
Speaker 2: resolve all matter. As shortage could go basic people to
Speaker 2: just kind of like create like matter from nothing. Like
Speaker 2: it's it seems like a science fiction concept a little
Speaker 2: less so as time goes on. You know in movies
Speaker 2: like that movie, you know, the movie District nine. Have
Speaker 2: you ever seen it? Yeah, definitely, Okay, Well, you know
Speaker 2: how like the alien technology, it's basically this fluid, but uh,
Speaker 2: it's like a smart nanotech fluid. So if like you
Speaker 2: add it to a human body, it's gonna try and
Speaker 2: like reak constitute according to what it knows about biolo
Speaker 2: what has been problem to a biology. So it turns
Speaker 2: guind to an alien if you like apply it to
Speaker 2: like a fuel source or like it's sinuated into a
Speaker 2: fuel source, you know, it's going to try and like
Speaker 2: purge the impurities, you know, to make it like most
Speaker 2: like combustible or whatever. That's I've noticed in transhumanism when
Speaker 2: people say like, oh, but what about sustainability or what
Speaker 2: about this? Without that, they basically always fall back and like,
Speaker 2: well this is just going to be resolved you know,
Speaker 2: bye bye, you know, by something by by something that
Speaker 2: can just sort of like replicate whatever is needed, you know.
Speaker 2: And uh, because that's the short that's the shortcoming of
Speaker 2: the of the of the technological perspective like rid large
Speaker 2: like at some point you like run out of stuff
Speaker 2: to be like like kind of like it kind of
Speaker 2: oversimplify it, you know, like there's not there's not more
Speaker 2: things to exploit. I mean, I mean that's in like
Speaker 2: a value neutral term, like just if they materials not there,
Speaker 2: like what do you You're You're done? You know.
Speaker 1: Well that's also the whole thing about you know, Star Trek.
Speaker 1: You see these machines that just create food, and it's
Speaker 1: like yeah, yeah, what what's that machine run on? Yeah,
Speaker 1: what happens that's taken away?
Speaker 2: Well it's interesting too, Like I don't want to digress
Speaker 2: too much, but it's like that was the the reason
Speaker 2: why people went crazy about nuclear power, you know, like
Speaker 2: thinking you know, like literal like atomic age stuff like
Speaker 2: this is you know, a brave new era of infinite energy,
Speaker 2: like you can't like for all radical purposes, like atomic
Speaker 2: energy is like power from nothing like eventually. Yeah, like
Speaker 2: if your your your fuel source does burn out. But
Speaker 2: that's but but it's it's exponentially it's got an exponentially
Speaker 2: longer life than any other it's evil fuel source. That's why.
Speaker 2: That's where you're gonna see colliding more and more too.
Speaker 2: It is that these transhumanist types who think that they
Speaker 2: who think that that's like what they're u toldia is.
Speaker 2: But at the same time they're like terrified of of
Speaker 2: things like nuclear power. It's like you you can't have
Speaker 2: it full ways. But no, that's the Yeah, that's why. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that's in every that's one of the reason why
Speaker 2: Dune is smart science fiction every different kind of thing.
Speaker 2: But you know, like Dune deals in at planetary level
Speaker 2: like shortage economies, which eventually everything becomes a shortage economy,
Speaker 2: you know, over on a long enough timeline, matter how
Speaker 2: conservationist you are, you know, it's you know, like the
Speaker 2: the ar Conans, the hardcons have become incredibly wealthy, but
Speaker 2: the cost was basically like annihilating photosynthetic potential on their planet.
Speaker 2: So they're like a dying society. You know, I got
Speaker 2: to react as itself. You know, there's there's no water.
Speaker 2: So I mean, like everything from the way people greet
Speaker 2: one another to you know, the way like the way
Speaker 2: military doctrine is organized, you know, is accounts for you know,
Speaker 2: the shortage of water. You know, like the entire U
Speaker 2: the galagic imperium runs on this narcotic that's also you know,
Speaker 2: like a light enhancing like geriatric. But that also as
Speaker 2: you know, the basic this like practical necessity of allowing
Speaker 2: navigators to to perceive like what pathways could be navigated
Speaker 2: through space without you know, losing without like fifty percent
Speaker 2: attrition or something for their for their highlighters. But but
Speaker 2: that's to bring it back, uh, like with Heidiggers, what
Speaker 2: Heidiger saw in the Third Reich, it wasn't so much
Speaker 2: that he's like what It wasn't almost like he thought
Speaker 2: Hitler himself was a heroic figure, although he may have.
Speaker 2: I mean, frankly, I made the point before Germans didn't
Speaker 2: particularly like the NSDAP. They love to eat off Hitler.
Speaker 2: It wasn't so much that he thought the National and
Speaker 2: Socialist Program was this incredible revolutionary program. It's that this
Speaker 2: was the first time in the modern age and almost
Speaker 2: at the critical juncture owing to the revolutionary situation underway globally,
Speaker 2: that there was some kind of political cadre talking about
Speaker 2: what we just discussed. You know, Hitler was saying there
Speaker 2: is a crisis in Western civilization. You know, nobody else
Speaker 2: was saying that. You know, whether he was wrong or right,
Speaker 2: or good or evil or neither. You know, it wasn't
Speaker 2: Huey Long Wasn't wasn't saying that, you know, there's a
Speaker 2: spiritual crisis in the West, and that's why, like our
Speaker 2: system is breaking down and we can no longer, we
Speaker 2: can no longer sustain you know, like a moral or
Speaker 2: social consensus. You know, nobody in the Soviet Union, I
Speaker 2: mean the parts they were all dead, was saying, you know, well,
Speaker 2: this is this is a confrontation basically with God and transcendence.
Speaker 2: You know, nobody on this planet was saying that. I
Speaker 2: think the Japanese were. But that's the whole other subject.
Speaker 2: And that's a fascinating topic as to why, you know,
Speaker 2: why there was that affinity and Italian fascism had something
Speaker 2: of a different source, and uh, we'll get into that
Speaker 2: as we get into Nulty proper. That was related to
Speaker 2: the kind of intellectual nexus that the national socism was,
Speaker 2: but it was different. It was far more radical, it
Speaker 2: was it was far more of It was far more
Speaker 2: of of of a of a revolutionary response to conditions
Speaker 2: immediately press easons. But so basically a Heidiger's understanding was
Speaker 2: it the form this is going to take and in
Speaker 2: ideological terms isn't really important. You know, the fact that
Speaker 2: this is conceptually front and center is what is important.
Speaker 2: And if this movement is allowed to be destroyed, there's
Speaker 2: gonna be no more Europe, you know. And again not
Speaker 2: not because he saw that there was something intrinsically sacred
Speaker 2: about the National Solist movement or something like there in
Speaker 2: Heidiger's mind, like that kind of thing wasn't even possible
Speaker 2: through political activity. But this was the spark of that awakening, Okay,
Speaker 2: And that's that's that's what that's what's important. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's uh the uh so, no, after Nolty. Nolty was
Speaker 2: he was a student of Heidegger and he became very
Speaker 2: close to the family. Uh. He downplayed this and a
Speaker 2: lot was a like there was something sinister or something
Speaker 2: like I Nulty absolutely was not, you know, like running
Speaker 2: from some sinister association. I mean, that's preposterous is that
Speaker 2: he he didn't want to mind cloud from a man
Speaker 2: who was, you know, really like an intellectual giant. And
Speaker 2: I think anybody who's serious in their study of chedrophilosophy,
Speaker 2: whether they accept all the height of his postulates or not,
Speaker 2: acknowledges that, you know what really Uh, The book that
Speaker 2: first put Nulty on the map was The Fascist Missing
Speaker 2: Sign on it hook Fascism in its epoch. It was
Speaker 2: transmitting to English as Three Faces of Fascism, okay, and
Speaker 2: this was probably the first serious treatment of fascism of
Speaker 2: national socialism from a critical perspective through the lens of
Speaker 2: you know, continental philosophy and political theory. Something that became
Speaker 2: something that had become popular in the fifties was this
Speaker 2: idea of totalitarianism and that part of this was just
Speaker 2: typical kind of code war vernacular extrapolated to the Academy
Speaker 2: and passed off as as some sort of meaningful analysis
Speaker 2: in lieu of you know, just kind of cheap polemic,
Speaker 2: which in my opinion it was cheap polemic. But this
Speaker 2: there's this idea, there's just kind of like pop sociological
Speaker 2: under like understanding in the Academy that oh, well, What
Speaker 2: really distinguishes, what really distinguishes modern states one another, is
Speaker 2: that places like the Third Roike and the Soviet Union
Speaker 2: were totalitarian, you know, presumably in America and in the UK.
Speaker 2: You know, we value personal liberty and things, and so
Speaker 2: we don't have to suffer the total state because our
Speaker 2: people wouldn't tolerated. That's fucking stupid for all kinds of reasons.
Speaker 2: And it also obviously doesn't account for the fact that
Speaker 2: these these these states that supposedly share like a common
Speaker 2: like a common value system, these totalitarian states like waged
Speaker 2: these like utterly devastating like Ross and Creek conflicts against
Speaker 2: one another. But you know, novelty basically is objective. Was
Speaker 2: the kind of like robut that coition is as well
Speaker 2: as you as well as a tackle some of them
Speaker 2: more serious critiques and treatments of the third Right. But
Speaker 2: that nevertheless kind of like missed the mark. Basically, what
Speaker 2: he laid down is that the action France, say, which
Speaker 2: who's kind of got leading intellectual was Charles and Morass.
Speaker 2: He said, look, you know France, which had uh, France
Speaker 2: was kind of the comperial canary in the coal mine
Speaker 2: as regards revolutionary processes, obviously, you know it was uh,
Speaker 2: it was at the turn of the nineteenth century. You
Speaker 2: know that France was utterly devastated by a revolutionary historical impulse.
Speaker 2: So he said that Noldy suggested that a kind of
Speaker 2: a kind of deep seated reactionary tendency developed in France, okay,
Speaker 2: and then which endures. So the opposition in France is
Speaker 2: always going to be like radically conservative, okay, and people
Speaker 2: like the Maestra, you know, the counter Enlightenment philosophers. There
Speaker 2: was very much like a Francophone like stamp on this, okay.
Speaker 2: So he says that emerging in the twentieth century kind
Speaker 2: of like the first truly like modern like like in
Speaker 2: twentieth century terms, like reactionary movement was like the action
Speaker 2: frant state, okay. He said, the response to that reaction
Speaker 2: where the Italian fascists okay, who were it was basically
Speaker 2: a radical probletarian movement, you know that it was a
Speaker 2: it was a form of both resistance too and reaction
Speaker 2: against modernity, but it also embraced like certain aspects of
Speaker 2: hyper modernity, you know, which seemed which seemed incoherent. The
Speaker 2: people who don't really understand was underway, but there was
Speaker 2: a I think that one of the reason that ampathized
Speaker 2: George Sorel so much is because thinkers like him are
Speaker 2: kind of the tie that binds what seems like opposing tendencies.
Speaker 2: But and most significant Noldies suggested national socialism was a
Speaker 2: synthesis of these two tendencies, you know, which themselves were
Speaker 2: a reaction against, you know, the tendency towards Bolshevism as
Speaker 2: the new kind of as the new uh iteration of
Speaker 2: of you know what had was first emergent with the
Speaker 2: Jacobin Revolution. You know, Thus, national socialism it's both it's
Speaker 2: both radical in reactionary, it's both revolutionary and conservative. You know.
Speaker 2: His point was, uh, this is this was actually a
Speaker 2: very coherent, very cohesive, remarkably integral ideological program, and that's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons people responded to it like they did.
Speaker 2: Like this idea was just some I mean, politicians are
Speaker 2: constantly trying to conventional politicians, they're constantly promising all these
Speaker 2: old people, they're constantly preaching, especially in those days, some
Speaker 2: kind of reconciliation between the classes, and they're getting absolutely nowhere,
Speaker 2: you know whatsoever. But you're supposed to believe the National
Speaker 2: Socialists they could just somehow like remedy these things like
Speaker 2: good propaganda, even though there was no coherence to it,
Speaker 2: I guess ridiculous, you know, like one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why they were able to capture the mand that they
Speaker 2: were was because they were uniquely astride the dialectical process
Speaker 2: as it was either resolving or coming to pieces. Everyone
Speaker 2: perceives it, you know, as of you know, like nineteen
Speaker 2: twenty nine, nineteen thirty altoming the point that even people
Speaker 2: who are partisans and standard bearers of the spirit of
Speaker 2: the age in which they live, and even men are
Speaker 2: willing to literally kill or die for their ideological commitments,
Speaker 2: they may not even be fully aware of of what
Speaker 2: of what of what phenomenon they are serving, or what
Speaker 2: or what they're participating in and what's underway. And in
Speaker 2: apocal terms, know, the's opinion was basically that, look, philosophy
Speaker 2: lives on in political terms. You know, whatever you can
Speaker 2: say about you know, philosophy is having been you know,
Speaker 2: divorced from what's becomes scientific practice. Whatever you can say
Speaker 2: about you know, anything related to him to uh, the
Speaker 2: conventional sociology he politics, if anything, UH has become like
Speaker 2: more remote from UH, the common man's ability to two
Speaker 2: to apprehend it, you know, the meta political dimension of
Speaker 2: politics as he was observing it. You know, in the
Speaker 2: the early Cold War. Nolty's opinion was one of the
Speaker 2: reasons these particularly dangerous times is not just because the
Speaker 2: state of technics and obviously you know, like the the
Speaker 2: development of the bomb and things like this, but you've
Speaker 2: got people who absolutely have no no ability to perceive
Speaker 2: what's under way, and and they're they're they're at the
Speaker 2: helm of of of of great power states and they've
Speaker 2: they've they're either conflating you know, rhetoric with reality or
Speaker 2: they perceive the fact that they've been able to capture
Speaker 2: you know, they've been able to they've been able to
Speaker 2: rise the the front office or the or there the
Speaker 2: or the the titular head of a state organ that
Speaker 2: that at least can you know, manufacturing and sent to
Speaker 2: the degree that you know they're they're they're not gonna
Speaker 2: be removed by by force. You know, they take that
Speaker 2: as some sort of like providential indicator that you know,
Speaker 2: they're they're somehow fit to render decisions when they absolutely
Speaker 2: are not. And this is important. The UH and this
Speaker 2: was in fact, uh, this was in fact an aspect
Speaker 2: to that I believe Heidegger I felt was present in
Speaker 2: in fascism that uh mind you, there was plenty of
Speaker 2: National gall Lighters who weren't particularly intelligent. Even those who
Speaker 2: were didn't view themselves as as some kind of like
Speaker 2: as some kind of like high priesthood and the political
Speaker 2: or something. But these guys did view themselves is almost
Speaker 2: an exception as initiates in two historical processes. You know
Speaker 2: that they came to perceive either through their baptism by
Speaker 2: fire at the front as young men, or you know,
Speaker 2: by some sort of epiphany that a lot of people
Speaker 2: suggested that they had, you know, in the company of Hitler.
Speaker 2: I mean, whether you accept that or not, there was
Speaker 2: an understanding among among National socialists, among fascists. Stuff like
Speaker 2: the Iron Guard hasn't been different. I looked back at
Speaker 2: the stuff as like adjacent, but not really the same phenomenon.
Speaker 2: It was far more kind of conventionally theological and related
Speaker 2: to to what we think of is a crusader impulse,
Speaker 2: like literally, but just the very fact that these men
Speaker 2: looked at themselves in the terms that I described it
Speaker 2: says that they were conceptualizing politics in a way that
Speaker 2: their enemies were not. Okay, like the cope of of
Speaker 2: anti fascists. Well, that's because they were crazy, Okay, But
Speaker 2: that's not that's that's not that's a non answer, that's
Speaker 2: a non perspective. The way these people, like the true
Speaker 2: national Socialist partisans, in these estimation they viewed the process
Speaker 2: that we talked about a moment ago at the outset
Speaker 2: of not just you know, the removal of man from
Speaker 2: history by the and by and the removal of man
Speaker 2: from historical time by the combination of the technological perspective
Speaker 2: and the deterretoryation of you know, the ability to approach
Speaker 2: God and uh, either pious or or conceptual terms. Nulty
Speaker 2: believed that this would never like man would never recover, Okay,
Speaker 2: if the kind of practical transcendence what he called it,
Speaker 2: of the Soviet Union in the United States, of Sovietism
Speaker 2: and Americanism reached full realization. What do you mean by
Speaker 2: practical transcendence? Okay, When man is able to master things
Speaker 2: that once were believed only to be the domain of God,
Speaker 2: that's when that's when God is truly dead in the
Speaker 2: in in in the collective like cultural mind Okay, like
Speaker 2: whether you're talking about, you know, the conquest of space,
Speaker 2: when you're talking about the humors of like a culture
Speaker 2: that claims like we can turn like a male into
Speaker 2: a female and vice versa, like or you're talking about
Speaker 2: people who claim like, you know, we can, we can
Speaker 2: we can create humans like outside of a woman's womb,
Speaker 2: you know, just by the manipulation of the game meets
Speaker 2: and things. Yes, okay, that kind of thing is born
Speaker 2: of a humorous which is not remotely godly. But we're
Speaker 2: talking about we're talking about cultural mindset, and you know,
Speaker 2: we're talking about the way these things are, The way
Speaker 2: these things are are are devised according to you know,
Speaker 2: man generally, man's ability to perceive generally, And again, where
Speaker 2: are we talking about conditions whereby man's ability to know
Speaker 2: God has been reparably compromised. Okay, this is a basic
Speaker 2: vulnerability here, you know, the uh, the irony being of
Speaker 2: course that as this kind of practical transcendence is accomplished,
Speaker 2: you know, the absence of culture and the ripping out
Speaker 2: a man from these tem pro boundaries that facilitate culture,
Speaker 2: that makes it more brutish, like more ignorant, like more impoverished.
Speaker 2: You know, it breeds literal backwardness because people no longer
Speaker 2: understand you know, race and class anymore. You know, people
Speaker 2: no longer pursue meaningful education. You know, at best, you know,
Speaker 2: like an educated man's a technician, you know, like it
Speaker 2: becomes it. Uh, the like like the fruit of this
Speaker 2: transcendence and this ability to create you know, god like
Speaker 2: technics and presumably generate wealth out of nothing is uh,
Speaker 2: ironically a kind of like a kind of total degradation
Speaker 2: of the human being you know, at scale, and the
Speaker 2: absolutely like annihilation of culture. With a few generations of
Speaker 2: this presumably the result is what Hitler said about the
Speaker 2: destruction of man's ability to bear culture is as being
Speaker 2: the end result of an intention of a bolshevized planet,
Speaker 2: whereby people won't really be people anymore, Like regardless of
Speaker 2: the mentioned material in question, they'll have no memory of culture.
Speaker 2: They'll be they'll be unable to bear it even if
Speaker 2: they did. You know, you'll you'll people basically who live
Speaker 2: on the level of the animals, just they all of
Speaker 2: an ability to you know, speak and you know, think
Speaker 2: abstractly in so far as you know, being able to
Speaker 2: kind of cond ofent the next day, whether they want
Speaker 2: to fill their belly with or satisfy whatever glandiar impulse
Speaker 2: by accomplishing. But you know they the only thing that
Speaker 2: really makes makes man man is culture. There not there's
Speaker 2: not there's that's an anatomical thing or what have you,
Speaker 2: or or some special structure in his brain that that
Speaker 2: that makes this impossible, you know. And this is a
Speaker 2: this is what was a fundamental concern to Nouldy, and
Speaker 2: this is I believe why he began writing when he did,
Speaker 2: as as the Cold War being heating up. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: want to want to wrap this up in a minute.
Speaker 2: I'm not feeling great. And also I I realized this
Speaker 2: is like a long introduction man, but I think it's
Speaker 2: important because, like I, assuming you're okay with this, this
Speaker 2: is your show. Next episode, I want to get into
Speaker 2: the historians debate or the historical striketh as it was
Speaker 2: called the historians controversy. There's not putting aalty on the map,
Speaker 2: kind of on the academic map. I mean people who
Speaker 2: people in who had an interest in in kind of
Speaker 2: philosophy and in serious scholarship of the third Reich New Obem.
Speaker 2: But it was not late nineteen eighties kind of as
Speaker 2: as philosophical would poplicarly philosophical discussion of the Third Reich
Speaker 2: and the Soviet Union, you know, kind of as the
Speaker 2: Cold War was winding down, this kind of thing was
Speaker 2: at its most intense interestingly. But next episode will get
Speaker 2: into like how that was emergent and how exactly Nolty
Speaker 2: became affiliated or identified not affiliated, you know, with like
Speaker 2: Holocaust revisionism, which, like I said, there's nothing all wrong
Speaker 2: with Holocaus's revisionism, but Nolty is adjacent but a different
Speaker 2: represents a different tendency, and we'll get into what I
Speaker 2: mean by that. I hope that this was not too
Speaker 2: scatter shout, I didn't bore people. Also, I'm not feeling great,
Speaker 2: so forgiving man. If like my ideas, we're not terribly fluid,
Speaker 2: No no problem at all. Do some plugs and we'll
Speaker 2: end it. Yeah, man, you can always find me at
Speaker 2: the substick. It's real Thomas seven seven seven at substick
Speaker 2: dot com. We gotta chat there too. In addition to
Speaker 2: like my In addition to my podcasts and like videos
Speaker 2: and other cool stuff, you can always find me on Twitter,
Speaker 2: at least at the time being uh, they like monetize
Speaker 2: me Eastie. They're getting nukre but you never fucking know.
Speaker 2: It's uh at Capital R E A L underscore number
Speaker 2: seven h O A S seven seven seven. You always
Speaker 2: find me on my website. It's real Thomas seven seven
Speaker 2: seven dot com, Real Aria, or it's just Tomas seven
Speaker 2: seven dot com. Sorry, as you can tell them with fevers,
Speaker 2: it's just number seven hm A S seven seven seven
Speaker 2: dot com. I'm on Telegram. I'll probably get more active
Speaker 2: as I have less time on social media to fuck around.
Speaker 2: You can find me on YouTube. It's Thomas TV. Do
Speaker 2: a search of Thomas seven and seven on YouTube and
Speaker 2: you will find me. Yeah man, that's what I got, all.
Speaker 1: Right, Thank you. Until the next episode, Thanks Thomas.
Speaker 2: Yeah man.
Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pea Canana Show.
Speaker 1: Thomas is here and we're gonna jump into part two
Speaker 1: of a dive into Earnst Snalty.
Speaker 2: Hey don, Thomas, we're doing well. The context to what
Speaker 2: became known as the historical strike Beyond the obvious that
Speaker 2: needs to be addressed the kind of first proverbial shots
Speaker 2: fired across the bow, specifically relating to revisionous treatment to
Speaker 2: the whole costs and historical historiographical terms. That conversation was started,
Speaker 2: at least between public intellectuals, and in the Buddhist Republic
Speaker 2: there was an active community of public intellectuals, not just
Speaker 2: because of the peculiar and rather tragic conditions that characterize
Speaker 2: that state, you know, sociologically and politically, but the Cold
Speaker 2: War meant that these people had to say in policy
Speaker 2: discussions that they wouldn't otherwise. I mean that was in
Speaker 2: any in any combatant state to the Cold War, and
Speaker 2: when one considers the ongoing status of mobilization and everything else,
Speaker 2: I don't think it's hyperblele to refer to NATO and
Speaker 2: the warsaw packed ops has combat in the States and
Speaker 2: every country thus situated, you had a coterie of of
Speaker 2: intellectuals who were not just permitted to speak on policy matters,
Speaker 2: but we're expected to do so. But in Germany this
Speaker 2: was particularly this was particularly visible at tendency, an act
Speaker 2: of a kind of at discourse. What kicked off the
Speaker 2: historical strike was, I mean, the immedia catalyst was Reagan's
Speaker 2: Bittberg speech. For people who are too young to know
Speaker 2: or don't remember, the D Day anniversary, the fortyth anniversary.
Speaker 2: In eighty four, Reagan was Reagan was in Europe anyway
Speaker 2: for NATO related summit type at diplomatic activities. He spoke
Speaker 2: at Bittberg, and he went out of his way to
Speaker 2: say that the Waffen SS and Rmacht ward had buried
Speaker 2: there victims of the war just as much as the
Speaker 2: Allied word and they should be respected. It's basically parodying
Speaker 2: what Conrad ad Nower said and now are much as
Speaker 2: people on the right dislike him. I don't have many
Speaker 2: nice things to say about ad Hour, but he's a
Speaker 2: complicated figure. And ad Nower said he and now insisted
Speaker 2: that Wehrmacht veterans gont get full pension rights. The BOB
Speaker 2: and SS was not so fortunate. But that's that's why
Speaker 2: they established their own, you know, networks to facilitated that
Speaker 2: kind of thing. But this sparked this kind of whole.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously the Reds, like the actual Reds were
Speaker 2: still like very powerful then that their their narrative was well,
Speaker 2: you see that this just proves that, you know that
Speaker 2: NATO was just a fascist that like a reconstituted fascistic
Speaker 2: block that is trying to trying to halt the advance
Speaker 2: of history, you know, by by by military arm from
Speaker 2: the threat of nuclear war, and of course they find
Speaker 2: common cause with these dead fascists. You know, these guys
Speaker 2: are the sort of military social democrats. They basically parroted that,
Speaker 2: but for a lot more dishonest and dishonorable reasons, you know.
Speaker 2: They Reagan was kind of Donald Trump before there wasn't Trump,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean his he was a lot more
Speaker 2: of a significant figure in terms of power, political phenomenon things.
Speaker 2: Obviously this was the world situation, but you know, the
Speaker 2: narrative people, Reagan was a man that people love to hate,
Speaker 2: you know, for the kind of permanently aggrieved opposition you know,
Speaker 2: in America and as well as in the EU. There's
Speaker 2: a broader context of bitt Berg though that relates the
Speaker 2: helmet Cole. And like we talked about Cole a lot
Speaker 2: in these series that we do, Cole was about the
Speaker 2: only like truly kind of nationalistic minded uh consler post
Speaker 2: war were, you know, and that like his his final
Speaker 2: act in that role, like we talked about, was the
Speaker 2: unconditional recognition of the infinited state of Croatia, which, like
Speaker 2: Monkey runched a lot of the designs of Bush and
Speaker 2: Baker and what they hoped to accomplish in Europe after
Speaker 2: the Cold War. You know, but it wasn't just it
Speaker 2: wasn't just placating coal like people have to understand that
Speaker 2: there was this bizarre situation after Deyton fell apart and
Speaker 2: and and Deyton was dead was was was dead? Is
Speaker 2: as Dillinger really even before Reagan took the oath of office. Okay,
Speaker 2: and a few things owed to that, which you are
Speaker 2: kind of outside the scope of our media discussion here,
Speaker 2: but such said it was the Cold War was back
Speaker 2: on in earnest. The Buddhist Republic had a military draft.
Speaker 2: They weren't just expect did to participate in the defense
Speaker 2: of Europe from warsaw pacts. They were they were the
Speaker 2: main line of resistance. Okay, So we were drafting these guys,
Speaker 2: you know, directly out of high school. We were putting
Speaker 2: them on what was to be the front line of
Speaker 2: World War three. In nuclear command and control terms, the
Speaker 2: NATO Charter demanded and what operations Protocol was was that
Speaker 2: American nuclear weapons based in the Boonies Republic warheads would
Speaker 2: always be in the possession of of American forces, but
Speaker 2: their launch vehicles would be under control of the bundess Republic,
Speaker 2: and in order to be married to those vehicles there
Speaker 2: had to be an agreement on a legitimate launch order.
Speaker 2: So basically we were relying on these people who essentially
Speaker 2: commit suicide to stop the Soviet Union when the Warsaw
Speaker 2: Pack ancelaught came. Now, if you're gonna do that, While
Speaker 2: at the same time saying Germany is basically a constitutionally
Speaker 2: evil country like race of people, and German militarism is
Speaker 2: the source of all all woes in the world. There's
Speaker 2: there's a there's a cognitive dissonance there that can't be
Speaker 2: sustained in policy terms, and that's been going more and
Speaker 2: more clear, you know. And for context, the main the
Speaker 2: mainline of resistance. If Warsaw Packed had in fact assaulted,
Speaker 2: obviously the Battle of Berlin would have been a mailstrom.
Speaker 2: The Buddhist fair had to defend. They're respected to defend Berlin.
Speaker 2: They're respected to reinforce the Benelux and the British and
Speaker 2: the North German plane, and they're expected to defend the
Speaker 2: folded gap at all calls to the last man with
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons if necessary, and to reinforce and reconstitute forces
Speaker 2: there it basically until they could no longer do so.
Speaker 2: So they're talking about a million dead Germans within a
Speaker 2: few days. Okay, And again you can't if that's if
Speaker 2: that's standing policy and you're public about that policy, because
Speaker 2: that's the only way that you can maintain credibility contra
Speaker 2: Op four. You've got to be willing to back it
Speaker 2: up politically, and if you're Ronald Rigg, and that means
Speaker 2: you can't go to Bittberg and say that these men
Speaker 2: buried here who died resisting communism, I might add, you know,
Speaker 2: are the scum of the earth, and they're evil and
Speaker 2: we must never let them rise again. I mean, this
Speaker 2: should be obvious to anybody. But you know, one of
Speaker 2: the perverse ATHLETs of the Cold War, I think, was
Speaker 2: that there was a there was an aspect of the
Speaker 2: laft who are truly like Warsaw Pact sympathizers. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 2: I mean though that that that element was always far
Speaker 2: stronger and more organically constituted in Europe than it was
Speaker 2: in America. But there was some of that in America
Speaker 2: even after the sixty eight kind of schism. But like
Speaker 2: a lot of these people were just the I mean
Speaker 2: they were just they were just disengaged morons, like they
Speaker 2: had no like It's like it didn't compute that right there.
Speaker 2: Wrong with America was in the Cold War. It couldn't
Speaker 2: just be stopped, you know. And I mean unless unless
Speaker 2: America is gonna call it off or seed you know, uh,
Speaker 2: the inner German border to the communists. I mean this
Speaker 2: the uh, not just the the mainline resistance in the
Speaker 2: share punk of NATO's military capability, but also the political
Speaker 2: will to resist Warsaw Pact in political terms, you know,
Speaker 2: came down to Germany's continued willingness to contribute, you know.
Speaker 2: So this is kind of what opened the door to
Speaker 2: what became known as you know, the historic or strife.
Speaker 2: And I mean the point in the first episode. The
Speaker 2: reason why A Deep Dive so much in an Eli's background,
Speaker 2: It's not just because I've got my own interests in
Speaker 2: political theory and philosophical things. It's because the reason why
Speaker 2: Nolty's blunked in with you know, all revision is so
Speaker 2: they're talking about people like Fred Leikter or Ernes Zundel
Speaker 2: or David Irving. Like basically ever just limped into the
Speaker 2: revisionists camp if they reject this claim at the German
Speaker 2: people are the atavistic population that is prone to homicidal
Speaker 2: racial hatred scale, that the Third Reich was the spontaneous,
Speaker 2: unprovoked criminal conspiracy to carry out those aforementioned tendencies against
Speaker 2: escapegoaded population again for no particular reason other than hostility,
Speaker 2: like ambiguous hostility. And also that the reason why the
Speaker 2: twentieth century was characterized by these deep crises that culminated
Speaker 2: in you know, to global conflagrations and then a half
Speaker 2: century of nuclear brinksmanship is because of some sort of
Speaker 2: sunder vague within Germany cultural trajectory that makes them prone
Speaker 2: to militarism. Like none of that makes any sense, okay,
Speaker 2: I mean it should be clear to anybody who's at
Speaker 2: all sophisticated on political or military matters. This is not
Speaker 2: how This is not how populations behave at scale and politically,
Speaker 2: that's just not how things work. And Multi's starting point
Speaker 2: was basically like long before eighty forty five eighty six,
Speaker 2: when the historic of strife really jumped off in earnest
Speaker 2: like Noulti made that point in his earlier books. He said,
Speaker 2: if you're gonna claim that national socialism was just this
Speaker 2: sort of was just sort of like the private prejudices
Speaker 2: of Adolf Hitlers policy. He's like well pretty much every
Speaker 2: German executive, whether they're talking about you know, Carl Luger,
Speaker 2: the mayor of hal for post Hafs for Vienna, whether
Speaker 2: you're talking about Bismarck or you're talking about Heindenburg. Like,
Speaker 2: none of these people could have been said to have
Speaker 2: like have like liked Jews or like not dislike Jews. Categorically,
Speaker 2: the idea there's some weird thing in policy terms that
Speaker 2: people hadn't heard before but all deeply felt that doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense. And secondly, again that's just not because
Speaker 2: racism isn't isn't that's not, that's not that's not an explanation,
Speaker 2: and that's just that's just not how politics are conducted.
Speaker 2: And finally, as I've said before, some of this is
Speaker 2: deliberately misconstrued. It it's because people are remote enough from
Speaker 2: the epoch they don't really understand this. The Germans weren't
Speaker 2: obsessed with race in a way that other people weren't.
Speaker 2: Germans talking about Jews, is this race that's different than them.
Speaker 2: That's the way everybody thought, like, not necessarily about Jews,
Speaker 2: but that's the way they thought about human behavior. You know,
Speaker 2: human behavior is biological, if you want to understand you know,
Speaker 2: political behavior, it's racial. You know, what makes it possible
Speaker 2: where people live among each other is this kind of
Speaker 2: like blood compatibility. You know. So, oh, obviously there's tension
Speaker 2: between Germans and Jews, or between Poles and Jews, or
Speaker 2: Poles and Russians because they're different races. That's what they meant.
Speaker 2: They weren't saying Jews are this evil race that's different
Speaker 2: than us because we're obsessed with race and we figured
Speaker 2: this all out. That's the way everybody talked. That's the
Speaker 2: way everybody thought, and that doesn't make any sense. And
Speaker 2: that's weird. Like I'm not saying it's not racial difference
Speaker 2: between people. I'm saying in those terms, that's not the
Speaker 2: way people think about politics anymore. That's the way everybody
Speaker 2: thought about politics in the nineteen twenties, thirties and forties.
Speaker 2: America was singly obsessed with this idea that you know,
Speaker 2: eugenics could had selective intervention, whether it's sterilizing people who
Speaker 2: are deemed to be criminal incorrigibles or whether it was
Speaker 2: you know, facilitating you know, large families among high IQ people.
Speaker 2: The people weren advanced that this is gonna usher into
Speaker 2: some utopia. Okay, So that's not an explanation to say
Speaker 2: that like, oh, Germans had race on the brain and
Speaker 2: just decided they didn't like Jews because they were an
Speaker 2: impure race or something. That's totally the wrong way to
Speaker 2: look at it. Like you can say that that kind
Speaker 2: of thinking is bullshit and it's and it's nonsense. But
Speaker 2: to characterize it as like evil German thought or some
Speaker 2: crazy thing German people thought, you know, that was exclusive
Speaker 2: to their cultural pathologies or something, that's complete nonsense.
Speaker 1: So there's that too, and it's it survived. I mean
Speaker 1: you see it today with this whole candae Owan's Daily
Speaker 1: Wire thing. Yeah. You even have people who you never
Speaker 1: would have thought come out and say things like the
Speaker 1: cause of anti Semitism is Jewish behavior.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, the term itself too, Like why what
Speaker 2: so there's tension between Germans and Jews because because Germans
Speaker 2: hate Semitism? Like what what do they mean mean? Like
Speaker 2: what the fuck is Semitism? You know, Like that's like
Speaker 2: saying that's like saying like, yeah, you know the Koreans
Speaker 2: and the Chinese, are they they dislike each other because
Speaker 2: of epicantic follism, Like I mean that doesn't like, uh,
Speaker 2: it suggests that there's some immutable trait, like unrelated to politics,
Speaker 2: that that people just you know, somehow decided that it's
Speaker 2: a basis for animosity and like it's not. That's not
Speaker 2: the way things work, you know. That's why that's why
Speaker 2: I discourage people from using that term. Like anti Semitism
Speaker 2: is even moremaningless than racism. I mean, at least like
Speaker 2: at least canna say like I mean, race obviously exists,
Speaker 2: and it's conceivable that, like you know, there's people who,
Speaker 2: for no regular reason, you know, just have certain preferences
Speaker 2: and prejudices, you know, and because race isn't is an
Speaker 2: essentially and characteristic and we're talking about humans, like that
Speaker 2: makes sense, Like you know, Pep Germans just opposed Semitism.
Speaker 2: But the best is that Palestinians are anti Semitic, so
Speaker 2: like they're anti themselves. I mean, like like what it's
Speaker 2: it's it's literally retarded. But anyway, but Noulty Nolty was
Speaker 2: basically I mean I think he was. He was a
Speaker 2: remarkable guy. I mean that goes out saying and he
Speaker 2: had a far more he had a far greater aptitude
Speaker 2: for analysis of the historical process than than most people
Speaker 2: even even kind of who are of his class and caliber.
Speaker 2: But his view of Germany's sort of tragedy and heritage,
Speaker 2: that's that's basically like a right, hey, alien view. It's
Speaker 2: not it's not this like aut landish thing. And one
Speaker 2: of the reasons why he was so sort of savagely
Speaker 2: excoriated by his enemies, you know, the degree to which
Speaker 2: legal reasoning becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. And I invoke
Speaker 2: Alan went to Holmes a lot who I think I'll
Speaker 2: went to Homes Junior. I think a lot of people
Speaker 2: want to read because I like, maybe it's because I
Speaker 2: was a lawyer, and like a I spent a lot
Speaker 2: of time with legal theory and case law and things.
Speaker 2: People have this idea that home Junior is like this
Speaker 2: big liberal or something like. You know, Holmes point out
Speaker 2: legal realism is that it's no such thing, and that
Speaker 2: the law is not a science. It's not this process
Speaker 2: by which you know, a kind of like science and
Speaker 2: ethics can be discovered or by which you know, outcomes
Speaker 2: can be guaranteed that on a long enough timeline or
Speaker 2: assuming good faith among actors potential actors to to the
Speaker 2: controversy at bar, you know, the best possible outcomes for
Speaker 2: all parties can be realized. His whole point was that
Speaker 2: all the law is as political preferences that are totally arbitrary.
Speaker 2: And then he give an epoch, you know, dressed up
Speaker 2: as as some sort of some sort of logical like like,
Speaker 2: as some sort of imperative base on a science of logic,
Speaker 2: and that's complete horseship. And because world order was so
Speaker 2: much structured according to the letter of according to not
Speaker 2: just not just not just a letter of rhetoric, but
Speaker 2: to but like legitimacy was so much bound up with language,
Speaker 2: you know, laid down by supposedly by supposedly objective international tribunals.
Speaker 2: First Forrest Nuremberger, this idea that oh, this, this, this
Speaker 2: is just an absolute truth. You know that well obviously
Speaker 2: you know, there was there was this, there's this massive
Speaker 2: conspiracy to murdered Jewish people for no reason, perhaps in
Speaker 2: nineteen twenty three. By this, by this criminal cadre, I
Speaker 2: mean that the court said, so, you know, and if
Speaker 2: they're gonna base, if we're gonna base, what succeeded the
Speaker 2: moral consensus as regarded war in peace on what amounts
Speaker 2: to an ideological statement dressed up as a criminal court
Speaker 2: decision that kind of tortured logic and and and sort
Speaker 2: of like non reasoning is is going to take on
Speaker 2: this outside significance. So that's part of it, you know,
Speaker 2: so pointing out obvious and not so obvious but troubling
Speaker 2: facts of history related to the reality of you know,
Speaker 2: kind of the anthropological and sociological origins of conflict at scale.
Speaker 2: This is like outraged people because you know, they like
Speaker 2: the like the simpletons kind of intellectual sanctuary is always legalism,
Speaker 2: you know. And I made that point too that by
Speaker 2: by the time uh, strategic parody had set in, I
Speaker 2: mean even beforehand, probably by the time the Single Integrated
Speaker 2: Operation Plan, which is America's strategic war fighting doctrine, I mean,
Speaker 2: by the time like that just became openly accepted that
Speaker 2: the fighting win a nuclear war, We're gonna kill eighty
Speaker 2: million people. I mean, like you know, you no longer
Speaker 2: can talk about, you know, you know what we're gonna
Speaker 2: invoke this kind of foam moral out age or anything
Speaker 2: that went on in World War two, and you you
Speaker 2: certainly can't declare that, you know that men who devise
Speaker 2: the technologies of mega death or who implement them at
Speaker 2: scale and executive capacities, or are somehow the end music humanity.
Speaker 2: I mean it like nobody, even even though that child
Speaker 2: can see like why that's ridiculous. But but that's why
Speaker 2: that that that that was the context, and that's the
Speaker 2: inner thing today too, because people still try to tear down, know,
Speaker 2: these postulates, but they increasingly they can't do it. I mean,
Speaker 2: first of all, I mean there's just people an acting
Speaker 2: beam are just lacking and then they're not built for it.
Speaker 2: But there also there's not like really a context anymore,
Speaker 2: you know, like they can't there's like without the without
Speaker 2: sort of the Cold War, you know, not just as
Speaker 2: an existential sort of reality around which things just orbit,
Speaker 2: you know, politically and sociologically in existential terms. You know,
Speaker 2: there's not there's not the contextual focus in order to
Speaker 2: kind of provide people with ethical like like ontological sort
Speaker 2: of pull stars is where like the situate themselves are
Speaker 2: like what the starting point should be for for such
Speaker 2: a discussion. But some thing I wanted to get into
Speaker 2: a little bit too, is uh, you know, the the
Speaker 2: historians who did who were basically viewed as as sympathetic
Speaker 2: to the Bundesa as ah like as an institution and
Speaker 2: it's it's political and military mission. These were guys, i'd say,
Speaker 2: a guy who kind of most exemplified that position with
Speaker 2: Jachham fest And it shows you how sort of like
Speaker 2: perverted discourse had become and remains. All thankully, it's not
Speaker 2: quite as bad around the issue with Germany and German
Speaker 2: the German historical experience. Like Festu, his father was this
Speaker 2: was this anti government extremist in the Third Reich. Best
Speaker 2: actually he either served in the Vermont to the vass
Speaker 2: in the finalized of the war, which I think is
Speaker 2: quite heroic, but he hid this fact until the day
Speaker 2: he died. He was this big anti fascist. He was
Speaker 2: definitely a proponent of the sunder veg or a special
Speaker 2: way or special path theory of German historical development. But
Speaker 2: he also acknowledged that the German people were facing oblivion,
Speaker 2: not just psychologically and culturally, but biologically. He was very
Speaker 2: anti Soviet. You know, when he cast he said Hitler
Speaker 2: basically was almost like a shamanistic sort of figure who
Speaker 2: reflected the will of the body politic. You know, he
Speaker 2: wasn't simply leading people at stray or something. That's a
Speaker 2: pretty weak argument and a Milk Coast argument, but like
Speaker 2: that was considered to be this kind of like extreme
Speaker 2: apologia or like some sort of like a hard right
Speaker 2: dangerous idea I mean, which which is totally insane. A. J. P. Taylor,
Speaker 2: He's another guy who's and he's well worth reading. He's
Speaker 2: a typical kind of German hating Englishman of the epoch.
Speaker 2: He's got this irrational house stility to all to Germany,
Speaker 2: all into German. But his take was that, you know,
Speaker 2: Churchill brought the war in the West out upon himself
Speaker 2: and upon his country. Why on earth did Germans want
Speaker 2: a war in the West, which obviously they didn't. I mean,
Speaker 2: the fact that that was used is some sort of
Speaker 2: minority take is absurd too. But his uh, he had
Speaker 2: a unique kind of or he had him rather ye
Speaker 2: had him, and he hit his own kind of disgree
Speaker 2: understanding of Saunder vague and that it was there was
Speaker 2: a unique German trajectory in the modern era that became
Speaker 2: aggravated in earnest after eighteen forty eight and particularly after
Speaker 2: unification in eighteen seventy nine. But that you know, Hitler
Speaker 2: geostrategic terms, acted like any other German executive, would you know.
Speaker 2: And again he had a computative view of the Germans
Speaker 2: as a people. But he completely rejected this idea that
Speaker 2: you know, Hitler was this evil mad man and and
Speaker 2: just some kind of some kind of outlier. And interestingly,
Speaker 2: one of the one of the one of the contributors
Speaker 2: was then pretty I think it was. I think it was.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: I can'tmemer his name, the guy with two thousand and
Speaker 2: eight he wrote a pretty he wrote, uh, he wrote
Speaker 2: a very good biography of Vladimir Putin, which of course
Speaker 2: was like, you know, it was like hysterically, it was
Speaker 2: hysterically attacked by these people who see Russians under their
Speaker 2: bed and and think that Vladimir Putin is an evil
Speaker 2: mad man for not inviting NATO to point nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: at him into cavitation range. But I I can't remeber
Speaker 2: the guy's name.
Speaker 1: Doctor Matthew Fael Johnson.
Speaker 2: What's that was it?
Speaker 1: Doctor Matthew Rafael.
Speaker 2: He's a German guy. And he he was what the
Speaker 2: historic historic Astrikee in total constituted about like two dosand
Speaker 2: academics like on the right or the left, Nolty and
Speaker 2: Harid Moss, like Petra harrimoas with a primary kind of
Speaker 2: theorists that people associate with it. But there's a lot
Speaker 2: of people and some pretty diverse opinions forward it. But
Speaker 2: this guy's name will come to me. But the if
Speaker 2: the there's something of a korma guys to Fritz Fisher
Speaker 2: among them. He uh, he had a a functionalist viewpoint
Speaker 2: of things, and this was in vogue based with like neorealism,
Speaker 2: you know, like traditional realism, real politique, and besides anthropological
Speaker 2: and organic you know, causes of conflict and of state
Speaker 2: behavior in human behavior at scale, you know, really from
Speaker 2: the sixties onward, it became in vogue, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: talking about institutional behavior, you know how you know, structural
Speaker 2: phenomenon and alternatively and sometimes concominantly functionalist explanations you know,
Speaker 2: are you know, reveal revealed data, meaningful data about you know,
Speaker 2: war and peace, but also you know political behavior scale,
Speaker 2: you know, and and of course too that.
Speaker 1: That that that.
Speaker 2: That shares some common ground with some of these moderate
Speaker 2: left to Galiens and things, but in other ways, you know,
Speaker 2: they objected to that too, So it's some interesting there
Speaker 2: was some interesting opinions being bandied back and forth. But
Speaker 2: what the reason it became this censorious controversy was for
Speaker 2: all the wrong and most predictable reasons, you know it
Speaker 2: and obviously any any any any German truly right wing,
Speaker 2: you know, not even particularly pro nacial socialists, but remotely
Speaker 2: patriotic or unwilling to kind of take a knee before
Speaker 2: you know, proverbialated before you know, NATO and Zionist and
Speaker 2: interest in the things they're going to view the sounder
Speaker 2: of a conception as well as you know, the the
Speaker 2: functionalist explanations as it's basically you know, left wing and
Speaker 2: nature and and and intrinsically cunative, which they were, you know,
Speaker 2: but it's also again, you know, by the by the
Speaker 2: mid nineteen eighties, you know, you're talking about four decades
Speaker 2: having passed. Even if even if the Third Reich had
Speaker 2: been this totally brutish regime, and even if even if
Speaker 2: it's fewer had been you know, the second Coming of
Speaker 2: Dracula or something, it's like, well again you know, if
Speaker 2: you're expecting us, us being us being the German people,
Speaker 2: you know, to take a million dead in seventy two hours,
Speaker 2: you know, fighting off the Ivans, and you expect our land,
Speaker 2: which you know, for the record, has been occupied now
Speaker 2: for forty years. It's the designated nuclear battlefield of World
Speaker 2: War three. You know, see what you want, you want
Speaker 2: it's basically be you know, like kind of the holy
Speaker 2: warriors of of what you considered civilization is communism. But
Speaker 2: then you're gonna turn on and say that, you know,
Speaker 2: we're evil pieces of shit like that doesn't that that
Speaker 2: doesn't treat you know, But it's also I think uh
Speaker 2: and Nola himself made this point, you know, as I
Speaker 2: get a lot of hate mail for a lot of reasons,
Speaker 2: and a lot of which surprisingly relates to the Vietnam War.
Speaker 2: I think American issupposedly an older American is they feel
Speaker 2: they got they got strong emotions bound up with this.
Speaker 2: And I understand that I invote the Vietnam War for
Speaker 2: comparative purposes, not not not for some cynical reason, but
Speaker 2: for the reason Nolty did. If you want to understand,
Speaker 2: in the ethical terms set out by the victors in
Speaker 2: World War Two and by their their ethical metrics and
Speaker 2: by what was considered until the end of the Westphalian
Speaker 2: era to be you know, the moral consensus relating the
Speaker 2: laws and customs of war. The Vietnam War made us,
Speaker 2: it made hash with that all those things as much
Speaker 2: as the Second World War did. And the entire internal
Speaker 2: logic of a free fire zone is not any different
Speaker 2: than that of the mandate of of an mindset's group
Speaker 2: and formation saying that, you know, designating an area a
Speaker 2: free fire zone, and saying that there are no civilians here,
Speaker 2: and regardless of age, sex, overall health, everybody is a
Speaker 2: fair target. Because anybody who remains here after this, you know,
Speaker 2: they've been put on notice and give an opportunity to
Speaker 2: be evacuated, is obviously, you know, an act in communist
Speaker 2: or a sympathizer with the enemy idea. And because you know,
Speaker 2: as the mentioned material that is literally the what you know,
Speaker 2: the bearer of that idea, it's got to be annihilated.
Speaker 2: It being human beings. Welcome to the Welcome to warfare
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century, where all wars are a total wars,
Speaker 2: and all total wars are ideological wars. You know, so
Speaker 2: when you've got every week America dropping you know, the
Speaker 2: body count as their victory metric, like literally measuring measuring
Speaker 2: whether we're winning the Cold War where it's gone hot
Speaker 2: and mountains of corpses we're counting, you know, when the
Speaker 2: victory metric and nuclear war is can we kill an
Speaker 2: enemy society, you know, by annihilating eighty million of its people,
Speaker 2: when you've got the Chinese, who after sixty eight, according
Speaker 2: to a lot of these same academics, we're doing things
Speaker 2: like breaking nolity of the cols. This was you know,
Speaker 2: kind of the true progressive regime that was, you know,
Speaker 2: realizing communism. They were deliberately killing off tens of millions
Speaker 2: of their own people as useless eaters. Okay, you can't.
Speaker 2: It's as laughable to turn around and and start and
Speaker 2: started and start spitting like number lies or trying to
Speaker 2: declare that, you know, yes, the world is a wicked
Speaker 2: place and and war is terrible. But you know those Germans,
Speaker 2: you know, they're they're they're just you know, they're they're
Speaker 2: they're just in league with Lucifer, and you know we
Speaker 2: we can never forgive them for this. So I mean,
Speaker 2: I think it was all of those things. You know,
Speaker 2: now that doesn't that's that's not to say that, I mean, obviously,
Speaker 2: that's not to say that what sort of political biases,
Speaker 2: you know, gain momentum and and and become like consensus,
Speaker 2: consensus reality and in conceptual terms as has any kind
Speaker 2: of bearing on unreasonable things or or reasonable ass itself
Speaker 2: or anything like that. But you know, we're not. We
Speaker 2: weren't talking about you know, some sort of are between
Speaker 2: the hoy ploye or we weren't talking about some policy
Speaker 2: initiative that like the official trying to convince people of
Speaker 2: through television media or something. We're talking. We were talking.
Speaker 2: This was a very that this was an argument between
Speaker 2: and this was like a controversy between you know, like
Speaker 2: a very narrow quartery coterie of academics who, you know,
Speaker 2: all of whom knew better than what they were alleging
Speaker 2: those contract multi I mean, so that's important. That's important
Speaker 2: to keep in mind. And I'll also say, and I
Speaker 2: actually wrote them. I wrote about this, and I I
Speaker 2: wasn't jumping around a bit, but uh, just I mean
Speaker 2: for clarity too. Here's here's what these are. The four
Speaker 2: questions are the four like, how is according to according
Speaker 2: to Nolty himself as well as Harber Moss, and according
Speaker 2: to according to the people who populated most of these forums,
Speaker 2: were these these debates are being had between you know,
Speaker 2: eighty four, eighty five and like eighty nine, it was
Speaker 2: were the were the crimes of the Third Reich uniquely
Speaker 2: evil or were they comparable, you know, to the scaled
Speaker 2: violence of the Soviet Union other communist countries. Secondly, what
Speaker 2: is sounder vague a meaningful concept at all?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: Was the violence of the Third Reich or crimes if
Speaker 2: you want to abide Nuremberg logic, a reaction you know,
Speaker 2: to the Soviet violence like an equal and opposing reaction, okay.
Speaker 2: And and finally, you know, should the Germans, like as
Speaker 2: a people or as like a national group, like bear
Speaker 2: some some some generational burdening guilt, you know, for the
Speaker 2: supposed national socialist crimes or or should they be permitted
Speaker 2: you know, to participation in some sort of you know,
Speaker 2: cultural and national life. And that really I mean regardless,
Speaker 2: like even if one accepts the kind of however preposterous.
Speaker 2: The yeah, the aforementioned postules this idea, that this this
Speaker 2: idea that conflicts that are global in scale, can just
Speaker 2: be caused by you know, some national group of bad actors.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's that's the way a child would think,
Speaker 2: you know. I mean, that's just it's on his face,
Speaker 2: that's just that's just incredibly stupid, you know. And I
Speaker 2: emphasize that again and again, like it's not even you know,
Speaker 2: just not that. That's not a serious people or irrational
Speaker 2: adults talk about historical cause and effect or or or
Speaker 2: discuss political concepts, you know, whether you know with practice
Speaker 2: or or you know, matters of pure theory such as
Speaker 2: pure theory can exist in uh in in in discussion
Speaker 2: of politics. But you know, Nolty, one of the reason
Speaker 2: I respected him, is he or one of the reasons
Speaker 2: I he got my attention initially. I mean it was
Speaker 2: like pre internet talking, even before I became a lawyer.
Speaker 2: I put a lot of stock in direct testimony and
Speaker 2: discrete psychological aspects of within, you know, the mind of
Speaker 2: the key decision makers. And you know, Nulty cited Hitler's
Speaker 2: table talk, you know, where Hitler would talk about repeatedly
Speaker 2: the rat cage torture, you know, and saying in the
Speaker 2: context of you know, this is what the communists do
Speaker 2: to people, and you know, also talking about his own fate.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm not I'm not gonna the communists capture
Speaker 2: me and and subject me to the rat cage torture. Now,
Speaker 2: people like Harrimas said, oh, this is absurd, This was
Speaker 2: this is just Hitler suggesting that you know that you
Speaker 2: dave a bullsheit again to me that apparently, you know,
Speaker 2: going to be like Harvard must existed only in Hitler's imagination.
Speaker 2: We're prone to these barbaric acts. But the Soviets actually
Speaker 2: did that. You know people, or well I assume college
Speaker 2: kids will still read. That's quite literally a plot, like
Speaker 2: a major plot point of nineteen eighty four. You know,
Speaker 2: Smith sells out Julia and and his comrades, and what
Speaker 2: breaks his mind is that O'Brien threatens to ratcage him.
Speaker 2: You know, it's this idea that is this something that
Speaker 2: Hitler made up or it was you know, the sort
Speaker 2: of fever dreams of a madman. I mean, that's the
Speaker 2: entire point of doing things like the rad cage torture.
Speaker 2: You do you do something like that for one of
Speaker 2: two reasons. Either you're a disgusting status who likes to
Speaker 2: torture people, or you're devising things that are so terrifying
Speaker 2: to the human being kind of universally regardless of you know, sex,
Speaker 2: or background or national or like ethnic psychology. Like you
Speaker 2: divide things that are so horrible to human beings that
Speaker 2: you know people instinctively will will kind of bend to
Speaker 2: your will. And obviously you publicize those things to terrify
Speaker 2: people at scale, Like that was the whole point, you know.
Speaker 2: And it's this idea that you know, and Robert Conquest,
Speaker 2: who I'm relying a lot upon for my own writing
Speaker 2: on this topic. You know, the Soviet Union had death
Speaker 2: camps decades before a shot was fired in World War Two.
Speaker 2: You know, they they annihilated ten million of their own
Speaker 2: people as of September third, nineteen thirty nine. I mean,
Speaker 2: like what you can't get away from this and the
Speaker 2: idea that, oh, well Hitler couldn't have known about that,
Speaker 2: that's nonsense. You know. On my own sub stack, I
Speaker 2: wrote about max On shooting or Richter he fell at
Speaker 2: at the Munich Pooch like he he'd actually when the
Speaker 2: National Soldialist charged the police court On He'd locked arms
Speaker 2: with a Hitler and uh he got shot and he
Speaker 2: died instantly, like his his heart got pierced. And when
Speaker 2: Richter f well, he had actually dislocated Hitler's shoulder. And
Speaker 2: Hitler later said he said Richter was the He's like,
Speaker 2: he's the only man we couldn't afford to lose at
Speaker 2: at Munich. You know, he's like our party, the party
Speaker 2: like never recovered.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I wrote a whole series on Richter because here's where
Speaker 2: there's background was he was a Baltic German like Rosenberg, okay,
Speaker 2: and the Baltic Germans instrumentally kind of shaping the early
Speaker 2: like for the post Drexler Party, the post Drexler but
Speaker 2: pre but pre uh electoral path National Socialist Party Okay,
Speaker 2: when it was still in a very revolutionary phase. But
Speaker 2: but a phase that nonetheless was was was being shaped
Speaker 2: by Hitler, you know, Doc. Finally he was a free
Speaker 2: Corps veteran who you know, been fighting, you've been fighting
Speaker 2: the communists and in the Baltic but he also he
Speaker 2: was a aristocrat of somewhere known he was in uh Turkey.
Speaker 2: When you're meetings, when you're meeting genicide jumped off and
Speaker 2: the way the world came to know of it was
Speaker 2: Richter was issuing these dispatches back to Berlin from the
Speaker 2: German diplomatic mission, and the Kaiser's representative finally said, you
Speaker 2: got to stop doing this. You know, we need we
Speaker 2: need to try and get these people, these people being
Speaker 2: the terms like back in the war and whatever whatever
Speaker 2: government succeeds assault in it, we've got to have good
Speaker 2: offices with them. But so Richter went to the Red
Speaker 2: Cross and he started publicizing what he was seeing to
Speaker 2: anybody who would listen. And he was directly responsible for
Speaker 2: him to rescue a lot of vulnerable persons among this population,
Speaker 2: the targeted people, you know, like women, elderly, little children.
Speaker 2: So the Nanstolls, this party, supposedly the only reason it convened,
Speaker 2: the only reason to constituted itself, The only reason to
Speaker 2: guys like Richter clicked up with Hitler was because they
Speaker 2: were racists who wanted to devise a criminal conspiracy to
Speaker 2: murder Jews. But Richter, like he spent his spare time
Speaker 2: like worrying about ethnic cleansing. I mean, like what was
Speaker 2: you there just for show? Like they just really really
Speaker 2: like Turkish people, Like I don't, I mean, it doesn't track,
Speaker 2: like none of the tracks, you know, and that's what's important, okay,
Speaker 2: is that's what the big lie is. You know, the
Speaker 2: big lie is about stuff like Sunderbag. It's about stuff
Speaker 2: like you know, making Adolf Hitler some sort of stand
Speaker 2: in for Lucifer and this like secular religion, is this
Speaker 2: idea that the Germans, unlike every you know, exclusive to
Speaker 2: themselves and like everybody else on this planet, where's obsessed
Speaker 2: with race and originally decided Jews or a bad race.
Speaker 2: Like that's what matters. Instrumentalities of homicide don't matter, Like
Speaker 2: arguing about like did four million people die? You're eight
Speaker 2: million people die? That's I mean that that's that's literally demented.
Speaker 2: It's also retarded, you know, I mean decides even if
Speaker 2: that is, even if that is something that people I mean,
Speaker 2: people can reacharch anything want, but I mean, if that
Speaker 2: is kind of like your your emphasis. You should be
Speaker 2: reading people like conquests. You should be reading about the
Speaker 2: logic of the free fire zone in the Vietnam conflict.
Speaker 2: You should be reading about, you know, the Soviet death
Speaker 2: camp system. You know, and like Nolty himself said, if
Speaker 2: you accept, if you accept everything alleged by court history
Speaker 2: in total including this idea of you know, homicidal gas chambers.
Speaker 2: The Soviet Union literally did everything that the Third Reich
Speaker 2: allegedly did, you know, a decade beforehand, with the possible
Speaker 2: exception of utilizing nerve gases scale, which I hardly think matters.
Speaker 2: If I'm not saying doesn't matter if people die. I'm saying,
Speaker 2: you know that what we're talking about, you know, the
Speaker 2: preferred instrumentality of of of murderers scale. You know, we're
Speaker 2: not talking about something of grand like substance of import
Speaker 2: you know. So a lot of people are a lot
Speaker 2: of people are just kind of like tripping over themselves,
Speaker 2: not just by allowing the opposition to defind the parameters
Speaker 2: at discourse, but also define like what is important. You know.
Speaker 2: So it's like you don't court historians and people sympathetic
Speaker 2: to Zionism or whatever, or people that have some kind
Speaker 2: of like peculiar fixation with this idea that Third Reich
Speaker 2: is the epitome of you. They don't get to decide,
Speaker 2: you know, what is what what the terms of discourse are.
Speaker 2: They don't get to decide what the parameters are of
Speaker 2: of research. They don't get to decide, you know, what
Speaker 2: needs to be proved or rebutted, you know, as if
Speaker 2: they're you know, they're like like a judge in a
Speaker 2: in a in a case at bar or something, you know,
Speaker 2: dictating the what against you know, what the what their
Speaker 2: respective burdens are and things like that. That the uh.
Speaker 2: And it's also I mean what at the end of
Speaker 2: the day at uh, you know, and ultimate at this
Speaker 2: point too, at the end of the day, like the
Speaker 2: past becomes the past at some point, you know. I mean,
Speaker 2: I this is all I do. Is is study playable
Speaker 2: theory and you know, the historical process and things and
Speaker 2: is you know, it's and so I mean, I'm the
Speaker 2: last person obviously would say like, oh, you know, it's
Speaker 2: studying the struggle pross doesn't matter. But it's idea that
Speaker 2: even if, even if truly horrible things occur, that they
Speaker 2: can't be justified by any exigency or by any appeal
Speaker 2: to anything other than you know, the kind of universal
Speaker 2: depravity of man. I mean, it's kind of a so
Speaker 2: what I mean, we we don't we don't spend we
Speaker 2: don't spend decades of centuries wring our hands because we
Speaker 2: inherited some guilt because people are bad. You know or
Speaker 2: or our ancestors are bad. That's just not, that's not
Speaker 2: the way we do things in the West, among other things,
Speaker 2: you know. I mean, yeah, obviously an underpentent sinner is
Speaker 2: there's a few things kind of more obtuse and ugly
Speaker 2: than that. But you know, one sin isn't greater than
Speaker 2: another sin or less than another. You know, it's just
Speaker 2: not that's a bizarre way to look at the world,
Speaker 2: as if you know, some sins are worse than others,
Speaker 2: some historical events or criminal offenses. Others are just you know,
Speaker 2: spontaneous occurrences, and certain ones you inherit a kind of
Speaker 2: liability for them that you have to atone for symbolically
Speaker 2: or ritually. Like that's that's that's really really really strange conceptually,
Speaker 2: you know, And I put it. I put that to
Speaker 2: people too, like even if even if even if these
Speaker 2: people I have rams or are these people like kind
Speaker 2: of poor little unfortunate w Lipstott, He's he's incredibly stupid.
Speaker 2: I mean, having ussel isn't stupid, but I mean she is, yea,
Speaker 2: even if other things she said was true, I mean,
Speaker 2: it'd be kind of a big so what you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, am I so jump off a building because
Speaker 2: my answers just did bad things. I should I should
Speaker 2: I wear a hair shirt, might go to sleep or something?
Speaker 2: Or should I should I get like half of my
Speaker 2: money is a teeth like the local synagogue. Like I
Speaker 2: don't what executive people want, you know, But I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm not just being up to so I can actually
Speaker 2: put this to people and they will get me like
Speaker 2: I'm an Elien. But I mean maybe I am pretty weird,
Speaker 2: but I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, they pretty much tell you what they want.
Speaker 1: They want you not to just say that you know,
Speaker 1: what happened was bad and that it was the worst
Speaker 1: thing that ever happened. But they want you to go
Speaker 1: out of your way to say the evil that was
Speaker 1: done to them was unique above what every other evil
Speaker 1: ever done in history.
Speaker 2: Was no legit. But then that plus five dollars will
Speaker 2: get you a coffee. It's Starbucks, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: It's just it just doesn't I mean, you can give
Speaker 2: in symbiltons of things like that, and but where the
Speaker 2: rubber Measter road. I mean that doesn't really that doesn't
Speaker 2: matter even in the president I mean, that's the point
Speaker 2: to make the people who who go nuts about Israel
Speaker 2: and stuff. It's like even if you're you know, if
Speaker 2: you're someone like in passion Zionists or or some somebody
Speaker 2: with the slave mentality is like not Jewish, but just
Speaker 2: as decided like take on those prejudices for some unconstable reason.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's like, okay, like you know, the the Palestinians,
Speaker 2: his your ops, aren't They're not all gonna like put
Speaker 2: down their clashing the costs and be like, you know what,
Speaker 2: you're right, you know, specialficums of the history. I'm a
Speaker 2: terrible person. I'm gonna stop. Now. You can convince like
Speaker 2: a billion rooms and you know, the rest of the
Speaker 2: world that you're right. That's great, that being right doesn't
Speaker 2: win wars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're gonna It's easy to get people who live
Speaker 1: in a first world country, who you know, can have food,
Speaker 1: you can have food delivered for them to be to
Speaker 1: adopt these things because you know, they don't really have
Speaker 1: anything bad going on in their life. But when you
Speaker 1: have people in other countries who have in Arab countries,
Speaker 1: who have real problems, they're like, well, fuck you, Well.
Speaker 2: It's just a weird. Yeah, I mean, it's it's somewhat
Speaker 2: it's somewhat uh well, people will say like it's nuts that,
Speaker 2: uh you know. I'm like, I'm around a lot of
Speaker 2: like non white people. I mean it's because like where
Speaker 2: I live obviously, but like some of these guys I
Speaker 2: like record with and stuff, and I'm happy they like
Speaker 2: let me record with them, you know, because they have
Speaker 2: interesting stuff to say. And like if people are interesting,
Speaker 2: you know, I I I feel lucky if they let
Speaker 2: me record what they got to say. But there's like
Speaker 2: all these weirdos of semi hate mail, and even if
Speaker 2: there's some who aren't so much haters, but they're just like,
Speaker 2: you know, how do those people possibly let you in
Speaker 2: their house? I'm like, well, would they care what I'm into? Like,
Speaker 2: that's not the way normal people think. It's like you
Speaker 2: think that wakes you're a weirdo. It's like if you like,
Speaker 2: if you'd like if you think that, like black people
Speaker 2: like look at some guy, like, oh, that guy's got
Speaker 2: a nutsy shirt on. I can't let him in my house.
Speaker 2: Like no one thinks the way with total weirdos, you know,
Speaker 2: or like bitch made like like suburbanit people who lived
Speaker 2: through their television or something like, I don't even know
Speaker 2: what it's like. No one thinks that way man, like
Speaker 2: in the real world, you know. And I guess that's
Speaker 2: like my point, you know, it's so you can the
Speaker 2: uh what the and in mind, that's the point always
Speaker 2: made to people too, like partic eaments and noualty. It's
Speaker 2: that what It's not what the way you judge these things,
Speaker 2: the way you judge kind of like what's shaping the
Speaker 2: conceptual horizon. It's not what. It's not what Ben Shapiro
Speaker 2: is saying or tweeting out. It's not what MSNBC is saying.
Speaker 2: It's not it's not like how things being presented in
Speaker 2: Hollywood movies. You know, it's like a matter of zeitgeist,
Speaker 2: and once and once things like lose their kind of
Speaker 2: evocative power and like lose their like monumental power, like
Speaker 2: like that they're done. They can't be like recaptured, you know,
Speaker 2: and like nobody, like no serious historian would take something
Speaker 2: like Shindler's List like seriously today, you know, like and
Speaker 2: that and that that that then that's not going to change,
Speaker 2: that's not coming back, you know, and nobody's people like
Speaker 2: people basically unless you're a and like's in one of
Speaker 2: these kinds of like weird zip codes where where people
Speaker 2: attend some some crazy like like non denom church that
Speaker 2: like worships Israel or unless you're you know, like in Scoche, Illinois,
Speaker 2: like like basically like nobody likes Israel, and like that's
Speaker 2: not going to change. That's not going back to the
Speaker 2: way it was, you know, twenty years ago. You know,
Speaker 2: like this can't the like zeitgeist when when they preceding
Speaker 2: this is a conceptual structure, like psychological constitution is gone,
Speaker 2: like it's gone, you know, and everything is different now.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's that's why I was emphasized that people
Speaker 2: who say that things are so terrible today that it's
Speaker 2: it's practically like mainstreaming to be somewhat right wing, you know,
Speaker 2: like that that's a sea change from thirty years ago.
Speaker 2: That was like one thing thirty years ago, you know,
Speaker 2: and and things can things are never going to go
Speaker 2: back to the way they were, you know. And that's
Speaker 2: the way to look at it. It's not it's not
Speaker 2: it's not what people who have access to remains of
Speaker 2: the bully pulp that are like shouting out kind of
Speaker 2: into the into the abyss or whatever, just to hear
Speaker 2: their own echoes. I don't know.
Speaker 1: But uh, the book you were trying to think of
Speaker 1: earlier was that Putin in the Rise of Russia by
Speaker 1: Michael Sturmer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's well worth reading. And it's it's
Speaker 2: actually like a very balanced biography. It's not something like
Speaker 2: put hagiography. I don't understand how people like speaking of
Speaker 2: bizarre sort of conceits like the sighting you randomly hate
Speaker 2: Bladmir Putin is incredibly strange, especially when you consider he's
Speaker 2: like a moderate liberal, if anything, like a typical cop,
Speaker 2: which is what he was. He's obsessed with, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of the appearance of a biting the rules based order.
Speaker 2: But it's it's actually a really interesting book. And yeah,
Speaker 2: that Muller Miller was a he he wasn't a leading
Speaker 2: light like Nolty, but he's a guy who during the
Speaker 2: historical strike he was. He was a younger academic and
Speaker 2: interesting things to say. Oh a book RHS. Stoffley who
Speaker 2: wrote that book, the Biography of Hitler, that I think
Speaker 2: is so great. Hitler beyond evil and tyranny. He wrote
Speaker 2: this book with this retired Wehrmacht general officer called NATO
Speaker 2: Under Attack. It was published in nineteen eighty four and
Speaker 2: it got a lot of attention from war college types.
Speaker 2: Like the sub the subtitle was, uh, how NATO can
Speaker 2: win in Europe without nuclear weapons? And if you're if
Speaker 2: you're a late Cold War geek like I am, who
Speaker 2: I find it re emergence of conventional force structures as
Speaker 2: as a major this positive variable to be fascinating just
Speaker 2: because it's cool, But uh, this relates very much on
Speaker 2: what we're talking about and how as the tent ended
Speaker 2: in the final phase of the Cold War really heated up,
Speaker 2: you know, this sort of punitive view of the Wehrmacht
Speaker 2: the and of the Germans as a people who just
Speaker 2: could no longer be abided. That's I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: like a fascinating kind of like period piece about what
Speaker 2: war planner types were thinking and stophe a was a
Speaker 2: really freaking smart guy and who grasped political and historical
Speaker 2: like he grasped the philosophy of history and and political
Speaker 2: theory in a way most like military types don't. But
Speaker 2: he also was a very brilliant, like you know, military writer.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's uh, I'm gonna ask to wrap it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you want to you want to end it and
Speaker 1: uh get plugs and get out of here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, and I'll in part three, I'll uh, I'll
Speaker 2: take up I know people because they've been asking me.
Speaker 2: They've been asking me, what if any relationship there is
Speaker 2: between like Nolty and like some of these some of
Speaker 2: these guys I mentioned, like David Irving, like Fred Leuchter,
Speaker 2: like like even Zundel, who people think I'm I'm too
Speaker 2: punitive on what that's we'll get into the kind of
Speaker 2: revisionism generally, and like Nolty's sort of like place in
Speaker 2: it in the third episode. Yeah you can. You can
Speaker 2: always find me on Twitter or not always. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think I think they've gotten tired of like nuking
Speaker 2: me there. It's a real capital R E L underscore
Speaker 2: number seven hm me S seven seven seven. My substack
Speaker 2: has been popping a lot lately. I really appreciate that
Speaker 2: people are very generous and in signing up and throwing
Speaker 2: me a lot of love, not just in the form
Speaker 2: of like subscriptions and don'ts, but you know, sending me
Speaker 2: encouraging emails and stuff. And I actually really do appreciate that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not trying to sound like some sentimental slob,
Speaker 2: but you know I I I feel a very moved
Speaker 2: to get that kind of love from people. You can
Speaker 2: always find my continent at my website. It's number seven
Speaker 2: h on as seven seven seven dot com. I'm on
Speaker 2: t gram, I'm on Instagram. You know I'm I'm here
Speaker 2: there see can you shall find all?
Speaker 1: Right? So Part three, Thank you very much, Thomas. I
Speaker 1: want to welcome everyone back to the Pegana Show. Thomas
Speaker 1: is here again and we're going to get into part
Speaker 1: three of Thomas to talk about Ernst Nelty. How you doing, Thomas.
Speaker 2: Doing very well? Thanks for hosting me. Of course. What
Speaker 2: I want to get into a bit today. I want
Speaker 2: to address some things that people have been asking over
Speaker 2: email and things, which is great. There's been a tremendous
Speaker 2: amount of feedback on this series and I was pleasantly
Speaker 2: surprised by that. It's it's something of a heavy topic,
Speaker 2: like I'm not suggesting that like people aren't smart enough
Speaker 2: to comprehend it. It's just that, frankly, not like you know,
Speaker 2: deep diving into into political philosophy and sort of the
Speaker 2: history of ideas and in a very abstract capacity, that's
Speaker 2: that's not something that you know, a great number of
Speaker 2: people are taken in by and I totally understand that,
Speaker 2: but it's essential to understanding the development of of of
Speaker 2: concrete political realities in the twentieth century. And if you
Speaker 2: want to understand the are present and it's it's it's
Speaker 2: nuances therein you've you've got to you've got to understand
Speaker 2: these things as legacy structures and legacy phenomenon of the
Speaker 2: twentieth century. Not just because as we talk about there's
Speaker 2: been a basic stagnation in America and you know, the
Speaker 2: former West. Even if that were not the case, even
Speaker 2: if there was an authentic dynamism to American government, and
Speaker 2: even if there had been you know, truly forward looking
Speaker 2: and in far reaching and workable sort of path forward
Speaker 2: in policy terms after the classing or German border. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking in terms of what you know, mister Nixon
Speaker 2: wrote about in his final years and as well as
Speaker 2: you know, kind of the Bush Baker model. Like I'm
Speaker 2: not suggesting people should look at that as you know,
Speaker 2: some ideal model or something, but there was like a
Speaker 2: dynas to it, and it was relevant to you know,
Speaker 2: Postcold War realities. You know, even if there was even
Speaker 2: if there was something like that extent, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of intellectual occurrence as well as political will and
Speaker 2: conceptual ambition, this would still be informed almost entirely by
Speaker 2: you know, twentieth century structures phenomenon relationships like different as
Speaker 2: things are today. As much as I agree with people
Speaker 2: including mister Musk, who say that historical time is speeding
Speaker 2: up along the technology, that is one hundred percent true.
Speaker 2: So today I want to get into some of these
Speaker 2: things and what's key to understanding about novelty and German
Speaker 2: idealism generally. You know, people, especially Anglophone types who have
Speaker 2: are marinated with a certain disdain for continal philosophy. Okay, man,
Speaker 2: it's just a fact. There's a tendency to dismiss these
Speaker 2: things as well. That's so much sophistry, you know, That's
Speaker 2: that that's just uh, you know, a not particularly lucid
Speaker 2: interpretation of political realities, you know, that extrapolates the musings
Speaker 2: of of closer intellectuals to populations at scale. That's the
Speaker 2: wrong way to look at it. Even if you don't
Speaker 2: accept the postuitz ontological and otherwise of Pagel of of
Speaker 2: nulty of Heidegger. Even if this is nothing more than
Speaker 2: a conceptual horizon that became a kind of self fulfilling
Speaker 2: prophecy in terms of how it shaped the European political mind,
Speaker 2: that's nonetheless a causal variable that isn't arguably just positive
Speaker 2: of how con is. Okay, I take it a step further, obviously,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's clear to everybody that you know,
Speaker 2: I'm very much a Hegelian. I think Urson Old was
Speaker 2: the most profound historical thinker and a writer of the
Speaker 2: twentieth century. But the way I understand German idealism is
Speaker 2: it's people who deal in and studies the consciousness and
Speaker 2: things will be familiar with the anthropic principle. This is
Speaker 2: extraordinarily complicated, Okay, on like its own terms. But we
Speaker 2: can't talk about political realities without talking about the events
Speaker 2: within within the human mind. Okay, It's not like there's
Speaker 2: some it's not like some actual political reality remote from
Speaker 2: human psychology that is existing outside of our purview or something. Okay,
Speaker 2: we're not We're not talking about astronomical phenomenon, talking about
Speaker 2: you know, events of of of of a natural scientific
Speaker 2: you know nature. Obviously, you know, so that renders that
Speaker 2: that that that renders the study of of of political
Speaker 2: philosophy unique, Okay, because you can't you can't. You can't
Speaker 2: do away with with mind as a prime move on. Okay,
Speaker 2: even if you reject the postulates of somebody like Noldy
Speaker 2: and it come bat this again and again. All right,
Speaker 2: But it's also to understand the entirety of the war.
Speaker 1: You know, this.
Speaker 2: Zeitgeist was the cause of the war, okay. And there
Speaker 2: was obviously like concrete variables you know, relating to things
Speaker 2: like war technology and capabilities they're in that upset balances
Speaker 2: of power that basically been constants in sixteen forty eight
Speaker 2: or so. There's economic realities that you know, affected and
Speaker 2: impacted the ability to manage populations at scale that in turn,
Speaker 2: you know, we're decisive and as regards you know, the
Speaker 2: capacity to mobilize those aforementioned populations, which in turn, you know,
Speaker 2: had a tremendous impact on the perception of states engaged
Speaker 2: in a hard power competition. That goes without saying, but
Speaker 2: all of these things it key points the decision as
Speaker 2: well as in terms of broad conceptual horizon of what
Speaker 2: the end game of these political ambitions were you can
Speaker 2: only understood in terms of the Zeitgeist and the way
Speaker 2: that practical transcendence was changing the way humans live their
Speaker 2: lives and identify themselves and quite literally how they lived
Speaker 2: and died. Nobody was more insinuated into that Modelitia thought
Speaker 2: and Hadolf Hiller. Okay, I'm going to begin a series
Speaker 2: on this book in the next week. This is an
Speaker 2: incredibly ballsy book and it was kind of underneath the radar.
Speaker 2: It's basically a breakdown of Hitler's second book, The Secret Book,
Speaker 2: And what Sims emphasizes is that Hitler very well understood
Speaker 2: the situation geostrategically as well as historically. And I've always
Speaker 2: made the point before that Hitler's primary op was Franklin Roosevelt,
Speaker 2: not Stalin. Sims hammers that point home absolutely, okay. And
Speaker 2: in terms of Germany's mobilization paradigm, in terms of the
Speaker 2: technologies Hitler emphasized in terms of his entire timetable, tactical
Speaker 2: and strategic from September ninety thirty nine until December nineteen
Speaker 2: forty one, was oriented towards facilitating Germany's ability to defend
Speaker 2: it against a massive assault by the United States. That
Speaker 2: can't be that can't be overemphasized. Anybody who denies it
Speaker 2: is not in the game. However, what was happening to
Speaker 2: European peoples and what was threatening to render the culture
Speaker 2: extinct was uh, what was? What was? What was was
Speaker 2: uh was purely conceptual, okay, and it's uh, it's the
Speaker 2: uh sphare punkd of that devastating idea or psychological tendency.
Speaker 2: Was was Bolshevism. You know, Bolshevism wasn't just a way
Speaker 2: of ordering labor. You know, it wasn't just uh, a
Speaker 2: matter of depriving people of of certain freedoms you know
Speaker 2: that they become habituated to do. It wasn't just a
Speaker 2: question of breaking down traditional modalities of order, you know,
Speaker 2: whether we're talking about you know, within the family unit,
Speaker 2: or you know, in terms of how you know, the
Speaker 2: races or ethnic populations relate to one another, or the
Speaker 2: way you know, the sex is you know, kind of
Speaker 2: relate to one another in as regards you know, duties
Speaker 2: and responsibilities and things, and in ontological terms, it was
Speaker 2: it was sharing the bases of of of of identity,
Speaker 2: and when you remove people from any identitarian pole stars
Speaker 2: when you literally rip them out of history, they're no
Speaker 2: longer living as human beings in basic terms. Okay. And
Speaker 2: despite what people claim, and SEMs emphasizes this too, Hitler
Speaker 2: did not claim that Europeans or some master race. Quite
Speaker 2: the contrary. Hitler said Germany's rachel stock has precipitously declined
Speaker 2: since the Thirty Years War. He looked at that as
Speaker 2: the sharing event, okay, that Germany never really recovered from.
Speaker 2: He said that the best European stock was in England,
Speaker 2: and their leadership cast basically was able to dominate a
Speaker 2: good portion of the planet as well as preside over
Speaker 2: a divided society that had no kind of like organic
Speaker 2: like national underpinning, you know. And they managed to do
Speaker 2: this with like a combination of of tremendous foresight, you know,
Speaker 2: on unrestrained ruthlessness, and you know, an ability to sort
Speaker 2: of manipulate subjugated cultures in a way that incentivized you know, cooperation,
Speaker 2: but also quite literally you know, rendering like the best
Speaker 2: that those cultures could provide to this you know, imperial whole. Okay.
Speaker 2: Hitler further said that the best European stock had emigrated
Speaker 2: to America, you know, so Hitler's like, we're basically left
Speaker 2: like this kind of like shattered remnant of what's what
Speaker 2: was potentially you know, like a like like a master race. Okay,
Speaker 2: and thus it was all the more critical. Germany would
Speaker 2: like literally die from this onslaught of of of suicidal
Speaker 2: for lack of a better way to characterize it. Okay.
Speaker 2: Now this wasn't just like Hitler actually believed this. Okay,
Speaker 2: this wasn't I mean, this wasn't just you know, stuff
Speaker 2: fit for the bully pulpit, or you know, before the
Speaker 2: national social has had anything approaching a bully pulpit. This
Speaker 2: wasn't just you know, these weren't just like scare concepts
Speaker 2: or or something a nightmare scenario to to bring ignorant
Speaker 2: people the polls out of fear or something like that.
Speaker 2: The degree in which communism in practice, like literally the
Speaker 2: practice of communism marsis Leninism. It can only it can
Speaker 2: only exist, let aloning door and perpetuate itself if it
Speaker 2: annihilates all competing conceptual horizons. You've got to deprive people
Speaker 2: of the ability to conceptualize some alternative ontology. Okay, there's
Speaker 2: no other ideology like that. As long as it's miss laced.
Speaker 2: When we talked about an earlier episode, this kind of
Speaker 2: a Simpleton's paradigm that's fromoted during the Cold War, of Oh,
Speaker 2: there's totalitarianism and then there's democracy. Something like Franco Spain
Speaker 2: had nothing in common with the Soviet Union, a revolutionary
Speaker 2: communsm generally, nor did you know some some tinpot dictatorship
Speaker 2: in the Third World regimes like that forcing compliance or
Speaker 2: enforcing supervisial compliance, you know, by by use of the
Speaker 2: penal apparatus or or some or or some kind of
Speaker 2: you know, use of military force as an extra judicial
Speaker 2: means of punishing people. And you know, as a spectacle
Speaker 2: that communism is not interested in that for its own terms.
Speaker 2: One of the things I think in some ways is
Speaker 2: the very overrated writer but or Well captured the true
Speaker 2: essence of Marsus Leninism in nineteen eighty four. And that's
Speaker 2: exactly what the book's about. It's not about totalitarianism or
Speaker 2: fascism or government generally. It is about Marcus Leninism. What
Speaker 2: O'Brien says, I need you to love a big brother.
Speaker 2: I don't you know. I'm not interested in super visual compliance.
Speaker 2: I'm not interested in forcing you to do things. You know,
Speaker 2: in fact, quite the contrary, you know, I need you
Speaker 2: to not be able to conceive of anything other than
Speaker 2: prostrating yourself in kind of like odd and terrified reverence
Speaker 2: of this megalithic state. You know, And not only do
Speaker 2: you not, you know, the reason why you don't resist
Speaker 2: it isn't out of terror. It's because you can't even
Speaker 2: conceptualize resisting it. It's like resisting God. Okay, and iably
Speaker 2: the best example of this was in Romania immediately after
Speaker 2: the war. There's I can't remember his name now, but
Speaker 2: there was a Romanian Orthodox priest who when somebody has
Speaker 2: made a saint, are they beatified? Is that the term? Okay,
Speaker 2: I believe it was beatified? Yeah, for his resistance the communists.
Speaker 2: But uh, there was this what came even known is
Speaker 2: uh the poteste e butchering that pronunciation again, forgive me
Speaker 2: the Potetsi prison experiments. Okay, Ptetsi prison Now. Romania is
Speaker 2: a fascinating example because it's usc was was was he
Speaker 2: was viewed kind of in the west of this bizarre
Speaker 2: eccentric obviously, you know, him and his wife were were
Speaker 2: nearly executed on on live television and that was shocking.
Speaker 2: I think we've talked about before, you know, as a
Speaker 2: teenager seeing then on this. This was long before a
Speaker 2: live league and anything like three guys one hammer or
Speaker 2: any of this horrible stuff that you can anybody can
Speaker 2: see on the internet. And but I mean, obviously it's
Speaker 2: the only violent overthrow of of of an East Block regime.
Speaker 2: But you know, for all pradical purposes, Romania had seceded
Speaker 2: from Warsaw Pact. You know, Chusysku himself, he negotiated with
Speaker 2: Kennedy to remove Romania from the SIOP target list and
Speaker 2: a nuclear war. But in terms of that, despite kind
Speaker 2: of like seceding entirely from Veldt politique, were Mania kind
Speaker 2: of perfected Mars's Leninism as regardless internal situation. I mean,
Speaker 2: purists will say, well, it was a personality cult, but
Speaker 2: that's not what I'm talking about. Most of the detainees
Speaker 2: at the Poteste prison were men wud served in the
Speaker 2: Iron Guard, you know, they were they were you know
Speaker 2: uh os front veterans who you know, we're company level officers,
Speaker 2: are higher. They were priests who hadn't done anything wrong.
Speaker 2: I mean, even of a you know, political nature and
Speaker 2: they were psychologically tortured. According to this phase paradigm, the
Speaker 2: first phase would involved this kind of like endless interrogation
Speaker 2: over days and weeks, with torture liberally applied under the
Speaker 2: auspices of revealing intimate details. This was called external unmasking.
Speaker 2: But the interrogators, I mean, they obviously that any any
Speaker 2: kind of anything relating to somebody's intimate, moral, or or
Speaker 2: sexual behavior, they'd find that valuable to exploit against them.
Speaker 2: But this wasn't this wasn't the purpose of external unmasking.
Speaker 2: They'd forced people to do things like, you know, they'd say,
Speaker 2: you know, it's come to our attention that you know,
Speaker 2: like your father was actually like it like a trader,
Speaker 2: you know, and or like you know, it's it's you
Speaker 2: you were actually born at Bastard, you know, and then
Speaker 2: we we've we've discovered this, or like you know, your
Speaker 2: your sister was a prostitute, you know, and and she
Speaker 2: had many men, you know, and we we we we've
Speaker 2: talked to men who who you know, who visited her
Speaker 2: and and in relations with her for money, and they'd
Speaker 2: insist on it over and over and over and over again,
Speaker 2: and you know, they torture people into signing confessions and
Speaker 2: stuff that seems apparently meaningless from a political perspective, but
Speaker 2: victims subsequently attested that you start losing touch of reality
Speaker 2: in these conditions and you start wondering, you know, like
Speaker 2: is that actually true? You know what I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: sure people will say, like, well that that would never
Speaker 2: happen to me. Very very strange things happen when people
Speaker 2: are incarcerated, and add to that, literal court.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even have to be incarceration. I've witnessed people
Speaker 1: in my own life who went to group therapy started
Speaker 1: started adopting stories that they heard other people tell as
Speaker 1: their own.
Speaker 2: And they probably they believe it. Yeah, of it.
Speaker 1: It's the human mind. Is I don't know what that is.
Speaker 1: It's hard for me to uh to understand, to understand that,
Speaker 1: but I've seen it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, No, I mean you're a worldly guy, and
Speaker 2: I mean obviously, I mean, frankly, you spend a fair
Speaker 2: amount of time with with with matters of the human
Speaker 2: psyche because it relates to you know what, our mutual
Speaker 2: emphasies and things. But yeah, it's you know, the second
Speaker 2: the second phase. It was called uh like internal unmasking.
Speaker 2: Now this would this was us at least uhh nominally
Speaker 2: it was uh the torture slash interrogator. He'd demand to
Speaker 2: know what guards or trustees or other interrogators had been
Speaker 2: lenient with the subject. So basically this was you know
Speaker 2: and say like, you know, basically like you know, I
Speaker 2: now in this perverse way, you know, it's it's a
Speaker 2: way of trying to trying to literally create like Stockholm syndrome,
Speaker 2: or to generate those sorts of misplaced sympathies in the
Speaker 2: mind of the victim, you know. Uh, So it came
Speaker 2: to the uh, you know, the victim in some cases
Speaker 2: begin to look at his torture is truly benevolent, you know,
Speaker 2: because even if it was totally a charade, you know,
Speaker 2: the fact that he would disclose, you know, persons who'd
Speaker 2: shown him leniency, and then he'd be rewarded with you know,
Speaker 2: maybe if he'd been subjected to a starvation diet, he'd
Speaker 2: be rewarded with food or something or even just you know,
Speaker 2: the appearance of of of affection like perversa. It sounds
Speaker 2: you know, people do need affection or or approval in
Speaker 2: some basic sense, and somebody who's somebody who's been utterly destroyed,
Speaker 2: whose internal constitution has been destroyed by a deliberate and purposeful,
Speaker 2: you know, regime of torture, even even even the approval
Speaker 2: of of their torture, you know, who's cast himself in
Speaker 2: in some kind of fatherly roll. You know. You see
Speaker 2: you see the police do this too, and it's been
Speaker 2: sued to the police interrogation. Obviously they it's not nearly
Speaker 2: this extreme, okay, but that's that's basically what good cop,
Speaker 2: bad cop is, and some very dumb down and obviously
Speaker 2: much less insidious and and and literally figuraibly violent the
Speaker 2: sense it's the uh, the third stage was h in
Speaker 2: the third phase, it was this. It was just it
Speaker 2: was this kind of public humiliation ritual. If the person
Speaker 2: was uh, you know, if they were if they were
Speaker 2: a priest or a or a a lay person in
Speaker 2: the other US church, you know, the interrogator would do
Speaker 2: something like you know, laying out a crucifix and like
Speaker 2: demanding the urinate on it. You know, if it was
Speaker 2: a political partisan or like a former like Hrmacht officer
Speaker 2: or Iron Guard revolutionary, you know, they might like force
Speaker 2: him to like like drink urine or like literally like
Speaker 2: lick the boots of his interrogator or something, or like
Speaker 2: you know, claim to have engaged in in like disgusting
Speaker 2: sexual acts or something, you know, in this like Michael
Speaker 2: Joanes not specifically about this in this context, but you know,
Speaker 2: he's talked about how part of the subtext of the
Speaker 2: kind of like normalization of pornography is uh, the kind
Speaker 2: of like assault the intimate world core of the person,
Speaker 2: you know, and and and and and rip away any
Speaker 2: any kind of private and any kind of truly like
Speaker 2: private boundaries they have, you know, and that that's a
Speaker 2: real thing too, you know, but this was you know,
Speaker 2: these uh people were people were permanently and profoundly damaged
Speaker 2: by this. I mean beyond the obvious. I mean, like
Speaker 2: he said, you don't the things people think they take
Speaker 2: for granted, they they they no longer can like they're
Speaker 2: not they'y're not capable of it. I'm not talking about
Speaker 2: and I'm not talking about like trust in in authority
Speaker 2: and in some basic way, I mean like they're not
Speaker 2: fully human anymore. There's no photo on their own obviously,
Speaker 2: but it this guy, Ned Robert Graves is you know,
Speaker 2: an english Man of letters type of you know, like
Speaker 2: a great war veteran. His memoir was called Goodbye to
Speaker 2: All that. Robert Conquest cited him and for comparative purposes
Speaker 2: in his in his book on a Communist Megaside, Graves
Speaker 2: was talking about the experience at the front, okay, during
Speaker 2: World War One, and he said that, he said, Graves
Speaker 2: said that like the squalor and danger of the front lines,
Speaker 2: being under constant bombardment, you know, like living in filth.
Speaker 2: He said that, like young officers, he said, they said,
Speaker 2: after after several weeks, they begin to deteriorate a little.
Speaker 2: He's like, after six months, he's like most men, we're
Speaker 2: basically all right. But they were starting to show cracks, okay,
Speaker 2: said after a nine or ten months, these guys became
Speaker 2: a drag on fellow officers and NCOs. You know, like
Speaker 2: they were no longer thinking clearly, you know, they they
Speaker 2: they'd become desocialized owing to constant anxiety. You know, he'd say,
Speaker 2: after a year or fifteen months to continuous service, he said,
Speaker 2: even like the most robust and healthy junior officer would
Speaker 2: basically be useless. You know, he was no longer fit
Speaker 2: for command, you know, at best, you know, oh it
Speaker 2: was experience and whatnot. You know, if he still had
Speaker 2: the nerve and the gumption for direct action, you know,
Speaker 2: he might be able to utilize and like the equivalent
Speaker 2: of stormtrooper role, but in a command role. Not not
Speaker 2: even close, he said. The real tragedy, though, he said,
Speaker 2: guys over the age about thirty or thirty five, and
Speaker 2: especially over forty. He said that these guys had less resistance,
Speaker 2: you know, and in his estimation, it's because they had,
Speaker 2: you know, decades of normal life to compare their current situation, dude,
Speaker 2: he said. Officers over forty, he said that the six
Speaker 2: months more almost unfamily became you know, obvious alcoholics. You know,
Speaker 2: they'd only be able to you know, assuming they've survived
Speaker 2: multiple assault operations. They could only they could only function
Speaker 2: if they were totally drunk. He said that they started
Speaker 2: seeming you know, complete like he said, they started seeming literally,
Speaker 2: you know, like in a state of shock at all times.
Speaker 2: You know. He said, some of them lost their ability
Speaker 2: to communicate in basic terms, like their ability to their
Speaker 2: command of language had left them, you know. And Conquest
Speaker 2: says that something that developed in Soviet society, especially after
Speaker 2: about nineteen thirty six to thirty eight, about ninety thirty six,
Speaker 2: ninety thirty eight onwards until about nineteen fifty seven. He
Speaker 2: said it was something he said, it was something completely comparable,
Speaker 2: particularly guys who were in roles that were somewhat coveted
Speaker 2: where they were in contact with commissars at all times
Speaker 2: and responsible for their people, but they weren't protected by
Speaker 2: you know, the lar guests or the patronage of party men.
Speaker 2: Like a good example would be, you know, like a
Speaker 2: doctor at a hospital, you know who like like a
Speaker 2: surgeon who was responsible for you know, more junior doctors
Speaker 2: and nurses obviously, or like a professor of geology, you know,
Speaker 2: or like a guy who worked at one of the
Speaker 2: design bureaus, you know, like over seeing other engineers. You know.
Speaker 2: He'd be under constant pressure of the commissars. You know
Speaker 2: he is, and so it is, his whole family would
Speaker 2: constantly be under surveillance. He'd be subjected to things like
Speaker 2: you know, when people he worked closely with or taken
Speaker 2: away and either executed summarily or sentenced to sentenced to
Speaker 2: the death camp system. He'd be ordered he'd be directed
Speaker 2: to sign a statement saying that he fully approved of
Speaker 2: these measures. Against people who were engaged in countervolutionary activities,
Speaker 2: regardless of his personal feelings about them. And like, over time,
Speaker 2: this just broke people down, you know, and the workers
Speaker 2: and pet the workers and peasants who supposed that the
Speaker 2: Soviet state was directly was was was oriented towards, you know,
Speaker 2: like elevating you know, these people, a huge amount of them,
Speaker 2: and we'll get in some of these figures in a minute,
Speaker 2: had cycled through the forced labor system and they and
Speaker 2: they begin acting, They just they began behaving like convicts,
Speaker 2: you know, in all in all the pathological ways that
Speaker 2: you know people who are in and out of the
Speaker 2: prison system do you know, And even if they didn't
Speaker 2: have you know, pathologies going in despite being branded as criminals,
Speaker 2: they certainly had them when they were released. And that's
Speaker 2: what I mean, that's what's unique about Sovietism, and that's
Speaker 2: what's unique about communism, you know. And the people who
Speaker 2: I mean, it'd be easy for it it's either people
Speaker 2: to say like, oh, well, that's their own fault. You know,
Speaker 2: why weren't their cadres of people who who were who
Speaker 2: were cultivating resistance to this, to this this regime, they
Speaker 2: were all dead. They were slaughtered. The Soviets slaughtered ten
Speaker 2: million people by the time by by, you know, before
Speaker 2: a shot was fired in the World War, you know,
Speaker 2: And that's nobody's all point. That people who were capable
Speaker 2: of of harboring a conceptual vista of some alternative system.
Speaker 2: They they they were, they were They were killed categorically
Speaker 2: regardless of age, sex, overall health, national origin, because they
Speaker 2: were the they were the standard. Even if they weren't
Speaker 2: the standard bearers of the enemy idea, you know, they
Speaker 2: they they weren't malleable in the way that they needed
Speaker 2: to be. You know, the Khmarra rouge actually perfected this.
Speaker 2: I think year zero is you know, left revisionists who
Speaker 2: like Saratra, who actually understood Marci's Leninism. You know, they
Speaker 2: were constantly trying to extricate the commute riage experience from
Speaker 2: revolutionary communism as like a postulant to itself. This is
Speaker 2: some bizarre outlier. This is an example of oriental barbarism.
Speaker 2: You know, this has nothing to do with with with
Speaker 2: with rational state behavior. You know, there's nothing being extra
Speaker 2: away from that. He knew that that was not true, Okay,
Speaker 2: aside from the kind of atavistic mythologies that you know,
Speaker 2: the Khmer Rouge threw in to kind of woo the
Speaker 2: the peasantry towards their perspective and you know, and whatever,
Speaker 2: like racial mythologies that were emphasized when they were fighting
Speaker 2: the Vietnamese like that. Notwithstanding, Paul Pott was actually a
Speaker 2: very learned man and what he aside from the fact
Speaker 2: that you know, Cambodia Democratic Campuccia, as it was so dubbed,
Speaker 2: it was a was a backwater that was devoid of
Speaker 2: the prayer, was an industry to facilitate, you know, the
Speaker 2: realization of true communism. And in political terms, he was
Speaker 2: absolutely a pure communist and that's what's required in order
Speaker 2: to facilitate its realization that it's not an outlier in
Speaker 2: the least, and people who are honest, like orthodox Marxists
Speaker 2: who remained in you know, Moscow adjacent after the after
Speaker 2: you know, the ninety sixty schism. They it's subtle, but
Speaker 2: it's there, like they acknowledge that I find this fascinating,
Speaker 2: but not for the reason something like the think, no,
Speaker 2: not merely sucking wave it around as some you know,
Speaker 2: gotcha like I obviously it's like grotesque people think that way,
Speaker 2: but it's it's entirely consistent with uh, the overall paradig
Speaker 2: I mean, it would be dishonest for anyone who describes
Speaker 2: that perspective to claim otherwise. But you know, the end
Speaker 2: result as all these points too, when you're talking about
Speaker 2: these monumental ideas, you know, there you can just look
Speaker 2: at them as historical contingencies. You know, you've got to
Speaker 2: look at them as not just as as as as
Speaker 2: causal as ultimate causal variables in and of themselves, but
Speaker 2: as phenomena that uh, it's that, but phenomena that endure
Speaker 2: until their full realization or until they are annihilated because
Speaker 2: the the because the bearers of the idea are annihilated.
Speaker 2: I mentioned material of it. The purpose of communism is
Speaker 2: to realize communism. It's not just to alleviate tensions inherent
Speaker 2: to you know, opposing classes amidst historically he wal, It's
Speaker 2: not just a way to you know, kind of placate
Speaker 2: a radicalized proletariat, you know, in the short term and
Speaker 2: until you know, some sort of new structure that has
Speaker 2: more equitable outcomes can be realized. Like the point of
Speaker 2: it quite literally is it's it's self contained realization. And
Speaker 2: the end result of the Communist center prizes is the
Speaker 2: eradication of culture. And that was the great horror in
Speaker 2: the minds of all who opposed it. And you know,
Speaker 2: like I said, one of the only meaningful things in
Speaker 2: absolute terms you can take from my comf is when
Speaker 2: Hitler says that a Bolshevis planet is a plan without culture,
Speaker 2: where all men you know, live basically as basically as
Speaker 2: animals with the power of speech. You know, and the
Speaker 2: or the earth is uh the the the earth is
Speaker 2: basically this, you know, this ball of mud like spinning
Speaker 2: through the void, with no with no with no higher life.
Speaker 2: You know, everything you associate with culture, the from the
Speaker 2: comparatively prosaic is the most profound no longer exists. You know,
Speaker 2: it's it's it's the world as labor. You know, there
Speaker 2: is no past, there's no future, there's only the present.
Speaker 2: And you know the realization of work quotas or you know,
Speaker 2: the homogenization of life such that it's rendered indistinguishable. But
Speaker 2: for you know geographic location, which anymore has no meaning
Speaker 2: other than you know, the signature on a map. And
Speaker 2: that much much as people might have misanthropic fantasies about
Speaker 2: Earth without people. I think those are actually like some
Speaker 2: corny show. Like decades ago, it was like it was
Speaker 2: like Earth without people or like the world without man,
Speaker 2: and it was I think it was not discovery or something.
Speaker 2: I forget the tangent, and it was you know, there
Speaker 2: was these like cgi rendered landscapes where uh, you know,
Speaker 2: like skyscrapers are all over grown and and just like
Speaker 2: animals or have free reign and there's no more man
Speaker 2: to you know, corrupt like the pure sanity in nature
Speaker 2: or something. But that you know, people have this idea
Speaker 2: that somehow like without like the without without the human
Speaker 2: mind to perceive things, that these things might may well
Speaker 2: as not not exist. You know, I'm a sure go
Speaker 2: without saying, but it's I think it's like the way
Speaker 2: people like can imagine like what their own funeral would
Speaker 2: look like because if they have some kind of some
Speaker 2: kind of vantage point or something, you know, and and
Speaker 2: and in the terms you would you know, as in
Speaker 2: you know, and and as a as a living human
Speaker 2: with you know, optic nerves and things.
Speaker 1: But let mean you you said that the purpose of
Speaker 1: communism is its realization. What's the purpose of national socialism?
Speaker 2: The posterity of the of the voc and more immediately,
Speaker 2: That's what I'm gonna get into when uh, this pod
Speaker 2: series is gonna do the regeneration of the European form
Speaker 2: of life to meet the challenges of the twenty first century,
Speaker 2: you know too render its mentioned material competitive at least
Speaker 2: able to survive onslaught by what Hitler identified as you know,
Speaker 2: kind of like the nasc and Anglo Saxon hegemony or hegemon.
Speaker 2: Hitler accurately. That's another thing about it about the same
Speaker 2: as book that I think needs to be emphasized. Hitler
Speaker 2: was incredibly and he he knew exactly what was underway
Speaker 2: in terms of the strategic historical situation. And the second
Speaker 2: book makes the point that America contains about fully fifty
Speaker 2: percent of the world's like actual like capital and resources.
Speaker 2: You know, he says that once fully mobilized America will
Speaker 2: be unstoppable. He said, it will be unlike any hedgemond
Speaker 2: in the world's ever seen. And he said that, you know,
Speaker 2: unless unless some sort of total regeneration occurs in Europe.
Speaker 2: He wasn't talking in some kind of strasserist notion of
Speaker 2: you know, like the United States of Europe like literally
Speaker 2: like a palogenetic revival of the race, you know, and
Speaker 2: he had Hitler had no use for petted nationalism, but
Speaker 2: his idea of a European superpower is very different. And
Speaker 2: what people like Distress were suggested, is my point. But
Speaker 2: he said that, you know, unless this happens, assuming that
Speaker 2: assuming Germany could fend off a Soviet assault, which at
Speaker 2: present then present being you know, nineteen thirty three, it
Speaker 2: could not. But he said, even if it could, he
Speaker 2: said that Europe would basically become, you know, the battleground
Speaker 2: between the United States and the Soviet Union for world
Speaker 2: of gemity, which is exactly what happened. And he said that,
Speaker 2: you know, the danger of the Soviet Union is the
Speaker 2: danger that's always when presented by Europe, which is essentially
Speaker 2: an indefensible peninsula, you know, populated by a world minority
Speaker 2: of peoples facing uh without without any without any you know,
Speaker 2: there's no Sahara desert in Europe. There's no sort of
Speaker 2: like natural rampart. You know. They're the you know, the
Speaker 2: the immediate physical threat the European civilization is the billion
Speaker 2: strong hordes of the of the Barbarian East, you know.
Speaker 2: But he said that this is you know, the uh,
Speaker 2: the the graver like absolute like literally global threat is
Speaker 2: is America, you know, because it's it's a complete because
Speaker 2: it's completely it completely like neutralizes everything people had there
Speaker 2: to be taken for granted about hard power and the
Speaker 2: capacity to marshall capital and the service of hard power.
Speaker 2: How he viewed the American people is nuanced and fascinatingly
Speaker 2: and Sims gets into this too, despite this kind of
Speaker 2: like like this liberal fixation with like, oh, Hitler was
Speaker 2: a Confederate and he loved slavery and hated black people.
Speaker 2: There said almost nothing about black people other than that.
Speaker 2: He said that transplanting you know, one hundreds of thousands
Speaker 2: of African slaves to the New World, he said, was
Speaker 2: he said, was something that reminiscent of an artifact of
Speaker 2: a barbaric civilization. And he said it was beneath America
Speaker 2: to do that and totally unnecessary, you know. He admired
Speaker 2: the kind of northern industrial might of the Union. He
Speaker 2: said that, you know, the cream of German racial stock,
Speaker 2: the tune of five point nine million people over a
Speaker 2: few centuries, had emirrated to America. He's like these people
Speaker 2: in the backbone of American power, you know. And he
Speaker 2: said that, uh, you know, some of the best of
Speaker 2: of a of the anglophone leadership cast has sort of
Speaker 2: like assimilated them into their own ranks. Like he's basically
Speaker 2: saying like this is this is a recipe for utterly
Speaker 2: like unstoppable power and like full spectrum dominance like economic, military, cultural,
Speaker 2: and every can seeable way, you know. But he said
Speaker 2: that there's like an underlying rootlessness there that's ring which
Speaker 2: been co opted, you know, by a Jewish modernist perspective.
Speaker 2: This is different than the threat. It's different but related
Speaker 2: in terms of a constellation of of of of Zeitgeist
Speaker 2: related factors, like writ large, it's different than you know,
Speaker 2: the Soviet threat, but it's it's derived from the same
Speaker 2: it's derived from the same historical crisis. Okay. And he
Speaker 2: makes the point in the second book that it's not
Speaker 2: accidental that, you know, Americanism and Sovietism will like find
Speaker 2: common cost for limited purposes because they're not actually manikey
Speaker 2: in opposites. There's a there's irreconcilele differences between them, you know,
Speaker 2: he said, giving conditions to parody, they destroy each other.
Speaker 2: But but they're they're not like moratal enemies or something,
Speaker 2: you know, in absolute terms. And but that's I didn't
Speaker 2: mean to go so far like a field, but it's
Speaker 2: the uh what I did want to get a little
Speaker 2: bit into. When if I'm jumping around a bit, a
Speaker 2: lot of people over uh over email and whatnot, they've
Speaker 2: been asking in comparative terms about like to what degree
Speaker 2: like the Soviet Union had like a camp system. And
Speaker 2: I make the point and I'm we're lying on Robert
Speaker 2: Conquest for this. The Soviets had a death camp system
Speaker 2: rit large. Its purpose was to categorically exterminate people. There
Speaker 2: were there were hundreds of these camps purpose towards that
Speaker 2: end in the frozen you know, tundra of h what
Speaker 2: was the Soviet Far East. This is the territory I
Speaker 2: mean for people came to like geology and you know
Speaker 2: that like or a science and stuff. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is uh, this is literally you know, like the ice age,
Speaker 2: you know, like World Island. You know, this is where
Speaker 2: the this is the this is where the polar bear develops.
Speaker 2: This is the this is where mammoths stalked the land,
Speaker 2: you know, until fifty thousand years ago or whatever. You know,
Speaker 2: Conquest called it an empire of camps that existed from
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty one until approximately nineteen fifty seven. And I
Speaker 2: mean the scale of this, uh in nineteen thirty mid
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty, as this as the security apparatus was sort
Speaker 2: of consolidating and leaving behind the revolutionary phase and developing
Speaker 2: into a like a true kind of penal system, an
Speaker 2: extermination system to categorically manipulate population outcomes in mortal mortal terms.
Speaker 2: By that point, the OGPU was the precurs of the
Speaker 2: NKVS with the precursor to the KGB. It was constantly
Speaker 2: reconstituting itself in these days, is which I believe it
Speaker 2: was very purposeful to make it difficult to identify what
Speaker 2: series of responsibility were in the the The communists were
Speaker 2: singularly obsessed with manipulating the historical record for reasons that
Speaker 2: are obvious. I mean we've before, we've been talking about
Speaker 2: this past hour, but you know this was uh, I
Speaker 2: mean Stalin famously literally you know, like would redact people
Speaker 2: from the record, you know, only photographic evidence of them.
Speaker 2: But one of the reasons why, I mean any rigorous
Speaker 2: historian really like it's if I understand that, if anything,
Speaker 2: the the death soul presented even by rigorous revisionists like
Speaker 2: Conquest is understated. But superficially, this kind of contant manipulation
Speaker 2: of vernacular and nomenclature provided provided the Soviets with an alibi.
Speaker 2: And there and there are stortbell apologies today and in
Speaker 2: some sense despite the abiquity of information that it has
Speaker 2: the same function. But what's an arguable is that by
Speaker 2: mid nineteen thirty there's approximately one hundred and forty thousand
Speaker 2: prisoners already in these camps run by the GPU. Initially
Speaker 2: these sort of huge labor projects, the first of which
Speaker 2: was digging a canal from connecting the White seat of
Speaker 2: the Baltic which, for perspective this alone required well over
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand lavers. Okay, and what better way to
Speaker 2: avail a labor pool, and you know, to to to
Speaker 2: capture tens of thousandans of of of able bodied men
Speaker 2: you know who either are categorized as you know, putical
Speaker 2: unreliables or members of ethnic groups that have been you know,
Speaker 2: determined to be you know, unassimilable or or resistant to
Speaker 2: you know, the uh, the kind of a de ethnic
Speaker 2: ethnicfication of people's you know, you you can brand these
Speaker 2: many criminals and then you know, you can essentially work
Speaker 2: them to death on these on these massive public work projects,
Speaker 2: you know, as as slaves literally even worse. I mean,
Speaker 2: they're spendables. You know, you don't you don't work your
Speaker 2: slaves to death, you know, if I under you know,
Speaker 2: under ordinary conditions of a channel slavery. But from nineteen
Speaker 2: thirty onward, the number of peoples even some kind of
Speaker 2: custodial sentence just astronomically rose. In nineteen twenty nine there
Speaker 2: was summerly fifty and sixty thousand people who were sentenced
Speaker 2: by the OGPU. A year later this was there was
Speaker 2: over two hundred thousand, But in nineteen thirty one it
Speaker 2: was one million, two hundred and thirty thousand. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is this is astronomical, okay. And we're talking about
Speaker 2: you know, we're not talking about a matter of decades.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the span of a year. You know,
Speaker 2: the camp the population in these camps, you know, labor
Speaker 2: camps and death camps, you know, increasing fivefold over you know,
Speaker 2: a million people there was within this far eastern camp system.
Speaker 2: There's between one hundred and one hundred and sixty camps
Speaker 2: at any given time. This absolutely dwarfs the camp system
Speaker 2: that the Third Reich, I mean, absolutely dwarfs it. Even
Speaker 2: if you accept at face value everything alleged a numberg.
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's it's it's comparing an ant to
Speaker 2: an elephant. The o GPU further in nineteen thirty two,
Speaker 2: absorbed seven hundred small penal colonies and and uh jails
Speaker 2: and prisons you know, where the people have been serving
Speaker 2: sentences from anything from petty theft to homicide. These camps
Speaker 2: and prisons have formerly been run by what it's called
Speaker 2: the People's Commissariat of Justice, and OGPU declared that, you know,
Speaker 2: these were being inefficiently administered, so they absorbed you know,
Speaker 2: what amounted to the conventional you know, prison population and
Speaker 2: began working these people to death, you know, on these
Speaker 2: public works projects. On January first, in New Year's Day,
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty five, this newly unified system, according to Soviet records,
Speaker 2: there was nine one thousand prisoners in it. Over seven
Speaker 2: hundred thousand are in work camps and two hundred and
Speaker 2: forty thousand are in work colonies. Now, mind you, and
Speaker 2: reading between the lines and kind of was made this point.
Speaker 2: There was these discrete, smaller units, and there's no explanation
Speaker 2: for why they were so organized. Presumably that's where actual
Speaker 2: dangerous criminals were housed. But everybody else, the oldly majority,
Speaker 2: had done nothing at all wrong. But everything in the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union under what was called Article fifty eight will
Speaker 2: just catch all penal law. Absenteeism from work was a crime.
Speaker 2: Destroying Soviet property was a crime. Poganism, which translates approximately
Speaker 2: to like disorderly conduct, that was a crime. You know.
Speaker 2: So that's one of the reasons why I get really
Speaker 2: really irritated when people who some of them don't know
Speaker 2: any better, I guess even in our own circles like talk,
Speaker 2: they refer to people as criminals. I'm like, don't. I'm like, don't,
Speaker 2: don't start doing that. Okay. I mean, maybe I feel
Speaker 2: strong about this one background, but you've lost your kind
Speaker 2: of grounded this when you start calling people criminals or
Speaker 2: some categorical elements. Okay, but you know, for perspective, this
Speaker 2: was that this this this this was well known. You know.
Speaker 2: One of the things people that attacked Nolty and his
Speaker 2: thesis claiming like, oh, nobody knew it was underway in
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a nascent superpower,
Speaker 2: and this was it was nothing like today, but film
Speaker 2: was ubiquitous. There was an international newswire. You know, It's
Speaker 2: not like Moscow was thousands of miles away from Europe.
Speaker 2: This is well known, you know, people and people, uh,
Speaker 2: these cadres who had fought in Bavaria, you know, and
Speaker 2: in the Baltic against the Free Corps. I mean, these
Speaker 2: people would have been trained in the Soviet Union, you know.
Speaker 2: The for the more, you know, by nineteen thirty six
Speaker 2: there was a truly international proxy conflict in Spain. You know,
Speaker 2: this this idea that information somehow was was quarantined, you know,
Speaker 2: and didn't cross national frontiers. I mean that, that's that,
Speaker 2: that's laughable, you know, it's this was this is common knowledge,
Speaker 2: you know. And plus I mean how exactly you know,
Speaker 2: one hundred thousands of people over the words of the decade,
Speaker 2: millions of people were categorically disappearing. You think people weren't
Speaker 2: noticing that, you know, upon the Soviet assault on Poland,
Speaker 2: you know, a huge number about a quartering onlyion polls
Speaker 2: disappeared in once you know, not just because I mean
Speaker 2: that the Russians there were there was there was ethnic
Speaker 2: hostility between the Russians and Poles anyway, that was arguably
Speaker 2: as severe as that between you know that the Germans
Speaker 2: and the Polls, or the Poles and the Jews, or
Speaker 2: the Germans and the Jews. But you know you think, uh, people,
Speaker 2: people weren't noticing that. You know, the tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of Poles were just disappearing. Their entire officer corps just disappeared,
Speaker 2: you know, the entire like Warsaw clergy just disappeared. I
Speaker 2: mean like, but it's I'm not trying to be up
Speaker 2: to so like mak it out like it's funny or something,
Speaker 2: you know, or every flippant rather about these kinds of
Speaker 2: human tragedies. But it's it's it's like a non argument.
Speaker 2: It's not it's it's on its face, it's it's laughable.
Speaker 2: But the uh, you know, I I epaesize this too,
Speaker 2: And I mean again, I the first person make the
Speaker 2: point that it's not you know, like a like a
Speaker 2: his or historical revisionism is not some kind of numbers game,
Speaker 2: but because what is in contention is the degree of
Speaker 2: attrition in comparative terms. And this really was not just
Speaker 2: the subtext but kind of the part of the core
Speaker 2: controversy of the historical striketh. I want people to contemplate
Speaker 2: again the degree with which the Soviet can't apparatus utterly
Speaker 2: dwarfed that of the German Reich, and like Nolty said,
Speaker 2: other than other than homicidal gas chambers, the degree to
Speaker 2: which they were employed is arguable. I don't want to
Speaker 2: get into that in this series, not because I'm afraid
Speaker 2: to or something reverse to. We can talk about Fred
Speaker 2: Leuchter and Robert Farreson and the entire controversy if people
Speaker 2: want to. But that's but the point is, even if
Speaker 2: you accept all of that at face value, every single
Speaker 2: thing that the Third Reich did was precedented by the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union, with the exception of homicidal gas chambers employed
Speaker 2: against civilian populations. So the entire kind of notion of
Speaker 2: oh Saundervig led to this unique and intractable evil. Just
Speaker 2: look at you know, look look at the Third Reich.
Speaker 2: This this regime that existed for the sole purpose of
Speaker 2: realizing a homicidal conspiracy. I mean, it's it's laughable. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's there's something funny about it, but it's it's preposterous. Rather,
Speaker 2: that's about this. I got some more stuff to say
Speaker 2: about this, but I don't want to. I would you
Speaker 2: be agreeable or amenable if we did a part four
Speaker 2: about we fielded questions from subscribers and I could just
Speaker 2: kind of tie up loose ends. Man, I don't want
Speaker 2: to tell you your business with content. Okay, Yeah, I
Speaker 2: appreciate that, man, And I hope this wasn't too lake scattershot,
Speaker 2: but yeah, I prefer that, man.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, we'll do that. We'll schedule that. Do your
Speaker 1: plugs and blendles.
Speaker 2: You can always find me on my website. It's Thomas
Speaker 2: seven seven seven dot com, number seven h on the
Speaker 2: S seven seven seven dot com. You can find me
Speaker 2: on Twitter. It's a at real Thomas at Capital r
Speaker 2: E A L underscore number seven H on a S
Speaker 2: seven seven seven. I'm on Instagram. My main My main
Speaker 2: platform is substack. If you can find my long form
Speaker 2: stuff and the podcast, and you can find me on
Speaker 2: YouTube it's at Thomas TV. Also excuse me. Also links
Speaker 2: from my website alwayso links from substack seeking you shall
Speaker 2: find I'm I I dropped a video sit rep today
Speaker 2: on my substack, not because I love hearing myself talk,
Speaker 2: but I felt I owed the subscribers an explanation for
Speaker 2: kind of where we're going with things, So I, if
Speaker 2: you are a subscriber, please check that out. I take
Speaker 2: this very seriously and very personally, and I do not
Speaker 2: take a granted the love and support I get from
Speaker 2: all of your people's. It's it's tremendous, Okay, but that's
Speaker 2: that's all I got.
Speaker 1: Same. We have some great people on our side. Thomas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I.
Speaker 1: Want to welcome everyone back to the Pekana Show. Hey, Thomas,
Speaker 1: how are you dead?
Speaker 2: Oh no, well thanks for hosting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Are are we going to finish up on Nulty today?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I wanted to talk about current events a little bit.
Speaker 2: I mean, not just for their own stake, but how
Speaker 2: they relate to how they relate to Nolty's model of
Speaker 2: their paradigm of historicism. Nolte said and something that I
Speaker 2: think should have been more deeply controversial, not should have
Speaker 2: been in the sense I think that what he said
Speaker 2: was was wrong in any way, but it goes to
Speaker 2: show you that as kind of anglophone academy has eclipsed
Speaker 2: the continent. You know, people don't really pay attention to
Speaker 2: continal philosophy, and in the way that they do, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of anglophone treatments of ethics and things. You know,
Speaker 2: both in concrete terms is applied to the world situation
Speaker 2: in any given moment, but also in more abstract terms,
Speaker 2: you know, postulating, you know, what is a legitimate active state,
Speaker 2: you know, what is permissible under conditions of war, things
Speaker 2: like that. Something I think was more at least more
Speaker 2: sweeping in terms of what was being asserted than what
Speaker 2: was postulated during the historical strike was an Oldie's nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety one book. It was It was a history of
Speaker 2: the twentieth century, okay, from essentially a right Hegelian perspective,
Speaker 2: and specifically specifically he talked about how the common nucleus
Speaker 2: of acts and historical phenomenon gave rise to three totally
Speaker 2: abnormal political cultures, and that was the Soviet Union, the
Speaker 2: Third Reich in Israel and a lot of people in
Speaker 2: this country, not so much in Europe for reasons that
Speaker 2: should be obvious, but a lot to people must understand
Speaker 2: what Israel is like. I'm not saying that I'm speaking
Speaker 2: in purely objective terms, not at all punatively. I think
Speaker 2: they few Israel like they do like the independent state
Speaker 2: of Croatia or something, or like they view you know,
Speaker 2: even Ukraine like some kind of they think, Oh, a
Speaker 2: bunch of a bunch of Jewish people lived in the
Speaker 2: Middle East and decided they wanted their own state. That's
Speaker 2: not how it developed. And it's also why there's tensions
Speaker 2: between you know, the ruling Leekud regime contra you know
Speaker 2: who the people they call the ultra Orthodox, as well
Speaker 2: as others. Like Zionism. Isn't just this organic move of
Speaker 2: you know, like nationalists mighty Jewish people indigenous to the
Speaker 2: Middle East. It was very much a European ideology that
Speaker 2: came out of, you know, born up sort of like
Speaker 2: the intellectual culture of of people whose origins were in
Speaker 2: this we're in the pale settlement, you know, and who
Speaker 2: found their way kind of you know, far and wide
Speaker 2: in European urban centers and and and and and intellectual corridors,
Speaker 2: you know, whether you're talking about you know, Mensk or
Speaker 2: Berlin or Warsaw or Zagreb or wherever. But the whole
Speaker 2: idea was that for the Jewish people to survive like
Speaker 2: as a race. And again this is you know, very
Speaker 2: much grounded in the kind of twentieth century sensibility of
Speaker 2: people's heritage being you know, born of blood and material quantities.
Speaker 2: You know, the idea was, well, the Jewish people need
Speaker 2: to stop being this kind of you know, they need
Speaker 2: to stop being this kind of nation without a country.
Speaker 2: We need a national state, you know, we need that
Speaker 2: that that that guards you know, Jewish racial blood at
Speaker 2: all costs. You know, it's got to, uh, it's got
Speaker 2: to be premised on this kind of like communitarian you know,
Speaker 2: like like like military socialism. You know, it's got to uh,
Speaker 2: it's it's got to basically inundate people in this kind
Speaker 2: of new way of thinking. You know that Jews aren't
Speaker 2: habituated do owing to owing to their kind of peculiar heritage,
Speaker 2: not like like politically, I mean, you know, in the
Speaker 2: terends of modes of life. And that's why for example,
Speaker 2: you know, and again I'm not I'm not saying this
Speaker 2: cunatively like why why why is why do people speak Hebrew?
Speaker 2: What is real? They'd be like if people like me
Speaker 2: said suddenly decided we're gonna start like writing and Viking rooms,
Speaker 2: Like why don't they speak Aramaic, you know, like why
Speaker 2: why don't they speak like Yiddish or even or even
Speaker 2: you know, whatever dialectic German was common to. It was
Speaker 2: common to the Jewish ghetto, like white Hebrew. You know,
Speaker 2: like it's very much this is very much that kind
Speaker 2: of mythologize. It's like a view of themselves. Okay, And
Speaker 2: I'm not even saying that, like like and Zion go ahead.
Speaker 1: Even a lot of scholars point to the fact that
Speaker 1: Hebrew really wasn't even spoken amongst shoes, that it was
Speaker 1: resurrected in the late nineteenth century because you know, if
Speaker 1: you're going to have a people, you have to have
Speaker 1: a language.
Speaker 2: No, exactly, And so that was yeah, exactly, that's that's
Speaker 2: exactly it. So I mean it and and again too,
Speaker 2: I mean there's ZIONI is you know, like heim Weissman,
Speaker 2: they were self consciousness. It's not like they were pretending
Speaker 2: it was something else. But this this this kind of
Speaker 2: revolutionary sort of you know, like top down restructuring of
Speaker 2: the Jewish form of life. You know, that's very much
Speaker 2: a boring again of the same, the same historical, historically driven,
Speaker 2: uh ideological phenomena that that gave rise the you know
Speaker 2: Marxist Leninism and national socialism, you know, and that's one
Speaker 2: of the reasons Israel is anachronistic. Okay, and I don't
Speaker 2: want to go too far afield, but I'm writing some
Speaker 2: long form stuff right now about what I call the
Speaker 2: German Cold War. You know, the DVR, they pursued an
Speaker 2: independent course in a lot of ways, I mean, very
Speaker 2: different than that pursued by you know, Crusiski's Romania or
Speaker 2: like Heuzyugoslavia. Like they were one hundred and ten percent
Speaker 2: in the worst offpack camp. And but you know, they
Speaker 2: they were, they were, they were. They were kind of
Speaker 2: like more of a vanguard of the Stalinist perspective than
Speaker 2: even the Soviet Union was, and kind of fascinatingly and ironically,
Speaker 2: you know, as Gorbachev started implementing pera Strika, like the
Speaker 2: Socialist Unity Party in the d DR started banning Soviet
Speaker 2: publications that they considered to be like revisionists and not
Speaker 2: adequately orthodox in terms of the ideological line they towed.
Speaker 2: But one of the big the DDR, like the Cubans,
Speaker 2: they pursued this aggressive revolutionary foreign policy overseas. You know,
Speaker 2: in the modern Syria is very much, very much owes
Speaker 2: to East German assistance and development, like everything from like
Speaker 2: a military doctrine to their kind of like mixed economy
Speaker 2: to you know, their to the kind of nomenclature that
Speaker 2: the Syrian Bath Party, which was very different than the
Speaker 2: Iraqi Bath Party. I mean, that's one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why they went to war with Saddam's at Iraq in
Speaker 2: ninety one. But they were very much in some ways
Speaker 2: in some critical power political ways, you know, the progeny
Speaker 2: of East Germany and UH, the East Germans really targeted Israel, Okay,
Speaker 2: Like that's indisputable now, of course, the UH if you
Speaker 2: read stuff from the era on even some of these
Speaker 2: academic articles about you know, Cold War anti Semitism, like
Speaker 2: there were people at like the bottom Minehoff faction like
Speaker 2: they praised UH, like the execution of the Israeli athletes
Speaker 2: at Munich, you know, like the Japanese army faction like
Speaker 2: they assaulted UH. You know, they assaulted the Israeli airport
Speaker 2: and stuff, and UH, I can't remember his name, but
Speaker 2: one of the guys who he wasn't a direct action operator,
Speaker 2: but he was kind of the court intellectual of uh
Speaker 2: of the bottom Minehoff crew. He would openly call he
Speaker 2: would openly call Israelis like Youudenschwein, like literally Jewish pigs
Speaker 2: and like that was that was like unthinkable, It would
Speaker 2: be unthinkable to talk about like any other like population
Speaker 2: like in East Germany. You know. But uh so there's
Speaker 2: something I mean obviously, I mean I I basically accept
Speaker 2: one hundred percent like Yaqui's paradigm about what happened in
Speaker 2: the Cold War and and how Zionism was the was
Speaker 2: it was the final catalyst to put you know, the
Speaker 2: Eastern Block and and the Israelis and arguably the Jews
Speaker 2: as a people, you know, like an enemy footing. But
Speaker 2: it's but you know, the uh one of the things
Speaker 2: I was keeping Israel alive in terms of it's raised
Speaker 2: on Detra, but also in practical terms it's sort of
Speaker 2: conceptual existence was the Cold War. One of the reasons
Speaker 2: why Israel's having the problems it is now. It's not
Speaker 2: wokeism or what people seem to think, you know, like
Speaker 2: in like these kind of commentary ists circles. It's not
Speaker 2: because people suddenly have developed some like you know, quote
Speaker 2: unquote like liberal idea of a Palestine and racism or something.
Speaker 2: I mean it might, I mean that there might be
Speaker 2: some aspect of that, but you know that nothing's changed
Speaker 2: in that regard. It's not like suddenly people are aware
Speaker 2: of the racial dynamic and they weren't, you know, ten
Speaker 2: twenty fifty years ago. What happened was as as the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union and especially the Third Right, you know, like
Speaker 2: like fade into memory and there's just you know, and
Speaker 2: it's just not something that figures into people's conceptual horizon,
Speaker 2: even historically in terms of living memory. You know, like
Speaker 2: this kind of like this literally like Jewish racial state,
Speaker 2: you know, talking about invoking these kinds of the apocalyptic
Speaker 2: kind of scenarios to rationalize why it's got to sustain
Speaker 2: this kind of bizarre and anomaloust existence and the kind
Speaker 2: of globalized planet like that doesn't people can't conceptualize that anymore,
Speaker 2: you know. And one of the things, you know, like
Speaker 2: we talked about one of the things that killed the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union, you know, it wasn't just the fact that
Speaker 2: it's because I mean, like like authoritarian and dysfunctional regimes
Speaker 2: like Shambalon indefinitely or they can. I mean, it happens
Speaker 2: all the time. Like what killed the Soviet Union wasn't
Speaker 2: that people didn't have freedom, or that it had a
Speaker 2: basket case economy, or that you know, it lacked popular
Speaker 2: legitimacy in a way that you know, could be could
Speaker 2: only be remedied by you know, over reliance on punitive measures.
Speaker 2: I mean, those things didn't help any But at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, the class struggled paradigm as like
Speaker 2: an ontological reality, like regardless of like the credibility of
Speaker 2: that explanation for for human political life and sociological existence,
Speaker 2: regardless of whether there's any merit to that or not.
Speaker 2: The punctuated disturbances of of modernity, like you know, really
Speaker 2: really disruptive people's lives, you know, And that's one of
Speaker 2: the things that gave Marcus Leninism it's momentum as well
Speaker 2: as its credibility. And when those conditions abated and people
Speaker 2: couldn't even really conceptualize of them anymore, you know, because
Speaker 2: two thirds of the population had been born after those
Speaker 2: occurrences took place, and things, you know, there's no longer
Speaker 2: a context of Sovietism you know, it's it's just pictating
Speaker 2: incoherent and in large part that's where Israel is now,
Speaker 2: you know. And that's one of the things that's one
Speaker 2: of the reasons why the Holocaust narrative was so essential,
Speaker 2: because when that had this like monumental power, like totemic power,
Speaker 2: you know, regardless even even with the Inner German border
Speaker 2: no longer existing, and even even with the Cold War
Speaker 2: no longer dividing the planet, it could be said like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, the jew as a people, like Jewish people,
Speaker 2: qua Jewish people, you know, they were they were availed
Speaker 2: the most catastrophic evil that ever existed. And you know
Speaker 2: this could re emerge at any time, you know, owing
Speaker 2: to the basic moral frailties of of of everybody else
Speaker 2: and their unique enmity towards the Jews as a people.
Speaker 2: So you know, Zionism is essentially like the defensive ramparts
Speaker 2: that they need, you know, Like, I mean, that's nonsense,
Speaker 2: but this had a tremendous totemic power. Again, I mean,
Speaker 2: only to a number of variables. I don't think something
Speaker 2: like that could be I don't think something like that
Speaker 2: could be constructed now, like such an ideological narrative that
Speaker 2: had that kind of staying power, another kind of total
Speaker 2: and and was kind of that like totally insinuated into
Speaker 2: political life and get sexual terms the way that particular
Speaker 2: narrative was. But you know, you look at the history
Speaker 2: of Israel, can.
Speaker 1: I ask you one so you said it had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with woke. But I look at like Israel,
Speaker 1: and I look at what they're you know, what what
Speaker 1: comes out of the government, what they're trying to do.
Speaker 1: And then I look at like tel Aviv, the gayest
Speaker 1: city on Earth. Those those two things, those seem to
Speaker 1: be that's a clash to me. That is Oh no,
Speaker 1: it is, yeah, Israel the government and then you have
Speaker 1: tel Aviv over here, which is just you know, decadences,
Speaker 1: sodom and gomorrah. That that doesn't seem like it's going
Speaker 1: to work.
Speaker 2: Oh no, their internal situation, absolutely, that's true. I was
Speaker 2: talking more in terms of world opinion, the reason why
Speaker 2: people suddenly in the in the like people apparently like
Speaker 2: suddenly turned against the Jewish state, like I mean in
Speaker 2: terms of I mean, I mean, I mean like in
Speaker 2: America and in the EU and things. That's no, absolutely,
Speaker 2: it's uh, it feels a basket case. What's also too,
Speaker 2: it's kind of the point I was making is that
Speaker 2: the people who are kind of like perpetuating Jewish life,
Speaker 2: you know, they're these like hard line religious elements who
Speaker 2: really aren't Zionists, Like they're super hardcore like in their
Speaker 2: identitarian commitments, but not because of the Zionism. I think
Speaker 2: Zionism is nonsense, you know, and at worst they think
Speaker 2: it's you know, like blasphemous and like a kind of idolatry,
Speaker 2: you know, the it's uh, and then that's a whole
Speaker 2: other that's a whole other paradigm that's rather complicated.
Speaker 1: But one could actually say that Israel is multicultural. Yeah
Speaker 1: it is, and a multicultural society is not going is
Speaker 1: not going to last.
Speaker 2: Well that's why I like racialism on its own fate,
Speaker 2: like just on its own terms, like doesn't work, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean. Like it's not not because like
Speaker 2: racism real or something, or that it's not an essential
Speaker 2: component of identity and everything else, but that they can't
Speaker 2: just be like the exclusive basis of you know, your
Speaker 2: communitarian mandate, you know, because yeah, it just it doesn't,
Speaker 2: it doesn't, it doesn't lead anything other than other than
Speaker 2: some kind of superficial how much in neity it's you know,
Speaker 2: like a mile wide and half an inch deep. But
Speaker 2: the what's also what people have to understand is that,
Speaker 2: you know, kind of the and I'll get into briefly,
Speaker 2: I'll kind of break down what white white multis description
Speaker 2: is apropos. I think a lot of people don't truly
Speaker 2: understand what happened in the nineteen forty eight war. But
Speaker 2: you know, Israel, Israel is always had a problem with
Speaker 2: getting people who are willing to go live there, like
Speaker 2: Israel's kind of a shithole. Like I'm not again, I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that like, oh fuck those people. I'm saying,
Speaker 2: do you want to go Do you want to go
Speaker 2: live in some uh? Do you want to go live
Speaker 2: in in some unstable uh? In geostrategic terms, you know,
Speaker 2: like densely massed, like like overpopulated, uh, you know, country
Speaker 2: in the desert where you know, the cost of living
Speaker 2: basically to to to afford the kinds of luxuries we're
Speaker 2: used to in America. And you know the e or Japan,
Speaker 2: you know, can be astronomical depending on the world situation.
Speaker 2: You know, where you know it's your day to day
Speaker 2: activities are kind of limited by the security situation, which
Speaker 2: is which is one of like permanent emergency. And also
Speaker 2: again too, it's not we're not talking about We're not
Speaker 2: talking about like a guy who you know, was born
Speaker 2: in Japan or like born in Spain or something like
Speaker 2: going back to the old country. Like Israel is an
Speaker 2: ideological state, you know, like it's not. Again, it's not
Speaker 2: it's not kind of like the Jewish way of law
Speaker 2: because it's been for you know, thousands of years in
Speaker 2: the EU eas just like fully realized or something. So
Speaker 2: there was always this problem with getting people to move
Speaker 2: to Israel, you know, and that was one of the
Speaker 2: reasons for the huge push of the jag and Vanic Amendment,
Speaker 2: you know, which was obviously premised done you know, the
Speaker 2: need to treat Jews as a refugee from Soviet anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: You know, nobody actually believed that, you know, Brezhnev or
Speaker 2: and drop what was gonna subject these people to a program.
Speaker 2: The the underlying impetus was this is a way to
Speaker 2: literally get people to Israel, you know, like the Soviets,
Speaker 2: you know, basically like basically like bribing the Soviets to
Speaker 2: to the hand out visas for free you know, to
Speaker 2: any to any ethnic Jew within Soviet borders. You know,
Speaker 2: but they're but but they're you know, they're they're they're
Speaker 2: only with the understanding that their destination was Israel, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean that. And on top of that too, you know,
Speaker 2: I've always maintained one of the reasons where a Bean
Speaker 2: was murdered, uh and Ehud Barak, who's a pretty sensible guy.
Speaker 2: He's he's he's kind of a man without allies, because
Speaker 2: I mean he was he was just like a hard line,
Speaker 2: like IDF military guy. So people on the left, including
Speaker 2: you know, like Israeli labor types, don't like him. He's
Speaker 2: a hugely critical of Lekud. So these are cardcore designists
Speaker 2: don't like him. But he all but admits that, you know,
Speaker 2: Barack was, Rabine was assassinated, and Raban was essentially going
Speaker 2: to end in the permanent emergency, you know, but they
Speaker 2: but Israel sees to to exist and that emergency ever
Speaker 2: goes away, you know, Like I'm not even saying this
Speaker 2: is consciously within the within the contemplation of of of
Speaker 2: the inner party of Leekud or something I think some
Speaker 2: people understand this very well, you know, and on a
Speaker 2: very conscious level. But you know, Israel needs that. They
Speaker 2: need the they need the threat of existential siege. They
Speaker 2: need the threat or at least the the conceptual specter,
Speaker 2: realistic or not, so long as it's so long as
Speaker 2: it has credibility within the minds of you know, the
Speaker 2: national community. There this this idea that you know, they're
Speaker 2: facing oblivion unless uh, you know, they they remains, they
Speaker 2: sustain this constant vigilance that's uh facilitated by you know,
Speaker 2: this this kind of like spartan socialism. You know, that's
Speaker 2: without that, Israel doesn't have anything, you know, without that.
Speaker 2: It's it's it uh, it's it's going to like evaporate
Speaker 2: into the pages of history, you know. And I think
Speaker 2: that's inevitable, but its and it's already happening. But that's
Speaker 2: that's what that's what Nolty was getting at about Israel.
Speaker 2: And that's hugely important and I mean, just like briefly too,
Speaker 2: like for people who don't accept what accept that whole
Speaker 2: kind of the whole kind of paradigm, you know, the
Speaker 2: the nineteen forty eight war. Well, first of all, as
Speaker 2: as any Zionists, so enthusiastically remind you the Arab forces
Speaker 2: and being and the men with real comet experience, they'd
Speaker 2: either been the ops to the British Empire or they've
Speaker 2: been fighting on the side of the Third Reich, you know,
Speaker 2: and including the move the al Husseini who was had
Speaker 2: been branded a war criminal and had fled Berlin at
Speaker 2: the eleventh hour, and you know, was was basically it
Speaker 2: was basically like living a living a vagrant life of
Speaker 2: a wanted man or an tenorantal life or ether. So
Speaker 2: there's a unique vulnerability in terms of in terms of
Speaker 2: the Arab popular a Palestine and their ability to defend themselves,
Speaker 2: you know, at least contra their their's Zionists adversaries. What
Speaker 2: we think of as like the nineteen forty eight uh
Speaker 2: War or the you know, the Deliberation War or the
Speaker 2: War of Israeli Independence or whatever court history calls it,
Speaker 2: were essentially talking about Hagana's what they called Plane D,
Speaker 2: which was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Even though it
Speaker 2: was clear they were going to get their way in
Speaker 2: some sense with the UN partition, Truman was not enthusiastic
Speaker 2: about it. And ironically, the only people who were were
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union, and that rapidly they were there were
Speaker 2: Soviets rapidly reversed course on that. But that's outside the
Speaker 2: scoreboard is talking about right now. But the uh Hagana Ergun,
Speaker 2: this this stern gang, they all they all realized that
Speaker 2: even if they got even if they got like you know,
Speaker 2: fully half of uh the land in question, they still
Speaker 2: had a demographic problem. You know, they still they still
Speaker 2: have their backs against the wall in terms of you know,
Speaker 2: as regards to the bounty rationaley of what they were
Speaker 2: trying to accomplish, and that was, you know, a Jewish
Speaker 2: racial state where in you know, the entirety of a
Speaker 2: Manic Palestine was in their hands, you know, demographically, militarily
Speaker 2: and otherwise. So in in March nine and forty eight,
Speaker 2: Plan D kicks off and Zionist paramilitary elements. This was
Speaker 2: the first time they were under a unified command. Really, uh.
Speaker 2: All the Palestinian Arabs had was they had the al
Speaker 2: Kadar al Husseini and a man named Hassan Salom. They
Speaker 2: succeeded in cutting the road look can tell Aviv and Jerusalem,
Speaker 2: and had there been the forces in being to assault,
Speaker 2: they might have had the man power to seize Jerusalem,
Speaker 2: and that would have been a game changer in my opinion.
Speaker 2: But because it may, Designers leadership realized they they had
Speaker 2: to act systematically, and they had to act now, not
Speaker 2: just because of the possible Palestinian offensive to preempt what
Speaker 2: they were planning, but they discerned that there might very
Speaker 2: well be a change in the in the international situation,
Speaker 2: in particular kind of like washing the DC's mood towards
Speaker 2: the concept of a Jewish state. And you know, just
Speaker 2: as as kind of the Cold War hardened in terms
Speaker 2: of you know, the nation and alliance structure, they thought
Speaker 2: that their ambitions would probably be sacrificed. I mean, you
Speaker 2: can argue that either way. But again in terms of
Speaker 2: what in terms of in terms of Zionism as an idea,
Speaker 2: you know, and like we talked about in Noblty's view,
Speaker 2: which I think is correct, ideas of their own animating force.
Speaker 2: You know, this design Is project had to be seen
Speaker 2: through or would die, especially at that juncture. So the
Speaker 2: the Clindic of pales Dye it really went into full
Speaker 2: operation in April and May of forty eight. It had
Speaker 2: two and really only two like basic objectives. The first
Speaker 2: was to swiftly and systematically take any any installations at
Speaker 2: Vaca by the British civilian, military or infrastructural you know,
Speaker 2: to occupy them, repurposed them as the infrastructure for the
Speaker 2: NASA state and in the short term, you know, employ
Speaker 2: them and as needed and you know, the duration of
Speaker 2: the military operation at hand, which also gave them a
Speaker 2: huge advantage. They also they were able to facilitate this
Speaker 2: because there was a minority of prosign as British officers
Speaker 2: on the ground and there's still this element you know
Speaker 2: in the British ruling establishment which and people could run
Speaker 2: entire valumes under. Why that is, you know, especially in
Speaker 2: this era, especially in the era in question, when British
Speaker 2: soldiers and civilians had died at the hands of Urgun
Speaker 2: and other Zionist elements. I mean this, this completely stupefies me.
Speaker 2: But there was enough support on the ground for Zionists
Speaker 2: among the British garrison which was in the process of
Speaker 2: bugging out. You know that this this eased them the
Speaker 2: kind of tactical burden on accomplishing these things the Palestinians
Speaker 2: had no I had no such advantage, okay, and they're
Speaker 2: also again you know, the palaest what was the Palestinian leadership. Uh,
Speaker 2: they were access adjacent, you know, so they were if
Speaker 2: they were wanted men and if they weren't formally wanted,
Speaker 2: you know, they they certainly would have become targeted if
Speaker 2: they re emerged. You know. So this idea that oh
Speaker 2: the Palestinians are just you know, just they're just fools.
Speaker 2: There's just you know, savages who couldn't mobilize. That complete bullshit,
Speaker 2: regardless of anybody feels about the Palestinian cause or anything,
Speaker 2: that's just not that this is not true. The second
Speaker 2: and the most important obviously aspects or ambition of a
Speaker 2: plant d and of the war. Generally, it was to
Speaker 2: ethnically cleanse what was to be the future Jewish state
Speaker 2: of as many Palestinians as possible. The main direct action
Speaker 2: element of the Zionis was Hagana, which had several brigrides.
Speaker 2: They had several brigades. Each each brigade was assigned a
Speaker 2: village or a township to occupy, and almost all of
Speaker 2: these villages were ordered to be destroyed. And you know,
Speaker 2: the people, the people expelled or or outright killed, and uh,
Speaker 2: some of these uh. This led to some difficult situations,
Speaker 2: especially in mixed areas where there wasn't great support for
Speaker 2: the Zionist cause. I think for obvious reasons, where you know,
Speaker 2: you had you had, Zion's paramilitary is literally extricating people's
Speaker 2: Arab neighbors. In some cases they're inner marriages and things,
Speaker 2: you know, like very ugly stuff. There was the most uh,
Speaker 2: what really was kind of a game changer in terms
Speaker 2: of in terms of world opinion as well as in
Speaker 2: in terms of what we truly radicalized, not just the
Speaker 2: Palestinians that ground, but sympathetic Arab regimes, especially those populated
Speaker 2: by you know, by Sunnies, and you know, Palestine is
Speaker 2: a Sunni majority. April twentieth, auspicious date, nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 2: the dry Yasin massacre and Haifa had Gana assaulted Haifa
Speaker 2: and everybody, everybody was everybody was killed, regardless of age, sex,
Speaker 2: overall health, you know, women and children, it didn't matter.
Speaker 2: And it was it was very it was very chaotic.
Speaker 2: There's some reports of trophy taking from the dead, mumulation
Speaker 2: of the dead, like people taking noses and ears. There
Speaker 2: were reports that were phileral substantiated of of of young
Speaker 2: girls and women being raped. This was not This was
Speaker 2: not some well executed you know, like clean kind of
Speaker 2: like idef operation or something. Okay, it was. It was
Speaker 2: an ugly and brutal rasc and cree in all the
Speaker 2: worst ways. And the response to that was as this
Speaker 2: kind of as world opinion kind of became outraged by this,
Speaker 2: you know, Desigonist leadership, they took to these kinds of
Speaker 2: they took to these sort of performative endeavors of you know,
Speaker 2: publicly encouraging Palestinians to remain in these mixed areas, you know,
Speaker 2: saying you know, you'll have come to any harm, and
Speaker 2: you know, everybody's rights are going to be honored in
Speaker 2: the future Jewish state. I mean, which was I mean,
Speaker 2: even if that was sincere on the art of political cadres,
Speaker 2: I do not reason I think it was. But I mean,
Speaker 2: let's say it was. You know, the situation on the
Speaker 2: ground was what it was, and it had its own
Speaker 2: momentum and it couldn't be stopped at that point in
Speaker 2: my opinion, you know. But all told, all told, about
Speaker 2: three quarters of a million Palestinians were you know, expelled
Speaker 2: from the land. You know, probably about twenty thousand people
Speaker 2: were killed outright. And again this was not excluding the
Speaker 2: military age males. Quite the contrary. It was, you know,
Speaker 2: categorically but that you know, the h and again the
Speaker 2: the British had an arms embargo on Mandate Palestine. Truman
Speaker 2: again was no friends of the Zionist regime. I mean,
Speaker 2: even after you know, victory was declared in May of
Speaker 2: forty eight, Truman issued it the fact of recognition that
Speaker 2: you know of the zign Oft state, you know, but
Speaker 2: he refused a dejiree acknowledgment of their legitimacy. The Soviet
Speaker 2: Union was the first state to provide that. And the
Speaker 2: designist elements in the ground, you know, Haganah first among them.
Speaker 2: They'd gotten the small arms that they were able to
Speaker 2: procure real largely from the East Block, you know. And
Speaker 2: it goes to show you how the reason why Moscow
Speaker 2: envisioned Israel Zionist Israel, is being adjacent to them ideologically,
Speaker 2: I mean part of it is. I mean it is
Speaker 2: because again I mean an old these points you know,
Speaker 2: Zionism wasn't is the progeny of the same nexis of
Speaker 2: causation as where the other you know, great European ideologies
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century. I mean, I believe where Stalin
Speaker 2: was sitting, he probably viewed he probably viewed the treatment
Speaker 2: of the Palestinians and the way that he viewed his
Speaker 2: own treatment to the nationalities, and well, you know this,
Speaker 2: this is a way of creating a tabula rocess that
Speaker 2: you know, some kind of Israeli socialism can be built,
Speaker 2: you know. And the reason why, and again I mean
Speaker 2: the the reason why that was an idea that could
Speaker 2: be entertained, you know, and Stalin was the consummate realist
Speaker 2: and it wasn't plumbing prone to flights of fantasy. It
Speaker 2: made sense why you would think that, you know, but
Speaker 2: ultimately developed you know again too, with the East Block
Speaker 2: being uh, you know, rapidly anti Zionists, and and the
Speaker 2: DDR carrying on and like literally an active war against
Speaker 2: the Jewish state, you know, I think that, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's that's demonstrative of Nolty's point two. I mean, all
Speaker 2: all this stuff, I don't see how people can reject
Speaker 2: the kind of the kind of Hegelian view of history.
Speaker 2: I mean, with some qualifications, obviously, when they look at
Speaker 2: how these things actually developed, you know, I mean, we're
Speaker 2: not We're not just talking about arguments between historians and
Speaker 2: kind of academic I've retier cloisters, you know, we're talking
Speaker 2: about you know, war and peace phenomenon that actually developed
Speaker 2: and was just positive and in terms of the outcome of.
Speaker 1: The Old War.
Speaker 2: It's uh, you know, and I think one of the uh,
Speaker 2: one of the reasons, you know, one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why it was such a parious state, you know, was
Speaker 2: was for that reason. It wasn't just because you know,
Speaker 2: in order to it was a it was a convenient
Speaker 2: sort of ideological framing for the Eastern Block to say,
Speaker 2: you know, oh, this is this is this is a
Speaker 2: this is a fascist state like the bundest Republic, but
Speaker 2: even worse because it's premised that overtly you know, racialist principles.
Speaker 2: You know, it was because on some level everybody discerned
Speaker 2: that there was something unseemly about Zionism, you know that
Speaker 2: not not because like it's Jewish or not not because
Speaker 2: you know of anything intrinsic to the Jewish character. If
Speaker 2: people make that case that they want, I'm saying, that's
Speaker 2: not what that that's not why it was a kind
Speaker 2: of natural target the Soviet propaganda. It's because the the
Speaker 2: first half of the twentieth century was it was was
Speaker 2: catastrophic that was left saying, okay, and even somebody who
Speaker 2: doesn't accept in an ethical or or conceptual terms, you know,
Speaker 2: the claims the International War Crimes Tribunal Nuremberg or the
Speaker 2: claims of you know, coreni historians who posit this, you know,
Speaker 2: thunder Big theory of Germany and in folcdof Hitler is
Speaker 2: as some kind of a it's some going to stand
Speaker 2: in for Lucifer. Even somebody doesn't accept that at all,
Speaker 2: you know, saying you've got to accept this sort of
Speaker 2: exceptional state that's premised on this sort of like rabid
Speaker 2: racial nationalism, the structures of which, although superficially similar to
Speaker 2: familiar ones, are basically all oriented towards, you know, the
Speaker 2: maintenance of this totally abnormal, you know, sociological and military paradigm.
Speaker 2: You just got to accept all this, you know, because
Speaker 2: it's essential going to you know, these uh, and the
Speaker 2: reasons presented are things that you know kind of like
Speaker 2: remind people the darkest kind of like the darkest times,
Speaker 2: the Inner War years, and and what was suggested is
Speaker 2: as being necessary for the survival of the race or
Speaker 2: or the assent in working class or whatever else. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not something that people wanted to think about, you know,
Speaker 2: and it's not something that people felt comfortable with, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of raising at the banner of legitimacy, regardless of
Speaker 2: they felt about or if they had any opinion about,
Speaker 2: you know, like Jewish people and Zionism. And that's some
Speaker 2: and that's also something Nolty said in one of his
Speaker 2: last collection of essays. He said that ultimately, you know,
Speaker 2: Zionism has to either fulfill it's sort of internal mission,
Speaker 2: you know, as a monumental idea. It's not historically contingent,
Speaker 2: you know, because Nulty agreed with Carl Schmid in that
Speaker 2: regard and Heideger you know, I I I ideas of
Speaker 2: their own self attained revelation, you know, and that's either
Speaker 2: realized or it's not. And in the case of Israel,
Speaker 2: that's only realized really by some kind of an end
Speaker 2: sigue and the end in in in in context, that
Speaker 2: would that would basically mean, you know, the the annihilation
Speaker 2: of the Palestinians as a people, you know, is that
Speaker 2: possible today? I mean physically, yeah, is there the political
Speaker 2: will there. I mean to your point about Israel being
Speaker 2: I mean not to sound like some sort of like
Speaker 2: Marxist or something, but is is it? Is it fatally
Speaker 2: compromised by its own internal contradictions? Like yeah, I think
Speaker 2: actually maybe it is. But even were it not, you know,
Speaker 2: I think, uh, I don't think they could. Uh I
Speaker 2: don't think. I don't think the Israelis can start categorically
Speaker 2: exterminating the people at Gaza any more than in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty resident could have assaulted Poland, you know, like the
Speaker 2: Soviets did Hungary in fifty six, Like this would have
Speaker 2: been like unthinkable considering the state of not even just
Speaker 2: like world opinion. It's like conceptually like what people can tolerate,
Speaker 2: you know, morally, But.
Speaker 1: It's also I mean, you talk about it being an anachronism.
Speaker 1: It seems like, you know, one hundred million people were
Speaker 1: killed in the first half of the century to prevent
Speaker 1: states like Israel from existing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, exactly. So it's this case of special pleading
Speaker 2: where it's like, oh, but you know this is the
Speaker 2: case of this is the case of Israel, because you know,
Speaker 2: there's all these exceptional circumstances that threaten it, but without
Speaker 2: you know, without without the neum narrative having like truly
Speaker 2: kind of punctuated cachet in the collective memory, Like yeah,
Speaker 2: that just doesn't the people that that that means nothing
Speaker 2: to people. So yeah, exactly exactly, like why And that's
Speaker 2: the point it make of people too, you know, like
Speaker 2: when people like me or you know, some of our
Speaker 2: right wing Palestinian and Iranian and Lebanese friends, when they
Speaker 2: raise the issue is raelly race racialism, they're not saying like, oh,
Speaker 2: Israel is they're real racialists. What they're saying is that
Speaker 2: the regime tells you that everything Israel does is utterly
Speaker 2: unacceptable in all cases, but Israel, Like that's the point,
Speaker 2: Like the point isn't on its own terms, like is
Speaker 2: racism bad? That that's totally that there's nothing to do
Speaker 2: with it. It's why this special pleading and you know,
Speaker 2: and and and even and and even notwithstanding that, like
Speaker 2: why is this such an impat narrative? You know, like
Speaker 2: you can't make the claim like people did during the
Speaker 2: Cold War, that this is an absolute strategic necessity because
Speaker 2: for better or worse, you know, America was in the
Speaker 2: Cold War and its enemies were you know, the client
Speaker 2: states of the Soviet Union, which were Israel's enemies. Now,
Speaker 2: how much that over to the fact of America provoking
Speaker 2: these circumstances and not practicing balanced diplomacy and regardless whether
Speaker 2: the Cold or Whipment fought or not, Like that's not
Speaker 2: important because like America was in the Cold War and
Speaker 2: take like nineteen sixty seven or seventy three, you know,
Speaker 2: like the die was cast. You know, it's not as
Speaker 2: if like the brakes could be put on the geo
Speaker 2: strategic situation as it had developed. So yeah, there's you're
Speaker 2: absolutely right. Yeah, that's about There's some other stuff want
Speaker 2: to take up, but again it's it's it's I kind
Speaker 2: of want to conclude this like multi discussion, so I
Speaker 2: want to say that for next time I want to
Speaker 2: do I haven't decided yet. I'm I'm I'm rereading the
Speaker 2: Sims Excuse me, I'm sorry biography of Hitler, which raises
Speaker 2: really important concepts, including you know, Hitler contract Roosevelt, and
Speaker 2: Hitler's understanding of America as not just you know, Germany's
Speaker 2: primary addressary, but also of you know, the like like
Speaker 2: the future of this planet hinging on you know, the
Speaker 2: ability of civilizations to constitute themselves as superpowers, and how
Speaker 2: like Europe is coming up short, you know, in every
Speaker 2: in every category of criteria contra America. And this wasn't
Speaker 2: just a question of a practical of a military ambition
Speaker 2: or or a practical war planning and things that it
Speaker 2: had to do with the entirety of Europe's historical mission
Speaker 2: and which would, in Hitler's mind, would either succeed or
Speaker 2: Europe would simply perish. And to understand that is essential
Speaker 2: understanding Hitler and the war. It's essential understanding Roosevelt. And
Speaker 2: that that the fact that Roseneld and Hitler and their
Speaker 2: radio addresses were always like in dialogue with each other,
Speaker 2: you know, not with Churchill, not with Stalin, not you know,
Speaker 2: with not with the world generally, so we could I
Speaker 2: was playing with.
Speaker 1: A you wanna do you wanna do? Uh do a
Speaker 1: few of those with me?
Speaker 2: And uh, yeah, that's what I's getting at. I think
Speaker 2: it'd be better suited to a series that we do
Speaker 2: rather than me just like doing it on the podcast.
Speaker 2: But I'd also want to I also don't want to
Speaker 2: tell your business in terms of no.
Speaker 1: No, that sounds great and Yeah, I wanted to mention
Speaker 1: everyone to hear this too. Thomas dropped uh the first
Speaker 1: episode of season two of Mind Phaser with Jay Benden
Speaker 1: and yeah as a banger. Yeah that was good, Thank
Speaker 1: you man.
Speaker 2: The Burden's a prince man like he's he's a He's
Speaker 2: a great guy and a great kind creator. He's also
Speaker 2: a dear friend and he's nice to everybody. Always really
Speaker 2: likes his appearances. Man, So that helps me obviously.
Speaker 1: He's uh, he's also he doesn't allow himself to be
Speaker 1: trapped inside a box. He has a lot of different influences,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he really cares what anybody thinks
Speaker 1: about you know, about any of them either. He's just
Speaker 1: you know, he has his opinions and I think they're solid.
Speaker 2: No, he's a great guy, man, he really is. I
Speaker 2: can't I can't. I can't praise him effusively enough. Yeah, No,
Speaker 2: this is great man. Thanks again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll plan that. We'll plan that out privately,
Speaker 1: and yeah, hit some plugs real quick and while on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the best place to find me is in my website.
Speaker 2: It's Thomas seven seven seven dot com number seven hl
Speaker 2: A S seven seven seven dot com. If you're gonna
Speaker 2: like find that's the link to my Twitter. It's a
Speaker 2: link to my Instagram, it's a link to my substick,
Speaker 2: it's a link to my t gram and just like
Speaker 2: random other stuffs on there. But uh, the substick is
Speaker 2: where the pot is. It's capital R E A L
Speaker 2: underscore Thomas seven seven seven. That's substack dot com. Because
Speaker 2: we've launched season two of My Phaser, I'm gonna make
Speaker 2: the season one content free. I'm gonna I'm probably gonna
Speaker 2: do that on Monday, like like all season one, you'll
Speaker 2: be able to ask it for free. I may or
Speaker 2: may not upload it to YouTube or rumble, but for
Speaker 2: now you can, Like you don't need any special app
Speaker 2: for any thing you can just listen on. Just go
Speaker 2: go to substack dot com and anything that's that's that's
Speaker 2: not by a paywall. I mean you can just click
Speaker 2: it and listen to it. But yeah, that's that's that's
Speaker 2: what I got.
Speaker 1: All right, until the next time, Thank you as all
Speaker 1: human