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