Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your sub stack or
through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website which
is right there, gum Road and what's the other one,
subscribe Star and if you do that, you will get
access to the audio file. So head on over to
the pekan Yonashow dot com. You'll see all the ways
that you can support me there. And I just want
to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can
put out the amount of material that I do. I
can do what I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two
hundred Years Together and everything else, the things that Thomas
and I are doing together on condinal philosophy, it's all
because of you. And yeah, I mean, I'll never be
able to thank you enough. So thank you. The Pekanyonashow
dot com. Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back
to the Peking yonas show Thomas is back. We're going
to take a little bit of a detour, as we
do very often, to talk about a subject that's spent
at the forefront of Thomas's mind recently, the que unquote
trial of Adolf Eichman. So Thomas take it away, please.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an important subject matter. It's not just a
question a trivia relevant to people who are into the
third Reichen revisionism. It came up because I was talking
to Burden and he was talking about how odd it
is that not just formal representatives of Lekud, but apologists
for Israel all in Sundry, and even people aren't Jewish,
they speak of Israel as being synonymous with the Jews
as a people, and they talk about Israel as being
the formal instantation of the which people at international law.
And that's not just a colloquialism or some odd convention
that developed over time for ideological reasons. That's very much
coded into the world system, and that was put to
the A lot of things are put to the test
with the trial of ad Off Aikman, including this sort
of special dispensations Israel has at international law, and it
also it also had the force of solidifying and establishing
as precedent for all time this anti fascist convention whereby
people can be held into court for allegedly having been
involved in what's declared to be what was unilaterally declared
to be criminal acts and in the service of the
acts powers. And there was weird intrigues around Eikman and
his apprehension, and he was something of an odd target,
you know, to be clear. And Hannah Rent gets into this.
Her book I Come in Jerusalem is a mixed bag.
I'm the one that's very critical of Israel and it's
not and it's bliger refueled to a observed due process.
But in the other there's some weak spots of it.
And it was very much written for a mass audience,
and it was very much written according to the convention of
political correctness of that time, which was the ear Lane sixties.
Remember people who think political correctness just appeared one day
in nineteen ninety or something. They don't understand this country. Okay,
it was around before any of us were born. And
I judge it particularly contra both the origins of Sotalitarianism,
which is a really great book, and the titles misleading
that's actually not what it's about at all, you know,
and it very much has to do with the deep
sociology of how and why this has profound enmity developed
between the Jewish minority in Europe and and you know
European people, particularly as the nation state deteriorated in favor
of supernational structures, you know, as a superpower error emerged.
And that's an important point that's not well understood, particularly
in America, even by historians or somewhat critical of mainstream narratives.
The meaning that Third Reich was that it was a
pan European tendency. The whole point of it was to
create a new order whereby Europe became a superpower and
that process that gave rise to, you know, the the
establishment of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, and
that you know, in historical capacities, allowed the United States
to martialists resources into an incredible degree of power projection
aside of the scene. That was the approximate cause of
this horrendous violence that, to be clear, emerged from both sides,
you know, between Jews and Germans, and Jews and Russians,
and ultimately, you know, Zionists turned their violent attentions to
darl Islam and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and that
that's actually very much an earned nolty point that Hana
Rent made and that's no surprise because you know, she
was a heightier accolade, just like Ernstnulty was, you know,
and they absolutely crossed paths. How close or they were,
you know, it is questionable. I don't believe they're particularly friendly,
but they definitely shared epistemological assumptions and things. But that's
that's why this is important. And to understand the present situation,
you've got to understand the Kman trial as precedent, because
the international military tribunal that committed at Nuremberg, that that
established the configuration of the global regime's legal order that
was only finally fully realized in nineteen eighty nine. But
the Aikman trial that established the special dispensations and you know,
exclusive privileges of the Jewish state within that system, and
that's not well understood. Not a lot is well understood
about Iikman either. Obviously they needed some sort of figure
to burn in verbial effigy, and because they're outside of
you know, men who've served as general officers in the
Vermachta of Offen SS. There wasn't you know, the Nationals,
his leadership didn't really exist anymore. They'd been executed or
they died, so deciding Iikman, they what they hung on him.
The label was he's the quote architect of the Holocaust.
That's really really strange for all kinds of reasons, not
the least of which Iikman was a fairly irrelevant person.
He he was a young guy, you know, when the
war ended, he was only about forty or he just
turned forty one. He was born March nineteenth, nineteen oh six.
He'd his final rank was over stromb on Field, which
was the SS equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the
NATO rank system. At base, he was a policeman and
he served the r s h A, which was the
right Secure TOMP, the Reichmane Security Office. He ended up
becoming the chief of Department for BE four, which was
Jewish affairs. He'd come up initially through the SD and
the Security Police as being assigned to spying on Freemasons
and fraternal organizations that were considered to be subversive, which
again was a pretty middling detail. And he was some
sort of logistics savant he could that was a real
strong suit. And that's what's remarkable about him. He had
a genius for logistical planning and crunching the numbers in
his head. That entailed moving mass amounts of human beings
and material as needed in under conditions of you know, war,
peace time, and varying degrees of mobilization, and that owes
to the Holocaust and narrative places of premium on well,
these this moving around of populations at massive scale, These
people are being delivered to their doom, and Eichman the
savant was delivering them to their death and mass. So
that part of it makes sense. With this idea that
he was this important personage in the German Reich is
totally off base and just odd at to understand what
is rank would have been, or i mean, his cloud
or relative power within the executive of the the Reich.
You know Himler was under Heinrich Mueller, who came eve
known as Gestappo Muller, who's the head of the Gestapo.
Gestappo Mueller served directly under Ryinod Heydrich, who was chief
of the SD and the chief of the RSHA and
after he was murdered, Ernst Carlton Berner came into the role.
Heidrich and the later kalten Berner served under Himmler. Himmler
technically was second only to Hitler because he was the
reichs Farrss. But Hitler and Himmler were not close. They
weren't friends. They didn't socialize, They seldom saw each other.
They're you know, they didn't associate socially. Himler was a
bit of a loose cannon who Hitler reviewed as being
radically dedicated to the cause. He was an old fighter,
he'd been at Munich in ninety twenty three. He'd come
up through Rohm's Free Corps. So his credentials spoke for
themselves in terms of his willingness to sacrifice for the party.
But you know that that was it. There wasn't a
personal relationship to speak between Hitler and Himler. This idea
that this idea that Aikman was some approximate to the
fur had great power. That's that that that doesn't make
any sense. That'd be that'd be like taking some kind
of random career homely in security man and declaring that
he's the actual power behind Donald Trump or something. You know,
I'm just for context that it doesn't really make any
sense what I believe happened with Aikman. And this is
pretty well substantial by this point by people who want
to dig into the record. Ikeman after the war, like
a lot of people who'd served the Access Powers, and
not just Germans, but Italians, Croas, Japanese, Slovaks, you know,
all manner of people, they found a new home in
Latin America, particularly Argentina. But Argentina also is a very
European coded place culturally, and the Prone government was very
friendly to National Socialists, as was the Strassner government. So
after the war, Iikman, just by virtue was a membership
in the SS and you know, particularly the RSHJ meant
that he would be a wanted man, but it wasn't
really a private He wasn't really anybody's radar for years.
Then what happened was there's the publication of what came
to be known as the Aikman Papers. Now this came
about because in Argentina there's a man named Wilhelm Sassen
who came to know Iikman, and he also probably came
to know Mengola personally, Mengol is a lot more sympathetic
of a figure than Iikman in my opinion, because he
Mengela literally got transformed into this into this horror movie
monster by propaganda. It's totally totally bizarre. And Mengola drowned
when he was swimming as an elderly man and his
identity wasn't confirmed for some years. But so, I mean,
he he escaped the vengeance of the Jewish state and
of the Justice Department's OSI, but I'm sure he didn't
have a happy way where he was living out his
twilight years. But because it may the deal with wil
Hum Sassen billm. Sassen was that he was a Flemish
National Socialist and from Holland, and he joined the s
S as a as a work correspondent and as a
as a Dutch language propagandist on behalf of the the
NSD A p and Uh. He was on deck with
documenting a lot of antipartisan action, so he witnessed some
pretty severe stuff and he may have he may have
participated in it in a direct action capacity. You know,
I'm talking about mass shootings and non combatants and the
kind of stuff that was common to the ost front
on both sides. But Sasen he was an incredibly shady
guy and he was almost certainly some kind of intelligence
asset for the boond this Republic or British intelligence or
the CIA. You know, he probably did this for cynical reasons.
He it's hard to imagine a man like him having
any principles. But what Sassen did was he Eikman was
kind of a naive person. He was almost autistic by
all accounts. Sassen befriended Aikman and he said, I want
to I want to help you draft your memoirs because
you were an important man who was witnessed to history,
and you know, we need to set the record straight.
So what was produced was this six hundred pages of documents,
which is mostly conversations between Sassen and Eichman about the
war years, about the structure of the ss ON on
the SD side and the r SAHA side, which at
then at that point was little known. There wasn't much
written about it, and the men who'd served the organization
were very secretive about it. And within the pages of
this testimonial, Aikman says some pretty incriminating stuff but not
of the sort that people might think. And what Sasen
did was he proceeded to sell these pages to a
Life magazine, obviously without Aikman's knowledge. And then subsequently, what's
you know what lands like a bomb in English speaking
media markets On the front page of Life magazine is
this picture of Aikman in his SS uniform and in
bold letters to interview with the devil, the architect of
the Holocaust. And so suddenly Eichman is on people's radar
and sausted all but disclose exactly where Aikman lived. And
to be clear, Aikman, to his credit, he was still
married to his wife, you know, who he'd brought with him.
He actually had a young child, you know, who arrived
late in life, you know, and he was working as
some sort of office job. I think he was working
as an accountant for some small machine firm or something,
you know, and living in the Buenos Aire suburbs, just
kind minding his own business, you know. I mean, he
was living under an alias, but it's not like he
was under deep cover or something. And when when this
kind of entered the public mind, you know, very suddenly
the question became, why is this man free. Why isn't
he facing justice? You know this, this man is the
most evil personal life. He he was the architect of
the Holocaust, you know, so very, so very quickly this
became a priority of them, SAD two capture him and
avail him to a show trial, but first and foremost
to interrogate him and and sort of fill in the
gaps of what they wanted to know. And during the
Cold War, and you know, all information of this sort
was valuable, even though it might not seem so to
a layman, but also if you're somebody engaged with the
historical process, whether as a secret policeman or an intelligence agent,
or a military man, or just a nobody kind of
documentarian like me, this is a valuable score a person
like Eikman. And what's interesting is Simon Wisenthal, who has
proven to be a total liar. I'm not talking about
what he alleged about events in World War Two, although
that obviously wasn't credible either, but he made a whole
career out of making up stories about being involved in
capturing these Third Reich figures. And he claimed that he
located Iikman. That's complete nonsense. He He'senthal was that nobody
who built a career on bullshit and presenting himself as
as some sort of Frederick Forsyke novel character. You know,
this was completely confabulated. And like I said too, Iikman
wasn't really hiding number one and number two such that
he was under light cover. That was all over by
the time Sasen sold his testimony to Life magazine. So
on the evening of May eleven, nineteen sixty Iikeman, you know,
is on his way home from work like any other night,
and he gets grabbed by Masad operatives, you know, thrown
into a car, subdued with some kind of drug. You know.
Nine days later, he's been flown to Israel and thrown
in a jail cell when a veiled to interrogation for
the next eleven months, and on April eleven, nineteen sixty one,
he found himself in district court in Jerusalem, being arraigned
on fifteen counts, including the allegation that, together with co conspirators,
he committed crimes against the Jewish people, as well as
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the usual litany of charges.
At first solid of the day at the International Military
tribunal a decade and a half prior. But what was
significant and what was novel, was this claim that Aikman
had offended against the Jewish people as a people, and
that Israel was the the jury representative at international law
of the Jewish people as as an ethnos or as
a confessional and sectarian community and as a matter of law.
That's problematic, and interestingly, a lot of these Jewish organizations
in America, in the Bunue Republic, in the UK this
wasn't the case. But a lot of these American Jewish
mngos said, wait, wait, wait a minute. You know, the
government in Tel Aviv is isn't the representative of all
Jewish people. That's that's not the way we want to proceed,
and that's probably not even legally cognizable, you know, this
idea that like that to be clear too, that the
claim of the Jewish state in this context, it wasn't
that they govern in Tel Aviv is the representative of
Jewish people the nation of Israel. The claim was that
it literally was the representative of the Jewish people as
the Jewish people on this planet, whatever their nation of
origin and whatever language they speak. And if you with
specific intent to harm the Jews as a people, offend
against them. Their legal representation. The their legal representative as
a matter of law is the Jewish State, and they
can stand in for the Jewish diaspora as a matter
of law. And like bern and I were talking about,
this is why when these you know, it's not just
wackos like Mark Levin or extremists biggests like Dershowitz, when
these people claim that if you're attacking the Jewish State,
you're engaged in anti Semitism. That's not just a colloquialism
or a polemical device. They're saying, as a matter of law,
if you're opposing the Jewish State, you're opposing the Jewish people.
And if you're opposing the Jewish people, you're doing it
out of some kind of insidious prejudice. Because the reason
why this arrangement exists and why they're permitted these defensive
structures that lack precedent and incomparable iterations with respect to
other populations, is because the Jewish people are uniquely susceptible
to violence from others. So there's a whole set of
epistemic priors. And I'm not offering legitimacy to this perspective
because it's insane. But the reason why these polemicists invoke
that conceptual vocabulary is for this reason, and that's important understand.
And world opinion, I mean, obviously excluding the East Bloc,
but you know, during the Cold War, it was the
opinion of the free world, that is what was considered
valid precedent. And then when the wall came down, obviously
that became global president everybody in the Free world, as
it was called. I mean, there were objections here and there,
particularly among some carely sing with personages, but there wasn't
some formal protest from the Bond government or from the
London government, or from Washington or something. So that's just
what stood, you know. Iikeman pled not guilty to each count,
but he qualified it. He said, I'm not guilty in
the sense of the indictment, and interestingly, the judge didn't
initially question him what he meant by that. Iikman's lawyer,
abiding the same convention as Nuremberg and the Doctout trials,
Iikman was allowed to select counsel of his choice, and
the Israeli government paid him for his time and flew
him out there but that's really where due process ended,
just like a Nuremberg. But Iikeram his lawyer was a
man named Robert Servadis, who is native the Cologne, and
he was a heavy hitter. But what he explained to
the court later when the court asked, what did your
client mean by this, Servadis said, Aikman feels guilty before God,
but not before the law. And whatever Iikman did or
whatever he ordered, first of all, Servadis said, Iikman didn't
murder anybody. Ikman's never murdered a Jewish person or a
non Jewish person or any person. So he objected on
substance of grounds to Iikman being accused of murder. If
you wanted to accuse him of conspiracy, fine, will fight
that charge. But produced one instance, produce any inculinary evidence,
documentary or direct testimonial, anything else of Iikman murdering anybody.
And interestingly, the court the prosecution tried to do that
and they couldn't. What they came up with was during
the occupation of what's now Serbia and parts of Boston,
Herzegovina abudding, what was the ndah Iikeman as an sd man.
It was within his purview to be responsible. That leaves
in a you know, at least in the capacity of
at least in the advisory capacity on how to how
to handle anti partisan efforts. So there's a memo that
Aikman signed off on incidents to the minutes of a
meeting where he suggested continuing a policy a decimation where
for every German soldier killed, hostages would be murdered. You know,
the hostages in the instant case being ethnic Serbs and
Jews who were presumed to be sympathetic to the Chetniks
and the Communists. And that was what they came up with, saying, see,
Eichman was capable of murder at least capable of it,
which was trivial in the context, not just because of
the gravity of what they were alleging, but you know
it it suggests a real it. So just that even
within the arbitrary parameters of the court in Jerusalem where
a show trial was being held. In the purest sense,
Servadis was a serious guy. He attacked where he could,
and he made the prosecution what foolish where he could.
But to bring it back, Iikman's position was that anything
he did or didn't do in his role as an
over stump and field of the SS serving the s
D in ther Sha. These were acts of state, So
healing him into court for murder and grants of acts
of state would be like hailing Curtis LeMay into court
and charging him with one hundred thousand counts of murder
for firebombing Tokyo. And as Servadas said, mister Aikman is
here because he committed acts for which you are decorated
if you win, and you go to the gallows if
you lose, which was true, which is why as well,
this sort of narrative of the Vansi conference becomes so relevant.
That wasn't particularly emphasized here, but what was is very interesting,
and I can get into that in terms of the
evidence presented, both particularly direct testimony. But the way that
the International Military Tribunal fifteen years before had gotten around
this challenge was, as I think we've discussed in earlier episodes,
they alleged, well, this wasn't a normal government and these
weren't act committed pursuing to exigencies of war. This was
a criminal conspiracy and from inception, the raison detra of
the German Reich was to murder the Jewish race, and
that's really the only reason it existed. And the Van
Si Conference was the formalization of that intended purpose, manifest
as a conspiracy by key actors in the executive branch
of the National Socialist Party state. That's an incredibly specious argument,
and in the normal court, I don't even think you
would be admissible. Generally, I'm not gonna bore everybody with
evidentiary rules and the nuances generally at criminal law, and
there are I'm saying generally, because there's nuances every state,
and then there's the federal system too, But generally what
is admissible is evidence of plan, motive, design, in choate
aspects that relate to intent. That removes it from being
categorically treated as propensity evidence, which is almost always excluded.
But to extrapolate that convention and say, well, there was
this meeting, and this meeting is demonstrative of the fact
that the cordiological purpose of a state government was to
carry out a criminal act at massive scale, owing to
nothing beyond malice and perverse moral frailty. You know, like
I said, I can't it's hard me to put myself
in the position of a judge, because I really don't
have any respect for judges, and I agree with what
Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior said, judges rendered decisions based on
the political climate and a little else. At the same time,
I'd be curious as to how an argument like that
would be structured. Assuming it was, you know, an issue
of first impression, I'd probably let it pass. But I
I've got sympathy for the devil, you know. But that's uh,
you know, this is highly significant. It's not it's not
just a question of lawyer ball and word games. And
Aikman's trial was a show trial in two sentss was
a show trial in the obvious since and that it
was ideological theater who passed off as jurisprudence. But also
this was the days of international news, you know, so
people weren't seeing live what was happening in Jerusalem because
in nineteen sixty one there weren't these the satellite feeds
that facilitated that wasn't perfected yet. And then a few
years later when it was, it was it was an
arduous process. It was Elvis's Aloha from Hawaii that I
it was one of the first mass broadcast satellite events
all of this planet. But on the evening news people
were seeing footage from I coming on trial, and legal
experts were weighing in on what was happening, you know,
And that's substantially that's that's a whole different animal then
going to the movie theater in ninety forty seven saying
movie tote news clips of of you know, they're five
seconds long of Herman gearing on the stand, when you
can't even hear his testimony. There's just you know, a
voiceover as it were, you know, offering color or proffering
color commentary. So there was the Jerusalem Court had a
tougher road to hoe. And also Iikman was the only
defendant on deck. It couldn't the bait and switch wasn't
possible whereby you know, if if the prosecuting attorney was
best at on you know, by a witness, they could
shift their attention to a weaker link and the proverbial
chain the leg was possible at at Nuremberg and we
had to talk on stuff, you know, so they that too.
And also the social engineering regime hadn't I mean, yeah,
a lot of New Deal propaganda had had an incredibly
toxic effect, and already and American public opinion had been
substantially warped. But this process hadn't really come to fruition yet.
And there's a lot of people who either on to
social prejudice or because they were politically sophisticated, didn't particularly
like Jews, didn't like the state of Israel, didn't think
particularly considering that the Cold War was absolutely raging then
that World War two is some great thing. So there
was something of a delicate minuet here. And back then,
unlike today, Zionis propaganda was pretty sophisticated. It wasn't You
didn't have him noxious idiots like Mark Levin running around
acting like some their Sturmer caricature. You know, it's pretty
slickly presented. And if you get on YouTube, I'll try
and put together what I think are sort of key
clips that are available on the Kland trail. Obviously, these
guys and these women were kind of out front representing
these really government like a lot of them have heavy
European or Middle Eastern accidents, but they're well put together.
They I mean, they look ethnic, but they don't look
particularly alien. You know, it was very it was clear
that like who they selected to be on camera, things
like that. You know, obviously they're trying to telegraph See,
these are people like you. They're they're they're respectable white
people who share the same habits you do. They they
just have a different religion. You know, all of that.
Speaker 1: We still we still suffer that today. It's there's a
reason why Yahoo went to school in the United States.
Speaker 2: Oh no, of course, but a guy like Mark Levin
doesn't exactly relate to Middle America well or make Jews
look good. Yeah like that. I mean that was my point.
Like back then, some guy working for the AGC or
the A D. L even or some uh or some
guy or some lady, uh, you know, who is deciding
who from the nesset would appear on on on the
five o'clock news. They they'd have been mortified if if
some guy like Mark Levin was was you know, acting
like that. You know that, That's what I meant. Yeah,
the this uh, the sort of cycling of elite from
the Jewish state to America and the deep interdependence there.
You know, we were talking about earther with a fella.
It's like why why why are IDF people training you know,
the Minneapolis Police Department. You know, I mean stuff like that.
It's really very very on the nose. But I and
what's interesting too, this I'll bring it back because this
is truly tangential. But you know, the on the nose.
Speaker 1: I see what you did there.
Speaker 2: That was actually I didn't actually intend it as a
double entendre, but since but yeah, I'll take credit for it.
That's funny. But Ariel Sharon, I believe he was an
Oriental jew. His family was from Palestine. You know. He
wasn't an ashkenasm or or Staffardine. And he he he
wasn't one of these guys from Brighton Beach, you know,
who moved the Jewish State after Plan D had had
genocided the coveted territory. And that was gonna partially rare,
at least among the core of what became the political
culture of the zion Of State. You there weren't a
lot of those guys, And I find that interesting mostly
down I can't remember. He might have had a similar background,
but it's the exception. You know. I just find that
kind of thing interesting. Most people would probably find that
apurplete nothing. But in any event, uh Ikman had uh
he had more support than people might think. You know,
and again, Ikman the man, he didn't come out as
picking a villainous. He came off as kind of nerdy
and almost a caricature of the meticulous German. But you know,
he at the same time, he didn't come off as
particularly sympathetic or charismatic either. There's a very well renowned
French attorney Ramone and Ramon Jeffree. I'm probably butchering that pronunciation.
But he was a really interesting guy, and he was
a true advocate in the sense that is supposed to
characterize the men who sit at bar as defense council.
He defended a bunch of there's a there's a right
wing fascist militia in France. That was some of these
guys were on the side of the Reich. Some of
them weren't. They were sort of like their ideology was
sort of like the action Francis had been under morass,
but obviously the action of Francie didn't have a direct
action capability. But these guys, uh, these guys are real
bomb throwers. And I mean basically they were odds with
with both most of them odds with the Reich and
the Allies. Obviously, but some of them are, you know,
national socialists. Jeffrey came to the defense of these guys
and defended many of them pro bono, and he made
the case in the court of world opinion, which is
an important point, not just in terms of the due
process of his clients in the era, but as a
matter of historical fact. There was no VC France. There
was France. It's the government in VCI was the government
of France. Batan had massed support. De Gaulle had no support.
And this idea that Batan with some client of Adolf
Hitler Baton. I don't know how many times Batan met
Adolf Hitler once and but for our purposes, I mean,
that's a discussion another day. I've written some about that,
but I don't think we're ever discussed it on your platforms.
But Jeffree, that was the crux of his defense was
not not just of these fascist partisans in the UH
you know, prior to the prior to the ascendency the
Batan government and the capitulation to the Germany, but the
guys who served the Baton's regime. You know how you
can't you can't bring these guys up on charges for
treason when they were serving the government of France at war.
That's perverse as a matter of law. And this idea
that there's a man in exile and de Gaulle, who
nobody'd ever heard of, who is quite literally a client
of a foreign power, declaring himself to be the rightful
president of France. You know, that's that's absurd. And Jeffree
was respected as a one of the pre eminent legal
minds in Europe, and he'd actually sat in an advisory
capacity and the Allied Control Council during uh the Nuremberg
trials and then subsequent. His old point was there wasn't
there was anither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over Eichmann
if he's a the state of Israel. And he said,
even if there was, Israel had a claim to jurisdiction.
The correct way to proceed, according to convention and international
law can ever be compulsory, because that's a logical fallacy,
among other things. But convention is the source of legitimacy,
particularly we're talking about penal jeopardy, where you know, somebody's
on trial for their life, but also just in terms
of due process with respect to any course authority. You know,
the correct protocol would have been to appeal to Argentina
for extradition, and the Israeli rebuttal was that, well, Argentina
famously refuses to extradite people. Okay, well, why is Israel
have jurisdiction over the man of the subject matter? Anyway,
there was no Jewish state between ninety and thirty three
and ninety forty five, and a state. First of all,
you can't you can't be held liable for committing a
for committing crimes against an ethnic group or a race,
even if that were possible. Israel isn't the representative of
Jewish people the jury for all time. And finally, venue matters.
The alleged offenses were committed in Poland and Belarus, in
Ukraine and Russia. You know why why is an Iikman
being hailed into court in Poland? You know? No, none
of this is precedented. None of this can be rationalized
by appeal to precedent or common sense, you know. And finally,
Jeffree didn't emphasize this as strongly as Aikman's council did.
But Jeffree said, do we really want to start talking
about where the ex of state doctrine ends and where
a liability for homicide begins. When you know, the Israeli
state was founded quite literally in mass ethnic cleansing, and
the US Department of Justice has proffered the equivalent of
an amica'st curate on behalf of the Jerusalem Court for
this back to their prosecution of Iikman. When this is
the same government, that being the isaaia's government that wage
nuclear war against Japanese civilians, you know, that raises some
questions that people probably don't want to address in these terms.
But again, the rebuttal was was an appeal to conceptual
prejudices and epistemic priors about the unique and vulnerable situation
of the Jewish people and the existential threats they face
based on immutable traits that they possess and irrational animosity
that culminates in homicidal programs periodically. There's a whole series
of assumptions one must accept in order to consider the
Israeli case for jurisdictions overre Aikmen to be legitimate. But again,
the Aikman trial was the litmus test of these things,
and that's why it's significant and arguably in discrete terms
of respect to the fortunes of the Jewish state. It's
absolutely more significant than the Nuremberg Trial. Obviously the former
facilitated the latter, but this is basically the appeal. This
is what's being relied upon when you hear about the
special status of the Jewish state or the right to
exist of a Jewish state. This is what it's relying upon.
So I assume people who are into my content don't
do things like ask questions like why does this matter?
Because you wouldn't. You wouldn't be interested in this as
a terror if you had those sorts of objections to it.
But if anybody is on deck harbors those concerns, well,
this is why it matters. Okay, this is why it's
contextually significant and very concrete capacities, not just as some
sort of curiosity. And that's you know, and that that
so that goes to show too. I mean, I can't imagine,
I mean these days you that there wouldn't you wouldn't
find uh a man who had the kind of prestige
of Jeffrey taking such a position contu the Jewish State.
I mean, you'll find Europeans who, to their credit, the
attack the Jewish state for you know, it's uh, it's
it's racialism, and it's uh, it's hostility to other populations
and the category violence that avails them too. But that's
that's mostly framed, uh as a matter of you know,
appeal to Nuremberg logic or the or the purported hypocrisy
of the Jewish state. It's really sort of a token objection.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not I'm not
going to be down on people if they're standing up
for our comrades in Palestine or Iran or anywhere else.
But I I think you know what I mean, it's
it's it's a fundamentally different scope and character, and the
motivations are different. The the prosecution also, they had they
had a problem because initially what they were relying upon,
they were relying upon the direct testimony of people who
had been in German concentration camps, and this testimony was
contradictory relative to the factual record. Witnesses were contradicting each other.
There were people testifying about things such as gas chambers
at the ravens Brook or Dachal. And even then, even
within the narratives that were extant and considered to be
historical as well as legal. President. It was stipulated that
you know, there weren't gas chambers at ravens Brook and things. Obviously, Two,
there's the white elephant in the room. If there's a
a witness declaring I was at, I was I was at,
I was at death camp in Meate and this is
what Eikman was directing. If you were at death camp
in meat how are you here? I mean? But was
this the most incommon death camp? Ever? So the prosecution
was charged with calling uh, witnesses who'd served in the
SS and s D, the most prominent of whom are
pretty obviously intelligence assets, are double agents to testify, you know,
contra Iikman and seek to establish liability based on things
like the Einstets group actions they themselves have participated in.
And these guys, uh just you know, there's been a
similar they've been a similar litany of these sorts of
witnesses called to testify against Rudolph Hoiss, who's the common
aunt of Oustwitz Berkanhau. And it was the same kind
of thing. You know, I these are the most evil
men who ever lived in their liars, but you've got
to trust them and relevant to this testimony. And this
is honestly where a lot of these strange claims come from.
The claim specifically, you know, Hitler demanded that we reduced
the population of Slavs to thirty million. Not a single
person has ever said that written that alleged that other
than this bizarre turncoat and probable double agent who testified
against Iikman and somehow, despite admitting to participating in the
murders of tens of thounds of people, was never indicted
for any of these things, you know, and that this
is one example. Can see that parodied all the time
on social media, or there'll be some midwid conservatives saying like, well,
you you're saying it's okay to exterminate Slavs. You you
anti white horrible man who says that. Some some guy
who's a paid witness against against against off Iikman, some
guy who you know, was on the payroll of a
secret intelligence service while he was a serving officer in
the sd I, who is saying these things And you're
just you're just supposed to accept this at face value
or something. It's not just boomers either, I know, people
might just wave up like, oh, it's just just boomer people. Shit, No,
I'm talking about like thirty year old guys who know better.
And when they challenge them on these on these grounds,
they'll say, first I'll say I'm an idiot. Then they'll say, quote,
everybody knows this, and what do then mean? Who's everybody?
And what do they know? You know? So in the
rock is deep and in some ways, as I said,
at least uh in the present conditions, that being you know,
life during wartime, you know, even talking heads son, I'm
not making light of it. It's horrible that our Iranian
comrades under assault, but they will prevail. But it's still
it's in all the situations. Not being flippant about it,
but that that's why I wanted to focus on Eichman,
because I think many people don't know this because why
would they. I mean, I know about it because this
is my this is might doing, my wife, These are
my research concentrations. But I need to go another episode
on this because I want to get into the case
and chief against Eichmann and then we can return to
a regular schedule of programming. If that's okay.
Speaker 1: Sure. I think one of the the special dispensation for
the Jewish people is Yep. I'm I'm no fan of
Chris Christie, but I think he's like legitimately a funny guy.
Speaker 2: And no, he is. And he's also a man so
fat that his last name eat his first name.
Speaker 1: But he he tells the story about how the Kushner family,
how he became the enemy of the Kushner family and
it kept him out of the trumpetdministration. And the thing
in that story that I just I will never forget,
I'll take to the grave is when he's Jared Kushner
telling Chris Christie that these charges you had brought up
on my father, they shouldn't have been handled legally. You
should have brought him to the rabbis.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Election fraud, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're not talking about
you know, you're talking about some minor text issue or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, election fraud. There was a tax issue. Extortion.
Speaker 2: I mean no, that's I mean a real criminality. It
wasn't just you know, cooking the books a little bit
like unfortunately is kind of the norm.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, I kind of if people you know,
taxation and stuff like that, have a tendency to be like, eh,
is it really a crime. But you know, these other
things that are just when you hear the whole story
of what Kushner did, it's pretty fucking diabolical.
Speaker 2: And yeah, they went.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and you're just supposed to overlook it like
what you know, like you know, like I said in
the Jeffrey Epsteine Files, you know, the let the Goya
live in the real world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Well, no, that's why I got film people.
I know with al Pacino. You know, Robert Redford directed it,
and it is actually a really subvert, subversive movie, and
they made a lot of people mad. I got very
limited distribution, but I remember when it came out, like
Pacino would start is The Merchant of Venice around the
same time, and al Pacina was awesome, Unlike unlike Faggott, Ritardo,
Robert de Niro, like Pacino actually is an amazing actor,
but he he played Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.
You know, there's a there's kind of a mini Shakespeare
revival in the very early two thousands, asn't she remember.
So Paccino was like Cardlai heat for, you know, making
all these anti submitted movies. But yeah, I high recommend people.
I know, it's a slow burn but it's it's really compelling.
And you know that was just after there was months
after nine to eleven and people who were asking difficult questions.
To be delicate about it, we're absolutely being drowned out
in this kind of sea of war fever and outrage
and mourning. But there were fractures appearing in the facade
and let me put it badly.
Speaker 1: Alrighty, So we'll a lot get a part two ready
for this, and I will remind everybody go go to
Thomas's work, go to a sub stack. Thomas and I
have started streaming every Thursday afternoon at one o'clock, one
o'clock Central the real the real time zone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in the show notes if you would.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I will, and uh go to Thomas's substack real
Thomas seven seven seven dot substack dot com and Thomas
seven seven seven dot com. The t is a seven
and you can connect to him there, and yeah, find
him on substack. It is probably the best way to
get in touch with him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, yeah, thank you, Lenny
Speaker 1: All right, thanks Thomas, appreciate it.