Speaker 1: Hey, everyone looks like I got a guest with me today.
Speaker 1: What's up? Thomas?
Speaker 2: Hey? How are you man?
Speaker 1: Doing good? Doing good? Just log down and waiting for
Speaker 1: everybody to uh catch up here? How's your how's your
Speaker 1: Sunday gone?
Speaker 2: It's going fine?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 2: I realize that kind of a bought on Sunday. I
Speaker 2: kind of go into repose, you know, So don't take
Speaker 2: a person.
Speaker 1: That's fine, no problem. Are we watching a movie tonight.
Speaker 2: I'll see what I feel depending on how long this goes.
Speaker 2: How's that. I don't mean to be flaky, but I'm okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: no problem. My level's gonna dirty. But we'll go as
Speaker 2: long as you watch on the stream.
Speaker 1: Sure, okay, cool. So I wanted to have you on today.
Speaker 1: To this whole occupation regime that we've been that we've
Speaker 1: been suffering. There's a lot of people who, once they discover,
Speaker 1: you know, things like the JQ and things like that,
Speaker 1: they they believe that everyone that the world is basically
Speaker 1: fallen to it, and that it controls everyone, and to
Speaker 1: the point where they don't think that an independent like country,
Speaker 1: a country could actually have a Jewish population and organized
Speaker 1: Jewish population and not be controlled by them, So I guess,
Speaker 1: you know, first this came up, this just a whole
Speaker 1: Russia thing yesterday because apparently Putin is Putin has been
Speaker 1: called habadnik how without even addressing the Russian thing, because
Speaker 1: I think it's stupid the idea that a country cannot
Speaker 1: have an organized Jewish population and still be a country
Speaker 1: that isn't run by them. How does that in your head?
Speaker 1: How does that work?
Speaker 2: Well? The problem is that lay people. I don't like
Speaker 2: that terminology, but I can't think of a better way
Speaker 2: to characterize it. They don't understand politics, and they don't
Speaker 2: understand historical processes, and they don't understand the anthropological aspects
Speaker 2: of these things. It's like these guys who, you know what.
Speaker 2: I don't know to be too hard on Alex Jones,
Speaker 2: because I think in some ways he does good things.
Speaker 2: And I'd rather I've got to wonder to convincing normies
Speaker 2: of anything. But I'd way rather people can consume that kind
Speaker 2: of stuff than say, like Fox News. But even like
Speaker 2: a bunch of Alex Jones fanboys, they'll claim stuff like
Speaker 2: the Cold War or with some sort of alleged main
Speaker 2: and I mean that's just not how a human society
Speaker 2: at scale worse, and that's not how humans interface with technology.
Speaker 2: You know, you don't you know, you know, you don't
Speaker 2: kill off one hundreds of thousands of people, like pretending
Speaker 2: to wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union, and you don't.
Speaker 2: You don't devise weapons platforms that cost billions and billions
Speaker 2: of dollars at the end of the day, that deploy
Speaker 2: to orbital space and can wipe out entire cities so
Speaker 2: that you can pretend that you're fighting some sort of
Speaker 2: ideological conflict to fool people. I mean, if you think that,
Speaker 2: you're a complete idiot. But I mean more people think
Speaker 2: that way than you might suspect, because the variables are
Speaker 2: too complex, or they're too nuanced, or there's an intuition
Speaker 2: required to kind of perceive these things that's just beyond them.
Speaker 2: So their view is that the world's organized like their
Speaker 2: workplace or something, where intercende rivalries don't compromise the core
Speaker 2: mission of the firm or something, and ordinary people just
Speaker 2: subject to these designs of more powerful people. It's like
Speaker 2: a symbolance character the way things really are. And I
Speaker 2: think when people think about desionism, their idea such that
Speaker 2: they can perceive it at all, is that Jews are
Speaker 2: bad guys or they're like rich guys who are some
Speaker 2: sort of machiavellian global elite who just control everything like
Speaker 2: some sort of like some sort of majority shareholder population
Speaker 2: and a big company, you know. And like I said,
Speaker 2: it's it's a case of people not understanding of human
Speaker 2: population is in or act, and how conceptual horizons of
Speaker 2: respective populations collide, and how even people who don't necessarily
Speaker 2: have personal enmity towards one another or some sort of
Speaker 2: horrible cultural clash, and how they live among each other.
Speaker 2: Sometimes the existence of one has a deleterious effect on
Speaker 2: the way of life that they're tofore dominant culture, and
Speaker 2: that leads to violence. I mean, honestly, there's that aspect
Speaker 2: in post Soviet Russia between Slavs and Jews. I don't
Speaker 2: think those Slavs hate Jews or vice versa. I think
Speaker 2: they look down on each other, okay, but they don't
Speaker 2: look at each other the way, you know, like white
Speaker 2: folks and blacks did during like the worst days that
Speaker 2: like the sixties and early nineties, And they don't look
Speaker 2: at each other the way like Palestinians and Israeli's new.
Speaker 2: You know, people who think that like politics has to
Speaker 2: do with like people you personally don't like, Like that
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with it either, you know. But
Speaker 2: there's the same people too think that, Like the grand
Speaker 2: question is, like there's too many Mexicans and I don't
Speaker 2: want to live by black people, like neither one of
Speaker 2: which is a political problem. There's political actions of both
Speaker 2: of those things, but those are social problems. You know.
Speaker 2: This is exactly why you're an idiot if you pretend that,
Speaker 2: like people voting somehow dictates the course of actual event
Speaker 2: to the disposition of elites, Like even if there was
Speaker 2: some ethical characteristic to mass enfranchisement, which there isn't, right,
Speaker 2: even if there was, these people can't understand the subject matter,
Speaker 2: So what it would be like it'd be like consulting
Speaker 2: people who can't do math on how to like design
Speaker 2: and build a bridge that will be able to bear
Speaker 2: a load or something. You know. It's that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: And people, particularly people born after the Cold War. I'm
Speaker 2: not transfing young people at all. I don't do that,
Speaker 2: and I think young people with scale actually have a
Speaker 2: lot of insights older people don't. But I think people
Speaker 2: unless they unless they have been like insinuating to the culture,
Speaker 2: or they're kind of part of the minority. It's a
Speaker 2: growing minority, but it's still the minority of people who
Speaker 2: like travel a lot and like spend time in the
Speaker 2: oldest block. They don't understand the Russians, Like they just don't.
Speaker 2: But they think like Russia is like the EU, but
Speaker 2: they're just kind of different. Or they got this idea
Speaker 2: that Russians are these kinds of malicious bad guys, but
Speaker 2: they don't understand that there's a really tragic and really
Speaker 2: dysfunctional relationship between the Jews and the majority there. You know,
Speaker 2: like sold the needs and wrote an entire book on that.
Speaker 2: This characterized the Soviet Union for seven years. They literally
Speaker 2: went to war with Israel. You know, the a catalyzing moment.
Speaker 2: One of the major plane hijackings, one of the few
Speaker 2: were successful. Direct action team was able to liberate the
Speaker 2: aircraft without killing all the hostages. It was an early
Speaker 2: success at GSG nine. They were like the bundesfair like
Speaker 2: counter terrorism unit. It was not surprising that the crowds
Speaker 2: did this well. Okay, but flight Leutan's a flight one
Speaker 2: eighty one. It was hijacked by the Popular Front Floration
Speaker 2: of Palestine in general command. They're the same guy as
Speaker 2: he blew up the discotheque in West Berlin. But interestingly,
Speaker 2: and people would know this, it was like three men
Speaker 2: and a woman who were the hijacked team. And that
Speaker 2: was the first time anybody ever wore like a shade
Speaker 2: rivera vessage on their shirt, like the PFLP did that
Speaker 2: because they were saying that, like, you know, Palestine's the
Speaker 2: front line of the struggle against you know, capitalism, you know,
Speaker 2: and like the Jews of these are oppress or standard
Speaker 2: bearers of of you know, America, you know. And uh, incidentally,
Speaker 2: that's why guys like Horseta Mahler and other like national
Speaker 2: Socialist Partisans, you know, we're involved with like the Wrolth
Speaker 2: Army for action and things. But it was understood during
Speaker 2: the Cold War, like the mortal enemies of Israel are
Speaker 2: the East Block, Okay, I mean this one without saying
Speaker 2: everybody understood that there, you know, basically, like the main
Speaker 2: enemy of Jewry and political terms is Russia. Okay. It
Speaker 2: was without saying, you know, and that that didn't go
Speaker 2: away after the Cold War and the Ukraine War. I
Speaker 2: the enemies of the Russian Federation, which show me the
Speaker 2: bit to do that. Anyway, Like NATO was looking for
Speaker 2: another make Ork deployment, but it was mainly returned to
Speaker 2: serve because the Russian Federation deployed to Syria and and
Speaker 2: routed the Israelis. You know, Russia's allied with his Blah.
Speaker 2: They were allied with a sad they sold out a
Speaker 2: sod that the Russians do. But I don't really, I
Speaker 2: don't really understand how unless you're a complete idiot, like
Speaker 2: you couldn't notice that, you know, and so to you
Speaker 2: like Putin was just kidding when the parts of the
Speaker 2: Russian Federation deployed, you know, basically to provide combined arms
Speaker 2: or Hesblah and the Syrian Arab army against the Ief
Speaker 2: and their allies. And then this guy who's like randomly,
Speaker 2: this Jewish zigon is somehow gets installed in Ukraine and
Speaker 2: then suddenly there's like this massive escalation. That's just a coincidence.
Speaker 2: But like Putin actually loves Israel and their friends. I mean,
Speaker 2: I that's so stupid. I'm not gonna entertain it, Okay,
Speaker 2: I mean it's I don't argue with people like that
Speaker 2: the Semmons don't argue with people who tell me that
Speaker 2: like the when landing was fake or that like nine
Speaker 2: to one was fake. I mean, you're you're I mean
Speaker 2: you're you're you're you're mentally retarded if you think that way.
Speaker 2: But yeah, nad, I mean that's why. But the same
Speaker 2: reason people, I mean, I don't really try my aps
Speaker 2: say because like generally I don't respect them, Like the
Speaker 2: only ops I respected in my life, like we're all
Speaker 2: dead by now, like the ones that it's just now,
Speaker 2: like just don't cut it. But like these internet I get,
Speaker 2: I get like hate ship all the time and like
Speaker 2: generally don't read it, but occasionally they do and like, uh,
Speaker 2: I think I don't know exactly what they were talking about.
Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to personalize this, but like it's
Speaker 2: it's illustrated. Like uh, it's like Artie Chick. I don't
Speaker 2: want to Hyde Park. She's like the Jewish broad. I mean,
Speaker 2: she she's cool. She's a friend of mine, you know,
Speaker 2: like sometimes we go off for drinks or something and
Speaker 2: I'm you know, uh, she knows some of the same
Speaker 2: people that do we reacha Chicago, but you know, she
Speaker 2: like pulls up some selfies with me, which is fine.
Speaker 2: You know. I like it when girls want to take photos
Speaker 2: of me and people are like, you're a phony because
Speaker 2: you like don't hate Jews. I'm like, well, why would
Speaker 2: I hate Jews? They around like hating people, Like what
Speaker 2: what does that even mean? You know? Like I I
Speaker 2: walk around, I'm like, it's hack mode, and I'm like,
Speaker 2: this person's my enemy, and political terms, I'm gonna go
Speaker 2: either house or like murder them, Like, I.
Speaker 1: Mean what, well, it also it's you becoming them. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have a genuine hatred of people who they consider
Speaker 1: to be their enemies.
Speaker 2: And it's also insane. I mean, for the record, this
Speaker 2: chicks like anti Zionist. That's only way in common, you know,
Speaker 2: but like it's I mean, obviously okay, otherwise why would
Speaker 2: she associate with me? But but the point is, like,
Speaker 2: you know, it's that you feel like a rational person.
Speaker 2: I mean, sitting around hating people's unmanly anyway, It's not
Speaker 2: that's not what a rational men do. It's unerryan, it's unchristian.
Speaker 2: But it's also now politics are about, you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: God forbid, uh, God forbid if some sort of early
Speaker 2: nineties or like nineteen sixty eight situation jumped off here
Speaker 2: and like black folks were gutting for me for the
Speaker 2: color of my skin. I would not hesitate to like
Speaker 2: walk and low and throw shots they have them to
Speaker 2: defend myself. That doesn't mean like I hate the black guys.
Speaker 2: I know, like again, like why why was the one
Speaker 2: thing going to do with the other? You know, does
Speaker 2: that mean that your country goes to war, You're only
Speaker 2: gonna answer the call if like you personally hate the
Speaker 2: people down range of your field of fire. That's only
Speaker 2: like little girls think about stuff. Yeah, you know.
Speaker 1: It also takes away from the historic respect of one's enemy, that.
Speaker 2: Too, Yeah yeah, well yeah, it's not personal. I mean,
Speaker 2: I get a. I mean, it's for better or worse,
Speaker 2: the natural state of the of this world is conflict.
Speaker 2: Conflicts endemic. I mean, like I'm like saying, I mean,
Speaker 2: general warfare at scale is rare, but conflict is endemic.
Speaker 2: And I mean that's it's literally authored into every aspect
Speaker 2: of sociological existence. And it wouldn't make any sense to
Speaker 2: be upset about that. I mean, the kinds of people
Speaker 2: who can't accept reality are these kinds of ridiculous. You know, uh,
Speaker 2: progressive types who thankfully are mostly gonna die off with
Speaker 2: the elder generation. But they're the only people who think
Speaker 2: it's incorrect that the world is this way, and we've
Speaker 2: got social engineer that away. You know, you're you're claim
Speaker 2: to be right winging, but your wholele kink is like
Speaker 2: I hate X, Y, and Z people and that's what
Speaker 2: informs my politics, is like I just hate people like this,
Speaker 2: you know, like I said, that's not the way, that's
Speaker 2: not the way. That's unmanly, aside from the fact it's
Speaker 2: got nothing to do with existential realities.
Speaker 1: Well, here's a question, and I'll as somebody who maybe
Speaker 1: may be Catholic but also has a pretty good education
Speaker 1: in Calvinist theology. So hate is always irrational. God made
Speaker 1: a mistake by providing that particular emotion. God provided everything,
Speaker 1: and some things are a sin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So that's like saying that, like God approves of
Speaker 2: rape because like men rape women at war. You know,
Speaker 2: like that's not you know what under saying Christianity. If
Speaker 2: that's the way you think about it. Yeah, if there
Speaker 2: was no sin, there'd be like no point to human
Speaker 2: what if and there there'll also be no piety and
Speaker 2: there'd be no cele asian.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So one of the things I wanted to say
Speaker 1: about Russia was I have a friend he's been on
Speaker 1: the show a couple of times, Ferris Modad. He's he's
Speaker 1: from Lebanon originally, he lives in Britain, in England now.
Speaker 1: And something he said about Putin was Putin can accept
Speaker 1: the fact that there are people in his country that
Speaker 1: are talking about communism. People can accept the Putin can
Speaker 1: accept the fact that there are people in his country
Speaker 1: even talking about fascism, but Putin cannot accept that there
Speaker 1: is anyone promoting liberalism in his country. He goes when Putin,
Speaker 1: when people start to promote liberalism, which is probably the
Speaker 1: most derascinating and chaos inducing system, he has to put
Speaker 1: that person down.
Speaker 2: He has to be yeah, what's also people don't understand,
Speaker 2: like the Russians are anti high Nazi, so they must
Speaker 2: like Zionism or like liberals. It's like, do you realize
Speaker 2: these people lost one in six of their population in
Speaker 2: four years, so twenty five million of them went down
Speaker 2: fighting the German Reich, and they supposed to be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we we love Nazism. It's like you fucking retarded. I mean,
Speaker 2: like what like how else? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why
Speaker 2: the actual fuck would the Russians like national socialism or
Speaker 2: think they're like that's cool, like that's there. It makes
Speaker 2: perfect sense the Ivans to hold out the German Reich
Speaker 2: as they're like ultimate like Toluric evil. That makes perfect sense.
Speaker 2: Like what else would they how else do they conceptualize it?
Speaker 2: You know, but it's it's not it's not that, it's
Speaker 2: not there Russians who built Holocaust music, you knows, it's
Speaker 2: not that Russians do. When the Russians conquered the the
Speaker 2: Eastern occupation zone, they encouraged the nozal Vokes Army to
Speaker 2: preserve the traditions of the Wehrmacht. They said, we're not
Speaker 2: We're not. We're not gonna build them a more old jewelry.
Speaker 2: We we lost twenty million people fighting the fascists. We're
Speaker 2: the victims of fascism. You know, they went to war
Speaker 2: with Israel. You know, you can't pull that card that,
Speaker 2: you know, stupid on purpose card that because the Russians
Speaker 2: don't they don't like the German Reich and they don't
Speaker 2: appreciate it. When he's like confused white in words in
Speaker 2: Ukraine like pretend that they're Nazis by like fighting for
Speaker 2: greater Judea. You know, the fact that the Russians don't
Speaker 2: appreciate that doesn't like make them a bunch of like
Speaker 2: anti fascist liberals. But again, I mean, some people are
Speaker 2: too stupid to be alive, and the people who propose
Speaker 2: those things constitute that class.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think people see that Putin would go
Speaker 1: out of his way to protect the Jewish population in
Speaker 1: his country, which is also something that Asad did, which
Speaker 1: is also which is also something that Iran does right now.
Speaker 1: So I guess if you do that to some people,
Speaker 1: that means that you have to you're bowing down to
Speaker 1: them they somehow control you. It just doesn't make it
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense if you've
Speaker 1: bought into these people can control or in control of everything.
Speaker 2: Well, It's like I said, that's why, that's why most
Speaker 2: most Normanies like shouldn't try and understand these things, because
Speaker 2: apparently they're not capable. I also think that most people like,
Speaker 2: for better or worse, I kind of a weird upbring
Speaker 2: because again, you know, like my mom was a rich
Speaker 2: kid from La. My dad was like this third port
Speaker 2: Oki who wounded up becoming very successful. But I'm kind
Speaker 2: of like as a red Niggish person who grew up
Speaker 2: in Chicago and specifically I grew up in like a
Speaker 2: very Jewish hood. Okay, I was like around these people
Speaker 2: my whole life. I'm like still around them. Like that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean I have like any grand insight. But when
Speaker 2: there's guys from like the middle of nowhere or from
Speaker 2: like mall of America geography and nowhere places, they developed
Speaker 2: this kind of like weird idea of like Jews that's
Speaker 2: like no basis in reality. You know. This goes for
Speaker 2: like the megatures retards who think Jews are like these
Speaker 2: like Viking super rians who like love democracy or whatever.
Speaker 2: And it goes to these guys who think that they're
Speaker 2: like these like super being bad guys control everything, like
Speaker 2: they don't understand them as a people. I think that
Speaker 2: I do. I think frankly, that's part of it, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I was talking to doctor Johnson the other day,
Speaker 1: Matthew R. F Al Johnson and him just like I
Speaker 1: mean that part of Jersey he grew up in was
Speaker 1: Jewish and Italian same people. Yeah, yeah, and he and
Speaker 1: he says, he says this, He goes, when I'm talking
Speaker 1: about jewelry, I'm not talking about my dentist. I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about I'm talking about an organize. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: an organization, A an inclination. A. Yeah, he goes. Something
Speaker 1: that something that can't just be laid off on one person.
Speaker 1: It's something you know, and you know we're covering. You know,
Speaker 1: so wrote wrote the book on this and gave us
Speaker 1: a whole history of one country and how they dealt
Speaker 1: with it, and we're covering this. And even even Solisan
Speaker 1: shows that early in the book, in the Scheeddel system,
Speaker 1: that it was five percent of the population of that
Speaker 1: system that had any power, any wealth, anything, and they
Speaker 1: were just as apt to destroy or oppress their own
Speaker 1: people as they were anyone else.
Speaker 2: People also don't understand that. I mean, they don't understand.
Speaker 2: I mean, they don't understand the political I mean, you're
Speaker 2: talking about impersonal forces of a historical nature at literally
Speaker 2: global scale. You know, it's just it's just it'd be
Speaker 2: like it'd be like saying it'd be like it'd be
Speaker 2: like judging a variable in economics, or like uh, or
Speaker 2: like a scale economic actor by how this guy you
Speaker 2: know spends his money and invests like it's not that's
Speaker 2: not what we're talking about, you know, And it's maybe
Speaker 2: it's also the reason why it failed. In these like
Speaker 2: American Renaissance types act like Asians or some super race.
Speaker 2: They don't commit crimes. It's like, you know, your enemy
Speaker 2: in political terms is your enemy because him asserting his
Speaker 2: own politics constituents or repudiation of your way of life.
Speaker 2: Like maybe this population are a bunch of great guys
Speaker 2: and they're saintly or maybe they're like reprobate savages and criminals.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter because that's not how we judge politics.
Speaker 2: I don't want to be ruled by the Chinese because
Speaker 2: they don't go out and steal cars, you know that.
Speaker 2: And if you think about it that way again, you're
Speaker 2: you're you're a bourgeois simpleton, you know. Well, I mean
Speaker 2: it's guys or maybe maybe or maybe they're terrible people. Generally,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter because Jewish politics consumes are repudiation of
Speaker 2: my way of life. What are the kind of guys
Speaker 2: I don't want to have over for cocktails or to
Speaker 2: talk about women? In the NFL or whether they're like
Speaker 2: guys who are like scumbags and I can't stand the
Speaker 2: sight of that's totally irrelevant.
Speaker 1: The so you can look at things like this. I
Speaker 1: love reading the Jerusalem Post because they basically will tell you.
Speaker 1: It's almost like it's like, is that old joke about
Speaker 1: you see a headline or you read something in a
Speaker 1: Jewish periodical. It's like, okay, is this the Daily Forward
Speaker 1: or the Daily Stormer? I can't tell, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: So they had this article and shout out to the
Speaker 1: guys on the Third Rail podcast for pointing this out.
Speaker 1: It's from two weeks ago. It says, if New York
Speaker 1: falls to country follows, is the future of American Jewry
Speaker 1: at risk? And they're talking to this rabbi, doctor Hank Scheimkoff,
Speaker 1: and this is what he says. Okay, he says. This
Speaker 1: is the way they describe him. Shimkoff has worked on
Speaker 1: over seven hundred political campaigns in fourteen countries, in four continents,
Speaker 1: and in forty four US states. Some names among his
Speaker 1: previous clientele Bill Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Mexican President Leonel Fernandez.
Speaker 1: People read that and it's obvious that there is organized jewelry.
Speaker 1: If this guy is on four continents promoting elections, he's
Speaker 1: I guarantee you he's not promoting elections that are not
Speaker 1: in his best interest or or whoever.
Speaker 2: He'sn't a piece that says this guy they're talking about
Speaker 2: he's running from here in New York. You sound like
Speaker 2: pussy liberal. Uh. You know, if you find this guy scary,
Speaker 2: you're either a demented old woman or you're some crazy
Speaker 2: Zionist who like when the wind blows you claim you're
Speaker 2: about to be pogrammed. So I mean, like the fact
Speaker 2: is these people are slipping because I hold up to
Speaker 2: remember when they didn't talk that way. There's actually like
Speaker 2: something slick about their propaganda. You know, like in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty five, if you'd read the j Post, it'd be like,
Speaker 2: you know, for example, they'd be saying like, you know,
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union brutalizes, you know, a nonconforming except where
Speaker 2: they go, look at what they're doing in Afghanistan. You know,
Speaker 2: Soviet jewelry loves freedom and wants wants to live like Americans,
Speaker 2: and the Stalinist depressors are are abusing them. Now. I mean,
Speaker 2: obviously a narrative like that is laden with propaganda too,
Speaker 2: but it's like actually credible in a certain way, like
Speaker 2: uh claiming some like claiming some cornball like Berkeley type
Speaker 2: guy who claims to be Maslam but like goes to
Speaker 2: like his gay friend's weddings and shit, he's like he's
Speaker 2: gonna po gram us. It's like he look like a
Speaker 2: fucking idiot, you know. I mean it's like and then yeah,
Speaker 2: like and then it'll be like this guy like ry
Speaker 2: By like shicky like fuck bock. It's like he owns
Speaker 2: you know, like a uh he owns like a gay
Speaker 2: pornography label, and like he's involved in human trafficking and
Speaker 2: you know he's on the staff of like freedom loving
Speaker 2: Blade musawood Ski and like this Italian mafia boss and
Speaker 2: like he was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein. And then
Speaker 2: like when people like on the internet like start dropping
Speaker 2: con it's like, you know, this guy sounds like a
Speaker 2: super villain or something. You know, they like banish all
Speaker 2: comments and stuff. It's like, man, like are you guys?
Speaker 2: You guys are like something out of Austin Powers or something. Man,
Speaker 2: It's like what happened to you did? Y'all? Like will
Speaker 2: bottomize yourselves or something like, I mean, that's kind of
Speaker 2: stilly rants.
Speaker 1: And you can tell and you can tell how bad
Speaker 1: off they have it where they still have to go
Speaker 1: to the Russia evil well, and then they go then
Speaker 1: they go to like Iran and Syria and Asad Syria
Speaker 1: in places like that, which anyone who like can do
Speaker 1: a search on Google can find out that there are
Speaker 1: huge Jewish communities there have been for thousands, you know,
Speaker 1: for a thousand years, and they're protected by the government.
Speaker 1: And here's another here's another thing. If you if you
Speaker 1: say that there are people you know who like just
Speaker 1: found out about the JQ a month ago, who will
Speaker 1: be like, well, why are they protecting Jews? Would why
Speaker 1: would Vladimir Putin care about Russian Jews being in danger anywhere?
Speaker 1: He should want to kill them? All right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's like this like Retardo politics. It's like
Speaker 2: Retardo non politics. What's also too, I mean, the problem
Speaker 2: is Zion is I mean, and I'm not gonna sit here.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously I don't think Israel was ever like
Speaker 2: anything but a totally dysfunctional political system, but it did
Speaker 2: actually used to be a multi party system before Rabine
Speaker 2: was assassinated, and uh, you know, they the policy in
Speaker 2: terms of direct administration of conquered territories, and obviously the
Speaker 2: founding action of Israel was a mass ethnic cleansing operation
Speaker 2: and you can't like erase that. But moving forward, you
Speaker 2: can't have a leeku in one party state that's like
Speaker 2: this openly racial state that uh regularly assaults in to
Speaker 2: this kind of mass concentration camp that is Gaza, to
Speaker 2: quite literally thin the ranks that people've identified to the
Speaker 2: racial enemies. You can't do that then turn around and
Speaker 2: talk about how like, well, we're an especially victimized population
Speaker 2: because racists don't like us. Like that just doesn't work,
Speaker 2: you know, even a simpleton. And that's one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why, like, world opinion is totally shifted. I mean,
Speaker 2: part of it's the Cold War ending and the wh
Speaker 2: paradigm ending. But world opinion doesn't matter. Whether that's right
Speaker 2: or not, it isn't important. You know, you can't you
Speaker 2: can't make yourself a pariah and then appeal to like
Speaker 2: Neuremberg morality to say no, I'm not a pariah, I'm
Speaker 2: a victim. That doesn't work. That's what I'm always saying
Speaker 2: it's like late Soviet and nature, you know, both to
Speaker 2: propaganda from the Partment of State as well as out
Speaker 2: of the Tel Aviv. It's like, these people don't understand.
Speaker 2: There's got to be context, you know, otherwise it doesn't
Speaker 2: serve a purpose. Otherwise it's your it's self defeating. It's
Speaker 2: worse than neutral, it's self defeating.
Speaker 1: Yes's it really is with how people can access so
Speaker 1: much information and then they can talk in public now
Speaker 1: through social media and different platforms. I can start a
Speaker 1: podcast and everything. It really just goes to show you
Speaker 1: how people don't understand politics. Like if you were to say,
Speaker 1: if you were to tell people, ask people the question, okay,
Speaker 1: so basically the Vietnam War was a proxy war with
Speaker 1: World Communism and the United States, and okay, okay, so
Speaker 1: well why was the United States? You know, why was
Speaker 1: your grain trade between the United States and the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union during the Cold War. They can't they can't wrap
Speaker 1: their head around that. You can't wrap your head around
Speaker 1: how you can have your You can try with like
Speaker 1: your biggest enemy on the planet, and.
Speaker 2: Well, they don't understand, they don't understand globalism. But I
Speaker 2: realized that too, even people who otherwise I think I
Speaker 2: started really realizing this, you know, and like I rejoined
Speaker 2: the world and stuff, and you know, October twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Before that, you know, it has been a few years
Speaker 2: or any times I got my life together and stuff.
Speaker 2: But like when I was on probation and stuff, I
Speaker 2: was still writing. But I was basically just say, going
Speaker 2: to Washington Library and Instant Library and like writing stuff
Speaker 2: and going on on research. And there was like two
Speaker 2: or three guys who I'd run into, like around the city,
Speaker 2: who I'd talked to about these things. But I didn't
Speaker 2: really realize the depth of people's ignorance. So I remember,
Speaker 2: I write, when I got online again, I I was
Speaker 2: trying to explain to this guy kind of my interpretation
Speaker 2: and the Great Depression, and I realized he was talking
Speaker 2: about national states, which is something you probably picked him
Speaker 2: in college. He's like talking about the world like it
Speaker 2: was the year nineteen thirty and like that there are
Speaker 2: no more states, you know, there's there's something nominally called
Speaker 2: the United States of America, where like power is concentrated
Speaker 2: periodically has cracked. Douns on, like the free flow of
Speaker 2: persons and commerce across the borders what you're seeing now.
Speaker 2: But this idea that there's like these discrete, self contained
Speaker 2: loci of power that are essentially insular from one another,
Speaker 2: it's like that that honestly hasn't existed since nineteen eighteen.
Speaker 2: This is a fiction. You know, it's a fiction, and
Speaker 2: it's I'm not even saying it's like ledgered nain by
Speaker 2: porrible people like people invoke these concepts more or less
Speaker 2: to kind of conceptualize the world because otherwise we're talking
Speaker 2: in abstraction and there's not like a common conceptual vocabulary.
Speaker 2: I mean, like, yeah, there's a place called France, there's
Speaker 2: a place called England, there's a place called Japan. But
Speaker 2: those places have been called that for thousands of years.
Speaker 2: You know, this idea of like Westphalian style states that's
Speaker 2: not some permanent thing. And essentially the three hundred years
Speaker 2: subsequent were like moves towards you know, a limited modality
Speaker 2: of globalism, which is the superpower era, which is why
Speaker 2: World War two happened. The Cold War was the grand
Speaker 2: struggle between two globalisms. Now there is one globalism, Like
Speaker 2: where are these other forms of government? Don't say like
Speaker 2: North Korea with just some weird garrison state because unfortunately
Speaker 2: for them, they border Russia and China. And I'm talking
Speaker 2: about some like random kingdom of like one hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty thousand people. I'm talking about like real, at scale
Speaker 2: political organization. There's only one form of government, the under
Speaker 2: the Department of States. Illiterate, there's not democracy and not democracy.
Speaker 2: What's the not democracy? Is there?
Speaker 1: Is?
Speaker 2: There is there an Eastern block? I thought it went away.
Speaker 2: I seem to remember watching the Berlin wallfall when I
Speaker 2: was a kid. What's the not democracy? But I mean
Speaker 2: this cuts to the whole the literacy. I mean, I
Speaker 2: mean Israel is a particularly extreme case because they're very
Speaker 2: unus There's this weird outlier like in terms of their
Speaker 2: political values and their security situation within the rationality of
Speaker 2: those values. But there's not there's not like dozens of
Speaker 2: forms of governments. You know, there's only one. It doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense to talk otherwise. But the State Department Israel
Speaker 2: this entire constellation of the dominant globalist fiction they speak
Speaker 2: because if it's nineteen eighty because they're illiterate and they
Speaker 2: they don't know how to characterize the world anymore. I mean,
Speaker 2: part of that is problematic because of post cools and
Speaker 2: their narrated But even aside from that, there's like a
Speaker 2: monumental of literacy and conceptual terms there.
Speaker 1: So doctor Johnson and I are reading two hundred years together.
Speaker 1: We're sixty one episodes in on that.
Speaker 2: Oh well that's a lot.
Speaker 1: We're not We're not even halfway done. We're just getting
Speaker 1: the halfway on the book.
Speaker 2: I've forgotten that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, no problem. And you know, like Carl
Speaker 1: Doll and I just did an episode on uh yeah,
Speaker 1: my front. Yeah, he's a good guy. And we just
Speaker 1: did an episode on Kadriannu and the Iron Guard, and
Speaker 1: you know how Accusa was such a inspiration on them
Speaker 1: because of his talk of how jewelry was taking over Romania.
Speaker 1: What is the benefit, like, what do you see as
Speaker 1: the benefit of talking about that now? Talking about jewry historically?
Speaker 1: How zog? Now, what's the benefit of doing I mean,
Speaker 1: and I mean I could take arrows on this one
Speaker 1: from you if you want to play is there what
Speaker 1: is the benefit of me doing all of this and
Speaker 1: talking about all.
Speaker 2: Of this because you're not gonna be able to nobody's
Speaker 2: gonna make it able to make sense of the current
Speaker 2: political and sociological paradigm. Lets they understand these things. And
Speaker 2: and let's you understand the Second World War and that
Speaker 2: the variables that led to it. You're not gonna understand
Speaker 2: the twentieth century. If you understand the twentieth century, you
Speaker 2: don't understand today. And everything that happens today is derivative
Speaker 2: at precedent. And particularly the these actors in the Islamic world,
Speaker 2: the Russian Federation, Israel, you know, uh, the Jews as
Speaker 2: a people, like globally, the globally asked for the disposition
Speaker 2: of America, which is not like the legacy government of
Speaker 2: George Washington or something. It's the legacy government of the
Speaker 2: New Deal regime. That's the only conceptualize these things. And
Speaker 2: plus two, like you know, you know Schumpeter and when
Speaker 2: you I mean Schumpeter was actually like a pure political
Speaker 2: economists in a lot of ways, anything we can talk
Speaker 2: about like a pure economics and the way we can
Speaker 2: talk about like neoliberal economics, we're talking about Shumpter. But uh,
Speaker 2: you know how we talk about condetry of waves like
Speaker 2: in economics. Okay, maybe if I'm portunying that pronunciation, but
Speaker 2: basically in his book business cycles like Cavils is also
Speaker 2: on the democracy is kind of the most accessible book,
Speaker 2: and that was his book that sold the best. It's
Speaker 2: the most important. What was business cycles, which one of
Speaker 2: other things is like a huge repudiation to teens. But
Speaker 2: it's very very damn it. It's two volumes. It's very difficult,
Speaker 2: but it's in my opinion, it's a seminal statement on
Speaker 2: ployal economy like the last like five years. Probably okay,
Speaker 2: But his whole point was, Look, you can't everybody else
Speaker 2: that's thrown with Keeams that entire paradigm. You can't look
Speaker 2: at like a thirty year increment of macroeconomic activity and
Speaker 2: scaled actors they're in. You've got to look at this
Speaker 2: over at minimum, probably two hundred and fifty years, honestly,
Speaker 2: probably more like three hundred years. If you want to
Speaker 2: get a conceptual picture of economic development at scale and
Speaker 2: what business cycles truly represent, you've got to get politics
Speaker 2: the same way. If I take like the last thirty years,
Speaker 2: for example, I say I'm gonna study from nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: five to you know, August tenth, twenty twenty five, that
Speaker 2: doesn't tell me anything, you know, I mean, so okay,
Speaker 2: I can break down. I can break down like riders
Speaker 2: of battle and casualties and geostrategic nuances of like the
Speaker 2: Gulf War, you know, and then person who's like beIN
Speaker 2: Lott and then how they were able to corral you know,
Speaker 2: guys would combat experience as like you know, direct action
Speaker 2: elements and terrorist activity, and then can talk about like
Speaker 2: the response to nine to eleven, but in of itself
Speaker 2: that's meaningless, Like that's like, uh, it'd be like it'd
Speaker 2: be like if accident investigators like these days, I know this.
Speaker 2: I'm on foot a lot. I'm on footer on CTA
Speaker 2: and like forgive this to the scene was like an
Speaker 2: old person tangent, but I'm walking. The other day when
Speaker 2: I did, I took the bus back from the city
Speaker 2: and I disembarked like two miles from my house and
Speaker 2: there was like this big accident at this intersection by
Speaker 2: ninety four and there's a this lady police and she
Speaker 2: was like doing something with her phone with this weird
Speaker 2: app and I'm like, uh, I like excuse me, man,
Speaker 2: like what are you doing? You know? And she's like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you know this is like what we use to like
Speaker 2: try and you know, basically you know, try and like
Speaker 2: restructure like accidents and things. And I'm sure this is
Speaker 2: just like a simple app to help with the report.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, okay, thanks, that's interesting. So when I
Speaker 2: got home, like I started researching, like how they like
Speaker 2: how this guy evidences admitted in cored and stuff, and
Speaker 2: the guys who actually do like the insurance adjusted types.
Speaker 2: They use some greid to that app. But they do
Speaker 2: all this like modeling, okay, to try and see if
Speaker 2: like the physics of what they think happened like could
Speaker 2: have happened. Okay, all right, trying to just take like
Speaker 2: a twenty or thirty year increment of history. They'd be
Speaker 2: like if these accident guys came on an accident and said, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: we're not gonna model anything that happened before. I only
Speaker 2: care about what happened at the moment of impact. That's
Speaker 2: how we're gonna solve sad accidents that wouldn't tell you anything.
Speaker 2: They like tell you how the body is ragged old.
Speaker 2: They tell you about how like a tesla when it
Speaker 2: collides with like a gep Cherokee. They tell you like
Speaker 2: how the conventions come apart, or like how the airbag deploys.
Speaker 2: It would tell you nothing about the causal variables at
Speaker 2: an accident. Do you see what I mean? That jumped
Speaker 2: out of me because of the the kind of research
Speaker 2: that I do. I guess that was like the connection
Speaker 2: I made when this lady told me that, and when
Speaker 2: I got home and started like google fooling the ship.
Speaker 2: But that's why you got to look at it. So
Speaker 2: that's why it's important. Let's do the Iron Guard specifically.
Speaker 2: It is a weird not weird in negative terms, it's
Speaker 2: it's it's unusual, it's unusual phenomenon. That's why so much
Speaker 2: has written about it in Romania. You know, think of
Speaker 2: Romania as this country that has this monumental impact on
Speaker 2: European culture generally because it it's it's it's a other
Speaker 2: than all stirring in the troubles. It's really the only
Speaker 2: and I realized that this the sectarian the sympathies were
Speaker 2: very different in each case, but it's really the only
Speaker 2: case of like late modern Christian populations developing like a
Speaker 2: holy warrior element. Okay, and uh, that's highly significant. And
Speaker 2: there's a parallel there between that and the Islamic Awakening,
Speaker 2: and that makes it relevant to to today in a
Speaker 2: way that not in ethical terms, but in formal and
Speaker 2: structural terms. You know, things like things like these most
Speaker 2: fascist parties and like the national socialist movement, aren't you know,
Speaker 2: there's like a national it's it's relevant to study the
Speaker 2: German Reich. But you know, again like that dialectically it
Speaker 2: was so bound up with like the labor movement and
Speaker 2: direct antithetical resistance and communism and stuff. You know, again
Speaker 2: the ethical foundation of his perennial, but the structure of
Speaker 2: it is kind of historically contingent. The Iron Guard is
Speaker 2: an outlawer and I mean all all all political modes
Speaker 2: of warfare and mobilization they're in or are historically contingent.
Speaker 2: But that has a more uh that that has a
Speaker 2: more timeless significance, you know, even though that's tim poorly
Speaker 2: modally everything else too. That's why we'll think the significant.
Speaker 1: I think one of the interesting things that that Carl Dahl,
Speaker 1: that Carl said about the Iron Guard was that they
Speaker 1: were they were early they're doing what they were doing
Speaker 1: what we're doing now. They were going around the country
Speaker 1: building social capital with people. They were going around the
Speaker 1: country building parallel institutions. Yeah, they were, they were doing
Speaker 1: things that we should be doing now, which a lot
Speaker 1: of the same people who you know, can't get their
Speaker 1: head out of their ass, you know who who should
Speaker 1: you know, who should be sympathetic to the things that
Speaker 1: we talk about, But they can't get their head out
Speaker 1: of their ass because they think that this is all
Speaker 1: going to be solved on the national level.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, because they don't get it, because they're still
Speaker 2: thinking in terms of this this they're imprisoned by twentieth
Speaker 2: century thinking, you know. Yeah, that's why that was the
Speaker 2: whole point of I mean, that's another thing is that, uh,
Speaker 2: these Romanian guys they were they weren't they weren't reactionaries,
Speaker 2: you know, but they also weren't these like secular like
Speaker 2: art futures, you know, they and that. But that's why
Speaker 2: that's why I met Mercia Eliotti, who really was kind
Speaker 2: of their like a lot of uh, a lot of
Speaker 2: average types who kind of wanted them murk him exaggerated
Speaker 2: is uh his and direct the action type of stuff
Speaker 2: in the Iron Guard. But marceli Audi he really was,
Speaker 2: you know, like a philosopher of the Romanian dissident, right,
Speaker 2: And that's why he was an important theologian, and that's
Speaker 2: also why he had That's why he was conceptually sophisticated
Speaker 2: on anthropology and theology and stuff like that, you know,
Speaker 2: any because he had a he had a very progressive
Speaker 2: view of politics and direct action. They're not not progressive
Speaker 2: in values terms, I mean progressive in uh like formal terms,
Speaker 2: and you know that's remarkable, but a lot of I mean,
Speaker 2: Romania is a great country and a great people. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying bad things about them, but Romania traditionally is
Speaker 2: you know, someone underdeveloped, you know, and there's there's structural
Speaker 2: difficulties there, but that's those that kinds of situations were
Speaker 2: off and you get very sophisticated revolutionaries emergent from you know,
Speaker 2: proudly because those people have a difficult life and you know,
Speaker 2: the the kind of intelligency among them. You know, they
Speaker 2: they spend a lot of time thinking about things, especially
Speaker 2: in comparative terms, you know, because they because the stuff
Speaker 2: aregglying takes your life, you know, if you're if you're
Speaker 2: a comparatively comfortable guy, you know, in the United States
Speaker 2: or even even at this day, like in a place
Speaker 2: like a lot of the UK's in my stuff. But
Speaker 2: like in a London or something like generally you're not
Speaker 2: really thinking about nor do you care about, you know,
Speaker 2: what what life is like for people where you know,
Speaker 2: things like the things like you know, religiosity is as
Speaker 2: like a day to day significance and kind of immediate
Speaker 2: conceptual terms, you know. I mean I think about that stuff,
Speaker 2: but I I mean that sound likes smarter than anybody.
Speaker 2: But I I have like kind of a weird life.
Speaker 2: And there been times where, in part like due to
Speaker 2: my own doing, I was like really poor or like
Speaker 2: I I was doing difficulties surviving and stuff, and like
Speaker 2: you you know, generally like, uh, that's not like an
Speaker 2: entirely bad experience, like I mean that point before, I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't at my age now, I prefer not to
Speaker 2: go through that again. But uh, you know, you get
Speaker 2: it promotes like, you know, meaningful reflection on stuff, you know,
Speaker 2: and uh you compair like different modes of life, you know,
Speaker 2: and so I think that's part of it. But also
Speaker 2: Eliadi Uh Romania is an interesting I mean Romania is
Speaker 2: a they're they're literally like a Latin culture. I mean
Speaker 2: it was like a Roman lost battalion who basically uh
Speaker 2: bred with you know Docians and stuff. You have like
Speaker 2: Romanians and like they the language they speak is closest
Speaker 2: to the Latin of living languages. But they're like a
Speaker 2: big but they're like they belong to Byzantium. You know,
Speaker 2: they're like very orthodox, So they straddle this like weird
Speaker 2: kind of civilization diad and uh, I think that's part
Speaker 2: of it. You know, that tends to prompt uh reflections
Speaker 2: and things of you know, like an ontological nature. But
Speaker 2: I don't know, but they but there's a there's a
Speaker 2: tenor of mysticism in remedia and religiosity too that was
Speaker 2: able to remain alive even as uh, the ontological shock
Speaker 2: of modernity kind of stripped that kind of thing away.
Speaker 2: That's also why, I mean, that's why I've been a
Speaker 2: load and gravitated to Afghanistan. Like people make jokes, people
Speaker 2: make it jokes and stuff. I mean some of I mean,
Speaker 2: it's fine. I'm not saying people shouldn't joke about ethnic stuff.
Speaker 2: But you know, bin Laden his first destination was Sudan.
Speaker 2: You know, he funded a bunch of infrastructural products projects
Speaker 2: there because he thought that he was looking at replace
Speaker 2: like a pure Islam could thrive and people superficially the
Speaker 2: way they come out that the way they come at
Speaker 2: that as Oh, well, he's talking about primitive conditions or
Speaker 2: you know places where you know, like a local emop
Speaker 2: so there's a lot of cloud. No, No, that's not
Speaker 2: what he's talking about. You're talking about like an intuitive
Speaker 2: way of life where this kind of awareness of pre
Speaker 2: rational things was like a part of the living faith.
Speaker 2: And he had the inclusion that Sudan was not that place.
Speaker 2: You know, people like Sudanese or a bunch of like
Speaker 2: bombs right around in Toyota's with like class and acrosts
Speaker 2: and there's something there's something to but uh in Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: I mean, Afghanistan is probably more primitive than Sudan. But
Speaker 2: he's like among these past dunes, you know, there's like
Speaker 2: a like true Islam can thrive if they're like receptive
Speaker 2: to it, and you know they it's you know, and
Speaker 2: I them being like a warrior race, I'm sure has
Speaker 2: something to do with it. But you know, I'm not
Speaker 2: sure just sing something like Romanians or like, you know,
Speaker 2: their conditions are is are as primitive? Is that of passions?
Speaker 2: But I'm just saying a complimentary thing of both populations,
Speaker 2: you know, so that's something they consider, you know, but
Speaker 2: there's one of the reasons why I like religiosity and
Speaker 2: the practice of it is mysterious, you know.
Speaker 1: So there are a lot of people who have this, uh,
Speaker 1: this romantic if you want to call it romantic notion
Speaker 1: of that. The way that you know, the the United
Speaker 1: States is going to be d zoged or you know,
Speaker 1: the globalism will be kicked from it is the country
Speaker 1: is going to become one ten. It's going to be Oh,
Speaker 1: they've been kicked out of one hundred and nine countries
Speaker 1: and the United States is going to be the one
Speaker 1: hundred and tenth country that get kicked out of I
Speaker 1: have a tendency to believe that that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: So I guess the question the question is is how
Speaker 1: is zog How is this occupation defeated?
Speaker 2: Ultimately, because uh, his historical processes are taking it down,
Speaker 2: and you know, the the only strength of it is
Speaker 2: the strength of it is the ability to manipulate sociological
Speaker 2: factors and doing forced social engineering. Well, that apparatusis is
Speaker 2: going away, you know. And ironically, as true globalism sets
Speaker 2: in economically. I mean, the multilateral system is dead. But
Speaker 2: that's that's a different thing. Like what matters, I mean,
Speaker 2: don't get me wrong. Like that's that's the one thing
Speaker 2: I like that the administration is doing. Is there, you know,
Speaker 2: they they've realized a workable return to bilateral trade arrangement
Speaker 2: to the essential because we're running massive, running massive deficits.
Speaker 2: That that that's catastrophic, okay. But the issue. The issue
Speaker 2: isn't imports and exports as regards to globalism. It's uh,
Speaker 2: it's the velocity and mobility of money. And that's not
Speaker 2: going away, that's here to stay. It's it's becoming more integrated. Okay.
Speaker 2: So anywhere on this planet, I can do business and
Speaker 2: access money, and so can any other man Okay, unless
Speaker 2: he's like in a kind ofitentiary or something, obviously. But
Speaker 2: concomonant with that, political globalism is becoming decentralized because there's
Speaker 2: no other choice. So free association is returning by necessity,
Speaker 2: but also because it's not the political will to try
Speaker 2: and break it up, you know. And uh, as there's
Speaker 2: a the court of global opinion truly becomes this positive.
Speaker 2: People won't tolerate these imperatives anymore. It's already happening. The
Speaker 2: entire world despises Israel. You know this idea that uh
Speaker 2: you know, like I've said before too, like you know,
Speaker 2: even even policing twenty centers, policing is coming to an end.
Speaker 2: So it's like, okay, like moving forward over the next
Speaker 2: two to three centuries. I mean, it's already happening in earnest,
Speaker 2: but I'm saying, like, yeah, this gets more fully realized
Speaker 2: to go. Here's a community that's like a ninety percent
Speaker 2: white is like a community like Harvey. It's like it's
Speaker 2: like nine nine percent like black folks. You know, Here's
Speaker 2: like a community, you know, like like Pilson is now
Speaker 2: where it's basically like Spanish. Ohkait, what what's gonna happen?
Speaker 2: Is like the National guardin was Salt and say we
Speaker 2: demand you stop living this way or what you're you're
Speaker 2: gonna shoot us all? Try it? How's that going to
Speaker 2: work for you? How's it gonna work on? Like you're
Speaker 2: live streaming guys like opening up on like regular guys
Speaker 2: and their wives and kids for like not having enough
Speaker 2: of black people live there or at the gast of
Speaker 2: black folks, like not being integrated enough that's done. That's unthinkable.
Speaker 2: That's how.
Speaker 1: I think what a lot of I think what a
Speaker 1: lot of people will argue is is that whether you
Speaker 1: take the Kevin McDonald route about evolution you know how
Speaker 1: how Jews have evolved through revolutionary processes to be so insular,
Speaker 1: or you take the Michael Jones where you know they
Speaker 1: denied logos and at the cross you know they've been
Speaker 1: since then. I have a tendency to take a mixture
Speaker 1: of both. I believe both have both have validity to
Speaker 1: it that as long as they're there there, as long
Speaker 1: as they're amongst you, they are going to be seeking
Speaker 1: to subvert. So how can you live with them?
Speaker 2: Because that's not because people don't understand the reason why
Speaker 2: is reach such such intent. Hana or Runt, who Wasger's accolyte,
Speaker 2: you know she her book The Origin of Totalitarianism, is
Speaker 2: a really good book. You know, the title is a
Speaker 2: little weird. She basically breaks down exactly like what Jewish
Speaker 2: power is. And you know, before before the end of
Speaker 2: the nineteenth century, Jews had no political power. Economic power
Speaker 2: that's not like a small thing, but they had no
Speaker 2: they had no political clout. That was laughable. Suddenly in
Speaker 2: the twentieth century they did, and gee, look what happened.
Speaker 2: Isn't that interesting? You know? It's also too like I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that the people in the Pale Settlement are that,
Speaker 2: you know, the Jewish minority in England in you know,
Speaker 2: twelve to eighty, like was doing good things in the
Speaker 2: country or was benign. But the reason why people like
Speaker 2: Edward kicked them out was because he didn't want to
Speaker 2: pay him back. It's not because he's like, I'm a
Speaker 2: white man and to help with these Jews who aren't
Speaker 2: white and they're comedies. It was okay you guys like
Speaker 2: funding my war against the French, but you know, I
Speaker 2: don't like the fact that you're shylocking me on these
Speaker 2: on interest and I can't pay right now anyway, I'm
Speaker 2: the king. What are you gonna do? Oh you don't
Speaker 2: like it? Get out those few rights you had, they're gone.
Speaker 2: That's what it was. It wasn't like he was based
Speaker 2: and Cromwell was like a liberal who like Jews like that.
Speaker 2: You can't like extrapolate current conditions back then, you know,
Speaker 2: and uh where the rubber met the road, Yeah, you
Speaker 2: had especially like I mean pauland Ukraine, which were like
Speaker 2: the same territory for a long time. That was basically
Speaker 2: like a goy of slave plantation. You know, the most
Speaker 2: the you know, the most enslaved populations were like North Africans,
Speaker 2: Arabs and Slavs, you know. And so yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that's like a minor thing, but people
Speaker 2: this idea that like the political paradigms of like the
Speaker 2: nineteen thirties existed in like the eleven thirties, and like
Speaker 2: that's why you Jews were disliked Like that, that makes
Speaker 2: no sense, you know, And like I said, okay, move
Speaker 2: forward like two hundred years where there's like not really
Speaker 2: a United States of America. Then kind of like in
Speaker 2: name only, law enforcement and military power is like almost
Speaker 2: exclusively private, you know, if you or it's like self
Speaker 2: help oriented. You know. There's no more public school, there's
Speaker 2: a the bully pulpit of media as exists in the
Speaker 2: twentieth century is gone forever. There's no possibility of something
Speaker 2: like a Cold War happening again because true globalism is
Speaker 2: now centuries old. Like what what is the federal government
Speaker 2: gonna do with people? Like I said, they're gonna they're
Speaker 2: gonna get a bunch of pinkertons. So like, shoot, everybody
Speaker 2: who's not diverse in the community live in that's laughable,
Speaker 2: you know, like it's this is coming to an end,
Speaker 2: and people don't understand that, and I try and tell
Speaker 2: them again and again and they don't listen to me.
Speaker 2: Old people do know some things. When I was like
Speaker 2: a teenager, like half of the places I going out regularly,
Speaker 2: like nighttime or daytime, if I went there, I might
Speaker 2: have gotten fucking killed. Like black people would literally like
Speaker 2: kill me. Now that's unthinkable. Thirty years ago, Bill Clinton,
Speaker 2: he'd say to the DNC, like, you know, they're like
Speaker 2: fifty years what would be one race? People like whooh, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's type racism. Like if a president can't say that
Speaker 2: now people want to fucking lynch him. You'll be like outraged.
Speaker 2: I mean, can you imagine that? You know? Now people
Speaker 2: act like you're rather corny and they roll their eyes
Speaker 2: at you or they tell you're like a total piece
Speaker 2: of shit. If you're like stumped for Israel, unless you're
Speaker 2: in like some like dumb hick town, or unless you're
Speaker 2: like in Skokie, Illinois, you were like ninety people are
Speaker 2: Jewish or something. You live on a different planet than
Speaker 2: thirty years ago in this regard, like it's it's like
Speaker 2: a different country, you know, and people act like this
Speaker 2: shit like somehow like a staying power. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: People also think that the that this was forced upon us,
Speaker 1: And yeah, in a way, you do have a social
Speaker 1: engineering regime, but you also have to have people who
Speaker 1: are willing to go along with it and also willing
Speaker 1: people who are willing to collude. Yeah. I tell people
Speaker 1: this all the time. I'm like, if you're if you
Speaker 1: if you want to complain about this, jew did this
Speaker 1: and in history and it led to this, and it
Speaker 1: led to this and everything. They didn't do it alone.
Speaker 1: What's the heck?
Speaker 2: That's all point of parables about people like Nero and
Speaker 2: Julian the Apostate. You know these guys, these guys were
Speaker 2: Roman patricians, you know, they they thought that they were gods. Basically,
Speaker 2: you know the fact that uh, I mean even even
Speaker 2: like Donald Trump's like that, you know, like I call
Speaker 2: him like Trump episode he is a piece of shit.
Speaker 2: But Trump Trump doesn't care about Jews. Trump heres about
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. Like if every you think of Israel see
Speaker 2: to exist tomorrow. Trump would care, You wouldn't care. You'd
Speaker 2: be like, these guys can no longer pay me, you know,
Speaker 2: you find somebody else to pay him, and somebody else
Speaker 2: would you know? I mean, in some way you think
Speaker 2: that's worse than like being a part of the inferialing people,
Speaker 2: even in a warped way that's like against the God
Speaker 2: like Zions are. But that's a whole point, you know.
Speaker 2: And it's like also, I mean, like I said, if
Speaker 2: you don't part of the reason why I'm writing this manuscript,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's for a lot of reasons because you know,
Speaker 2: like I mentioned you the other day, because I don't
Speaker 2: have children, which I'm totally fine with, and I can't
Speaker 2: sing and dance, you know, I kind of like to
Speaker 2: leave something behind own a small way. So that's like
Speaker 2: this book I'm writing, and I'm trying to explain the
Speaker 2: twentieth century in one value that's like not too cumbersome,
Speaker 2: it is actually something readable. You've got to look at
Speaker 2: the Jewish diaspora like as a people, like as a
Speaker 2: as a true nation in the asshe you got to
Speaker 2: look at them as like a combatant actor in World
Speaker 2: War two as everybody get in the era frankly and
Speaker 2: America and the Soviet Union allied with that actor country
Speaker 2: Europe and the Empire Japan. Okay, then as glo as
Speaker 2: this divided globalism set in the Soviet Union turned on
Speaker 2: America and this nation in diaspora which now had representation
Speaker 2: in international law, like in the state of Israel. So
Speaker 2: you're talking about like the winning coalition of the victorious
Speaker 2: element in the twentieth century. Like that's why, okay, And
Speaker 2: that's something I try and explicate. I'm drawing things for
Speaker 2: the SEGA conceptual intelligibility. I'm kind of drawing this in
Speaker 2: broad strokes, but that's the short answer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that we I think everything. So we
Speaker 1: live in a world and I think I heard you
Speaker 1: say this recently. It's like people want to be like, oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't know this, and I can't. I can't be
Speaker 1: educated in this, even though like literally there every book
Speaker 1: in the world is in the palm of their hand
Speaker 1: with the phone and they can find out anything they want.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I think that the you're people are not
Speaker 1: going to understand exactly what's happened until you start blaming.
Speaker 1: You don't just blame one group, you blame, you blame
Speaker 1: everyone who was in on this.
Speaker 2: Well, they understand historical processes. Like I said, I one
Speaker 2: thing I do think of on Mesians are on too.
Speaker 2: I don't accept their whole. Uh, I don't accept their practice,
Speaker 2: you know, or anything. But something I write about is
Speaker 2: you do need some kind of intuition to interpret business cycles.
Speaker 2: I mean Stumping made that point too. That's not it's
Speaker 2: not that's not any mystical. It doesn't I'm not any
Speaker 2: reference or drawing around like a read or something. But
Speaker 2: you either have that you don't. The whole is greater
Speaker 2: than the sum of its part. Sometimes the water like
Speaker 2: reading the discrete codable variables. It's the same thing with
Speaker 2: politics and historical phenomenon or cultural things. I mean Eliot
Speaker 2: pointing into you either it's like, oh, you know, he
Speaker 2: was talking about shamanism and the prime symbols between very
Speaker 2: urus cultures. What commonalities are He's like, yeah, I can
Speaker 2: list variables that I can identify synonymous according to some
Speaker 2: sem arbitrary criteria, you know, ideas of edification and suffering
Speaker 2: and things that are and feelings that are universal the
Speaker 2: human condition. But they don't like tell us anything like
Speaker 2: like a sacred experience and things that are symbolic of it.
Speaker 2: In psychological terms, you know them when you see them,
Speaker 2: or you don't foresee these things, Okay, And I suppose
Speaker 2: that's what a talent is for religion. A miss culttures
Speaker 2: ones that have stronger and more vogative symbols of this
Speaker 2: nature or a stronger in that regard. Ones that don't
Speaker 2: are weaker. Okay, but that's part of it. Like even
Speaker 2: people are intelligent, and I'm not like a super smart person.
Speaker 2: I don't think I'm stupid, but I'm the last persons
Speaker 2: gonna pretend like I'm some kind of like genius or
Speaker 2: like I'm so much smarter than the norm. Because I'm not.
Speaker 2: I can perceive things in my field of concentration that
Speaker 2: other people can't. Okay. There's guys who trade stocks, and
Speaker 2: there's guys who trade for its. They can do that
Speaker 2: with financial quantities and things like that and financial instruments.
Speaker 2: I can't do that with that kind of stuff. I
Speaker 2: can with macroagonomics and politics. And if you can't, you're
Speaker 2: tripping over your dick because you're just looking at variables
Speaker 2: and treating it like some sort of formal equation or something,
Speaker 2: you know, and if that was the case, you guys
Speaker 2: like Metternich or Henry Kissinger James Baker wouldn't exist. If
Speaker 2: you were a king or like a president or like
Speaker 2: a warlord, you just like hire a guy from MI
Speaker 2: T and be like, okay, code code, what's gonna happen?
Speaker 2: You know, what's what? What's the Soviet Union gonna do?
Speaker 2: Like code these variables? Now? Well know for certain nobody
Speaker 2: can do that because that does because that's not what
Speaker 2: it is. But somehow guys like Metroanach and Kissinger and
Speaker 2: Baker like knew what was going to happen. It's not
Speaker 2: as a psychic, you know. I'm not saying like I'm
Speaker 2: anywhere near guys like that obviously, but on the spectrum
Speaker 2: or scale spectrum said that if you were going to
Speaker 2: call me a retard, but on the scale of the
Speaker 2: way my mind is wired. I that's where my skill
Speaker 2: set is. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the points made here, and I'm just
Speaker 1: doing a bunch of Devil's Advocate at this point, is
Speaker 1: that the monetary system allows them to go, you know,
Speaker 1: do a lot of the things that they can do.
Speaker 1: That's part do you see that. Do you see the
Speaker 1: dollar going away?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's gonna be It's not gonna just disappear, and
Speaker 2: there's not gonna be some punctuated collapse like nineteen twenty nine,
Speaker 2: but that you know, wipes out the dollars of reserve
Speaker 2: currency in some punctuated way, Like the dollar is gonna
Speaker 2: be kind of devalued to the point where it's just
Speaker 2: in a de fact a way, even if they're still
Speaker 2: gonna be incentive to maintain it the reserve currency, so
Speaker 2: you can still like encourage America to do business with
Speaker 2: you in the way that America wants to, you know.
Speaker 2: And like a lot of countries, I mean, China is
Speaker 2: the most prominent, but you know, they arn't eventually peg
Speaker 2: their currency against the dollar, you know, so that's gonna
Speaker 2: endure for a while. But gradually, even countries that insist
Speaker 2: that like the dollar is still the reserve currency, they're
Speaker 2: gonna deal like what Bricks does. I'm not one of
Speaker 2: these guys is like Bricks is the future because when
Speaker 2: that that's the Kremlin being stupid. But uh, and Coping
Speaker 2: is like the youngsters ce but uh, their model of
Speaker 2: like maintaining like a floating basket of currencies as a
Speaker 2: you know, to flesh out their reserves. That's going to
Speaker 2: become the norm. You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well what you know, I think what I hear
Speaker 1: a lot of people say is it's like, oh, the
Speaker 1: you know, the government's doing bitcoin reserves. El Salvador has
Speaker 1: bitcoin reserves. We still have gold reserves. And but what
Speaker 1: the dollar?
Speaker 2: Like, Bitcoin's not a currency, you know what bitcoin is.
Speaker 2: There's there's nothing wrong with crypto, but it's not a currency.
Speaker 2: It's a non traditional bond and it's a way of
Speaker 2: banking without being availed to the enforcement mechanism and control
Speaker 2: and possible seizure of federal authorities. You don't have a
Speaker 2: currency when the only store and value when your currency
Speaker 2: is pegged to the dollar, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I made that point about that. I made that
Speaker 1: point about gold. It's like anything that you're trying to
Speaker 1: you identify as a potential m one currency so that
Speaker 1: you can, you know, stop fractional reserve banking. That's not
Speaker 1: what stops tractional or reserve banking. What stops fractional or
Speaker 1: reserve banking is people in charge who don't want to
Speaker 1: fractionally reserve the.
Speaker 2: Banking also something insidious thing in of itself, Like that's
Speaker 2: antiquated thinking, you know, like what's the alternative we should have,
Speaker 2: like an Islamic banking system where you're basically like when
Speaker 2: you take out a loan from a bank, you're basically
Speaker 2: lend them stock, and you know you're selling them like
Speaker 2: perennial stock, like beyond the scope of their investment. I
Speaker 2: mean like lending it, lending it interest in a way
Speaker 2: that's not usurious. That that's that's what fuels business and innovation.
Speaker 2: That's not like evil somehow. But the same people too,
Speaker 2: like the people equate like banking is evil with the
Speaker 2: same people claim like gold is is a is somehow
Speaker 2: like immune to interest rate manipulation. Gold is literally a
Speaker 2: shiny rock, like shiny rocks aren't real, and like bearer
Speaker 2: papers not fake, Like how's like a shiny rock real?
Speaker 2: You know? Like I think gold is cool. I like
Speaker 2: to see stuff meat out of it. It's nice to
Speaker 2: give you your girlfriend or something. I'm not anti gold,
Speaker 2: but it's a shiny rock. I mean that's what it is.
Speaker 1: All Right, I'm gonna get us out of here. Let
Speaker 1: me just read a couple of super chats here. Uh,
Speaker 1: ex coboron Rumble says, and I don't believe this for
Speaker 1: one second. I mean, I believe the second part. I
Speaker 1: don't believe the first part. Says I've never met a Jew,
Speaker 1: but I did shake George Bush's hand when I was
Speaker 1: ten in two thousand, in the year two thousand, so
Speaker 1: close enough.
Speaker 2: That's awesome.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, right, yeah, Sully the amount like kite
Speaker 1: subscribe for five, thank you. Carl Yen, says Pete. Did
Speaker 1: you ever see any gigs at the Brass Mug in Tampa?
Speaker 1: I saw some great bands back then. Yeah, that was
Speaker 1: like the freakin' There was a lot of punk stuff
Speaker 1: there and hardcore stuff, and like at that time when
Speaker 1: I was in Tampa, I just wasn't into it. I've
Speaker 1: been to the Mouse Down there too, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and that was that was kind of blowing up when
Speaker 1: when I was there too. But yeah, I was more
Speaker 1: into like the there was like a big goth glam
Speaker 1: scene there and everything, and that was like most of
Speaker 1: my friends that I was hanging out with were like
Speaker 1: into goth clam and everything. So yeah, Sully the Malki,
Speaker 1: says Pete. Did reading The Last Crusade have anything to
Speaker 1: do with you getting back to your Catholic roots. Understand
Speaker 1: you likely were on your way, but wow, Carol's Carol's
Speaker 1: work really pulls me that way too. For a for
Speaker 1: a bunch of years, like I was just getting put in,
Speaker 1: like Catholic heart core Catholics were getting put into, like
Speaker 1: my friends were, like everyone that I was coming into
Speaker 1: contact with was a hardcore Catholic and everything. And then
Speaker 1: I guess what cinched it was when I moved to
Speaker 1: this little town in East Alabama that has, you know,
Speaker 1: more like one hundred times more chickens than people, and
Speaker 1: there's this little Catholic parish in this town, and I'm
Speaker 1: just like, oh, let me go visit that and everything.
Speaker 1: And that's what That's basically what pulled me back in
Speaker 1: and got me for some of my first confession in decades,
Speaker 1: which was a load of fun. And then all right,
Speaker 1: and our buddy Kreig says, always great to see Pete
Speaker 1: and Thomas on a Sunday night stream after work, Creek
Speaker 1: coming in from Austria. That's awesome. But all right, man,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let you go. I I appreciate you joining
Speaker 1: me for this stream, and I appreciate everybody. You know,
Speaker 1: I was, I was reading the comments, you know, and
Speaker 1: and I just wasn't responding to him because I thought
Speaker 1: this was a conversation that needed to be had at
Speaker 1: this time. So I want to thank Thomas for joining
Speaker 1: me once again. And yeah, man oh and by the way, everyone,
Speaker 1: in about an hour and fifteen minutes, the next episode
Speaker 1: with Thomas comes out. It's part four of the Radical
Speaker 1: Traditionalist School where Thomas talks about Marciliatti and Julius Evila. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so tune in. Thank you, Thomas. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: Man. Want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingano Show.
Speaker 1: Thomas is back, and I guess maybe this will be
Speaker 1: like a part two of what we talked about in
Speaker 1: the live stream last week.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's sense of will characterize it as such, What
Speaker 2: do you got for us? I refer to Hannah or
Speaker 2: rent a Lot. I mean I cite her a Lot
Speaker 2: as one of my sources. I mean, she was an
Speaker 2: important historian. She was an Akolata Heidegger, and she wrote
Speaker 2: specifically about the historical experience of Jewish and European hostility.
Speaker 2: And that's important because it's not something people understand and unfortunately.
Speaker 2: I mean, I honestly don't understand where people get their
Speaker 2: ideas from them. I guess maybe they think internet memes
Speaker 2: constitute some sort of education on things.
Speaker 1: Or oh, you know, you don't even have to guess that.
Speaker 1: I've had people tell me, like when I was a
Speaker 1: libertarian and I would talk about, you know, narco capitalism,
Speaker 1: how do people tell me? Everything I know I'm in
Speaker 1: a narco capitalist and everything I know about a narco
Speaker 1: capitalist I learned from memes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, just like the terminology the one
Speaker 2: invoke it's this weird poemical stuff that doesn't really have
Speaker 2: a context, and you know, which is like whatever, I
Speaker 2: don't I prefer people like that didn't have the capability
Speaker 2: to poison our conversations. But you know, it's something, Uh,
Speaker 2: it's something that's ill understood, and uh, it's not reducible
Speaker 2: the subject matter. I mean, it's not reducible to polemic
Speaker 2: or things like that. And you can't, I regard, regardless
Speaker 2: of what's pathological or dysfunctional about you know, telemun of judaism,
Speaker 2: you can't project current political conditions into the distant past,
Speaker 2: as if that this is just some sort of structural
Speaker 2: schema that's always existed. And the reason why things became
Speaker 2: so anybody became so violent in the twentieth century is
Speaker 2: because there was a there was issues of first impression, emergent,
Speaker 2: a structure that was new. You know. One of our
Speaker 2: Ren's big points is that, first of all, the Third
Speaker 2: Reich was not at all in nationalist government. In some ways,
Speaker 2: it was the opposite. They looked at their mandate and
Speaker 2: their mission and their ideological imperative as as civilizational you know,
Speaker 2: their velt politic was a superpower politique. Hitler was always
Speaker 2: talking about how how Germany is the actual pivot of
Speaker 2: Europe and ustrategic terms, Europe is the air. It's a
Speaker 2: classical civilization. And that's what we've got to understand ourselves.
Speaker 2: Nationalism is this Westphalian contrivance that was a mile wide
Speaker 2: and a centimeter deep, you know. And I think by
Speaker 2: the point before the national socialists they'd contempt for the
Speaker 2: narrowness and nationalism and their early enemy he's I'm talking
Speaker 2: like when Drexler was heading the party, before Hitler even
Speaker 2: you know, came on the scene with the DAP, these
Speaker 2: like region, these regional nationalists were the guys they fight
Speaker 2: with a lot of the time because these people were
Speaker 2: stunted in their perspective, and that that's not what national
Speaker 2: socialism or any of the dominated theological strains that were
Speaker 2: actually having an impact in the world affairs, like like
Speaker 2: nobody thought that way anymore. Who was actually engaged, you know,
Speaker 2: in the way the way to understand Jewish power is
Speaker 2: that it was kind of the legacy of the balance
Speaker 2: of power system in Europe, you know, the slow development
Speaker 2: of nation states under kind of the tutelage and domain
Speaker 2: of absolute monarchs. You know. One of the ways they
Speaker 2: kind of were able to project power across the national frontiers,
Speaker 2: especially in the terms of fluid capitals such as it
Speaker 2: existed then, was through Jewish financial concerns. And this also
Speaker 2: the unofficial means that diplomacy, so such that Jews were
Speaker 2: kind of the de facto integrated banking structure of you know,
Speaker 2: What'stphalian Europe, you know, and to be clear, that didn't
Speaker 2: convey any direct political power. As a matter of law,
Speaker 2: Jews had no political power, you know, so when people
Speaker 2: act like in Cromwell's error or something, Jews were these
Speaker 2: bad guys who were sabotaging political events or engaged in
Speaker 2: social revolutionary activity. That's asinine, like whatever hostilities existed sociologically,
Speaker 2: it didn't try angelate to that kind of paradigm because
Speaker 2: that wasn't possible. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise, you know.
Speaker 2: And after the French Revolution, the degree to which everything
Speaker 2: abruptly changed across the continent that can't be overemphasized. You know,
Speaker 2: among other things, a siding the sociological disruptions and the
Speaker 2: kind of onthological shock of it. Political power started to
Speaker 2: become global, you know, in an ascent way, and the
Speaker 2: nation states that still existed, their concerns became more and
Speaker 2: more scaled, and an exponentially larger amount of capital and
Speaker 2: credit needed to be placed at a government or a
Speaker 2: monarch disposal, you know, and this caused a consolidation. These
Speaker 2: kinds of smaller concern financial concerns were wiped out. Jews
Speaker 2: were downwardly mobile during that period, and that radicalized a
Speaker 2: lot of them. The combined assets of the wealthiest strata
Speaker 2: of Western and Central European jewry became more and more consolidated,
Speaker 2: and then that became a political concern just because of
Speaker 2: the power that wielded and suddenly the fortunes of that
Speaker 2: sort of financial structure was no longer abstract from politics
Speaker 2: and political events, you know, and there were certain show
Speaker 2: points whereby access to that kind of fluid capital dependent
Speaker 2: upon you know, political imperatives. And so you had ambitious
Speaker 2: men within these remaining Jewish financial concerns who became who
Speaker 2: became political actors, you know, in part because that will
Speaker 2: was always there and couldn't be realized, and also partly
Speaker 2: by necessity, you know. And to be clear, this is
Speaker 2: a fairly formalized structure. Long before, you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of court of stories had this idea, and even people
Speaker 2: who have someone of a visionist perspective, they view the
Speaker 2: kind of weird interdependence between European monarchs and aristocrats and
Speaker 2: jury as suddenly after you know, emancipation and the granting
Speaker 2: a political rights to people across credle divides. You know,
Speaker 2: this was suddenly when Jews started appearing at European court.
Speaker 2: That's totally inaccurate. Pretty much every noble house, every monarch,
Speaker 2: every royal court, they had some representative of Jewish financial
Speaker 2: concerns literally posted at court to handle this kind of business,
Speaker 2: you know, and these guys it was almost always a
Speaker 2: single individual. It was almost you know, it was almost
Speaker 2: always a single man who wasn't tethered the intrigues by
Speaker 2: virtual like the woman he was married due he almost
Speaker 2: always had contacts, familial contacts across national frontiers and ideally
Speaker 2: he'd have some sort of in with whoever the primary
Speaker 2: rial the court he served, you know, was was so
Speaker 2: in gauged. And uh, that was kind of the start
Speaker 2: of Jewish political power as we think of it, you know,
Speaker 2: despite what people think. I mean, yeah, in the modern era,
Speaker 2: like post Westphalian peace, money you took on an outside
Speaker 2: significance in political life. But it's the idea that having
Speaker 2: money aximatically makes you political powerful, pultically powerful. Is uh,
Speaker 2: that's a non sequator. It doesn't. I mean, even today,
Speaker 2: they're they're two different things. There's ah an interdependence there
Speaker 2: that's natural and financial power and political power. There's there's
Speaker 2: an there's incestuous aspects to the human component of who
Speaker 2: serves these concerns. But one doesn't somehow translate to the
Speaker 2: other automatically, you know, So it's not the thing of Jews.
Speaker 2: Is rich guys like that's not That doesn't tell us anything.
Speaker 2: All kinds of people have money, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of control of wealth at scale, the Japanese and the
Speaker 2: Saudis control an astronomical amount of money. The world's not
Speaker 2: run by Japan and Saudi Arabia, okay, And that's not
Speaker 2: an accident. The U plus two production of commodities at scale,
Speaker 2: it had this kind of homogenizing effect on European economies,
Speaker 2: at least in the West of Europe. And that changes
Speaker 2: things too, because if basically every nation state it's it's
Speaker 2: national economy, you know, accounting for comparative advantage as they
Speaker 2: can be said to exist in microeconomics, is engaged in
Speaker 2: basically the same kind of business, financial concerns and financial
Speaker 2: financial houses that service them, they basically start gambling on
Speaker 2: the same imperatives and futures and outcomes, you know. And
Speaker 2: that's got the effect of not just driving up the
Speaker 2: cost of doing business, but you know it it allows
Speaker 2: for a certain homogenization of how of how of how
Speaker 2: capital functions at continental scale, you know. And to be
Speaker 2: clear too, this is I think I'm made this point before,
Speaker 2: probably not polemically, but going back to the Middle Ages
Speaker 2: through the late modern period, this is the big reason
Speaker 2: why kings fell out with Jews. It wasn't because Jews
Speaker 2: don't like white people and their commies. It was I'm
Speaker 2: in a hawk to these people, and the big I'm
Speaker 2: paying them is positively usurious, and I think I'll not
Speaker 2: pay them and I'll banish them from my kingdom. You know.
Speaker 2: That's what it came down to, and that is the
Speaker 2: effect of you've basically gotta handle your banking needs by
Speaker 2: proxy through some other friendly government, or you've got to
Speaker 2: stake out some sort of path of autarchy and a
Speaker 2: crew massive At that time, I would have been in
Speaker 2: gold and silver reserves and try to go it alone.
Speaker 2: This had a profoundly negative effect and your ability to
Speaker 2: do business if you did that. Okay, but that's that
Speaker 2: was the main catalyst for Jews being banished from the court.
Speaker 2: It wasn't people deciding that Jews are bad because I'm
Speaker 2: based so I don't want them here anymore. There was
Speaker 2: absolutely peasant revolts and programs against Jews that were born
Speaker 2: of hostility and Jewish financial and labor concerns. Abusing those
Speaker 2: people that don't number scent happened, But at the level
Speaker 2: of royals and Edict's formally banishing Jews from these territories.
Speaker 2: It was what I just said, it was. It wasn't
Speaker 2: this fantasy of what people seem to think, and you
Speaker 2: can't corral that new some sort of common paradigm with
Speaker 2: the current situation or as things have been since you know,
Speaker 2: the close of the nineteenth century or whatever. The UH.
Speaker 2: This started coming somewhat to an end, at least in
Speaker 2: you know, and by the time Germany was united, the
Speaker 2: whole schema of how national military endeavors were funded it changed.
Speaker 2: But in a lot of Europe this endured really until
Speaker 2: the Great War, the UH, the the austri the Austro
Speaker 2: Prussian War of eighteen sixty six. One of the big
Speaker 2: bank concerned, one of the big Prussian Jewish banking concerns,
Speaker 2: was a bleak Roter, and bleek Roter himself, gersanvan bleek Roter.
Speaker 2: He and Bismarck had this fairly tight business relationship, contemptions
Speaker 2: of the may have been otherwise, and one of the
Speaker 2: things that sort of solidified their partnership, you know, Bismarck
Speaker 2: was not he was not some that the ights Consler
Speaker 2: was not some sort of absolute monarch or something. He
Speaker 2: had to appeal the Parliament if he wanted to fund
Speaker 2: any kind of military activity. And when the Parliament cut
Speaker 2: the purse strings Bismarck, he made his case to somewhat
Speaker 2: prescious traditional allies, and when they weren't biting, he went
Speaker 2: to bleak Roter and uh essentially found himself in a
Speaker 2: hat you know, the uh, the the Jewish Berliner, you know,
Speaker 2: banking structure that'll do the last time that happened at scale.
Speaker 2: And this is one thing that's interesting, Like if you
Speaker 2: read the Numberg laws and if you read kind of
Speaker 2: the what what if you read like what Gerbel was
Speaker 2: writing in his diaries about like what the cadres were saying.
Speaker 2: You know, this was a very political act. It was
Speaker 2: we're gonna get Jews out of the civil service, We're
Speaker 2: gonna get them out of the professions. You know, we're
Speaker 2: gonna we're basically gonna strip them of political rights. And
Speaker 2: if they try to mobilize, you know, for example, uh,
Speaker 2: some kpdre and like sick them on our people in
Speaker 2: Munich or whatever, we're gonna we're gonna throw them in
Speaker 2: a concentration camp. There's no talk of Jews are not
Speaker 2: allowed to conduct financial business. Because at the level we're
Speaker 2: talking about, that wasn't really an issue. You know. It's
Speaker 2: not like it's not like in Berlin in nineteen thirty four,
Speaker 2: if I needed a small business loan to like open
Speaker 2: my restaurant or to you know, by like building tools
Speaker 2: for my construction firm. It's not like it was like
Speaker 2: appealing to some Jewish guy and I had to basically
Speaker 2: cowtow whatever he wanted to get, you know, like some
Speaker 2: sort of line of equity. And I think people must
Speaker 2: understand that, you know, their absolutely Jews actually did, absolutely
Speaker 2: did wield financial power, particularly the UK and the USA,
Speaker 2: but not in the way we're talking about in you know,
Speaker 2: Westphalian Europe. Sociologically it played out totally differently, you know,
Speaker 2: and it was a political problem in the German Reich,
Speaker 2: it wasn't. It wasn't an economics problem or or a
Speaker 2: banking problem. You know, I'd even argue too. I mean
Speaker 2: the case I'm the first to stipulate, you know, a
Speaker 2: lot of America's involvement in World War One, they quite
Speaker 2: literally was Wall Street having the Wilson administration by the
Speaker 2: balls and demanding interventions. They didn't eat a billion dollar
Speaker 2: loss based on this unsecured line of credit was being
Speaker 2: afforded to the British Crown. But I mean that was
Speaker 2: JP Morgan was absolutely a war profiteering firm, But this
Speaker 2: wasn't jew manipulating an outcome from Wall Street. J. K.
Speaker 2: Morgan didn't care how the how it shook out. They
Speaker 2: wanted their money, you know. It so happened that they
Speaker 2: bet on the wrong horse, you know, So that's important too.
Speaker 2: It was uh, and and and and again that's an
Speaker 2: odd case in the late modern era. I mean, often
Speaker 2: the things about the First World War were strained, but
Speaker 2: that's important to say. I'm sure there are buttle is
Speaker 2: going to be coming from some body in the comments
Speaker 2: insisting that insisting that H. Wilson was owned by Jews
Speaker 2: because of JP Morgan wanted its money. But uh, you know,
Speaker 2: and this is uh, you know. Traditionally too, there was
Speaker 2: sometimes formally sometimes just the factoh, these European peace treaties
Speaker 2: that establish national boundaries and rights therein, and these territorial
Speaker 2: swaps and everything else that characterized Europe for centuries, there
Speaker 2: was pretty much always some sort of Jewish representation on
Speaker 2: deck when these things were fleshed out, and that by
Speaker 2: the end of the nineteenth century, that basically come to
Speaker 2: an end, you know, And one of the rent makes
Speaker 2: the point too, I mean, aside from the political structure
Speaker 2: and the characteristics that derive from that structure that was
Speaker 2: emergent as Europe truly entered late modernity, you know, as
Speaker 2: wars became total culminating in World War One, the metrics
Speaker 2: became victory or death for waging war. You're not gonna
Speaker 2: have You're not gonna have some financial representatives on deck
Speaker 2: running unofficial diplomacy with your enemy as to how are
Speaker 2: both going to kind of make sure are our economic
Speaker 2: concerns aren't aren't devastated by conflict when you're trying to
Speaker 2: annihilate your enemy in absolute capacities, you know, you're trying
Speaker 2: to physically annihilate him and his country even occupy it
Speaker 2: and then essentially either rape what remains figuratively and literally
Speaker 2: or reconstituted as you know, a kind of destination market,
Speaker 2: fear manufacturers, and financial instruments. Like You're not you're not
Speaker 2: gonna have some Jewish banking representative on deck from the
Speaker 2: enemy country to like negotiate with your people. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's that's absurd obviously, you know, and that's important too.
Speaker 2: Nascent globalism, you know, the the limited globalism that was
Speaker 2: emergent by over one basically precluded that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: you know, So it's it's, uh, it's ridiculous to talk
Speaker 2: about the Jewish financial power in the twentieth and twenty
Speaker 2: verth centuries is driving from banking. That's not what it
Speaker 2: derives from. You know. Interestingly too, I mean back when
Speaker 2: during the the Merkel counselorship, you know when famously when
Speaker 2: when these Wall Street types, including Goldman Sachs, they were
Speaker 2: trying to they're basically trying to break the industrial national
Speaker 2: economics of the Buddhis Republic, and they approached these German
Speaker 2: banking concerns, which were largely goyish, and I'm talking like
Speaker 2: in the two thousands and uh when they tried to
Speaker 2: get this is ABZ pre two thousand and eight crash.
Speaker 2: Goldman Sachs is trying to get the Germans to sign
Speaker 2: on with funding these uh financial instruments and basically put
Speaker 2: their you know, integrate retirement funds and welfare outlays with
Speaker 2: like four to one K type structures and like and
Speaker 2: like the whole like German bank community like laughed in
Speaker 2: their face, like we don't invest in derivatives? What's wrong
Speaker 2: with you? You know, I mean like it's I mean
Speaker 2: that speaks for itself. You know that this is a
Speaker 2: Germany is literally an occupied country. It's it's being subjected
Speaker 2: to ethnic cleansing by social engineering. But the indigenous financial
Speaker 2: structure they like laugh at Wall Street when they try
Speaker 2: and get him in on these like Shylock. Uh, you know,
Speaker 2: con shell games at scale, you know, with respect to
Speaker 2: financial derivatives. I mean, frankly, I would have been surprised
Speaker 2: for it any other way. I mean, now, the the
Speaker 2: Europeans are literally mentally insane people now, I mean like
Speaker 2: you can't they're parently irrational. But uh, you know I
Speaker 2: when uh, there was when when when some kind of
Speaker 2: basic reason it's still prevailed even a messtonagoan occupation, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean that that speaks for itself. That you know,
Speaker 2: banking concerns are particularly uh on the side of financial capital,
Speaker 2: you know, not commercial banking. Obviously it was very very
Speaker 2: discreet from whatever the political situation was and the political
Speaker 2: culture was, and the duras this day because in uh,
Speaker 2: in some basic sense, you know, so there was this, uh,
Speaker 2: there's there's this odd contradiction where on the one hand,
Speaker 2: this uh, this uh Jewish diaspora which existed in terms
Speaker 2: of basic hostility with indigenous European majorities. The thing that
Speaker 2: built their power base was their peculiar insinuation in the
Speaker 2: financial affairs and life at court. But what ultimately created
Speaker 2: this terrible and catastrophic enmity between the two populations was
Speaker 2: an almost exclusively political matter that didn't really have anything
Speaker 2: to do with with high finance, you know. And uh,
Speaker 2: this isn't a trivial point or something that generally give
Speaker 2: interest to academics. It's actually important. But uh, moving on,
Speaker 2: I find my place here, you know. And this is
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why in the era, the era
Speaker 2: being you know, the nineteen thirties and forties and then
Speaker 2: beyond the Cold War, and even today this pops up
Speaker 2: in historical discussions people attack revisionists or people they perceive
Speaker 2: as being sympathetic to fascism of history or whatever, saying like, well,
Speaker 2: how can how can you quote blame Jews for revolutionary
Speaker 2: communism if they're these if they're these arch capitalists manipulators.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a false dichotomy anyway, but also it's
Speaker 2: not one or the other. And again by the twentieth century,
Speaker 2: you know, other than at great scale, we're talking about
Speaker 2: massive fortunes. You know, in these consolidated financial concerns, Jews
Speaker 2: really weren't insinuated into finance. Erie Sleiskin makes the point,
Speaker 2: you know, he's a guy who wrote the Jewish Century.
Speaker 2: He's an interesting scholar. You know, obviously he's a you know,
Speaker 2: he's he's descended from pale settlement people, you know, so
Speaker 2: it can't be said that he's just some constitutional anti
Speaker 2: Semite or something. You know, he's got an anthropological in
Speaker 2: the traditional sense, you know, drawing upon the same kind
Speaker 2: of methodology as people like Domazil. You know, he talks
Speaker 2: about the Jewish conceptual horizon, how they view themselves, you know,
Speaker 2: as a people, and how they view the world outside themselves,
Speaker 2: and the prime symbols that constitute that worldview. You know,
Speaker 2: he's though, he's the guy who coined the phrase Mercurians
Speaker 2: to describe the Asganasm and Apollonians to describe these European
Speaker 2: populations that you are descended from. A warrior yalomenry and
Speaker 2: I identify with those kinds of values and things. You know,
Speaker 2: he very much borrows in the trifunctional hypothesis. But you know,
Speaker 2: the Mercourian view or cultural perspective or you know orientation,
Speaker 2: existential orientation. We're gonna look at it that way. It's
Speaker 2: not reducible to a belief in money and the power
Speaker 2: and advocacy of money or something. You know. It's uh,
Speaker 2: it's got an emphasis on abstractions as the way of
Speaker 2: doing business in lieu of agricultural activities. You know what
Speaker 2: kind of profit teering and negotiation sometimes which is perfectnesce
Speaker 2: in a hostile liberally in lieu of warfare, you know,
Speaker 2: an idea of the historical process as a being kind
Speaker 2: of related to concrete particulars and intrigues they're in, rather
Speaker 2: than you know, a kind of narrative hole that is
Speaker 2: a exists under a you know, the Christian God obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, and Stesley makes the point too, or sled
Speaker 2: Scheme makes the point too. At the turn of the
Speaker 2: twentieth century, the total population of European Jewry was about
Speaker 2: eight zero point seven million, and over five million of
Speaker 2: these people lived in the Russian Empire, where they were
Speaker 2: about four or five percent of the population, and most
Speaker 2: of the Russian Jews lived in the pale settlement and
Speaker 2: residency laws restricted them. There there were some slim minority
Speaker 2: who were farmers or factory workers like scattered about. But
Speaker 2: you know, his point was that breaking down these demographic realities,
Speaker 2: you know, you're you're not talking about something like cosmopolitan
Speaker 2: group of people. You're talking about a really kind of primitive,
Speaker 2: almost backwards living people, you know, in majoritarian terms, you know.
Speaker 2: So the idea that these this kind of cultural milew
Speaker 2: was giving rise this kind of worldly, uh conspiratorily sophisticated
Speaker 2: perspective is kind of nonsense. You're talking about very basic hostility, okay,
Speaker 2: from people who mostly were kind of incestuously insular, you know,
Speaker 2: and like within that uh kind of strange existence developing
Speaker 2: an increasing and curating, like an increasingly violent hostility to
Speaker 2: the world without you know, then that reality seems totally
Speaker 2: at odds with the kind of caricature that exists in
Speaker 2: people's minds of jewelry, you know. And Selenskin makes the
Speaker 2: point too that this a major component of them kind
Speaker 2: of home mercorean conceptual horizon. It's contingent on the outside
Speaker 2: world retaining this kind of strangeness, you know, and the
Speaker 2: cliche is that you know, you're asking us it's this
Speaker 2: paranoiac tendency and not just dislake for outsiders, but this
Speaker 2: idea that the outside world's dangerous. You know, that's very
Speaker 2: much the source of you know, internal cultural life here.
Speaker 2: You know, this this is the opposite of a sophisticated
Speaker 2: worldly perspective. You know, it's uh, it's it's incredibly it's
Speaker 2: a cultivated ignorance, you know, like it really it really is,
Speaker 2: you know, and and that that breathes on pathologies too.
Speaker 2: So what of the sort of the cultural pole stars
Speaker 2: and and and psychological meta tricks in terms of you know,
Speaker 2: historical memory. You know, oh, the Cossacks are programming us.
Speaker 2: You know, there's there's a World War two, is a
Speaker 2: world conspiracy against Jews. You know, like this kind of
Speaker 2: stuff would be laughable were it not you know, enshrine
Speaker 2: into this kind of reigning ideology of you know, that
Speaker 2: that that oppresses people at scale. You know, if you
Speaker 2: if you remove that aspect of it and the historical
Speaker 2: significance of it and the danger of it, you you'd
Speaker 2: pity and laugh at people who think that way, you know,
Speaker 2: and that uh, you know, to be clear, there's kind
Speaker 2: of a naturally built in, almost commissarial structure. Very few
Speaker 2: people talk about this. I think it's because a lot
Speaker 2: of Americans don't really have a taste for serious theology
Speaker 2: and anthropological characteristics that are related therein you know, the
Speaker 2: degree to which Jewish society became this sort of fractious
Speaker 2: remnant of a once complete cultural paradigm after seventy a
Speaker 2: d really can't be overstated. Like this idea of the
Speaker 2: synagogue being the center of cultural life, and these these
Speaker 2: rabbinic scholars who aren't priests, and I'm not sure people
Speaker 2: really understand that without a temple, there's no priesthood. Without
Speaker 2: a sacrificing priesthood, there is no judaism as is understood
Speaker 2: in biblical terms. But a rabbi is basic we he's
Speaker 2: kind of one part minister, but he's more almost kind
Speaker 2: of a scholar of the law, you know, like a
Speaker 2: juristic professorial type. You know, having men like that be
Speaker 2: kind of the cultural backbone and in lieu of a
Speaker 2: temple or a church, having a synagogue, which is basically
Speaker 2: which is basically an academic and political institution be the
Speaker 2: center of humanitarian life. That's very strange, you know, and
Speaker 2: that's also why, that's also why the kind of two
Speaker 2: pole stars of status among the Asganaism. We're being a
Speaker 2: learned man in Judaism, and again not not a priest
Speaker 2: and not a and not a kind of not a
Speaker 2: you know, like a learned man in Islam. You know what,
Speaker 2: people are gonna quotally call him mullah, which is improper
Speaker 2: for a lot of reasons. But that's something different too.
Speaker 2: You're gonna think of a you know, these guys in
Speaker 2: places like Iran, you know, and you find it across
Speaker 2: the sectarian divide like Sarsuni. You're kind of aspire to
Speaker 2: be like a learned man in Islam. That's kind of
Speaker 2: a different thing that's strong almost upon you know, like
Speaker 2: a tradition of mystics that's common to a lot of
Speaker 2: these a lot of these uh Islamic cultures. Like I'm
Speaker 2: not I'm not saying that's a lofty thing to aspire
Speaker 2: to either, but it's a different thing. You know. Uh,
Speaker 2: there's nothing there's there's there's nothing mystical about a rabbi.
Speaker 2: There's nothing, you know, it's uh like I said, it's
Speaker 2: fundamentally commissarial, you know. And uh so that role you know,
Speaker 2: being kind of coveted or like being able to crew money.
Speaker 2: You know. That's like however people feel about that and
Speaker 2: whether that's you know, moral or not. It's a strange
Speaker 2: thing to assign that kind of profound cultural value, Like
Speaker 2: most most developed culture is kind of view with the
Speaker 2: in terms of the opposite, you know, like, oh, he's
Speaker 2: a pious man, he foregoes an interest in you know,
Speaker 2: material things for their own sake.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: So this is this is all very strange. And again,
Speaker 2: the way you understand it is that these tendencies derive
Speaker 2: from this self imposed isolation and kind of ignorance of
Speaker 2: the outside world and this sort of like incestuous and celerity.
Speaker 2: It doesn't derive from the kind of like cynical worldiness
Speaker 2: that comes from you know, running things and you know,
Speaker 2: knowing about the world and being urbane. That's preposterous. It's
Speaker 2: it's it's literally the opposite, you know. And this is
Speaker 2: a and this is one of the things too, where
Speaker 2: once that kind of interdependence that existed between European elites
Speaker 2: and Jewish elites, based again on kind of the how
Speaker 2: politics was done at court and things like. Once that
Speaker 2: I went away, you're talking about populations that are situated
Speaker 2: really as vicious enemies. And not only was there no
Speaker 2: longer any sort of interdependence that insinuated a kind of
Speaker 2: common objectivity about one another, if not respect, you know,
Speaker 2: once that went away, something horrible was going to happen.
Speaker 2: And that's exactly what did happen, you know. And to
Speaker 2: be clear too, I don't know if I got on
Speaker 2: this before, but like skin makes the point, you know,
Speaker 2: most well, most Jews didn't even speak the languages of
Speaker 2: the people they lived among, you know, like Ukrainian Jews
Speaker 2: spoke Yiddish. They didn't speak Ukrainian or Russian. You know,
Speaker 2: if you went to a if you went to a
Speaker 2: Jewish village in Latvia, even when that was situated you know, amiss,
Speaker 2: you know, like a larger constellation of towns or something.
Speaker 2: These people didn't speak Latvian. They didn't eat the same foods,
Speaker 2: they didn't go to the same places. They looked at
Speaker 2: each other as dirty, you know, as similarly, like unless
Speaker 2: you were some sort of linguistic scholar or something, or
Speaker 2: just by accident of being immersed in some sort of
Speaker 2: truly sort of cosmopolitan and multi racial city like casperg Vienna.
Speaker 2: You know, Nanjis didn't speak Yiddish, like why would they,
Speaker 2: you know, so there was It is possible, in late modernity,
Speaker 2: perhaps even especially in late modernity, to literally live next
Speaker 2: door to a people and remain totally insular from them,
Speaker 2: and I think a lot of people, I mean, that's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why the whole narrative of globalism
Speaker 2: a scale fails. I mean that that's starting to fade out.
Speaker 2: People don't really you're you're you're finding those kinds of
Speaker 2: appeals to you know, moral platitudes and social propaganda, that
Speaker 2: that's that's becoming less and less common. But this idea
Speaker 2: that oh, in the modern uh, under modern conditions, you know,
Speaker 2: you live around over kinds of people. It's like yeah,
Speaker 2: and people got their face and the screen and like
Speaker 2: they hate each other. Like it's not you know, you're
Speaker 2: not going out to like work on a farm with
Speaker 2: like a you know, all these great people who work
Speaker 2: there with you or something or you know, and incrasingly,
Speaker 2: you're not even like you're not even passing Randall's on
Speaker 2: the street. Anymore if you don't want to, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean I kind of have to don't of a car,
Speaker 2: you know, like, but in uh, the uh, the degree
Speaker 2: to which, even prior to information age innovations, you could
Speaker 2: entire communities could avoid each other while being situated two
Speaker 2: miles apart. I mean that was the reality. You know,
Speaker 2: it's the uh. But that's you know, and it's obviously
Speaker 2: this is a bit tangential, but it's related, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: and it's particularly on point. It needs to be this
Speaker 2: kind of ongoing discussion about the reason for this profound
Speaker 2: and catastrophic enmity of the game to Russia. I mean
Speaker 2: they agree to which the readers asanasm hate the Russians
Speaker 2: can't be overstated, you know. And even even when you
Speaker 2: read this this kind of yeah Van Mishem type propaganda,
Speaker 2: like even within their own narrative they say stuff like,
Speaker 2: you know, Germany was a civilized and culture land and
Speaker 2: you know, Jewish blind Perlinners, you know, were patriotic Germans.
Speaker 2: You know, if if we were gonna suffer a horrible
Speaker 2: program anywhere, we'd have thought it would be Russia. I mean,
Speaker 2: Russia is the enemy to the ashcanasm you know and uh,
Speaker 2: I like, uh, you know that peace Stalin's willing executioners.
Speaker 2: It was originally a it was a paper that Kevin
Speaker 2: McDonald drafted, and then he expanded into this uh not
Speaker 2: quite book length essay, but the most of that piece.
Speaker 2: It's a review and a breakdown of sleds Skeen's book,
Speaker 2: because this is a huge aspect of what sleds Keen
Speaker 2: talks about, you know, and he fully acknowledges a huge
Speaker 2: amount of Jews joined the Cheka and they set about
Speaker 2: to massacre their Slavic neighbors who they viewed as oppressing them.
Speaker 2: You know, they hated these people, and Stalin exploited that,
Speaker 2: you know. And I don't know how anybody can look
Speaker 2: at how the Soviet the Russian Revolution developed. You literally
Speaker 2: had the Jewish population locking and loading, slaughtering these people
Speaker 2: that they hated, massacring their priests, destroying their churches, trying
Speaker 2: to wipe them out as a culture. And then when
Speaker 2: these criminal personalities like Stalin, after kind of the cycle
Speaker 2: like killing it run its course, and after the Second
Speaker 2: World War and the emergency wrought by the pass like
Speaker 2: what does Stalin do you being hanging and purging all
Speaker 2: of them because they were too dangerous to allow to
Speaker 2: survive in this kind of socialistic empire. That derived it's
Speaker 2: what you know, driving its internal cohesion and its legitimacy
Speaker 2: from this claim that, you know, the Russians are the
Speaker 2: first among the nationalities. Like how anybody can look at
Speaker 2: that and be like Prutin likes the Jews and Israel
Speaker 2: in Russia are allies. I mean, like you're you don't
Speaker 2: lose reality if you think that way, or I mean,
Speaker 2: you're so fucking stupid, I you probably are at risk
Speaker 2: of fretting to breathe, you know, and and then dying,
Speaker 2: you know, to say nothing to the fact that the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union was literally at war for Israel with Israel
Speaker 2: for decades. The Russians went to war against Israel again
Speaker 2: in twenty eleven and then as zion as the government
Speaker 2: was installed in Ukraine, it receeded to assault the Russian Federation.
Speaker 2: Like this isn't esoteric or crazy stuff that requires a
Speaker 2: lifetime of study and attention to subtle nuanced to to understand.
Speaker 2: Like if you look at a political map and if
Speaker 2: you turn on legacy media programming for five minutes, this
Speaker 2: is what jumps out at you, like, even if you're
Speaker 2: not an intelligent person. You know, that's why I just
Speaker 2: I refuse to engage with people who say such things
Speaker 2: anymore because some things are too stupid do acknowledge. But
Speaker 2: that's you know, that's that's the long and short of it.
Speaker 2: I mean, don't get me wrong, I've got my own
Speaker 2: theories on geopolitical affairs, and obviously I'm no environmentalist type
Speaker 2: of person. But the reality is that this voracious appetite
Speaker 2: for consumption and the conversion of you know, natural racism
Speaker 2: and commodities, in the in the in the usable value
Speaker 2: added things this has. You know, there's a limited caring
Speaker 2: addacity here. And one of the reasons America is the
Speaker 2: loci of world power is because it's it's it retains,
Speaker 2: you know, what remains that what remains the bounty of
Speaker 2: nature is situated here being rapidly depleted. The remainder, the
Speaker 2: other remainder of the world's natural resources are in Central Asia.
Speaker 2: You know, uh, oil, natural gas, arable land, you know,
Speaker 2: all all these things. Central Asia, the Russian heartland. It
Speaker 2: doesn't quite have what we do here, but it's compared
Speaker 2: to the rest of the planet, it's a tremendous wealth
Speaker 2: of resources, and uh so there is that incentive to
Speaker 2: to break up the Russian Federation and be able to
Speaker 2: access and exploit those things. You know. I mean that
Speaker 2: this this goes way back. So that's that's always a consideration,
Speaker 2: but that is that is far from the primary catalyst
Speaker 2: for the you know, adopting any irrational war footing towards
Speaker 2: the Russian Federation has happened in nineteen ninety nine and
Speaker 2: plus two. If that was the only if that if that,
Speaker 2: if that was the only objective, you will that's not
Speaker 2: that you don't go about it by waging some irrational
Speaker 2: crusade against the Russian Federation and transforming Ukraine into a
Speaker 2: kind of suicide torpedo. That's not how you do it,
Speaker 2: you know. So it doesn't it doesn't defeat or about
Speaker 2: the proposition to point out, you know, well it you know,
Speaker 2: these uh some of these energy concerns are trying to
Speaker 2: break Russian state control as far back as like you know,
Speaker 2: ninety nine, two thousand. Yeah, that that that did happen.
Speaker 2: That is happening, but like it's not one of the
Speaker 2: other you know. That's why too, the when the Bush
Speaker 2: Baker plan the Bush Baker Gorbachev model for the post
Speaker 2: Soviet era. You know, like I said before, it's really
Speaker 2: interesting because in part that plan called for the Soviet
Speaker 2: Union to remain until full disarmament had been realized, and
Speaker 2: then for the transition to something like the Common of
Speaker 2: Independent States. This kind of devolved federalism, but with the
Speaker 2: supremacy of Moscow as the political core remaining. But Rumsfeld,
Speaker 2: Cheney a bunch of the PNAC guys, they their big
Speaker 2: notion was to break the Soviet Union essentially into three pieces,
Speaker 2: you know, like the Siberian East or like, so what
Speaker 2: was Soviet of Asia? Then there was like basically, uh,
Speaker 2: the Greater Moscow Leningrad kind of constellation of uh of
Speaker 2: of territory, and then uh like Ukraine and like Belarus
Speaker 2: and like Western Russia. You know that that was kind
Speaker 2: of how it was supposed to break down, and uh,
Speaker 2: some sort of some sort of cipher like Yelson would
Speaker 2: be kind of like the dictator of you know, like
Speaker 2: American Commissariat Moscow there to the EU would be able
Speaker 2: to essentially cannibalize Ukraine, you know, uh with you know America.
Speaker 2: And the driver's seat obviously is the occupying element and
Speaker 2: then uh the uh the Soviet Far East would what
Speaker 2: had beened like the Soviet Far East that basically be
Speaker 2: like the territorial hedge against China, and that also be
Speaker 2: uh the origin point of deployment into Central Asia and
Speaker 2: stuff you know, in the subcontinent, what have you. And
Speaker 2: they would also facilitate pressure being brought to Baron Iran
Speaker 2: and stuff that's really interesting to contemplate.
Speaker 1: Well, well, the people who think that that Putin works
Speaker 1: for the Jews would have to believe that he basically
Speaker 1: is doing what Yeltsin was supposed to do as far
Speaker 1: as p Neck was the and which means that if
Speaker 1: he works for the Jews, he works for America. Yause,
Speaker 1: I mean, if if we're zog, that means that that
Speaker 1: means that Putin works for the United States. Is the
Speaker 1: United States government?
Speaker 2: The same people like I said, like, I don't I
Speaker 2: haven't followed him lately. Maybe he's become more center. I
Speaker 2: don't know. But I used to run under these guys
Speaker 2: who were like Info Wars fans, and they drop a
Speaker 2: lot of Alex Jones' talking points and they claim stuff
Speaker 2: like the Cold War was ledgered Maine and I'm an
Speaker 2: idiot because there was never any chance in nuclear wars.
Speaker 2: It was all fake and it's like, that's not how
Speaker 2: things work. I mean, that's stupid for all kinds of reasons.
Speaker 2: But it's like, so America and the Soviet Union, they're
Speaker 2: just maintaining these massive constellation of military forces. Then they
Speaker 2: were pretending to go to war in places like Vietnamine
Speaker 2: and Gola and killing a bunch of people just as
Speaker 2: part of like the Magicians act. Why would anybody do that?
Speaker 2: You know? But there's the same people who claim that,
Speaker 2: well nine to eleven was a controlled demolition. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: but if you don't need to blow up the world
Speaker 2: trace and get a war man date, you know, you
Speaker 2: basasically to stir up war fever. You know, this isn't uh,
Speaker 2: this isn't nineteen forty where you got you know, President
Speaker 2: for life Roosevelt saying, how do I how can I
Speaker 2: mobilize twenty million men, you know and kill off they
Speaker 2: were from like a quarter million, like a million American
Speaker 2: boys in some unpopular war and basically shut down all
Speaker 2: activity other than this, you know, unrelated this unrelated to this,
Speaker 2: you know, massive war effort yeah, then you do need
Speaker 2: a pearl Harvard. I maink that happen. You don't need
Speaker 2: to You don't need to blow up New York City
Speaker 2: to invent a catalyst to intervene in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean did Bush that, did Bush forty
Speaker 2: one order some sort of bomb to be planted in
Speaker 2: Chicago or LA to intervene in the Gulf War? I
Speaker 2: mean like apparently not, you know, like because that's acidine.
Speaker 2: But the you know, I say, with the Russia thing,
Speaker 2: it's like, Okay, I understand in some cases we're talking
Speaker 2: about historical or plical phenomena, like trying to explain to people,
Speaker 2: especially people who don't really understand these topics in depth,
Speaker 2: why there was this incredibly violent enmity between you know,
Speaker 2: Jews and Germans. Okay, that's a complicated topic and it's subtle.
Speaker 2: The case of Russia and Israel, they both talks, both
Speaker 2: Russians and Israelis and Jews write books about how they
Speaker 2: hate each other, why they hate each other, they go
Speaker 2: to war constantly, and then people turn around and act
Speaker 2: like this is like they're like be fuddled by the
Speaker 2: reality of this, Like I don't it's very much above board,
Speaker 2: you know, like essentially the entire final phase of the
Speaker 2: Cold War, especially after you know, Southeast Asia and and
Speaker 2: the subcontinent and you know what, we're stabilized where they
Speaker 2: set a lit in this kind of divided paradigm and
Speaker 2: the sound of Soviets split was you know, kind of
Speaker 2: ossified into a new paradigm. Like basically the front line
Speaker 2: of the Cold War was Palestine. You know it, uh
Speaker 2: Moscow literally passed a law making it a crime to
Speaker 2: be a Zionist. Like this this goes back centuries. You know,
Speaker 2: it's it's I I don't understand it how you can
Speaker 2: be like that fucking stupid, but uh, you know, like
Speaker 2: I said, I just don't. I just don't engage with
Speaker 2: those people because they're I worry you might be contagious,
Speaker 2: Like I might become like unbelievably fucking stupid if I
Speaker 2: like catch whatever they have or something.
Speaker 1: Well, it's like the nine to eleven thing, the how
Speaker 1: not how nine eleven happened and how the buildings fell,
Speaker 1: why three buildings fell is really like that's for the
Speaker 1: low IQ people to talk about why it happened, and
Speaker 1: you know, why it was carried, why that mission was
Speaker 1: carried out is way more important, But people don't want
Speaker 1: to know the why because if you can figure out
Speaker 1: where the bomb was placed here and what happened here,
Speaker 1: you you seem to be a whole lot smarter.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's like that's one of the things about conspiracies is
Speaker 1: and I'm not talking about conspiracy. There are conspiracies. There
Speaker 1: was a conspiracy to get the United States into World
Speaker 1: War One. We know this. I mean, that's that's inarguable.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about these conspiracies that are meant to divert
Speaker 1: you away from the things that you should be concentrating on.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like you have people who believe that,
Speaker 1: like the reason pot the reason Putin is is a
Speaker 1: Jewish puppet is because he's crossing over border and killing
Speaker 1: white people. Yeah, well that's what that's what That's what
Speaker 1: Jews want, right, Jews want to kill white people. And
Speaker 1: even even if he's not working with him, he's so
Speaker 1: fucking stupid that he fell for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't. It's just like a totle lag of
Speaker 2: understanding of how the sociology function. That's scale too, Like,
Speaker 2: I don't I think Pelee's idea that if you're talking
Speaker 2: about a country or a political consolation of hundreds of
Speaker 2: millions of people. It functions kind of like the office
Speaker 2: they work at, just bigger or something like. They don't
Speaker 2: they don't understand that when you're talking about humanity at
Speaker 2: that scale, there's nobody really at the helm. You know,
Speaker 2: you've got politically powerful people they're responding to essentially apocal
Speaker 2: forces or acts of God, going to live it that
Speaker 2: way and identifying you know, when where and how. You know,
Speaker 2: a directive intervention by political or military means you know,
Speaker 2: can swing an outcome when where or the other you know,
Speaker 2: I know there's other things there too. I mean there's
Speaker 2: like what honor demands and you know, impulses relating to
Speaker 2: the passions and things and you know, uh, paradigms of
Speaker 2: religious belief that like inform conduct. But you know, I don't. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's what people just don't even understand, like what what
Speaker 2: politics is like it's not or they think that the
Speaker 2: planet is like some sort of variant of whatever, like
Speaker 2: weird corner of America they live in, you know, like
Speaker 2: one of the things like you know, and uh, I
Speaker 2: think too, they've got this idea that warfare only emerges
Speaker 2: as some sort of as some sort of deliberate policy,
Speaker 2: and like you can you can just make it happen
Speaker 2: or make it not happen, like you can by tending
Speaker 2: your garden or something. You know, I mean, like war arrives,
Speaker 2: like the seasons, you can inspire to capitalizing conditions of
Speaker 2: enmity and push those conditions towards catastrophe, you know, like
Speaker 2: America is done in Ukraine, but it's uh the situation there.
Speaker 2: You're dealing with the totally dysfunctional culture and there's an
Speaker 2: irrational animosity there, particularly coming from the Ukrainian side. But
Speaker 2: that didn't like spontaneously emerge one day because you know,
Speaker 2: idiots the American Department of State have some ability to
Speaker 2: like mind control people or something. But I maintain and
Speaker 2: this isn't some sort of stupid flex are standing politics
Speaker 2: at scale. It's like anything else I don't understand, Like
Speaker 2: people just decide to understand this. It's like would you
Speaker 2: decide you understand nuclear physics? You know, like why do
Speaker 2: you think you have some say on this? You don't
Speaker 2: know what the fuck you're talking about. You know, you
Speaker 2: have no ability to perceive these things. But you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is what I think. It's like why because you
Speaker 2: watch you watch TV, like you know, it's really really
Speaker 2: really weird.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you're not going to get it from podcasts either,
Speaker 1: and that's coming from a podcaster. Yeah, we can help
Speaker 1: you down the road, we can point you in the
Speaker 1: right direction. But if you're not leaving here, if you're
Speaker 1: not leaving this and reading Uri Sledskin or Hana our Rent,
Speaker 1: well you don't know what. You don't know what was
Speaker 1: just discussed, you know, And then you're going to have
Speaker 1: the people who are going to immediately say, well, you're
Speaker 1: invoking a rent and you're invoking Sledskin, and there are
Speaker 1: both Jews, and of course they're going to say that
Speaker 1: there the all the Jews, all the this blame needs
Speaker 1: to be deflected away from Jews because you know, they're
Speaker 1: trying to protect their own Yeah.
Speaker 2: I just don't I read. Uh. I remember, I take
Speaker 2: a layman in terms of like space science and stuff,
Speaker 2: and I listen to a lot of podcasts like by
Speaker 2: that guy Jean Michael Goadier, you know, he does the
Speaker 2: Event Horizon pod and stuff, and uh, whether people agree
Speaker 2: with the takes of him and these other guys, these
Speaker 2: guys are all like PGDs and physics. Like I'm not
Speaker 2: saying credentials mean you know something, But in that whole
Speaker 2: kind of sphere, there's not just like random guys who
Speaker 2: are like, yeah, I manage a Walmart, but today I'm
Speaker 2: gonna talk about you know, black hole cosmology because I
Speaker 2: watch TV, so I'm an expert like like literally in
Speaker 2: like the political sphere, that's what it is. It's like
Speaker 2: I'm some like random dickhead like Dan Bill's aria and
Speaker 2: you might remember me from like like how to pick
Speaker 2: Up Girls and like steroid guys stuff. But I don't
Speaker 2: like Israel now, you know. It's like where do these
Speaker 2: motherfuckers get their fucking balls? You know, It's like you
Speaker 2: got no you have no opinion on this, you know,
Speaker 2: like you like you know less than nothing. You know.
Speaker 2: That's that's weird about it. When I realized there was
Speaker 2: an entire legacy media culture that it's kind of tailored
Speaker 2: to confer these delusions upon randos that they were actually
Speaker 2: they actually understand politics. But I still maintain it's a
Speaker 2: fucking weird phenomenon. I literally spend like ten hours a
Speaker 2: day like studying this stuff, and I have for my
Speaker 2: entire life, and uh, I feel like I'm just scratching
Speaker 2: the service of things. But then there's like a billion
Speaker 2: randos who are like barely literate, who have like some
Speaker 2: hardest fuck opinion on politics, like it's retarded.
Speaker 1: Some of them have audiences too, no, so.
Speaker 2: Like yeah, that's like I said, like if you look
Speaker 2: at these these supposedly like right wing fags, it's just
Speaker 2: like random idiots, Like that's why he's that, Like Dan
Speaker 2: Bilderian guys like this, Like Jim bro guy. One day
Speaker 2: he's like, I don't like Israel, Like it's it's it's
Speaker 2: like a grift. But it's just weird. It's weird. These
Speaker 2: people think they understand that it's weird. They gravitate the
Speaker 2: total randos who they decide or authorities on you know,
Speaker 2: like photical theoretical affairs and stuff, and it's just like weird.
Speaker 2: They think that they're in they have a stake in
Speaker 2: this anyway. It's like it's like the rand whos have
Speaker 2: decided like Trump is ruining their life. It's like it's
Speaker 2: like it's like you don't understand these things. This has
Speaker 2: no impact on your life, Like why why are you
Speaker 2: convinced like Donald Trump is after you. It's like whoever
Speaker 2: the president is. It's like you're not capable of understanding
Speaker 2: this ship. Just like go about your goofy life and
Speaker 2: you know where you like work at Target or whatever,
Speaker 2: Like why why you decided You're like some Marvel Comics
Speaker 2: character and Donald Trump's a super villain who's trying to
Speaker 2: do things to you, you know, like that that you
Speaker 2: have like no bearing on your world, you know, like it.
Speaker 1: All right? Man? Yeah, yeah, it's it's it's just frustrating
Speaker 1: sometimes because you know, you you bury your heads the
Speaker 1: head in these books and you actually read them to
Speaker 1: people sometimes, you know how I like to do that
Speaker 1: and everything, and people still don't get it. It's still
Speaker 1: black and white. It's still this black and white good
Speaker 1: versus evil kind of thing, and it's there is no
Speaker 1: I mean, if you bring up if you bring up
Speaker 1: sociological issues, you know, within within the framework of two people,
Speaker 1: of two distinct peoples who just are not going to
Speaker 1: be able to get along with each other. I remember
Speaker 1: one time you and I talked about I think Jews
Speaker 1: in Spain. It's like, how the hell did Jews go
Speaker 1: into a Catholic country and both of those groups not
Speaker 1: immediately start killing each other. It just doesn't make any
Speaker 1: sense whatsoever. And why because there's a So it's not
Speaker 1: because one doesn't like the way the other one looks,
Speaker 1: one doesn't like the way the other one smells. It's
Speaker 1: because there is a fundamentally sociological issue there that is
Speaker 1: going to cause one of those groups to realize that
Speaker 1: the other is a grave threat to their to their
Speaker 1: survival in in that milieu.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and it's yeah, exactly, Well no, and that's
Speaker 2: why that's why Gee keeps so hard and increasingly I'm
Speaker 2: a part of it because I'm like old and cantanke risks,
Speaker 2: but I'm just not I I'm not here to like
Speaker 2: trying spoonfeed knowledge to stupid people. They're like or disruptive
Speaker 2: or ignorant people. And it's like, I don't I think
Speaker 2: it really gets me. And like I said, I mean,
Speaker 2: I I'm trying to overreact to this stuff and I'm
Speaker 2: very fortunate and all hads of way. It's not better,
Speaker 2: but they'll be motherfuckers. They will literally plagiarize my shit
Speaker 2: and like say stuff I'd said word for word, and
Speaker 2: then like I'm an idiot and I don't know what
Speaker 2: I'm talking about. It's like, really, man, it's like you
Speaker 2: gotta have you built a content brand on plagiarizing me,
Speaker 2: you know, so it's like you must be a real
Speaker 2: idiot then, because like apparently I don't know anything, but
Speaker 2: your entire kink is like appropriating everything I say and write.
Speaker 2: But you know, and then like Thunders made the point
Speaker 2: that like people would they hate on him constantly and
Speaker 2: see he was like a junkie piece of ship, but
Speaker 2: then they'd like imitate everything he did, so I guess thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then you got a chance to have a
Speaker 1: conversation where people who have been studying this for decades
Speaker 1: and like they're actually like real academics, and you have
Speaker 1: conversations with them and they're like they're not calling you
Speaker 1: an idiot like some fucking a non on Twitter.
Speaker 2: Will Well it's also too, I mean, frankly, like I said,
Speaker 2: I don't I don't think I'm I don't think I'm
Speaker 2: better than anybody. You don't think I'm like some kind
Speaker 2: of genius. But it's like, well, I don't know, man,
Speaker 2: I have that conversations about this kind of shit with
Speaker 2: people like Henry Kissinger and you know, I've never been
Speaker 2: told that I'm that I don't know what I'm talking about,
Speaker 2: that I'm an idiot, and like I said, it's like, okay, fine,
Speaker 2: I'm an idiot then while you motherfuckers stop plagiarizing me now,
Speaker 2: like I whatever.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, all right, man, tell people where they
Speaker 1: can find you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, uh, the best spot remains substick. It's
Speaker 2: real Thomas seven seven seven dot substack dot com. You
Speaker 2: know that's from there you can get to my social
Speaker 2: media and all that shit. And uh, my website now
Speaker 2: is pretty like everything should be working right, It's number
Speaker 2: seven hm as seven seven seven dot com, Like go
Speaker 2: there first and foremost.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Oh one thing I took away from this
Speaker 1: you said it at the end. Gatekeep gatekeep gatekeep in
Speaker 1: your personal especially in your personal life if you're if
Speaker 1: you're out there gatekeeping on Twitter. Oh that guy over there,
Speaker 1: he won't name the Jew, so that means that means
Speaker 1: that he wants the Jews to take over Yeah, seek
Speaker 1: Canadian healthcare? Really?
Speaker 2: Yeah, why that's why you don't teach people to read exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you take every other back