Speaker 1: Hello, everybody, Welcome back to history Impossible in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: I know the previous episode, the penultimate episode, as I
Speaker 1: was calling it, of the Muslim Nazi series, released at
Speaker 1: a very beginning on the first of twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: but I recorded that a number of weeks earlier and
Speaker 1: released it early for patrons, so a lot of people
Speaker 1: were able to catch that before the year turned over.
Speaker 1: Now by now, I hope the rest of you who
Speaker 1: listened to this show at least with some regularity have
Speaker 1: gotten through it. If not, I don't blame you. It
Speaker 1: can take a while to get through almost six and
Speaker 1: a half hours of material, I suppose, But yeah, I
Speaker 1: figured I would give you guys yet another special episode.
Speaker 1: This one's serving as a sort of addendum to what
Speaker 1: we talked about in the previous episode in the episode
Speaker 1: known as the Hanshar about the so called Muslim Nazis,
Speaker 1: and this one is a lot more modern in its
Speaker 1: history and gets into something that I think is pretty
Speaker 1: obviously a growing problem, particularly on the political right, at
Speaker 1: least in the United States, on its fringes. I know
Speaker 1: that fringes don't necessarily matter all that much when it
Speaker 1: comes to kitchen table issues. But you know, this isn't
Speaker 1: a political podcast. This is a historical podcast that gets
Speaker 1: into political topics, and in this particular case, I think
Speaker 1: it fits for me to be talking about this growing
Speaker 1: trend and where it arguably comes from, or at least
Speaker 1: in part comes from, and it matches really well with
Speaker 1: what we just covered in the Muslim Nazi series so far. Again,
Speaker 1: we still have one more full episode of that series
Speaker 1: coming hopefully sooner rather than later, but I've learned not
Speaker 1: to make promises about that before we get into the
Speaker 1: episode today. I want to thank everyone as always for
Speaker 1: supporting this show, supporting me, supporting what I'm doing here,
Speaker 1: especially those of you have been doing it for so long,
Speaker 1: like my supporters John Andre Saither and Mike Maylebin who've
Speaker 1: been supporting the show, you know, at the incredibly generous
Speaker 1: executive producer level for years now. I really appreciate them,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate all of you who are able to
Speaker 1: throw a couple bucks my way every month, every year,
Speaker 1: whatever it might be, whatever works for you. If you
Speaker 1: want to show some love that way. If you haven't already,
Speaker 1: head over to Patreon dot com, slash History Impossible or
Speaker 1: History Impossible dot substack dot com, though I think that's
Speaker 1: actually changing over. I have to wait to see how
Speaker 1: that looks. But soon Historyimpossible dot Com will just take
Speaker 1: you directly to the substack, a one all encompassing home.
Speaker 1: So yes, please consider supporting the show, becoming a member,
Speaker 1: paid subscriber, whatever you want to call it, and I
Speaker 1: will be forever grateful. Was a good time too, because
Speaker 1: I am entering my last proper semester of graduate school,
Speaker 1: so I'm going to need all the help I can
Speaker 1: get to pay off those student loans that I decided
Speaker 1: to bring upon myself. So thank you again for listening,
Speaker 1: and let's get into some impossible history.
Speaker 2: I'll let me to tell you what you would have
Speaker 2: seen and heard.
Speaker 3: If we're not being pleasant listening, if you were at lunch,
Speaker 3: or if you have no appetite.
Speaker 4: Now is a good time to switch off the radio.
Speaker 3: An ancestor of mine maintaine that if you eliminate the impossible,
Speaker 3: whatever remains, however improbable. Banji, I wish I could say
Speaker 3: tonight that a lasting piece is insight.
Speaker 5: I alating dream, I feel a laughing like.
Speaker 1: If we hear for essure to.
Speaker 4: Gil, if we care for kill. Some say the world
Speaker 4: will end empire. Some say anie.
Speaker 6: From what I've tasted of desire, I hold.
Speaker 7: Of those of favor fire.
Speaker 6: But if it had to perish twice, I think I
Speaker 6: know m of of hate to say.
Speaker 8: That for destruction, ice is also great and look sufficed.
Speaker 7: This is history or possible.
Speaker 1: Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice. Not
Speaker 1: because of the danger of complete annihilation which is hanging
Speaker 1: over its head, this being just a symptom and not
Speaker 1: the real disease, but because humanity is devoid of those
Speaker 1: vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy
Speaker 1: development but also for its real progress. Even the Western
Speaker 1: world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any
Speaker 1: healthy values for the guidance of mankind. The leadership of
Speaker 1: mankind by any Western man is now on the decline.
Speaker 1: Not because Western culture has become poor materially or because
Speaker 1: its economic and military power has become weak. The period
Speaker 1: of the Western system has come to an end primarily
Speaker 1: because it is deprived of those life giving values which
Speaker 1: enabled it to be the leader of mankind. Sayid Kutub,
Speaker 1: you are dying. I see in you all the characteristic
Speaker 1: stigma of decay. I can prove to you that your
Speaker 1: great wealth and your great poverty, your capitalism and your socialism,
Speaker 1: your wars and your revolutions, your atheism and your pessimism,
Speaker 1: and your cynicism, your immorality, your broken down marriages, your
Speaker 1: birth control that is bleeding you from the bottom and
Speaker 1: killing you off at the top. In your brains, I
Speaker 1: can prove to you that those were the characteristic marks
Speaker 1: of the dying ages of ancient states Alexandria and Greece,
Speaker 1: and neurotic Rome. Oswald Spengler, Dear Hitler, I welcome you
Speaker 1: back with all my heart. You have been defeated, but
Speaker 1: in fact one should regard you as the real victor.
Speaker 1: There will be no place in the world until Germany
Speaker 1: again takes first place. Your principal mistake was opening too
Speaker 1: many fronts. But everything is forgiven, for you are a
Speaker 1: shining example of belief in one's fatherland and people. You
Speaker 1: are eternal, and we shall not be surprised if we
Speaker 1: see you again. On Marl Sadat on the eve of
Speaker 1: his controversial election as mayor of New York City, Zornmumdani
Speaker 1: had his fair share of critics. It is safe to say,
Speaker 1: and he still does having been inaugurated. While some criticisms
Speaker 1: had more to do with his inability to sufficiently distance
Speaker 1: himself from his more inflammatory and just plain dumb previous
Speaker 1: comments and performances, as well as his supposedly planned policies,
Speaker 1: there was a common thread with some conservative and right
Speaker 1: wing commentators and critics of his namely that Mamdani was
Speaker 1: not just a socialist but a closet Islamist or a Jihati.
Speaker 1: Even figures as prominent as Aonhirsi Ali, herself a strident
Speaker 1: and longtime critic of Islamism and even Islam itself, were
Speaker 1: more than willing to claim that Mamdani was quote an
Speaker 1: Islamist clad in socialist garb unquote, as Ali stated on
Speaker 1: her ex page. Figures like Sequoia partner Sean MacGuire what
Speaker 1: even further earlier on in twenty twenty five, claiming that
Speaker 1: quote Mamdani comes from a culture that lies about everything unquote,
Speaker 1: because quote it's literally a virtue to lie if it
Speaker 1: advances his Islamists agenda unquote, echoing what I would consider
Speaker 1: at least simplistic claims of Takaya that are often quoted
Speaker 1: by drive by critics of Islam. This kind of commentary
Speaker 1: prompted a lot of criticism, including from opponents of Mamdani,
Speaker 1: mostly because it was largely seen as missing the point
Speaker 1: to essentially use the words of the New York Post
Speaker 1: editorial board when they stated on July second, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: not to quote unquote, go down the Islamist rabbit hole.
Speaker 1: Socialism is what makes Mamdani toxic unquote. And this is
Speaker 1: to say nothing of a lot of these claims being
Speaker 1: completely inaccurate factually speaking, and arguably even Islamophobic at least
Speaker 1: in the case of Maguire's commentary rather than Ali's. Now however,
Speaker 1: ultimately untethered from reality, this fear of a leftist Islamist
Speaker 1: blob monster was it was actually pretty understandable, especially from
Speaker 1: figures like Ayon heir Cili who have been on the
Speaker 1: proverbial Islamism be for so long and having literally survived
Speaker 1: its assaults. As Satanan Dume at The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: pointed out in response to these claims of Mundani's plan
Speaker 1: to quote establish a caliphate on the Hudson unquote, there
Speaker 1: is a troubling synergy that has been seen and that
Speaker 1: I've even talked about with Islamists and far left activists,
Speaker 1: particularly when it comes to the issue of Israel, and
Speaker 1: often Jews in general, though usually with the Zionist filter
Speaker 1: lane over everything. Now this has become very well covered territory,
Speaker 1: especially in the wake of the campus and street protests
Speaker 1: against alleged genocide preemptively launched while the bodies from the
Speaker 1: October seventh, twenty twenty three program were still warm. It's
Speaker 1: even reignited a fair bit given events in Iran in
Speaker 1: which we're either looking at another Tianum and Square situation
Speaker 1: or possibly a second Iranian revolution as of this recording.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to say, but it definitely has revealed
Speaker 1: the ideological confluences and inconsistencies one could say, between Islamists
Speaker 1: and leftists, but the willingness to make common cause, however incoherent.
Speaker 1: Now this alliance, if we want to call it that,
Speaker 1: has even gotten serious academic and think tank treatment, with
Speaker 1: report from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism
Speaker 1: and Responses to Terrorism being published in the journal Terrorism
Speaker 1: and Political Violence as far back as twenty thirteen that
Speaker 1: covers this phenomenon, and like I mentioned earlier, even I
Speaker 1: as many of you listening, no doubt remember, have taken
Speaker 1: a stab at explaining elements of the I guess we'll
Speaker 1: call it the newest incarnation of this alliance via the
Speaker 1: soft imperialist strategy employed by Islamist groups calling it their
Speaker 1: velvet gie Hod, as well as if you remember discussing
Speaker 1: the concept with Spikes Brendan O'Neil. However, I will defer
Speaker 1: to the renowned British Israeli historian Robert Wistrich in summarizing
Speaker 1: both of the contradictions, the shared values and ultimately the
Speaker 1: overall obsessions in what he calls the red Green Axis
Speaker 1: in his massive Tone, a lethal obsession anti Semitism from
Speaker 1: antiquity to the global Gihad, where he writes the following quote.
Speaker 1: Islamists may sharply disagree with their far left allies about feminism, homosexuality, religion, secularism,
Speaker 1: and the validity of socialist ideals, but they share a
Speaker 1: common anti Western, anti globalist, and anti Zionist agenda. Radical
Speaker 1: Islamists are not, of course interested in the traditional class
Speaker 1: struggle of the proletariat, but like the far left, they
Speaker 1: hate America, revel in the myth of a Jewish world
Speaker 1: conspiracy and are determined to eliminate Israel. Palestine is the
Speaker 1: issue where their cooperation with the left is most harmonious.
Speaker 1: In Britain, as in France, the anti globalist left and
Speaker 1: the Islamic fundamentalists also share a common rejection of liberal
Speaker 1: modernity and the entire Enlightenment project. Yet ironically both want
Speaker 1: to globalize the Middle East conflict, demanding humanitarian intervention by
Speaker 1: the wicked Western imperialists if only to stop Israel, while
Speaker 1: at the same time threatening it with UN and EU sanctions.
Speaker 1: Nowhere is the morbid emotionalism and self indulgence of a
Speaker 1: victim centered culture more palpable than in the pro Palestinian
Speaker 1: partisanship of the International Solidarity movement. To simplify that into
Speaker 1: the parlance of our times, we could say it is
Speaker 1: without question that even now, despite all the complications arising
Speaker 1: from the current potential second revolution in Iran, the Palestine
Speaker 1: issue has become the omni cause for what passes as
Speaker 1: the left in the West in recent years, with the
Speaker 1: only globebization they seem to support seeming to be the
Speaker 1: so called decolonialization struggle. Even Zora Mamdani himself made this
Speaker 1: clear when back in twenty twenty three, while speaking on
Speaker 1: a panel called Socialist Internationalism the Solution to the Crisis
Speaker 1: of Capitalism, he claimed the following quote. For anyone to
Speaker 1: care about these issues, we have to make them hyper low.
Speaker 9: We have to make them hyper We have to make
Speaker 9: clear that when the food of the mipe is on
Speaker 9: your neck, it's been laced by the idea. If we
Speaker 9: have to make not specifically that example, all the time,
Speaker 9: just to say that for working class people who have
Speaker 9: very little time, who have so many stresses, who are
Speaker 9: under so many pressures, there isn't that much time for symbolism.
Speaker 9: We have to make it materially connected to their life.
Speaker 9: And I think that what an opportunity we have is
Speaker 9: that we are in a country where those connections abound.
Speaker 9: Is actually in New York City, you have so many
Speaker 9: opportunities to make clear the ways in whish fast trumble
Speaker 9: over there is tied to capitalism.
Speaker 1: Clearly, when your chosen method of highlighting the alleged injustices
Speaker 1: by the Israeli Defense Forces is to quote unquote make
Speaker 1: them hyper local and by the way, thus missing the
Speaker 1: point by citing a shared training exercises program that also
Speaker 1: included police forces from places like Jordan and Katar, not
Speaker 1: just Israel, as part of the NYPD's international liaison program,
Speaker 1: which is what Mamdani was referencing. When you're doing that,
Speaker 1: you're basically just inflating the importance of your own personal
Speaker 1: cause by marrying that cause to more global events and associations,
Speaker 1: hence an omni cause. And given what active opposition to
Speaker 1: Israel has largely become in the last two years, it
Speaker 1: is clear that this cause has constituted an unholy marriage
Speaker 1: of values on to the Western left. To go back
Speaker 1: to the scholar Robert Wistrich, he further explains as follows quote.
Speaker 1: In the pro Palestinian narrative of liberals and Marxists, remarkably
Speaker 1: little attention is paid to the crazed ideology, the poison
Speaker 1: culture of martyrdom, or the violently anti Semitic hatred emanating
Speaker 1: from much of contemporary Islamism. Instead, terrorism and Islamist suicide
Speaker 1: attacks are explained away as a product of social conditions
Speaker 1: and the general misery induced by Israel's policies. However, this
Speaker 1: marriage of values, that of functionally supporting a theocratic terrorist
Speaker 1: government and social progressivism, is built upon moral contradictions that
Speaker 1: have also been well covered territory, including again by yours
Speaker 1: truly over the pages of Quillette in Queer Majority. In
Speaker 1: other words, there really is no need for me to
Speaker 1: further litigate the self evident absurdity of Queers or Palestine,
Speaker 1: or any of the self it and absurdities of people
Speaker 1: who consider themselves leftist activists marching in the streets in
Speaker 1: support of the Ayatola Homini. In the end, there is
Speaker 1: plenty of well written history covering the rise of the
Speaker 1: PLO and the leftist activists and terrorists who allied themselves
Speaker 1: with them during the height of the radical era of
Speaker 1: the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies. It's well
Speaker 1: covered territory, in other words, thanks largely to the resurgence
Speaker 1: of this strange red green alliance in the wake of
Speaker 1: October seventh, this has perhaps understandably overshadowed the story of
Speaker 1: the other alliance that Islamism has formed and with whom
Speaker 1: they found a home in the margins of Western political society.
Speaker 1: In fact, as undeniable as it has become that there
Speaker 1: have been plenty of Western leftists willing to make common
Speaker 1: cause with Islamists. There is a sturdy history of the
Speaker 1: far right making common cause with Islamists. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and two, less than one year into the United States
Speaker 1: Global War on Terror, the geopolitics professor Alexandra d Vallier
Speaker 1: real name Mark Donna, coined a provocative term, the Red, Green,
Speaker 1: Brown Alliance. Del Vallier had been controversial in his assessments before,
Speaker 1: going so far as to claim that the United States
Speaker 1: was using no joke Islamist organizations to destroy Europe in
Speaker 1: his first book, Islamism in the United States, An Alliance
Speaker 1: against Europe, originally published in nineteen ninety seven at Landish
Speaker 1: has This claim was and likely informed by del Vallier's
Speaker 1: extreme hostility toward the Clinton and Reagan administrations, in particular
Speaker 1: for all sorts of reasons that aren't really worth getting
Speaker 1: into right now. Del Vialler's later assessment that of an
Speaker 1: ideological alliance, however unofficial, between the far right, the far left,
Speaker 1: and Islamism, ultimately gained some legs thanks to its relative
Speaker 1: soundness based on the evidence that was available at least now.
Speaker 1: Far from claiming that there were some shadowy backroom deals
Speaker 1: being forged between representatives of the American Nazi Party, the
Speaker 1: Communist Party USA, and his Abutarir. Del Valler was more
Speaker 1: interested and characterizing this phenomenon as, in his words, a
Speaker 1: convergence of totalitarianisms, or also, in his words from a
Speaker 1: later article that he wrote on the subject quote, a
Speaker 1: coalition of longtime losers and a syndicative universal hatred unquote.
Speaker 1: In other words, del Vallier was taking note where there
Speaker 1: are usually divergent values overlapped, similar to Robert Wistrich's read
Speaker 1: green axis, but with a greater ideological and intellectual scope.
Speaker 1: As del Valler writes, quote, it is evident that is Islamism,
Speaker 1: the third totalitarianism after Nazism and Communism, echoes to a
Speaker 1: definite extent the aspirations of its two predecessors, seizing the
Speaker 1: struggle of civilizations and religions, then declaring war on the
Speaker 1: Judaeo Christian world in the name of the dispossessed of
Speaker 1: the rest of the planet. Islamism seduces as much those
Speaker 1: nostalgic for the pagan Third Reich resolve to eradicate Judaism
Speaker 1: in Christianity, as it does to those partisans of the
Speaker 1: Hammer and Sickle determined to come to blows with the
Speaker 1: bourgeois and capitalist West, and continuing later, Davalla writes the
Speaker 1: following quote from the outset, One asks oneself, what could
Speaker 1: be able to unify movements as ideologically antagonistic as the
Speaker 1: Reds atheist and materialists, the Greens, theocrats and Islamists, and
Speaker 1: the Browns believers in the War of the races. To
Speaker 1: believe that such an alliance would be philosophically impossible and
Speaker 1: strategically improbable, and therefore from the get go doomed to
Speaker 1: checkmate would be to forget that Islamism is not only
Speaker 1: the third totalitarianism to come about, but is also equally
Speaker 1: in a number of points, the inherited unifier of the
Speaker 1: two predecessors. In so far as Islamism is not only
Speaker 1: simply a religious fundamentalism, but also and above all, a
Speaker 1: subversive revolutionary totalitarianism, an ideology of mass destruction comparable to Nazism, Maoism,
Speaker 1: or Stalinism. This green fascism prolongs the anterior totalitarianisms. What
Speaker 1: distinguishes the Green version essentially is that it brings to
Speaker 1: the historical totalitarian hatreds, a theological justification and a divine Benediction,
Speaker 1: whether it concerns the Lebanese Hezbalah, Palestinian Hamas, the Alcatic combatants,
Speaker 1: or the Iraqian Palestinian resistors, it must be recognized that
Speaker 1: in the marketplace of globe revolution, the Islamists and the
Speaker 1: Arab Muslim Moujacchedeen in general are the most effective and
Speaker 1: ferocious adversaries of quote unquote Israeli American imperialism. They are
Speaker 1: the ones who are inflicting the most damage on the
Speaker 1: colonialist and capitalist powers, whom the Reds and the Browns
Speaker 1: detest above all. Being the third moment of totalitarianism, an
Speaker 1: avenging Islamism leading the assault on the capitalist democracies and
Speaker 1: the Judeo crusader forces. Knows now such an ascension throughout
Speaker 1: all corners of the globe, and in particular in europe
Speaker 1: An ascension facilitated by the planetary and unprecedented mediatization which
Speaker 1: it has enjoyed since the shock of September eleventh, two
Speaker 1: thousand and one, that it has been attracting like a
Speaker 1: magnet the attentions of those nostalgic for the Communist and
Speaker 1: Nazi totalitarianisms, drawing at the same time from the vulgate
Speaker 1: of the extreme right and from an Islamically correct template
Speaker 1: that is pro Arab and third worldist. This new revolutionary,
Speaker 1: very implanetary hatred henceforth seduces the latest anti Jewish and
Speaker 1: anti American militants of the extreme radical right. Daviller has
Speaker 1: more to say about the formation of this alleged unholy alliance,
Speaker 1: but in short, when one examines the contours of the
Speaker 1: radical ideologies that inflame so much of modern political discourse,
Speaker 1: one begins to realize that the supposed contradictions within these
Speaker 1: radical ideologies matter far less than their shared broader visions
Speaker 1: of the world. More with one another can come later.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, they all have the same enemy, and
Speaker 1: just as radical leftists and revolutionary Marxist Leninists can leave
Speaker 1: aside their supposedly progressive social values and supposedly secular worldview
Speaker 1: to make common cause with theocratic Islamists, their many radical
Speaker 1: right and self styled neo fascist dissidents who have just
Speaker 1: as little difficulty doing the same, all in the name
Speaker 1: of defeating their shared enemies. Though there is almost always
Speaker 1: a single shared enemy at the center of this radical nexus,
Speaker 1: the question of this shared enemy is not a mystery
Speaker 1: because it has been the shared enemy of ideological radicals
Speaker 1: for well over a century, and arguably far longer if
Speaker 1: one looks at theological developments across time. To name this
Speaker 1: shared hatred has become unfortunately a bit of a cliche
Speaker 1: at this point, and one destined to fall on deaf ears,
Speaker 1: but for clarity's sake, it does need to be stated.
Speaker 1: It is a hatred, or perhaps more commonly, chronic distrust
Speaker 1: of Jews. It could be said that the skeleton key
Speaker 1: for radicals and radicalism is the Jew, the eternal Jew,
Speaker 1: as Joseph Gerbels might have put it, thanks to his
Speaker 1: rejection of Christ or the prophet Mohammed, thanks to his
Speaker 1: murder of Gentile children, thanks to his stateless cosmopolitanism, and
Speaker 1: now thanks to his state sanctioned genocide, all of the
Speaker 1: things that you've probably heard various figures on the far
Speaker 1: left and the far right say over the last couple
Speaker 1: of years. The Jew has always been framed as the outsider,
Speaker 1: and outsiders are often the greatest threat to a utopian project,
Speaker 1: a utopian project that is Christian, Muslim, nationalist, communist, or
Speaker 1: a truly globalist one. Outsiders are the enemy that is
Speaker 1: always how it's framed, and that's why the Jew has
Speaker 1: often been targeted. This is why it is a mistake,
Speaker 1: in my opinion at least, to place anti Semitism in
Speaker 1: the same category as rank racism or general bigotry, and
Speaker 1: more in the same category as conspiracy. They The journalist
Speaker 1: David Reeaboy recently wrote about this in Tablet magazine while
Speaker 1: discussing what is appearing to be this newest incarnation of
Speaker 1: the strange radical Alliance ideological alliance, I should say that
Speaker 1: we're about to discuss explaining the following quote. What unites
Speaker 1: these audiences isn't ideology so much as a way of seeing.
Speaker 1: In this world of theirs, nothing happens by accident. Every war, election,
Speaker 1: or scandal confirms the existence of an unseen hand. The
Speaker 1: more elaborate the theory, the more convincing it feels. The current
Speaker 1: peddlers of this theory didn't invent this pattern. They inherited
Speaker 1: and updated it into a modern vernacular of globalist plots,
Speaker 1: unipolar elites, and foreign lobbies. The content changes, but the
Speaker 1: structure never does. This is a cognitive map built entirely
Speaker 1: on lies. Yet most people, including many Jews, still describe
Speaker 1: antisemitism as anti Jewish racism. That mistake is fatal. Racism
Speaker 1: begins with emotion. Anti Semitism begins with explanation, its logic
Speaker 1: as counterfeit, but it poses as reason all the same.
Speaker 1: This confusion has deep roots. After the Civil Rights era,
Speaker 1: hate became the moral grammar through which all prejudice was understood.
Speaker 1: Jewish institutions eager to speak that language adopted at wholesale.
Speaker 1: Once anti Semitism was redefined as an emotional or linguistic offense,
Speaker 1: its conspiracy core was buried under tropes. In that bucket,
Speaker 1: the falsehoods that launched pograms and genocides, blood libel, world
Speaker 1: Jewish control were lumped together with trivial stereotypes. The result
Speaker 1: was a flattening of meaning. Even the International Holocaust Remembrance
Speaker 1: Alliance as official definition adopted by governments and many Jewish groups,
Speaker 1: reflects this collapse. It's warning against mendacious, dehumanizing or demonizing
Speaker 1: allegations about Jews treats antisemitism as a moral failure rather
Speaker 1: than an epistemic one. Indeed, the more I have learned
Speaker 1: about antisemitism throughout history, the less it has appeared to
Speaker 1: me to be some strained social construct akin to racism,
Speaker 1: and more like something of a tradition. This is a
Speaker 1: tradition of conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories are the bedrock
Speaker 1: of radicalism. Whether we're describing religious or secular radicalism, left
Speaker 1: or right doesn't matter. Anti Semitism is the bigotry that
Speaker 1: comes in with grand post talk justifications, rather than a
Speaker 1: bigotry that forms them on the fly. There is, in
Speaker 1: other words, a relatively robust internal logic to anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: creating a vastly more powerful permission structure than your traditional
Speaker 1: colorist racism that we still occasionally see in the West.
Speaker 1: It's connection, that is, anti Semitism's connection to social and
Speaker 1: religious tradition that goes back far further than Berlin in
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty three, reveals its durability across time and ideology,
Speaker 1: and thus helps explain its frequent role and unifying seemingly
Speaker 1: desperate ideologies in creating this red green, brown alliance described
Speaker 1: by del Vallier. Much can and has been said about
Speaker 1: the horseshoe theory of Western politics, the idea of a
Speaker 1: red brown alliance, which many socialists angrily dispute. I've noticed,
Speaker 1: perhaps doth protesting too much, and as stated before, much
Speaker 1: more can be and has been said about the Red
Speaker 1: Green Alliance of late. However, the brown prong of what
Speaker 1: del Valler called the convergence of totalitarianisms has gotten, in
Speaker 1: my opinion and at least far less play, far too
Speaker 1: little play as far as critical commentary goes. There are
Speaker 1: many possible reasons for this, but it likely lies at
Speaker 1: the core of why there are so many people who
Speaker 1: might still be scoffing at the idea of a red
Speaker 1: Green alliance. It just seems too outlandish to assume that
Speaker 1: the Western radical right could ever possibly see eye to
Speaker 1: eye with Islamists on anything. And yet, as we will see,
Speaker 1: there is a robust history that shows precisely the opposite.
Speaker 6: God Because I worry about you guys. It's not the
Speaker 6: criticism I't care about it's about you. I will literally post,
Speaker 6: Oh look, Chernoble's leaking again.
Speaker 4: We've got a problem. Roh.
Speaker 6: Look, it's like, why are you shore up for Jews?
Speaker 6: Or oh man, this hurricane sure devastated this area. Please
Speaker 6: donate Jews. Oh you know, look, the Muslim Brotherhood is
Speaker 6: celebrating the murder you Jews.
Speaker 4: Yeah, why are you? Why are you?
Speaker 6: Why do you care about them Jews? Well, hey, I
Speaker 6: don't want to kill the Jews, and b the Muslims
Speaker 6: want to kill all the Christians too.
Speaker 4: You have dambasses.
Speaker 6: So there's a lot of right winger popular It's not
Speaker 6: a lot, but it's a big minority that literally love Islam.
Speaker 6: They all kissy kissy fishy all over the internet, and
Speaker 6: they have joint symposiums together and they talk about the
Speaker 6: you know, national white alliance with Islam. You guys are idiot, absolutely,
Speaker 6: I'm explay you like this like you're five years old. Well,
Speaker 6: you won't even know what it is though, to you,
Speaker 6: fake nationalists, fake Christian patriots.
Speaker 1: The timeline almost certainly begins even earlier. But I think
Speaker 1: it is safe to say that twenty twenty five was
Speaker 1: the year that the pundit Tucker Carlson's fixations became far
Speaker 1: too obvious to ignore. Summarizing all of it would take
Speaker 1: an entire podcast or a multi hour YouTube documentary in
Speaker 1: and of itself, and I'm sure those things are probably coming,
Speaker 1: if they haven't already been released. But I want to
Speaker 1: provide a little bit of context, and I think the
Speaker 1: best way to do that is to let Hudson Institute
Speaker 1: senior fellow Michael Dorin's lengthy explanation that he published in
Speaker 1: Tablets suffice for that, where he wrote his follows quote
Speaker 1: For commentators like Mark Twain, it was clear that Jewish
Speaker 1: brains were an American national asset. Today's would be oracle
Speaker 1: profess themselves to be less sure, seeing unequal results as
Speaker 1: proof that the Jews are up to their old tricks
Speaker 1: European style. Tucker Carlson, in his growing circle of populous broadcasters,
Speaker 1: have learned that resentment towards the Jews sells. Many Americans
Speaker 1: rightly suspect that unaccountable concentrations of power, bureaucracies, corporations, elite
Speaker 1: networks have distorted public life and hollowed out institutions meant
Speaker 1: to answer to the people. Carlson takes that legitimate suspicion
Speaker 1: and fixes it on a single explanatory target. He does
Speaker 1: not indict elites in general. He indicts the Jews. Carlson's
Speaker 1: handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case is a revealing example
Speaker 1: of his method, taking a wider critique of elites and
Speaker 1: redirecting it towards the Jews. While letting his own kind
Speaker 1: off the hook. For many Americans, Epstein has come to
Speaker 1: symbolize a depraved elite that evades accountability while enforcing more
Speaker 1: standards on others. His network spanned business, politics, academia, media,
Speaker 1: and royalty figures such as Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew,
Speaker 1: and senior academics at institutions like Harvard University. It was
Speaker 1: a world of power that operated by its own rules
Speaker 1: outside the bounds of decency. Israelis were present in that
Speaker 1: world as well, including one of their former prime ministers,
Speaker 1: a hud Barak. In Carlson's telling, the Israelis are not
Speaker 1: one group among many. They sit at the center as
Speaker 1: the prime movers who direct these scandals toward their own
Speaker 1: nefarious particular list ends with other, mainly Christian participants as
Speaker 1: their dupes. During continues later in the essay, as follows,
Speaker 1: placing Masad in the frame does more than allege foreign involvement.
Speaker 1: It reorganizes responsibility. If Epstein ran a blackmail operation for
Speaker 1: Israeli intelligence, then presidents, billion, academics, royalty and media figures
Speaker 1: did not act independently. They answered to someone above them.
Speaker 1: What begins as a story of elite corruption and depravity
Speaker 1: then becomes the discovery of a hidden hand. Jews cease
Speaker 1: to appear as participants in a decadent system and reappear
Speaker 1: as its managers. Carlson updates the protocols of the Learned
Speaker 1: Elders of Zion for the digital age. Dorin later lays
Speaker 1: out Tucker Carlson's strategy and those shared by other online
Speaker 1: jew obsessives like Candice Owans, that I think is also
Speaker 1: worth putting a pin in to help illustrate how this
Speaker 1: usually goes. As Dorin writes, quote, online populism thrives on
Speaker 1: the claim that shadowy forces control public life and that
Speaker 1: only a few brave figures dare to confront them. Jews
Speaker 1: are prominent across media, law, finance, and culture. They are
Speaker 1: easy to see. They are obviously successful as individuals, but
Speaker 1: also voluble in their opposition to anti Semitic attack. When attacked,
Speaker 1: they answer that combination visibility, professional leadership, and public responsiveness
Speaker 1: creates the illusion that populist broadcasters crave of a vast
Speaker 1: network that appears unified, powerful and threatening. Anti Semitic broadcasters
Speaker 1: allege that a vast, shadowy Jewish network manipulates American politics
Speaker 1: from behind the scenes, coordinating media, finance, and government to
Speaker 1: enforce conformity. Jewish individuals and institutions respond, often rightly, naming
Speaker 1: the charge as anti Semitic. The attacker then points to
Speaker 1: that response as proof that the network actually exists. But
Speaker 1: contrary to their public theatrics, the dangers of such activity
Speaker 1: are minimal, at least to them. Jews are too few,
Speaker 1: too politically divided, and too decentralized to exercise the kind
Speaker 1: of coordinated power that these accusations imagine. There is no
Speaker 1: zion as common turn to punish or murder dissenters outside
Speaker 1: a narrow set of professional precincts, or anti Semitism still
Speaker 1: carries severe cost, there is no real danger of losing work.
Speaker 1: Yet the absence of real retaliation does not weaken the story,
Speaker 1: it strengthens it. The broadcaster confronts a supposedly vast and
Speaker 1: dangerous adversary, bears his breast upon the barricades, and descends
Speaker 1: unharmed in full view of the public. The appearance of
Speaker 1: courage is produced without the burden of risk. With all
Speaker 1: of that said, it was therefore unsurprising that Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: would host the internet's most famous jew hater and Hitler
Speaker 1: apparently also Stalin fan Nick Fuentes on his wildly popular
Speaker 1: program in late October of twenty twenty five, some months back.
Speaker 1: As of this recording, and this created what appears, as
Speaker 1: of early twenty twenty six is still be something of
Speaker 1: an ongoing fracture point within the American conservative movement. However
Speaker 1: unified one might want to believe it actually is, and
Speaker 1: that's interesting in and of itself and will warrant future
Speaker 1: examination for sure, especially as it continues to swallow up
Speaker 1: other very popular right leaning figures like Megan Kelly. However,
Speaker 1: Carlson and by extension, Nick Fuentes, as seen in a
Speaker 1: lot of their content, both provide an interesting window into
Speaker 1: what this potential new Green Brown alliance may start to
Speaker 1: look like if we are indeed witnessing its early days
Speaker 1: and not just some kind of branding exercise or redirection strategy,
Speaker 1: which are both possible explanations, but the pattern does exist,
Speaker 1: and if we go back, for example, to an episode
Speaker 1: of his program from May of twenty twenty five, Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson almost certainly trying to be provocative as a way
Speaker 1: to criticize the American healthcare systems handling of the ongoing
Speaker 1: opioid crisis. Claim that quote unquote, if you really want
Speaker 1: to be red pilled, one should learn about the Taliban's
Speaker 1: quote unquote faith based approach to drug rehabilitation.
Speaker 10: You want to get really red pilled, look up Taliban
Speaker 10: drug treatment. Ask yourself, super simple question. Is the Taliban
Speaker 10: drug treatment program You can look this up there videos
Speaker 10: of it. Upline does to produce a higher or lower
Speaker 10: relapse rate than the American version in say Delray Beach, Florida.
Speaker 10: And the answer is not just yes, but hell yes,
Speaker 10: because they don't wean them off with methadone. This whole
Speaker 10: thing is a freaking lie. By the way, a lot
Speaker 10: of people get rich off that. You know who you
Speaker 10: are if you're listening. Some of them are big political donors.
Speaker 10: You get rich on drug treatment programs. Disgusting. It doesn't work.
Speaker 10: It works for some small percentage, but it doesn't work
Speaker 10: for most, that's for sure, and a lot of them
Speaker 10: die and they never lead productive, joyful lives. And the
Speaker 10: Taliban have a faith based I know I'm probably get
Speaker 10: pulled off YouTube for saying this, but it's true. I'm
Speaker 10: saying this is a Christian on a Muslim. They have
Speaker 10: a faith based, no nonsense, zero intoxicant policy in their
Speaker 10: rehab and it works in ours doesn't.
Speaker 1: And while it has nothing to do with Islam in particular,
Speaker 1: Carlson also seems to have developed an appreciation for what
Speaker 1: are ultimately theocratic and medieval values lately. So just when
Speaker 1: he praised the system of feudalism, again almost certainly trying
Speaker 1: to be provocative, but also again giving us no reason
Speaker 1: to think he doesn't actually think these things.
Speaker 10: That's what I'm saying, because at that point they feel like, Okay,
Speaker 10: we own this completely, so why rack it? It's our
Speaker 10: house now?
Speaker 11: Yes, And this is how you you know, again, this
Speaker 11: is the classic principle of actually how you get a
Speaker 11: king right, because they're generationally invested in the well being
Speaker 11: of the land, they're ruling the people they're ruling, and
Speaker 11: they have the power to control the outcomes there. So
Speaker 11: if you actually care about that, if you're actually gonna benefit,
Speaker 11: why not invest your control in actually producing a.
Speaker 10: Better popcast completely grit. I mean, feudalism is so much
Speaker 10: better than what we have now because at least in feudalism,
Speaker 10: the leader is vested in and the prosperity of the
Speaker 10: people he rules, right, you know, if all your serfs die,
Speaker 10: you starve.
Speaker 1: Similarly, a clip of Fwent has began circulating. Were several
Speaker 1: people pain to have their super Chat comments read live
Speaker 1: on his show, complained of him, that is Twente is
Speaker 1: taking a soft view on Islam and Muslims, to which
Speaker 1: he simply accused them of quote just wanting Muslim hate
Speaker 1: or something unquote, and of being, of course Jews.
Speaker 2: Muslims have been killing and raping Christians for one five
Speaker 2: hundred years, including their prepubescent children, like Muhammad with nine
Speaker 2: year old Aisha in the Quran. But you want even
Speaker 2: call that satanic? Everything about Islam is Satanic. It's a
Speaker 2: pedophile religion.
Speaker 5: Okay, so you're just talking up. This is just like Jewish.
Speaker 5: I've said repeatedly, Islam is a false religion. But you
Speaker 5: just want Muslim hate or something. And I can only
Speaker 5: think of one explanation. You sound like you're Jewish, though,
Speaker 5: you sound like your crypto atheist jew line.
Speaker 1: Now, putting aside these relatively minor comments salients to my
Speaker 1: own observation on the Green Brown alliance, as well as
Speaker 1: the question of whether or not Tucker Carlson or even
Speaker 1: Nick Fuentes can be classified as traditionally brown. In this case,
Speaker 1: that is fascist instead of just a garden variety in
Speaker 1: cessant jew beater and traditional anti semi respectively. But if
Speaker 1: one takes a more broad look at the wider paleoconservative
Speaker 1: slash paleo libertarian commentator class that was essentially getting alluded
Speaker 1: to by Dora in that piece I quoted earlier, one
Speaker 1: can start to see a common thread.
Speaker 12: What's Islam reacting to? Like why are so many young
Speaker 12: men in Europe being drawn to Islam? The reason being
Speaker 12: is because the void. It's the void. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Speaker 12: And so you've had the churches in Europe, whether it
Speaker 12: be the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches, they have
Speaker 12: stripped themselves of true theology. And the Catholic Church in
Speaker 12: Europe is as guilty as this of anyone else. You've
Speaker 12: had this progressive, weak, wishy, washy liberal gospel being preached
Speaker 12: by you know, every pastor under the sun. And then
Speaker 12: you've got this religion which crops up, which shows affirmative action,
Speaker 12: absolute strength. You know, these are the tenants which appeal
Speaker 12: to young men, particularly in Europe and of course in
Speaker 12: the Middle East, but you know, predominantly in Europe. And
Speaker 12: so this is the key, you know, driving force is
Speaker 12: the fact that theology, like Christianity in Europe, has been
Speaker 12: stripped of its actual truth. It's an eternal truth.
Speaker 13: What you're talking about is really just the absence of
Speaker 13: authority and structure, and people actually crave that.
Speaker 9: In the end.
Speaker 13: It reminds me of when I host did Andrew Tate.
Speaker 13: I want to say it was a couple of years ago,
Speaker 13: maybe it was last year, but he similarly said I
Speaker 13: pressed him on why he left Christianity, and the answer
Speaker 13: he gave, which was very interesting for me to consider,
Speaker 13: was be basically said, Christianity became weak and Christians don't
Speaker 13: defend themselves, they allow people to disrespect Jesus Christ, and
Speaker 13: how are people supposed to be drawn to something that
Speaker 13: has been weak? And obviously startling upsetting to hear, but
Speaker 13: he is echoing I think what you are what you
Speaker 13: are speaking to, which is that there does need to
Speaker 13: be a.
Speaker 10: Return to a true or a single Western city that's thriving,
Speaker 10: and they're all degrading in exactly the same way. It's
Speaker 10: self hatred. People lose their will to live, their will
Speaker 10: to pass on their culture, their values, their religion to
Speaker 10: their children, their will to have children. There's just a
Speaker 10: lack of self respect. I've noticed it because I travel
Speaker 10: outside the Western world. The White world is amazing. You
Speaker 10: go to the Gulf, and it's incredible to be in
Speaker 10: a place that has pride in itself, that believes in
Speaker 10: its religion and culture. People are happy, they're welcoming of others,
Speaker 10: they're tolerant of diversity. There's none of that here. But
Speaker 10: you go to a country like the Emirates or Qatar,
Speaker 10: Saudi Arabia, and you see that when people are self confident,
Speaker 10: when they're really pleased with what they're doing, and they
Speaker 10: believe that their system is the right system, that self
Speaker 10: confidence results in a welcoming attitude. You'll say I'm really
Speaker 10: kind of pro Jesus, like I'm a Christian. They're like, oh,
Speaker 10: that's so great. Well, they mean it. It's a country
Speaker 10: governed by Sharia law where they're into things that I'm
Speaker 10: not into, like polygamy or Islam. No one's forcing this
Speaker 10: on me. I'm not mad at you. I can go
Speaker 10: to a place like that, and I don't feel like
Speaker 10: I need to judge everybody on their local customs. But
Speaker 10: in the process of doing that, you get perspective on
Speaker 10: your own society. Let's treat the people who run the
Speaker 10: banks that people who are getting rich from usury like
Speaker 10: the criminals they are, and make them suffer, because that's
Speaker 10: totally fair. If you exploit and destroy people, you're not
Speaker 10: a good person. And I think we should start by
Speaker 10: getting collective actions. No, it's that the real danger is
Speaker 10: Shia law. Sharia law, and you can tell when you
Speaker 10: go to a place like Abu Dhabi or Riyad, like
Speaker 10: oh Man. I hope we don't ever wind up with
Speaker 10: a society like this with a rape rate of zero,
Speaker 10: where you leave your keys in your Lamborghini and don't
Speaker 10: ever worry about it being stolen. And you know, if
Speaker 10: people want to get wasted, they do it at home,
Speaker 10: you know what I mean. Yeah, boy, I hope we
Speaker 10: don't wind up with that. Mm hmm, yeah, I think.
Speaker 10: I mean, Sharia law is obviously just a punchline. I
Speaker 10: don't know that too many people actually believe in the
Speaker 10: reality of that. And I mean sure, like I said,
Speaker 10: you know, I'm a lawyer I actually studied legal philosophy.
Speaker 10: Sharia is not that different from other legal codes.
Speaker 1: This is not to say that any of these figures
Speaker 1: in this sort of loose affiliation, that any of these
Speaker 1: people actually wants a theocratic Islamic state to replace our own.
Speaker 1: I would wager most of them actually would not. The
Speaker 1: same can also be said for most radical activists in
Speaker 1: the Western left who functionally cape up for Hamas across
Speaker 1: social media. At the end of the day, a lot
Speaker 1: of this kind of stuff has much more to do
Speaker 1: with signaling to other people within your in group, as
Speaker 1: well as get attention from those on the outgroup. But
Speaker 1: the thing is that does nothing to actually diminish the
Speaker 1: significance of the very strange incarnations of ideological alliances that
Speaker 1: pop up among Western radicals on the left and right,
Speaker 1: and their strange connections to Islamism. Now, this common thread
Speaker 1: is not surprising, because again, it is never really about
Speaker 1: the actual cause believed in by one's allies. That's why
Speaker 1: you get this weird sort of dissonance when you look
Speaker 1: at these different ideologies, despite the fact that we can
Speaker 1: see them in a lot of ways, in a lot
Speaker 1: of times defending one another because what really is binding
Speaker 1: all of these people together at various times and in
Speaker 1: various ways, is simply one shared enemies. While the radical
Speaker 1: Western left believes in a vague notion of decolonization, the
Speaker 1: radical right believes in this vague notion of being anti war,
Speaker 1: and the Islamist groups like Kizibier or Hamas believe in
Speaker 1: a restoration of a caliphate or Islamic dominance over the
Speaker 1: Holy Land, all very disparate standpoints, yet all three of
Speaker 1: these groups essentially share the same enemies Israel and or
Speaker 1: the Jews, which are rapidly becoming functionally synonymous as far
Speaker 1: as I'm concerned, and almost always by extension, the United
Speaker 1: States and the Western world in general, at least as
Speaker 1: they currently exist. It is therefore not all that outlandish
Speaker 1: to call the radicals on the western left and right
Speaker 1: functional allies of Islamists, and just as the functional allyship
Speaker 1: of various leftist groups has existed with Islamists for some time,
Speaker 1: namely since the Iranian Revolution of nineteen seventy nine, though
Speaker 1: the connection does go back a bit further than that
Speaker 1: in some ways. But just as that has existed for
Speaker 1: so long, so too has the allyship between radical right
Speaker 1: wing groups and individuals and Islamist groups and individuals. Similar
Speaker 1: to the radical Western left, the radical Western right does not,
Speaker 1: at first glance, seem to be a good fit for
Speaker 1: making common cause with Islamists. There's always a preternatural paranoia
Speaker 1: about border security and even immigrants in general, to say
Speaker 1: nothing of what often veers into Western chauvinism and outright racism.
Speaker 1: And it discussed with all things foreign, with the people
Speaker 1: of Islamic countries, often, though of course not exclusively, being
Speaker 1: used as examples of who not to allow within Western borders.
Speaker 1: And Yet, in his two thousand and six book The
Speaker 1: Enemy of My Enemy, The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam
Speaker 1: and the Extreme Right, the political science scholar George Michael
Speaker 1: explains that despite these tendencies of the Western radical right
Speaker 1: and the tendencies of Islamists quote, they actually share some
Speaker 1: strikingly similar characteristics. In continuing, Michael writes the following quote,
Speaker 1: both movements evince a high degree of exclusivity as they
Speaker 1: endeavor to create their own utopian versions of homogeneous societies. Moreover,
Speaker 1: increasingly there is a meeting of the minds on several
Speaker 1: important political issues. Oddly enough, one example is the cause
Speaker 1: of Palestinian independence. The two also offer similar critiques of
Speaker 1: American foreign policy in the Middle East, the American media, modernity, secularism,
Speaker 1: and globalization. Finally, both movements see the United States government
Speaker 1: as hopelessly under the control of Jews or Zionists, pursuing
Speaker 1: policies that are at cross purposes with their own group interests.
Speaker 1: The key, Michael argues for a meeting of the minds
Speaker 1: between the far right and Islamists is finding potential vectors
Speaker 1: for cooperation, particularly where perceived enemies overlap. In fact, according
Speaker 1: to Michael, quote, perhaps the greatest potential unquote has to
Speaker 1: do with that of my profession, that of history. More specifically,
Speaker 1: the greatest potential for cooperation between the far right and
Speaker 1: Islamists can be found within the phenomenon of historical revisionism,
Speaker 1: particularly when it comes to events like World War Two
Speaker 1: and the Holocaust, whose narratives figures like Tucker Carlson always
Speaker 1: seem so keen to try and upend for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: As Michael explains, quote, there are several reasons why the
Speaker 1: prospect of cooperation between the historical revisionist segment of the
Speaker 1: extreme right and militant Islam is strong. First, the racialism
Speaker 1: in this segment tends to be muted and much less strident.
Speaker 1: Rarely does one read claims about the racial superiority of
Speaker 1: European derived peoples or the racial inferiority of other races. Furthermore,
Speaker 1: non Europeans, such as Afro Caribbean scholar Tony Martin have
Speaker 1: on occasion given lectures at revisionist conferences. Finally, there is
Speaker 1: a great congruence of interest in this field of intellectual
Speaker 1: endeavor because both militant Islam and revisionists are highly critical
Speaker 1: of Zionism. While one can likely imagine several examples of
Speaker 1: this convergence of interests, especially to the longer one spends
Speaker 1: in right wing corners of X and other platforms like that,
Speaker 1: one of the most infamous examples of far right anti
Speaker 1: Zionism comes from a particularly notorious Swiss Holocaust denier named
Speaker 1: Jugen Graf. Groff's first and most infamous book was The
Speaker 1: Holocaust on Trial Eyewitness Accounts Versus Natural Laws, published in
Speaker 1: the early nineteen nineties and co authored with fellow Holocaust
Speaker 1: denier Carlo Montonio. Thanks to this work and many others
Speaker 1: echoing similar themes. Groff was dismissed from his teaching position,
Speaker 1: giving him further credibility as a persecuted person in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the revisionist crowd, where he continued to thrive
Speaker 1: until his death, actually just last year in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: According to George Michael, who interviewed him for the Enemy
Speaker 1: of My Enemy, Graf quote saw great potential for an
Speaker 1: alliance with the Palestinians and their supporters, especially because any
Speaker 1: effort to discredit accepted views of the Holocaust would undercut
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the State of Israel and, by extension,
Speaker 1: the larger international community of Jews. Graf was indeed an
Speaker 1: unrepentant anti Semite and a true Holocaust denier, not quote
Speaker 1: unquote just a revisionist, though that is largely a distinction
Speaker 1: without a difference in this particular context, of course, with
Speaker 1: Groff claiming to Michael that quote, the quote unquote Holocaust
Speaker 1: lie is but a rotten corpse unquote, just waiting to
Speaker 1: be disproved, despite quote the fact that those who profit
Speaker 1: from these myths control the education system plus the media
Speaker 1: of the West unquote. While completely ostracized by mainstream historians,
Speaker 1: review and claims like these. Understandably, Groff was able to
Speaker 1: help organize a conference called Revisionism and Zionism slated to
Speaker 1: occur in Beirut Lebanon in the summer of two thousand
Speaker 1: and one. The event ended up being canceled at the
Speaker 1: last minute, but it was spearheaded by the Institute for
Speaker 1: Historical Review or IHR, probably the most infamous historical revisionism outfit,
Speaker 1: thanks which frequent laundering of Holocaust denial. The IHR was
Speaker 1: not content to simply distribute supposedly respectable pieces of Holocaust
Speaker 1: denial skepticism, though they sought to form foreign alliances and
Speaker 1: not just with fellow traveling European white supremacists. As Michael
Speaker 1: explains in his book Quote, the IHR had interfaced with
Speaker 1: Muslims in the past. Its director, Mark Webber, has been
Speaker 1: interviewed numerous times on Iranian state Radio Islamic Republic of
Speaker 1: Iran Broadcasting or IRIB. According to some accounts, Arabs were
Speaker 1: among the first financial supporters of the IHR, just prior
Speaker 1: to the founding of the IHR. It is believed that
Speaker 1: the government of Saudi Arabia funded the Holocaust denier William N. Grimstad,
Speaker 1: the author of the six Million Reconsidered, and on some
Speaker 1: occasions Muslims have addressed IHR conferences, including Isa Nachle of
Speaker 1: the World Muslim Congress quote. The IHR has long since
Speaker 1: lost any luster it might have once had, and its
Speaker 1: circulation of paid supporters was already in the four digit
Speaker 1: range as of Michael's writing two decades ago. Nevertheless, the
Speaker 1: revisionism link between elements of the far right and Islamism
Speaker 1: continues to persist and has a rich tradition. Even the
Speaker 1: very infamous German Canadian Holocaust denier Ernst Zundo, who was
Speaker 1: appropriately helped in court by David Irving in the late
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, once commented that quote the poor Palestinians are
Speaker 1: the most abused victims of this holocaust in quotes there
Speaker 1: propaganda tool q quote. In modern times, however, the link
Speaker 1: between the two worldviews goes beyond mere shared interests in
Speaker 1: denying or downplaying the Holocaust and even becomes more specifically
Speaker 1: wedded to current events. This became especially clear following the
Speaker 1: Pogram of October seventh, twenty twenty three, as reported by
Speaker 1: Catherine Kanely and Zoe Mansei in their paper Hate United
Speaker 1: Neo Nazi accelerationist support for Hamas. There were a number
Speaker 1: of far right accelerationists, that is, people who wish to
Speaker 1: speed along the destruction of modern societies so a newer,
Speaker 1: supposedly better utopia can be born from the ashes. These
Speaker 1: far right accelerationists were on telegram and they quote believe
Speaker 1: they share commonalities with Hamas and consider the Israel Hamas
Speaker 1: conflict to be an opportunity to radicalize, recruit, and inspire
Speaker 1: violence against the Jewish community unquote, going so far as
Speaker 1: to share what they believe are Israel's critical infrastructure details
Speaker 1: for Hamas's consumption on telegram. This is not actually that outlandish.
Speaker 1: Telegram was used by Hamas during the October seventh pogrom.
Speaker 1: That is where they posted all those ghastly videos that
Speaker 1: I unfortunately have seen, but I think a lot of
Speaker 1: other people have too. Kenneli and Manzi also report that quote.
Speaker 1: One of the analyzed channels shared details on Israel based substations,
Speaker 1: including specific location coordinates. One neo Nazi accelerationist channel, now disabled,
Speaker 1: posted a guide on how to sabotage electrical substations in Israel,
Speaker 1: which included an open infrared map of electrical substation sites
Speaker 1: in Israel and read if America can shut down with
Speaker 1: nine substations as a large scale country, imagine Israel as
Speaker 1: it is a short scale country unquote. So this isn't
Speaker 1: just a relic of the past. These functional alliances still
Speaker 1: do seem to exist in more meaningful ways, even than
Speaker 1: contrarian pundits trying to get views and come up with
Speaker 1: the edgiest way to make their case. In a way,
Speaker 1: it is unsupp rising that accelerationists sees something to admire
Speaker 1: in Hamas. Back in two thousand and six, George Michael
Speaker 1: pointed out accurately that quote. Since the nineteen eighties, the
Speaker 1: extreme right has evolved from a movement characterized by ultra
Speaker 1: patriotism to one increasingly characterized by nihilism. With that in mind, Hamas,
Speaker 1: it has been accurately stated by many, is a death
Speaker 1: cult and has described themselves as loving death more than
Speaker 1: the rest of us love life. That's very well covered territory.
Speaker 1: So it is not hard to imagine how a hyper
Speaker 1: privileged and sufferably bitter Western radical yearning for an apocalypse
Speaker 1: of the modern world could find something admirable and one
Speaker 1: of the most barbarically nihilistic organizations on the planet. Indeed,
Speaker 1: to go back to the commentary from Keneli and Mansy,
Speaker 1: they make it clear that quote, intergroup support is not
Speaker 1: rooted in a common religious or cultural ideology, but rather
Speaker 1: in uniting against a common enemy, the Jews and the
Speaker 1: corrupt West unquote, and that accelerationists are fans of Hamas's tactics,
Speaker 1: suggesting quote that their guerrilla style warfare is worthy of
Speaker 1: adoption and should be implemented by accelerationists in the United
Speaker 1: States unquote, despite different ultimate visions of the world they
Speaker 1: wish to see. The researchers found that, without question, quote,
Speaker 1: both ideology and methodology are the spotlight as areas of
Speaker 1: potential convergence unquote for Islamist terror groups like Hamas and
Speaker 1: far right terror groups and individuals in the West. Again,
Speaker 1: shared hatred is often all that is needed to forget
Speaker 1: diverging visions of the future. However, there have been figures
Speaker 1: in the far right who have gone even deeper with
Speaker 1: finding common cause with Islamists, going so far as to
Speaker 1: exhibit outright islamophilia. The most famous recent example of this
Speaker 1: phenomenon was actually the streamer Sneako, who converted to Islam
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three but has been fashioning himself a
Speaker 1: far right provocateurl or for some time. However, a less
Speaker 1: famous but far more significant figure serves as what George
Speaker 1: Micah refers to as the Islamic national socialist synthesis of
Speaker 1: our modern era. That figure's name is David Myatt, and
Speaker 1: his is a fascinating story.
Speaker 14: But the man whose ideas had more influence than most
Speaker 14: on Copeland was David Myatt from Worcestershire, the nsm's first leader,
Speaker 14: the intellectual who shaped the ideas propelling Copeland on his
Speaker 14: road to terrorism, A man who once said the Nazi
Speaker 14: movement needed people prepared to get their hands dirty and
Speaker 14: perhaps spill some blood.
Speaker 15: Mister Myatt, we're from the BBC, We're from Panorama. I
Speaker 15: wanted to ask you some questions about the NSM and
Speaker 15: David Copeland, the London nail bomber.
Speaker 8: Don't have no comment to me.
Speaker 11: You called for the.
Speaker 15: Creation of racial tension and that's exactly what Copeland did.
Speaker 15: You inspired Copeland indirectly to do what he did.
Speaker 11: No comment about anything to do with us.
Speaker 15: But two years ago, when you were head of the
Speaker 15: NSM was calling for the creation of racial terror with
Speaker 15: what no comment to make about the past, as I said,
Speaker 15: and as well comment doesn't that make it clear that
Speaker 15: you are accepting some responsibility. No comment to make about
Speaker 15: responsibility and anything to do with that, any guilt. What
Speaker 15: I feel is between me and God.
Speaker 4: It's nothing to be made public.
Speaker 11: It is a private matter.
Speaker 1: David Mayatt's strange position within the far right influencer network
Speaker 1: is made most apparent by his writings appearing on the
Speaker 1: website for the Arian Nations Ministry of Islamic Liaison, whose
Speaker 1: stated goal is to establish quote solidarity to the bona
Speaker 1: fide adherents of Islam and the Arabic world and abroad
Speaker 1: unquote in their own words. Mayatt is less known outside
Speaker 1: of the UK, where he is originally from, but over
Speaker 1: the years he gained a bit of a reputation as
Speaker 1: the leader of the underground paramilitary group Combat eighteen in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight, after the original leader was thrown in
Speaker 1: prison for murder. This murder had been part of a
Speaker 1: broader strategy of quote attacking left wing bookshops, gay pubs,
Speaker 1: and anti apartheid activists in the nineteen nineties, and there
Speaker 1: is little doubt that Mayat played a part in the terror, or,
Speaker 1: if one is to be more charitable, was fully aware
Speaker 1: of it. However, like a lot of self described seekers,
Speaker 1: he became disillusioned with the movement, especially after it self
Speaker 1: destructed from quote Internet, seeing conflicts and government repression unquote
Speaker 1: in George Michael's words, though he never let go of
Speaker 1: the Nazi ethos, Mayatt sought new meaning from various avenues,
Speaker 1: including Daoism, Buddhism, Christian monastic life, and even pagan and
Speaker 1: Satanic secret societies. But eventually he discovered Islam and was entranced.
Speaker 1: This discovery and enchantment did little to tamp down Mayatt's
Speaker 1: neo Nazism, and in fact, it only accentuated it. His
Speaker 1: racial ethno nationalism as Michael calls it, or neo racism
Speaker 1: as Miyat himself called it. Interestingly, does not apply a
Speaker 1: hierarchy to the races, but does emphasize the importance of
Speaker 1: racial particularism in the context of quote cultural identity and
Speaker 1: self determination quote in which quote the various races of
Speaker 1: the world have different destinies, different abilities, and different ways
Speaker 1: of living that should be respected unquote. In George Michael's
Speaker 1: words summarizing Mayat's views. And yet the West, that is
Speaker 1: the new World order in Mayatt's parlance, was not included
Speaker 1: in this formulation and was in fact the corrupting force
Speaker 1: that did not allow for different ways of living that
Speaker 1: should be respected. And of course, given his continuing neo
Speaker 1: Nazi beliefs, there was a very particular group that helped
Speaker 1: orchestrate this corruption. Thanks to their supposed influence, you can
Speaker 1: probably guess who he was thinking about. Mayatt admitted in
Speaker 1: interviews to George Michael for George Michael's book The Enemy
Speaker 1: of My Enemy, that he was slightly opportunistic in his
Speaker 1: pursuit of Islam because he admired the militancy practiced by
Speaker 1: Islamist groups against what he saw as the enemy again,
Speaker 1: the new World War order. Yet again, the idea that
Speaker 1: he an avowed national socialists and Islamists quote shared common enemies,
Speaker 1: the capitalist consumer West and international finance unquote, was plenty
Speaker 1: enough to entice him. But unlike other far right activists
Speaker 1: and radicals simply seeing the value of shared enemies, Mayatt
Speaker 1: took it a step further. He converted taking on the
Speaker 1: Islamic name Abdullah Ziz. This made perfect sense to him because,
Speaker 1: as Michael explains, Mayat believed that quote something was terribly
Speaker 1: missing in the hearts of right wing extremists. Unquote, there
Speaker 1: was something, as far as Maya was concerned, truly inspiring
Speaker 1: about jihad, the truly fanatical commitment of the soul. As
Speaker 1: Maya himself explained in one of these interviews, quote, I
Speaker 1: came to understand that what motivated the fighters I and
Speaker 1: others had discussed previously was an intense faith, a real
Speaker 1: belief in an after a belief that it was their
Speaker 1: duty to act in such a way, and that by
Speaker 1: doing their duty in the way they did, they would
Speaker 1: be assured of entering paradise. And this faith was not
Speaker 1: a political belief they had acquired or accepted an adult life.
Speaker 1: It was part of their very culture. Indeed, it was
Speaker 1: their culture, their tradition, and their way of life from
Speaker 1: birth through death. It was this type of faith, this
Speaker 1: immersion in one's own culture, which our own people so
Speaker 1: sadly lacked. We were trying to motivate people in a
Speaker 1: political way, whereas Muslim fighters did what they did because
Speaker 1: it was accepted as their duty as their own people
Speaker 1: understood this duty and gladly accepted their martyrdom quote. Despite
Speaker 1: his deterministic and all encompassing diagnosis of Muslim culture, if
Speaker 1: such a thing even really exists in full, Maya was
Speaker 1: adamant that racial differences played little role in his thinking.
Speaker 1: In fact, he insisted that quote the truth about national
Speaker 1: socialism has been obscured for over fifty years thanks to
Speaker 1: the intensive, hateful, worldwide, well financed, and unending propaganda campaign
Speaker 1: directed against it, characterizing the image of the Nazis we
Speaker 1: get from the historical record as quote the stereotyped Marxist
Speaker 1: capitalist image of a national socialist unquot. Mayat rejected any
Speaker 1: notion of being a quote rabid so called racist who
Speaker 1: hated other races unquote, instead proclaiming that he quote loved
Speaker 1: my own people, valued my own heritage, and wished to
Speaker 1: see the creation of independent homelands where different races and
Speaker 1: cultures could live in freedom according to their own customs.
Speaker 1: While this certainly contradicts the original national socialist mission of Liebensraum,
Speaker 1: this type of modern day racial radicalism is common enough
Speaker 1: among those who would consider themselves racial separatists. Mayat did
Speaker 1: not believe that the well established history of national socialism,
Speaker 1: or the history of imperialist militant Islam for that matter,
Speaker 1: contradicted his worldview, or more importantly, that these worldviews could
Speaker 1: conflict with one another. This was of course thanks to
Speaker 1: his belief that we have gotten the history of the
Speaker 1: Second World War wrong, as well as our Western understanding
Speaker 1: of Islam. But it was also because he believed that
Speaker 1: there was more than enough kinship between the faiths. As
Speaker 1: may had explained in his interview, quote, there was some
Speaker 1: common ground since both ways, when correctly understood, produced civilized,
Speaker 1: honorable individuals who use reason as a guide unquote. However,
Speaker 1: he did start to notice contradictions as time went on,
Speaker 1: and as he attempted to create something akin to, in
Speaker 1: Michael's words, aryan Islam, in which quote aryan culture and
Speaker 1: identity could be expressed in the confines of Islam unquote. Now, eventually, Mayat,
Speaker 1: who was a very intelligent man, it should be noted,
Speaker 1: with a reported i Q of one hundred and eighty seven,
Speaker 1: he needed that, at least for him. There were too
Speaker 1: many contradictions between Islam itself and his that is, Maya's
Speaker 1: vision of true national socialism, which he saw as more
Speaker 1: tied to folk culture, that is, the culture of the voke,
Speaker 1: and as Hitler believed, a reverence for capital and nature.
Speaker 1: The main problem, though, was not the issue of racial
Speaker 1: or even general cultural differences. The problem was that Islam
Speaker 1: was too concerned with jana or the next life. Radical
Speaker 1: action for the reward of the hereafter was ultimately too
Speaker 1: individualistic of a principle for him, and he left the
Speaker 1: Faith to continue his political project from the standpoint of
Speaker 1: folk culture. Nevertheless, Maya continued to express admiration for Islam
Speaker 1: and even stated that quote I do believe I understand Islam,
Speaker 1: which is why I know an alliance between Muslims and
Speaker 1: national socialists as possible and indeed necessary. Unquote if he
Speaker 1: an avowed national socialist who supposedly has since renounced all
Speaker 1: of his radical beliefs, for what it's worth, but if
Speaker 1: he at the time, as an avowed national socialist devoted
Speaker 1: to crushing the new world order, if he could see
Speaker 1: the value in such a friendship, others would have to
Speaker 1: as well, and perhaps even embrace the faith as he
Speaker 1: once did. However, there were others, particularly one man, who
Speaker 1: had already done just that, and this one man's story
Speaker 1: is just as fascinating, if not more disturbing, than Mayat's.
Speaker 16: On a quiet street not far from the former residence
Speaker 16: of the US ambassador lives a seventy five year old
Speaker 16: swissman who the US government says is a terrorist. Huber,
Speaker 16: if you haven't guessed, is an admirer of Adolph Hitlery. Yes, Japan,
Speaker 16: he is a convert to Islam, has been for forty years.
Speaker 8: Yeah, kind of stay.
Speaker 4: Far from a simple convert.
Speaker 16: Counter terrorist experts believe that Ahmed Huber his breathing embodiment
Speaker 16: of a dangerous alliance of Neo Nazi and Islamic extremists,
Speaker 16: a coalition united in its hatred of America and Jews,
Speaker 16: a coalition known as the Third Position.
Speaker 1: Ahmed Huber was not born Ahmed, but was in fact
Speaker 1: born Albert Friedrich Armand Huber in nineteen twenty seven to
Speaker 1: a Protestant family in Freiburg, Switzerland. He had converted to
Speaker 1: Islam in nineteen sixty two, after having spent most of
Speaker 1: his adult life in the Swiss Socialist Party, which had
Speaker 1: brought him into greater contact with Islam to the party's
Speaker 1: support for Algerian independence at the time, as he put
Speaker 1: it in his interview with George Michael for Michael's book,
Speaker 1: he was drawn to Islam because quote it was an
Speaker 1: anti theology, quote in which quote Allah is a declaration
Speaker 1: of war against all theology unquote, because quote Allah is
Speaker 1: always greater and greatest and completely different beyond all human
Speaker 1: reason unquote. Even better, Hubert realized Islam taught the quote
Speaker 1: unquote unity of faith and reason, and that quote there
Speaker 1: was no church, the only authority and message and of
Speaker 1: the messenger from which the religious, the political, the social
Speaker 1: are all one are together unquote. Enchanted by the promises
Speaker 1: he saw in this new faith, unlike what he saw
Speaker 1: as stunted Protestantism and milktoast liberalism, he made the decision
Speaker 1: to convert. It was upon his joining of the faith,
Speaker 1: reciting his Shahada in Egypt to the Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut
Speaker 1: on the invitation of the Egyptian Embassy, that Hubert's views
Speaker 1: on politics started to change, especially the more often he
Speaker 1: spoke to the more radical Islamists among his new friends.
Speaker 1: One of those friends was Gamal Abdul Nasser, the pan
Speaker 1: Arabis radical and president of Egypt. As Hubert later recalled,
Speaker 1: quote Nasar explained to me some things about the Third Reich,
Speaker 1: and about the Second World War, and about Adolph Hitler
Speaker 1: and some things that I have never known. It was
Speaker 1: for me a complete culture shock. And then I went
Speaker 1: back to Switzerland. I was invited to the embassy again,
Speaker 1: and there I met a young girl. She was a secretary,
Speaker 1: and we later married in the private officers club of
Speaker 1: abdel Nasser. There we got married in August of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty three, and from then on I've been a Muslim unquote.
Speaker 1: Continuing to describe his journey into the faith, Huber recounted
Speaker 1: that while he began as an Arab nationalist, quote, the
Speaker 1: Islamic revolution in Iran made something new out of me.
Speaker 1: This deepened his ties to political Islam, and through those
Speaker 1: ties he actually eventually met the infamous Ayatola Komeni, and
Speaker 1: he that is Huber even spoke in front of the
Speaker 1: Iranian parliament. Despite practicing in the Sunni tradition. As George
Speaker 1: Michael points out, Huber quote became very much touched by
Speaker 1: Shia Islam unquote, and he began to add advocate for
Speaker 1: the Islamic Republic. He was basically an early version of
Speaker 1: the people marching around with the sign saying hands off Iran.
Speaker 4: Huber forged close ties to the Ayatola Komani and the
Speaker 4: Iranian Revolution. What did you think of Comyne met him?
Speaker 8: Yes, he was a fantastic man.
Speaker 16: At the same time, he worked with extreme right wing
Speaker 16: politicians like Francis Jean Marie Lepin.
Speaker 4: In Germany's Neo Nazi Party, the NPD.
Speaker 1: It was when that Hubert returned to Europe from Iran
Speaker 1: that he was implored by his Iranian contacts to quote
Speaker 1: make contact with right wing movements in order to stop
Speaker 1: them from attacking Muslims and to speak of common values
Speaker 1: that we have and also of common enemies unquote. And
Speaker 1: Hubert ultimately did make those contacts, connecting with both European
Speaker 1: and American far right extremists over the following decades. This
Speaker 1: relationship culminated in a little bit of a rabbit hole,
Speaker 1: but one that I think is worth delving into at
Speaker 1: least a little bit to understand the scope of this
Speaker 1: Green Brown alliance phenomenon we're examining. This involves something called
Speaker 1: Altakva later renamed Nada Management in late two thousand and one,
Speaker 1: which was a financial firm that, according to George Michael,
Speaker 1: quote allegedly funded al Qaeda and allegedly provided assistance to
Speaker 1: Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood unquote, And as Michael later explains, quote,
Speaker 1: the last known chairman of Altakva is reported to have
Speaker 1: been Yusuf Nada unquote. Hence the name change. This man
Speaker 1: matters to our story because, as Michael writes, Nada had
Speaker 1: connections to the Western far right that quote extended back
Speaker 1: decades unquote, beginning with its involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood
Speaker 1: during World War II and acting as a liaison between
Speaker 1: the abver or the Third Reich intelligence and the Muslim Brotherhood,
Speaker 1: a connection that we have explored in history impossible, particularly
Speaker 1: when talking about the activities of the Third Reich engaging
Speaker 1: in propaganda over in the Arab world. Now, Ahmed Huber
Speaker 1: fits into this equation in nineteen eighty eight as one
Speaker 1: of the founders of Altakva, which registered as an import
Speaker 1: export company, but was, according to Swiss authorities, more akin
Speaker 1: to a terrorist money laundering operation, with resources moving through
Speaker 1: the company to nefarious figures like Carlos the Jackal and
Speaker 1: Osama bin Laden. About two weeks after nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: the Bush administration put out Executive Order one three two
Speaker 1: two four, which designated over two dozen international entities as
Speaker 1: supporters of terrorism. A significant number of these entities, including Altakva,
Speaker 1: were registered to Yusef Nada, the Nazi Muslim brotherhood liaison.
Speaker 1: It was through the investigations that followed EO one three
Speaker 1: two two four that Ahmed Hubert's name came up, and
Speaker 1: it was revealed that he had sat on the board
Speaker 1: of Altakva since its founding in nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 16: And the company who he helped direct was even targeted
Speaker 16: publicly by President Bush.
Speaker 17: Altaqua was in our association of out shore banks and
Speaker 17: financial management firms that have helped al Qaeda shift money
Speaker 17: around the world.
Speaker 16: The United States has listed you basically as a terrorist.
Speaker 4: Were you surprised to see your name on that list?
Speaker 8: No, I was just laughing because it's a first. It's
Speaker 8: absolutely stupid. It's not even a lie. It's stupid.
Speaker 16: Akmed Huber may have laughed, but the US government is
Speaker 16: dead serious. It has frozen Huber's assets and is pressuring
Speaker 16: the Swiss government to arrest.
Speaker 4: Him for being part of the al Qaeda.
Speaker 16: Money network, alleging that al Taqua management later called not
Speaker 16: a management, funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups through a
Speaker 16: complex scheme of offshore banking. Huber was on the company's
Speaker 16: board of directors.
Speaker 8: I have never seen anything which was lousy or not
Speaker 8: correct or suspicious, because you see, I could not have
Speaker 8: afforded to be a part of something doubtful.
Speaker 16: That is because, according to critics, Huber has a very
Speaker 16: doubtful pans.
Speaker 8: You see, here is a room where I read.
Speaker 4: One only has to take a tour of his study it.
Speaker 16: There is a smiling bin Lad next to a stern
Speaker 16: Adolf Hilill He all situated below a photograph of the
Speaker 16: Ayatola Kommie.
Speaker 4: And oh yeah, there is one other bit of memorabiliness.
Speaker 8: This piece here is a piece from the house of
Speaker 8: Hitler and as outspack the fundacation.
Speaker 1: Thanks to the publicity created by the investigation into Al Takva,
Speaker 1: Huber agreed to a number of interviews, and in one
Speaker 1: with the Jewish Telegraph Agency in November of two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, he admitted that he quote met in Beirut
Speaker 1: on several occasions with bin Laden followers, whom he described
Speaker 1: as very intelligent and nice guys. More to the point.
Speaker 1: The same article references the Swiss newspaper Blick's own reporting
Speaker 1: that Huber acted as quote a go between for Islamic
Speaker 1: extremists and neo Nazis unquote, and that he believed that
Speaker 1: quote the greatest leaders of the twentieth century were Hitler
Speaker 1: and Iran's late Ayatola Komeni, made evident by the two
Speaker 1: men's portraits hanging prominently in his office. When asked about
Speaker 1: his attendance to a rally for Germany's neo Nazi National
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, which it should be noted, takes issue with
Speaker 1: Germany's newer populas driving party alternative Fier Deutschland or a
Speaker 1: f Day for essentially stealing their thunder just a little
Speaker 1: fun fact there, as well as his contacts with this party,
Speaker 1: Huber simply replied, quote the National Democratic Party are brave
Speaker 1: people who understand that the Holocaust is a big lie unquote.
Speaker 1: When George Michael sat down for his interview with Huber
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three, the Swiss Muslim convert made
Speaker 1: his positions even clearer, about as clear as one could,
Speaker 1: and it is thus worth reading at length. Quote I
Speaker 1: judge as a Muslim, I judge Adolph Hitler and the
Speaker 1: Reich and his movement in a different way than the
Speaker 1: Zionists or the Marxists or the Anglo Americans do, because
Speaker 1: I know very very much. I have been studying the
Speaker 1: sources of what was the Third Reich, and I met
Speaker 1: a lot of people who knew Hitler personally. I have
Speaker 1: met his secretaries fraugertrud Junga, who recently died, and Christa Schroeder.
Speaker 1: I have met Anton AxMan, the last Hitler youth leader,
Speaker 1: who brought the corpses of Hitler and Ava Brown to
Speaker 1: the Reich Chancellery and burnt them. I met a lot
Speaker 1: of waffen s S generals from the Liebstandharta who personally
Speaker 1: knew Hitler. We Muslims are fascinated by the Third Reich
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties because Hitler had some ideas at
Speaker 1: the political level and the economic level and the cultural
Speaker 1: field which were very close to the political, economic, and
Speaker 1: cultural Shariah. For instance, the economic concept of an interest free,
Speaker 1: non capitalist economy is very close to the Islamic concept
Speaker 1: of the economy. Hitler's idea that art should represent God
Speaker 1: and not be degenerate and make a cult of ugliness,
Speaker 1: of lies, and of evil. This corresponds to the cultural
Speaker 1: Shariah and so on. So this man and his movement
Speaker 1: were fascinating to many Muslim intellectuals all during the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 1: and since nineteen forty five, Muslims have been studying all
Speaker 1: of these things. And we judge him Hitler in a
Speaker 1: different way. Even if now, of course, when the Muslims
Speaker 1: protest against America they say Bush equals Hitler, or Israeli
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Ariel Sharon equals Hitler. They say that not
Speaker 1: for themselves, but because they know that it has an
Speaker 1: impact on Western public opinion. You see, Hitler himself had
Speaker 1: quite a positive attitude towards Islam. He said several times
Speaker 1: the only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet
Speaker 1: I admire is the prophet Muhammad. He said several times
Speaker 1: in his table talks that after the Final War, the
Speaker 1: Swastika will rule over all of Europe and will represent
Speaker 1: a new Europe. We will help the Muslims in North
Speaker 1: Africa and the Middle East to reestablish the caliphate. That
Speaker 1: means there would be an Islamic civilization. And Hitler said
Speaker 1: in the Far East there will be the rising Sun Japan.
Speaker 1: Of course, he didn't see China. Huber pause to laugh here.
Speaker 1: He had no thought for China. He only saw Japan,
Speaker 1: with whom he had an alliance. He spoke of a
Speaker 1: new stability in the world. The swastika, the crescent and
Speaker 1: the rising Sun would be a new stability.
Speaker 4: He said.
Speaker 1: In America people will wake up, as well as in
Speaker 1: Latin America and Black Africa. He was against colonialism, you know,
Speaker 1: after the beginning in mine Kamp there are still some
Speaker 1: colonialist ideas he had, like all people of his time,
Speaker 1: but later in the nineteen thirties, especially during the war,
Speaker 1: he changed. I have been around with groups of young people,
Speaker 1: both Muslims and non Muslims, and especially what we call
Speaker 1: the New Right. Sometimes we hold meetings together Muslims and
Speaker 1: people from the New Right to speak about these things
Speaker 1: and show what we have in common. I also spoke
Speaker 1: about this at the University of Tehran. I spoke at
Speaker 1: a seminar and workshops about these problems, explaining what was
Speaker 1: the Third Reich, what it was all about. In London,
Speaker 1: we had conferences. We had Islamic conferences in the United
Speaker 1: States between nineteen eighty eight and nineteen ninety eight, the
Speaker 1: last time in nineteen ninety eight in the United States.
Speaker 1: When you talk about this to young Muslims and young
Speaker 1: right wing people in general, they say, there is common ground.
Speaker 1: The link is a criticism of the so called modernity
Speaker 1: of the modern world, which in many ways has gone
Speaker 1: far away from God. It is against creation, It is
Speaker 1: against nature. Look for instance, at the cult of homosexuality.
Speaker 1: This is incredible. This is against common sense, against reason,
Speaker 1: against nature. It is ridiculous. If you look at modern art,
Speaker 1: it is an insult to reason and an insult of
Speaker 1: the sense of beauty which is in every human being.
Speaker 1: If this lengthy diatribe started to sound familiar to anyone
Speaker 1: keyed into the rhetoric of the current new right, especially online,
Speaker 1: the reason why should be appearing increasingly obvious. Anti modern
Speaker 1: radical is anti modern radicalism, whether it comes in brown
Speaker 1: or green. A more interesting and yet crucial thing for
Speaker 1: us to highlight here, though, is that, unlike David Mayatt
Speaker 1: and a number of other far right figures who have
Speaker 1: become converts to the Islamic faith, like traditionalist renee Ganols
Speaker 1: turn towards Sufism, Ahmed Huber came to his far right
Speaker 1: radicalism from his conversion to Islam. Remember when he started
Speaker 1: out right. Before he converted, he was a member of
Speaker 1: the Swiss Socialist Party. Now this is fascinating in and
Speaker 1: of itself, but it is also indicative of how malleable
Speaker 1: belief systems can be when made radical, how easy it
Speaker 1: is for one radical ideology to inform and influence the
Speaker 1: formation of or joining of another, no matter which way around. However,
Speaker 1: Huber's particular experience also allows us to see the real
Speaker 1: historical origin of this green brown alliance, and it is
Speaker 1: a very familiar ordayn, especially to those who listened to
Speaker 1: History Impossible. Hubert recounted a story directly to Michael during
Speaker 1: the course of his interview with him for the enemy
Speaker 1: of my Enemy, and one that really helps bring the
Speaker 1: bizarre phenomenon of this green Brown alliance full circle. In
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties, as he was becoming more and more
Speaker 1: invested in his newfound musclim identity, Hubert had traveled to Beirut,
Speaker 1: where he met with an aging titan of Islamism and,
Speaker 1: in my opinion at least, the godfather of the Islamist
Speaker 1: in far right relationship. This Titan not only impressed Hubert
Speaker 1: with his status and prestige, but also with a story
Speaker 1: too wild to be true. As Hubert recounted, quote the
Speaker 1: Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajamin al Husseini, who I met
Speaker 1: in nineteen sixty five in Beirut. We had a long talk.
Speaker 1: He told me many, many interesting things. Because he had
Speaker 1: an almost friendship, definitely a relationship with Adolf Hitler. He
Speaker 1: told me a fantastic story. On one night in December
Speaker 1: nineteen forty one, after the big victories of Germany over
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, he had a long talk with Hitler
Speaker 1: about architecture, culture, the music of Richard Wagner and so on.
Speaker 1: Hitler started talking about race theory and anti Semitism, and
Speaker 1: the Grand Mufti asked Hitler, did you ever think, mister Chancellor,
Speaker 1: that your race theory comes out of Judaism? It comes
Speaker 1: out of the Old Testament. And Hitler was very astonished
Speaker 1: by that. The Grand Muffty knew the Bible very well.
Speaker 1: He said, all of your ideas, the doctrine of the
Speaker 1: Nazi Party are in the Old Testament. The chosen people
Speaker 1: of God are not the chosen people, but the chosen race,
Speaker 1: and that blood carries the soul, and this chosen race
Speaker 1: must keep its blood pure. It must not mix its
Speaker 1: blood with non Jews. The foreigners, the sub human beasts
Speaker 1: called the goyam, are inferior to the Jewish master race.
Speaker 1: The genocide order of God is in the fifth Book
Speaker 1: of Moses, and in the Book of Joshua, the race
Speaker 1: laws of Ezra and Ishmael. All of these things are
Speaker 1: in the Old Testament. Hitler was absolutely astonished, and the
Speaker 1: mufty told him further, you have not high esteem for
Speaker 1: the Africans, for black people. And also this comes from
Speaker 1: the Old Testament and the First Book of Moses. The
Speaker 1: black race is doomed, considered by God to eternal slavery.
Speaker 1: It's the famous curse by God on Ham, one of
Speaker 1: the three sons of the prophet Noah. So when the
Speaker 1: mufty told Hitler another story, he said, you, mister Chancellor,
Speaker 1: hate the Roman Catholic Church, to which Hitler responded, really.
Speaker 1: The mufty replied, yes, it's true, but you, mister Hitler,
Speaker 1: you never left the church. You are still formerly a
Speaker 1: member of the Roman Catholic Church. Then the mufty added,
Speaker 1: mister Chancellor, you have organized your party like the Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic church. You are the pope. Your Gaulights and reichs
Speaker 1: Liters are the cardinals and archbishops. Your party congresses are
Speaker 1: like high masses religious ceremonies, which you celebrate as the
Speaker 1: high priest. Hitler then became furious and walked out, and
Speaker 1: for three weeks the Muffy could not come back in.
Speaker 1: After three weeks, the Muffy had to go to the
Speaker 1: Reich's chancellory in Berlin, and he told me there I
Speaker 1: thought Hitler would arrest me and shout at me. Hitler
Speaker 1: came and smiled at the Muffy, put his hands around
Speaker 1: his arms and said, your eminence, I want to apologize
Speaker 1: to you. I behave like an uneducated little boy. He said,
Speaker 1: I have read the Bible and thought about what you said.
Speaker 1: And now that final victory is close, Moscow will fall
Speaker 1: in a few weeks and the Soviet Union will be gone,
Speaker 1: and then final victory will come. We must talk about
Speaker 1: all these things and try to make some changes in
Speaker 1: our ideology. And of course final victory never came. But
Speaker 1: Hitler dictated a text to Christa Schroeder and Frau Junga,
Speaker 1: his secretaries, which is called the Hitler Bormann Documents, or
Speaker 1: the Testament to Adolf Hitler. In this text, Hitler makes
Speaker 1: a criticism of his policies. Now, there is literally no
Speaker 1: way to know whether this secondhand story from Ahmed Huber
Speaker 1: but Hajja Means encounter with the Furor in December of
Speaker 1: nineteen forty one has any amount of truth to it. Now,
Speaker 1: it would certainly be significant, very significant of the historiography
Speaker 1: if proven, since the only confirmed face to face encounter
Speaker 1: between Hajja I Mean and Hitler was their late November
Speaker 1: nineteen forty one meeting, which is to say nothing of
Speaker 1: their language barrier, which would require at least one interpreter
Speaker 1: to be in the room at all times. However, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that Ahmed Huber was not the most trustworthy
Speaker 1: individual given his laughable denials of having any financial associations
Speaker 1: with al Qaeda, despite all evidence pointing to him having
Speaker 1: those associations, I am inclined to believe that Huber indeed
Speaker 1: met Haja Mean and aging Mufty did tell this story
Speaker 1: to Huber in order to impress him, because clearly it
Speaker 1: did impress him and resonant enough for him to regale
Speaker 1: it to a political science scholar interviewing him nearly five
Speaker 1: decades later, significantly earlier than Haja Mean's historical profile began
Speaker 1: to expand in the early twenty tens. In other words,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, it's just my opinion, guys, I'm at
Speaker 1: Huber had little reason to lie to Michael about having
Speaker 1: heard this story. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we
Speaker 1: should take Huber's story at face value as the unvarnished
Speaker 1: truth about Haja Mien and Hitler's relationship, especially since it
Speaker 1: makes Haja Mien in his own eyes look good. After all,
Speaker 1: being the person who caused Adolf Hitler to apologize and
Speaker 1: say I acted like an uneducated little boy is probably
Speaker 1: one of the biggest quasi humble brags that someone like
Speaker 1: Haja Mien could make. And Hajja Mien was, as we
Speaker 1: have covered before, in history, impossible, never exactly forthcoming. When
Speaker 1: it came to telling the truth about his relationship with
Speaker 1: the Third Reich, especially after the fact, and especially depending
Speaker 1: on who was talking to him, it behooved him to
Speaker 1: downplay that relationship to anyone but fellow travelers, And when
Speaker 1: fellow travelers showed up to his door, it behooved him
Speaker 1: then to play it up. Most importantly, however, is that
Speaker 1: it is also highly unlikely that Hitler would even consider
Speaker 1: making some changes to our ideology, in his supposed words,
Speaker 1: his ideology where he's at the center of it, because
Speaker 1: he read the Bible for a couple of weeks after
Speaker 1: getting shaken up by a meeting with a Middle Eastern
Speaker 1: clerical leader he had, based on Huber's telling, only met twice.
Speaker 1: That's what we're supposed to believe here. And finally, the
Speaker 1: document that Hubert cites, the so called Testament of Adolf
Speaker 1: Hitler or the Hitler Bormann documents, has, despite receiving citations
Speaker 1: from respectable historians like Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock, has
Speaker 1: largely been debunked thanks to the work done by historian
Speaker 1: Mikhayle Nilssen in twenty eighteen. Hitler's only eleventh hour change
Speaker 1: to his ideaology, and I do not really think this
Speaker 1: was much of a change from Nazism's nihilistic core, was
Speaker 1: his open willingness to let Germans die for failing to
Speaker 1: meet his vision. The accuracy or inaccuracy of all this interesting,
Speaker 1: though it is, at least to me, is less relevant
Speaker 1: for our purposes than what it reveals that the green
Speaker 1: Brown alliance phenomenon goes back exactly to where one at
Speaker 1: this point might well expect the attempted ideological marriage of
Speaker 1: Islamism and national socialism. Now, this attempt is obviously very
Speaker 1: well covered territory on history impossible, and it does not
Speaker 1: make this any less significant for our story. In fact,
Speaker 1: it illuminates yet another historical through line, starting with some bizarre,
Speaker 1: seemingly new trends in our contemporary era and ending with
Speaker 1: an equally bizarre story from the Second World War that
Speaker 1: until recently acted as a bit of a strange footnote
Speaker 1: that bucked every possible assumption about Nazi ideological priorities, and
Speaker 1: that bizarre story has, for better or worse, taken on
Speaker 1: far greater significance, especially in the wake of the growing
Speaker 1: radicalism of the early twenty first century. This can be
Speaker 1: seen in a letter written by the Nazi Johann von Leers,
Speaker 1: who changed his name to Omar Amen von Leers after
Speaker 1: his postwar conversion, an escape to I believe it was Egypt.
Speaker 1: In this letter, written to his friend, the American Nazi
Speaker 1: agent and fascist H. Keith Thompson, von Leers saw which
Speaker 1: way the wind was blowing for anyone who considered themselves
Speaker 1: an enemy of the New World order. When he wrote
Speaker 1: the following, the Islamic block today is the only spiritual
Speaker 1: power in the world fighting for a real religion and
Speaker 1: human values and freedom. I think sometimes if my nation,
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany, had got Islam instead of Christianity, we should
Speaker 1: not have had all the traders that we had in
Speaker 1: World War II two million women, and would not have
Speaker 1: been burnt as witches by the Christian churches. There would
Speaker 1: have been no Thirty Years War which destroyed Germany and
Speaker 1: killed more than half of our nation. One thing is clear,
Speaker 1: more and more patriotic Germans joined the Great Arab Revolution
Speaker 1: against beastly imperialism. To hell with Christianity, for in Christianity's name,
Speaker 1: Germany has been sold to our pressers. Our place is
Speaker 1: an oppressed nation under the execrable Western colonialist bond government.
Speaker 1: Must be on the side of the Arab nationalist revolt
Speaker 1: against the West I Hammed ul Allah. Indeed, for our
Speaker 1: nation there is only one hope to get rid of
Speaker 1: Western imperialism by joining the Arab led anti imperialist group.
Speaker 4: Now Huber is after a new generation of believer.
Speaker 8: Hitra has always said the only religion I respect is Islam,
Speaker 8: and the only prophet I admire is Mohammed. This is
Speaker 8: very interesting. When I tell these to young Muslims or
Speaker 8: to your so called Neonazis, then they they broke from
Speaker 8: their chairs.
Speaker 16: Hoober's critics worried that growing numbers of third positionists could
Speaker 16: forge a new transnational terrorist threat.
Speaker 17: Hoober's connections go from Tehran to the United States to Germany.
Speaker 16: Hoober insists he is not anti Semitic, just anti Zionists. However,
Speaker 16: his statements suggests otherwise.
Speaker 8: As we say United States of America, we say Jui York.
Speaker 16: Hooper says he admires the American people, not their government,
Speaker 16: and rejects terrorism. But listen to what he says about
Speaker 16: the September eleventh Kentagon attack.
Speaker 8: If they kill a few American generals in the Pentagon,
Speaker 8: I don't feel very sorry, because these guys have done
Speaker 8: a lot of trouble in the Muslim world, in the sud.
Speaker 4: World, and on the subject of al Qaeda.
Speaker 8: Our guide as a very honorable organization. I mean, apart
Speaker 8: from some things they did.
Speaker 4: Bin Laden and Hitler two men.
Speaker 16: Huber admires two agendas, rooted and hate and embraced as
Speaker 16: one the third position.
Speaker 4: An emerging threat which dangerous potential.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy nine, the Iranian Revolution exploded into being.
Speaker 1: Beginning as a carnival of opposition. Were the most improbable bedfellows.
Speaker 1: That is, leftist intellectuals, socialist ideologues, and Islamist agitators found
Speaker 1: common cause in toppling a regime that they each believed
Speaker 1: to be beyond saving thanks to corruption and servility to
Speaker 1: what the Islamists came to call the Great Satan i e.
Speaker 1: The United States, many forget thanks to what the triumphant
Speaker 1: regime would come to resemble that in those early days,
Speaker 1: banners flourished that bore the iconography of Marx and Lenin
Speaker 1: as readily as the Iyatola Kamane, promising a new dawn
Speaker 1: for the country's disaffected and dispossessed. Revolutionaries of all types
Speaker 1: crowded into clandestine apartment and meeting halls, and they created
Speaker 1: a fragile unity, convinced that the supposed tyrant that was
Speaker 1: the Shaw's demise would surely herald a government as diverse
Speaker 1: and plural as those who rose against it. But history,
Speaker 1: ever favoring the cynic, has very little patience for such sentimentalism.
Speaker 1: When the Shaw's throne was finally toppled, the Mullahs proved
Speaker 1: far less inclined to share their power than to consolidate it.
Speaker 1: The Islami's boot came down, and it came down hard
Speaker 1: on their former comrades. Censorship, suppression of publications, and banning
Speaker 1: of leftist organizations soon gave way to mass purges and executions,
Speaker 1: usually accompanied by, perhaps ironically the most socialist of all
Speaker 1: mockeries of a liberal justice system, i e. The Show Trial.
Speaker 1: Thousands of socialists, communists, and other non Islamist revolutionaries were
Speaker 1: imprisoned or killed between nineteen seventy nine and the early
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, with some scholars determining it to be upwards
Speaker 1: of thirty thousand. In essence, Chromene's disciples, having transformed proletarian
Speaker 1: fury into a clerical dictatorship, offered their supposed comrades not
Speaker 1: the spoils of revolution, but the gallows, or, in the
Speaker 1: case of the regime, cranes. The story of the Iranian
Speaker 1: Revolution of nineteen seventy nine turned from one about solidarity
Speaker 1: to one really about betrayal, as the revolution devoured its
Speaker 1: own children with zeal that would likely have looked very
Speaker 1: familiar to someone like Maximilian Robespierre. Now I tell this
Speaker 1: story not just because Iran is in the news and
Speaker 1: could quite possibly be facing a true second revolution very
Speaker 1: soon in twenty twenty six. I don't tell the story
Speaker 1: because of that. I tell it to illustrate the core
Speaker 1: reason why despite this interesting tales implications that it is
Speaker 1: good to feel skepticism about the life long term prospects
Speaker 1: of a supposed green brown alliance, or a red green
Speaker 1: alliance for that matter, As can be seen from the
Speaker 1: story of Iran, when the dust settles and the radicals
Speaker 1: realize it's now time to fight one another over what
Speaker 1: is left, this often leads to the self destruction of
Speaker 1: that coalition. There may be a darkly amusing irony to that,
Speaker 1: but in the end that shared hatred has still been eradicated,
Speaker 1: and untold amounts of collateral damage has likely resulted and
Speaker 1: will continue to result from the beginning. Running the risk
Speaker 1: of stating it too bluntly, this seems to be the
Speaker 1: law of physics that undergirds the principle of the enemy
Speaker 1: of my enemy is my friend. Thus it is fair
Speaker 1: to be skeptical of such alliance as bearing any meaningful
Speaker 1: long term fruit. The potential for such a coalition in
Speaker 1: mainstream politics remains unlikely, especially in Europe. Too many far
Speaker 1: right and generally right wing governments and political parties like
Speaker 1: I've done in Germany who I mentioned earlier, or PVV
Speaker 1: in the Netherlands, or National Rally in France or FIDEZ
Speaker 1: in Hungary, to name just a few, have made stemming
Speaker 1: the tide of immigrants from Muscle majority countries a major
Speaker 1: plank of their platform. The same has largely been a
Speaker 1: case here in the United States with the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: though with a broader animist toward immigration seeming to characterize things,
Speaker 1: especially during this second Trump administration. So there is a
Speaker 1: barrier to entry, and it's a pretty big one. And
Speaker 1: this barrier for entry for such an alliance was actually
Speaker 1: bemoaned by the far right Islamist figures profiled earlier. Jurgen Graff,
Speaker 1: or praising Islam, referred to it as to quote fundamentally
Speaker 1: alien to European culture and thought unquote to be accepted
Speaker 1: by right wing parties who he believed needed to understand
Speaker 1: the tactical alliance. More radical Muslims could provide against globalists
Speaker 1: and Jewish interests, and David Mayat the guy who became
Speaker 1: Abdullah Ziz and then went back to being David Mayat.
Speaker 1: He claimed that right wing politicians like the Lipennz in France,
Speaker 1: making a quote unquote political capital out of taking quote
Speaker 1: an anti Muslim pose was contrary to honor and reason unquote,
Speaker 1: and Ahmed Huber more charitably called it a quote misunderstanding
Speaker 1: on both sides unquote, and even seems to agree with
Speaker 1: the idea that many immigrations skeptics in Europe have expressed
Speaker 1: that quote many Muslims who come did not really integrate
Speaker 1: into Western society for a simple reason unquote. But he
Speaker 1: sees this as the obvious failure of Western society on
Speaker 1: a deeper moral level, not to integrate these newcomers or
Speaker 1: even accommodate them, but rather to submit to the new
Speaker 1: moral structure of Islam and bring them closer to the
Speaker 1: vision Hitler had for the European continent. Other far right
Speaker 1: activists and writers like Kevin MacDonald, Sam Francis, and Michael
Speaker 1: Collins Piper also expressed skepticism, much of it regretful that
Speaker 1: such an alliance could be meaningfully formed and maintained. This
Speaker 1: is at least partly why it does not really matter
Speaker 1: how dangerous a green brown alliance actually is, or for
Speaker 1: that matter, how dangerous the often observed red green alliance
Speaker 1: actually is. Clearly, there is more respectability to be found
Speaker 1: in what has become a functional red green alliance thanks
Speaker 1: to the ideological makeup and nature of cultural institutions like academia,
Speaker 1: as well as a long standing leftist tradition of supporting
Speaker 1: the Palestinian cause. While most historically far right ideologies remain
Speaker 1: relatively discredited regardless of the alliances they made, However, the
Speaker 1: Western left's long standing tradition of taking the so called
Speaker 1: anti Zionist position provided enough credibility to fast and loose
Speaker 1: criticisms of Israel and Israelis, while also delegitimizing criticism of
Speaker 1: radical Islam that it clearly helped move the Overton window
Speaker 1: in such a way that the so called vexatious Jewish
Speaker 1: quest could start to actually gain traction from far right
Speaker 1: figures in the modern day like Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: neither alliance is in any meaningful sense dangerous, at least
Speaker 1: not yet at the end of the day, speech is speech,
Speaker 1: and speech is free, at least in the United States.
Speaker 1: The purpose in noting and dissecting the Green Brown Alliance
Speaker 1: in this special episode is not to highlight that it
Speaker 1: is the true danger. It is to highlight intellectual heritage
Speaker 1: in order to better understand the nature of radicalism itself.
Speaker 1: When it comes down to it, radicalism purports to be
Speaker 1: about a greater cause, a larger end goal, a utopia.
Speaker 1: Those causes and goals of utopia certainly exist and are sincere.
Speaker 1: But the thing is that a utopia has never existed.
Speaker 1: It has no analog. The behavioral history and intellectual heritage
Speaker 1: of radicals does exist, however, and it is always animated
Speaker 1: by the same impulse to form contradictory alliances based solely
Speaker 1: on shared hatred and a desire to eradicate that hatred.
Speaker 1: In the case of these alliances, that enemy is indeed
Speaker 1: the Jews, whether as a people or as a nation.
Speaker 1: Though there are larger, more abstract forces and symbols that
Speaker 1: they all oppose capitalism, globalism, the West. These three forces
Speaker 1: and symbols represent the antithesis to all three totalitarianism's ideas
Speaker 1: of utopia, and that matters far more than the fundamental
Speaker 1: differences between their respective utopias. It is the powerful critiques
Speaker 1: of these forces that attracts people to totalitarian ideology, whether
Speaker 1: it's red, brown, or green. But seeing this unity of
Speaker 1: purpose between contradictory ideological projects reveals that the appeals only
Speaker 1: really work in ideological isolation. When it is made obvious
Speaker 1: what the shared DNA or political psychological impulse is with
Speaker 1: all these ideologies, it might start to seem less appealing,
Speaker 1: at least to the more thoughtful among us. Thus, understanding
Speaker 1: the common ground that these ideologies can forge despite their
Speaker 1: fundamental differences is what helps discredit them, at least for
Speaker 1: anyone who appreciates what remains of liberal values in our
Speaker 1: world today. Unfortunately, many people, particularly those drawn toward contrarianism
Speaker 1: and an unwillingness to modify or even let go of
Speaker 1: their beliefs that they hold dear, will be more likely
Speaker 1: to see something compelling in these disparate ideologies sharing their hatreds.
Speaker 1: If they can all agree on what the problem is
Speaker 1: despite hating each other, this hypothetical person reasons, then they
Speaker 1: must be onto something. This is attempting because it is
Speaker 1: a compelling story, Especially in the heat of the moment,
Speaker 1: it can feel good to see opposing signs of one
Speaker 1: argument come together in unity over another. We're drawn towards
Speaker 1: that kind of thing because it makes us believe that
Speaker 1: we can be friends with anybody, and that feels good
Speaker 1: to think about now. Because of that, maybe it will
Speaker 1: continue to be attempting fiction, especially in our age of
Speaker 1: novelty seeking, which I think is a bit higher these
Speaker 1: days too, both in ourselves and in the content we consume.
Speaker 1: Because even further to the point, contradiction, esthetic, ideological or
Speaker 1: otherwise is indeed novel, and humans do not appear to
Speaker 1: be in any hurry to get over that tendency. And
Speaker 1: yet behind the novelty lies a very familiar tale, and
Speaker 1: that story has been told many many times throughout history,
Speaker 1: and it rarely, if ever, looks appealing after the fact.
Speaker 1: This is why another more particular story from seventeen ninety four,
Speaker 1: and in France of all places, comes to mind. Despite
Speaker 1: the time and place, and despite how our culture has
Speaker 1: tended to regard this time and place, it is not
Speaker 1: a romantic story. In fact, it carries with it the
Speaker 1: same stark nastiness as most stories involving revolution or civil war,
Speaker 1: other things for which our contemporary radicals appear to constantly
Speaker 1: yearn Much had happened to lead to this story, and
Speaker 1: much followed, But I have always believed this particular moment
Speaker 1: in France's famous or infamous late eighteenth century revolution serves
Speaker 1: as a great object lesson, perhaps a reality check for
Speaker 1: those among us that believe the way of the radical
Speaker 1: contradictory alliances based on shared hatreds and all is the
Speaker 1: only way forward. When he was placed upon the execution
Speaker 1: platform about to have his head removed from his body,
Speaker 1: the radical French revolutionary Maximilian Robespierre did not deliver a
Speaker 1: moving speech or utter any famous last words of defiance
Speaker 1: against those he might have once considered friends and comrades.
Speaker 1: In fact, he did not say any words at all.
Speaker 1: Robespierre had tried to shoot himself to escape justice, but
Speaker 1: only managed to shatter and mangle his jaw in the process.
Speaker 1: His face had been wrapped in bandages to keep his
Speaker 1: jaw in place after a military doctor removed a few
Speaker 1: of his teeth in pieces of the job over posterity.
Speaker 1: When he arrived at the guillotine, the executioner removed the
Speaker 1: bandage and no words left the revolutionary. Instead, all that
Speaker 1: the gathered crowd heard was a primal scream of pain.
Speaker 7: Folks say that you found someone new to do the
Speaker 7: things I used to do for you. Oh my name,
Speaker 7: I'm not a shame. I come running back to you.
Speaker 7: Can sleep at night. I can't eat a bite when
Speaker 7: you were mine, I didn't treat you right. Just call
Speaker 7: my name. I know my shame. I come running back
Speaker 7: to you just like a king and never lost it.
Speaker 10: To read the good faith argument about how to get
Speaker 10: there except a few, and they're the ones running around
Speaker 10: calling everyone an anti sem. But everyone else is like, yeah,
Speaker 10: of course that tould me the.
Speaker 7: Debate and they'll vote for you.
Speaker 10: They want them because they know they haven't had that.
Speaker 10: That's the fact. And what you're watching now attacking people
Speaker 10: on the attacking millions of Americans.
Speaker 7: Because they're Muslims. It's disgusting. And I'm a Christian.
Speaker 4: I'm not a Muslim.
Speaker 10: Never I know there's a lot of everage claim I'm
Speaker 10: a secret g hotey.
Speaker 7: I'm not.
Speaker 10: Oh go hate each other when we loot the treasury.
Speaker 10: That's exactly what's going on, and most people are totally
Speaker 10: I remember hearing someone on towards and see that at
Speaker 10: the time, and like we had all these endless experts,
Speaker 10: most of them CIA but whatever.
Speaker 4: I realized that later.
Speaker 10: But He's like, you know what this means, submission and
Speaker 10: like let it hang in the air like that was
Speaker 10: self evidently disgusting, and I was like, I think submission
Speaker 10: to God is like the wonderful if say anything.
Speaker 4: I was like, I don't think I was against that
Speaker 4: anyone who submits.
Speaker 7: To God, Like stop, just call my name, I come running.
Speaker 4: Fuck Tucker, Tucker sucks.
Speaker 1: Hello again, everybody, thanks for tuning in really quick. Give
Speaker 1: a shout out to some of the people who have
Speaker 1: been kind and generous enough to support History Impossible through
Speaker 1: all of this. They include Bob Downing, Sam Graham, Greg Hunter,
Speaker 1: s O, Skip Pachaco, Molly Pan, John Pisono on a
Speaker 1: r PJ Raider, Matthew m Rice, Philip Rice, Emily Schmidt,
Speaker 1: Pure Vopuni, and as always, FU think I've gotten good
Speaker 1: at rattling off those names really quickly, and I really
Speaker 1: appreciate all of you and the rest of you who
Speaker 1: support this show. Again, if you really like what I'm
Speaker 1: doing and want to show me some love, head over
Speaker 1: to Patreon dot com slash History Impossible, or just head
Speaker 1: over to History impossible dot com and become a paid
Speaker 1: subscriber today. This episode was a nice bonus to add
Speaker 1: on to the end. I guess we could say of
Speaker 1: the last episode, the handshar episode, that I hope you
Speaker 1: have gotten around to listening to, but don't blame you
Speaker 1: if you haven't, because again, it is, you know, almost
Speaker 1: six and a half hours long, so I'm always looking
Speaker 1: to beat my record, I guess. But anyway, this one, though,
Speaker 1: was a big surprise for me to learn about this
Speaker 1: subject as much as I did, and it all kind
Speaker 1: of made sense for me. And if you have any
Speaker 1: thoughts on that or thought I missed anything, please do
Speaker 1: not hesitate to reach out to me History Impossible at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com, any of the social media platforms, and
Speaker 1: I will respond as quickly as possible. So with all
Speaker 1: that said, I don't think there's really much else to
Speaker 1: notify here for all of you. We have more stuff
Speaker 1: coming very soon, and I'm hoping to get some more
Speaker 1: good interviews coming. I know we have at least one
Speaker 1: that is going to follow this episode, but please stay
Speaker 1: tuned and thank you again for listening and all of
Speaker 1: your support