It's been downhill since Bush won, at least in terms of presidential dignity, since Bush Sr. has all been downhill. And frankly, also in America's fate, I believe possibly last turning point was 1990s or early 1990s. And Pat Buchanan was America's last chance for some kind of peaceful, healthier solution. But at least in terms of presidential dignity, since Bush 1 has all been downhill. You know, I never liked this man, Bush Sr., his policies, but he was a serious man and the last presidential President America had. I have no patience for people who complain about the supposed vulgarity of Trump, or say he's a clown or the potty mouth or this kind of thing. America has had clown presidents since the end of Bush 1

And only a very coarse sense of what's vulgar or not vulgar can make you think Trump is worse than Clinton, for example. Clinton was the first nostril president, okay? The backwoods clown for the plebs. It doesn't get more vulgar than the saxophone guy, the underwear brand on TV guy that Clinton was. He imagined himself an alpha ladies man, but you look at all of his past conquests, what do they amount? But I mean he bullied secretaries and such. And then he was entrapped by Epstein and whoever he was working for with Monica Lewinsky. I mean I don't know that for sure, but why did Epstein have a portrait of Clinton in a blue dress up on his wall in Monica Lewinsky's dress? Was it just a nice joke or was it a trophy?

Well think it through, if you're a rich blackmailer who uses sexual blackmail on behalf of who Who knows who and you put that painting up. Why would you do that? Is it is it a joke? So this performing blackface clown Clinton then they had a winner Bush to Bush jr W and I don't need to remind you about Bush to he's already been made fun of too much He's a simian of some kind and I do like the clips of him. There is one where he goes one two 2, 3, 4, is very funny and he talk of promoting love between women and their gynecologist, this type of guy. But it's possible that W, Bush 2, that he was just a man of high leisure and a high brow troll. I'm not sure. He possibly, if he had mistress, possibly his mistresses were better looking than Clinton's, I'm sure. I mean, again, look at Clinton.

But anyway, Bush 2, Bush W, he was not running anything. The derp state strategy is to put a clown in a pants suit up like Hillary Clinton, and then to threaten your country with a horrid apocalyptic bombing campaign so you don't know what to do. Clinton, as president, is equivalent of Caligula making his horse a senator, you've heard this before. It totally throws people off, this Thomas 7-7 idea, he pointed this out, it's a form of psychological warfare to pick clown presidents like this. So that's right, I said it, American president choices since Bush 1 have been psychological warfare by the derp state. Now Trump is different, he's also psychological warfare, but from what I hear, apparently by another faction, one without a name yet.

My friend Ildvald, he knows, I will alert you to his presence. But yes, you see, then you had what me worry, Alfred E. Newman Obama, the dorkiest black black bathhouse mongers he could find as president. Obama, another Bulgarian, listen to his audiobook. Listen to him struggle to say, motherfucker, is this word. Listen to him struggle to say this with a black accent, his library dork. Obama is American black in the same way, you know, if I ran for office in America, I can start to claim I'm a Scotch-Irish descended from settlers of Tennessee. the same way that Obama is an American black man, it's trans-ethnicism. So this man was pegged every night throughout the course of his administration by Michael. And meanwhile, guys like John Negroponte, they run the country.

So I'm telling you spurts to consider taking foreign service exam. It's very difficult exam, and it no longer guarantees you a diplomatic post, but still, we need people in such positions. So where am I going with this? I'm saying you live in the clown regime and Trump is the intended cure. We'll see how he does Nothing is over until is over in politic but I understand why many of you despair and are upset because you've been thrust into a Carnival show of as a thought hellscape as a sauce That's from Lovecraft for you non weebs and you need something you feel it's not being done fast enough You feel you're in hellscape, but I'm telling you to discipline yourselves. Do not be like me

I'm an internet lunatic and you need to save your nation with your friends and that means entering positions of influence Especially in the security apparatus and that means having watertight Opsec and I will talk more about opsec and how to keep yourself safe and private over the coming days But some of you can't be convinced Someone got it into your head that collapse is coming. The end of the world is coming in five years Okay, somebody told you this it's all over so you have to act it's stupid now I can see it. It can get bad. It will get bad The left is lunatic and I don't see how the 2020s won't be a terrible and a violent time And I'm not endorsing anything, but it's hard to see how it will be a good time but then in that case most of all you will need to be in a position of

Responsibility and especially one having to do with the police or the security state in order at least to help yourself or your family and your friends. If you don't believe me, you read Conrad, read Conrad, Joseph Conrad book Nostromo, a book I often recommend. It's a story about the collapse of a ramshackle country and the rebirth of another. And you'll see the men they rely on there, Nostromo, our man and the people involved and why I tell you this when you read the book you'll see. And incidentally is also the best book ever written about South America. You will understand, for example, events in Bolivia recently and most of those countries if you read it. This style of Conrad is a bit heavy, is a bit hard to get through at start, but I strongly recommend it.

You know, Cratino America is unfortunately also the near future of the United States too with all the problems that come with that. So regardless, speaking of which do you hear, Uruguay leftist government where I went just last week to overthrow the government for the election, and the Uruguay government was just voted out of power after 15 years, the leftists. And the win of the right wing is confirmed just two days ago. He's not right wing in the way you want, the new president of Uruguay. He doesn't sound like a Trumpist, but it's complicated. It's much better than the leftist goons who were there for 15 years. Because in his own way, the new president of Uruguay, he will try to make life a little

better for the civilized parts of that country, whereas the previous government just let homeless and robbers take over Montevideo, the capital. It's amazing the worldwide infestation of the homeless, the collapse in security is also what brought Bolsonaro to power in Brazil. It can help us. Anyway, enough of this. Actually, this show I have quite different things to talk to you about. I want to discuss first some ideas I recently pitched to HBO, the TV station Cable, and to Spielberg, the director, I pitched some show ideas. And then to discuss World War II matters and in particular the problem of the war on the Eastern front and also the very sensitive, controversial subject of Holocaust, which

It's overdone on shows, on message boards, in popular culture, in academia, in your school, everywhere. It's just overdone, but the things I will tell you, like usual, I think you're unlikely to have heard anywhere else. It's very unpleasant subject, very ugly, but I want to introduce you to maybe some highbrow debates on this so you don't get caught up in the midget wars around it. So now I must go to break. I found, by the way, just for a suggestion for snack I found a kind of caramel milk that you put in coffee now it's kind of condensed caramel milk I drink throughout the day in coffee or show coffees it's like caramel with glycine it's very smooth mind smooth mind show I'm trying to enter Hollywood world you know I lived

in Hollywood for a while I had nothing to do with the movie or entertainment industry, nothing at all. I would just drive around at night, Hollywood, Thai town, and Armenia town, and downtown Los Angeles. It was very nice, empty streets, vaporware atmosphere. But it's true if you go to this Santa Monica cafe, you will meet many aspiring actresses and writers and such, and it's very entertaining to see this kind of striving. It's entertaining to see the kind of ambition and delusions of the art people and the kind of theater people have. Some of you will make it. Some of them will make it in that world, but not without sucking a lot of cock. And I have a friend who he blackmailed a Netflix executive recently in accepting his miniseries show idea. It will air next year on Netflix special.

And I tell you the plot about my friend miniseries. It's about the Washington DC political think tank and lobbying world. The working title is Our Principles, Our Decency. It's about the makings of a Washington power couple. I like this plot. It's about an assistant political philosophy instructor with a kind of conservative leanings, somewhat porthier of pale skin and soft hands who wear the bow tie. And he aims to teach curriculums of the classics plus the founders, you know, the usual Plato to the Federalist and Lincoln as type of boilerplate. But he finds himself in rather unusual circumstances for what he expected. This is set a few years in the future when he is denounced by a student mob as a white

supremacist and a white nationalist for having an obviously, because he has an all white curriculum, and he can't only teach dead white men, you see. I wonder why they haven't gone this far yet everywhere, but I think they will at some point soon. But so he's forced to teach, for example, Patrice Lumumba. You know, Lumumba, he's the Afro-Marxist founder of the Congolese Republic, and a major political thinker and political theorist of the 20th century, one of the luminaries, along with other geniuses like Julius Nyerere, the founding father of Tanzania. So this professor in the show, he then is able to, you know, such people, they're able to fool themselves. So he's able to talk himself into even the justice of this, of having to teach these people. He works on a manuscript,

The Founding Wisdom of Patrice Lumumba. And he engages in close reading of the socialist essays of Julius Nyerere. But then he looks in his classroom and he realizes most of his classes are now Chinese students. Most do not speak any English and outsource their essays to Craigslist. But even so, he continues on this noble task of keeping political prudence and wisdom alive by teaching political philosophy and Lumumba and Nyerere political philosophy Afro-Marxist to Chinese non-English speakers. And he's able to convince himself even in this thinkless task that he's shaping souls. So the first episode, the pilot episode I've seen, deals with this and how after enduring endless humiliations, he's nevertheless fired anyway for being caught diddling himself in the men's locker room

when the water polo team is there. I don't know, but with connections, his eminence agrees, advisor, he's able to move to Washington, D.C. This is plot of show, you know, he becomes first, he becomes a copywriter for a Koch-funded lobby group that makes $30,000 a year and he's tasked with attacking consumer advocacy in green groups, you know, people who complain about pollution and chemical contamination of food and such, and xenoestrogens. There are such lobby groups in Washington whose entire job it is to attack us, you know. So I've seen this show, it's quite good. It shows all the adventures of this protagonist I'm describing, including his courtship, a very strong woman, an affluent white liberal

woman like you discuss now, who works at the CIA, they marry and they become a power couple. He moves up in the world, he becomes a congressional staffer and eventually a lobbyist himself. And through this power couple social life, sort of Wiener and his wife, what's her name, flunky of Hillary Clinton, you get a full view of the so-called ruling class, you know, you hear that ruling class, the true aristocracy of the beautiful and the good that has congregated in the Mandarin capital of Washington, D.C. The title, yes, Our Principles, Our Decency, to be aired on Netflix next year, I want to see this show. But enough of this. For real though, I have my own ideas for series, for movies, and I wanted to make this following

one for a while. I think I mentioned to you before I have a movie for a miniseries idea. I was watching Band of Brothers, an other Pacific series on HBO, wartime series Band of Brothers, Tom Hanks, and I thought, why not pitch my own miniseries ideas? I contacted Spielberg and he's very open to this. I have ideas, same concept, it's a ten-part miniseries about World War II, but instead it's about a special operations SS unit on the Eastern Front. Oh yes, the plot will center around a mortal feud, a central tension between a German bolt from Estonia, whose family was murdered by the Bolsheviks, and who was seeking revenge. Central plot centers a private vendetta of this German bolt SS officer against an NKVD

commissar who carried out the murders, the Soviet secret liquidation police, that's what they called NKVD. So that's what the central plot is, he pursues this wise-cracking NKVD operative who's going to be played by Jon Favreau, he's already agreed to it, I'm writing this liquidation squad commissar to be played with great panache, with wise-cracking, fast wit like you see on West Wing. There will also be a subplot in this show about an Anenerbe attache for all you non-weebs. The Anenerbe was the ancestral research institute of the SS. They were totally nuts, okay? They were psychotic. They were the ones who did the expeditions to Tibet and to Bolivia and the Amazon. They are the ones interested in occult lore.

Look up, for example, Otto Rann, if you're interested, R-A-H-N, the last name, is quite something that Dan Brown is resurrecting this gnostic crap. But Otto Rahn celebrated the Cathars and was seeking the Holy Grail, he has a book about this. So that's right, Dan Brown, you know, the Vatican conspiracy theory writer, he's a gateway drug to hardcore National Socialism, be careful! But anyway, the Ann and Erbe are the ones who did all the weird research for the SS and I'm putting a major subplot in this miniseries. There will be an anonymity attaché to the SS squad who is searching for wild men among the Circassians of the Kuban. The Kuban is an area of Caucasus in Russia. So, you know, there are long-standing reports in that area.

I'm not making this up now about species of wild men totally covered with hair and many other such things. You know, they're supposed to exist there. By the way, look up the cold cheese, the ancient people known as the cold cheese to the ancient Greeks. Herodotus talks about them, how they're swarthy. You know, blacks have always lived in Georgia, that country, the caucus is very strange. But in any case, so what you think about this show idea, I'm submitting it to HBO for consideration and Spielberg already has, he's put out feelers for it. I have a follow up in mind if they let me, a kind of after series, also ten episodes about another Cheka commissar, that's Cheka, the early secret police of the communist Bolsheviks

in 1920s, Lenin's most brutal liquidation squads, you know, the guy whose job it was to murder all the families of the Russian nobility they could get their hands on. But this guy who's this commissar in the Cheka, he sees, he has a glint in his eye, he sees an opportunity. And very soon after the 1930s, he manages to leave Russia, having leveraged his position and knowledge to sneak out Fabergé eggs, to sneak them out of the country, he sells them at an enormous profit in Paris, and he thereafter arrives in Hollywood as a remade man with a new name and a fortune and founds a movie studio in Hollywood, and the rest of the show would be about his escapades there and his newfound opportunities in the land of freedom. Do you like this idea?

I'm pitching this one to Larry David and I'm hoping he will be open-minded enough to fund it and promote it. It would be a sort of illustration of Yuri Sleskin's famous book, The Jewish Century. It's a good book, you should read it, you know, Yuri Sleskin, the famous neo-Nazi. Look him up, Yuri Sleskin. Read his book. I'll be right back with some historical matters. This matter of World War II and such, it's all overdone. It's overdone in education and mass media, and consequently also on forums, right and left and on social media. endless postings and commentary about this so anyway for sure it's interesting time but let me just get to what you all want me to talk about the Holocaust right well here's what I have to say as an American you have a strong cause to

complain about the Holocaust propaganda but you have to do it right and by doing it right you know when the left or the neocons say do it right they mean you must lie whereas when I say do it right for people on our side I mean just tell the truth and the truth is it's too much, right? That's the problem here. People forget. We didn't start it. In other words, it would be one thing if you had some loon like Ernst Zundel or guys like that who are actually mentally ill, by the way, but it would be one thing if you just went around denying the Holocaust out of the blue and for no reason like they're pretending people are doing. But what people are faced with today is your Your kid, your child propagandized at school with year-long courses from grade school to

college where in history class this is all they learn. All they learn is Holocaust and maybe some underground railroad too. So in the end you have not just college students but major journalists and even professors who know what the underground railroad is or everything about Holocaust mythology but literally cannot place major countries on a map and I'm not even exaggerating. This is a vicious kind of religious education because it's based on instilling moral guilt in some people and paranoia and a desire for revenge in others. Do you think the lurid and almost pornographic gore that is shown to people in schools and movies, what effect does that have? Are we allowed to ask that? Not only on those who are supposed to be guilted, but do you think it inspires someone like

Paul Singer, a very rich and influential man, or Spielberg, to feelings of vicious revenge. Do you think it inspires this in them? Or at the very least paranoia and such. But okay, what I'm trying to say is that the correct and true complaint people have is that there's too much of it. They've been propagandized too much about it. It's taken the character of a religious object, a sacred cow that no one can poke fun at, no one can question anything about it, and this is what rightly bothers people in a supposedly free society. It's very interesting, you know, all these threads attacking me and a few others as pagans and racists, and in particular the reason they attack us is because we're supposedly promoters of a specious spirituality who are threatening Christianity with our subversive

paganism supposedly, and it's very strange. First of all because I don't attack Christians at all, but second because these people were formula does that all the lesser fats who are into this stuff the fatties and the girl who's obsessed with me who writes about cultism and spirituality That supposedly threatened Christian belief in the American Republic They never had a word to say about this cult of the Holocaust or of the mythology of slavery in the Americas Which have quite explicitly usurped Christian imagery and very much presents themselves very directly as almost parodies of the Christian passion story and which are meant obviously to replace it and which are much more important in the sense, you know, denying me. I have a

small account whereas they have taken over entirely the education system with this religious crap. But the trades have nothing to say about this and you know which these founding religious myths of the secular state are used cynically to justify everything it does and to demonize opponents. When you have Holocaust survivors who are trod out into the public sphere to be in commercials against Trump and how this supposedly reminds them of the early days of Nazism. You know what this is all about and in Europe all of this has been it's for a long time used to promote mass immigration and to smear opponents of mass immigration as genocidal maniacs. So I'm not telling you anything you don't know here but my point is that you have every right even from a liberal and

entirely liberal, democratic point of view, and from a moderate Christian point of view to complain about these propagandistic mythologies and outrages against you and your children. Because that's what Holocaust so-called education is, and that's something quite separate from its historical truth or falsity. Norman Finkelstein, who I don't much like in any way, he's nevertheless very right about the Holocaust industry in this way, and they've called him a denier for it. They're insane. He's a Jewish guy. I think his parents either escaped or were in the Holocaust, but they call him a denier. In his case, it's a bit different because he was talking more about the way Israel uses it now to justify its actions, or the way, for example, that Poland is currently being

bullied to give reparations, even though millions of Poles died in the same event, whatever you want to call it. And there's now a law in Poland that is proposed that would send when a pensioner dies, if If they have no heirs, it would send their wealth to Israel. And I think this is just obviously gross infringement on the nation's sovereignty. But the Polish who object to this are called Nazis. So these are the kind of things Finkelstein is referring to. But I'm talking about something a little different. Just the overload in Holocaust stuff that people are just tired of it. In other words, we didn't start this. Let me give you an analogy. Many West Europeans, okay, they grew up with the Holocaust education and a very strong anti-fascist indoctrination.

And many were not in the slightest anti-Semitic, believe it or not. But they weren't. I mean, the ones who grew up now. I know many of these kids, for example, from Belgium. They grew up philo-Semitic, they grew up loving Jews. And they happened to become nationalists, however, because of the terrible waves of human migration inflicted on their nation without the consent of the people, without anyone voting for it for decades now. So their thrust in this world, well, they're slowly being made a minority in their own cities and turned into second-class citizens in their own nation. So they become nationalists, okay? So you know, as nationalists, actually, they strongly support the Jews and strongly supported Israel.

The Vlaams Belang, the Belgian nationalist party was strongly pro-Israel, okay? But guess who became their strongest opponent? Well, I may do a show just on Belgium at some point in the future, but actually Israel together, the Israeli ambassador to Belgium, the Israeli ambassador before to Poland, but in this case to Belgium, together with Jewish organizations in Belgium, became the nationalists most vicious opponents. And a similar process happened in France where French nationalist youth, again, who as far as I can tell, grew up completely philosemitic, actually, but they were faced with CREF, that's the major Jewish umbrella organizations group, viciously smearing and opposing them. Not because they were anti-semitic, again, they loved Jews, but because they wanted nationalism,

so it was quite shocking for a lot of these people to see this. And then as a result of that, they turned, so to speak, anti-semitic, some of them. But others still make the distinction and are only against organized Jewries, so-called, against Jewish organizations who are against them, but not against Jews as such. But you see, what I mean to say is they are not the ones who started it in that case. They are reacting to something. And I'm not saying you need or should become a Holocaust denier, but the reason this is an issue isn't because of the perversion of the American nationalist who wishes to deny history or who's a genocidal freak, but because lurid, pornographic Holocaust propaganda is everywhere pushed on children and it's used to justify naked political ends and

people are tired of it and the media establishment may not know this but even people in quite high positions have been tired of it for some time I can tell you I've known a few I'm not important man in real life or anything but I've known a few people in a Defense Department so-called or Pentagon old guard from old military families with high rank and full patriots, they are American patriots that also committed Atlanticists, they believe in NATO and all of this. And these people were absolutely livid when they found out they could confide in me, they spoke to me, they are absolutely livid at this stuff and the existence of the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, which is a provocation and a spit in the face of the American nation.

No people in the world has done more for the Jews than the Anglo-Americans. And this isn't my opinion, I'm telling you. But many people in parts of the establishment are absolutely livid that after all that was done for the Jews by America, including in World War II, something like the Holocaust Museum should be constructed in Washington, not to speak of the other guilt-tripping propaganda and so forth. But the Holocaust Museum is an insult. And now many copies of course exist everywhere and every bumfuck city has a Holocaust museum. Do you understand why? Do I have to spell it out for you why they are angry at this? Do you understand why having the Americans build a Holocaust museum in public at public expense is a ritual humiliation or are you autistic?

This has nothing to do with the truth. Or not. It has nothing to do with, let me put it, historical facts or not facts. But it has to do with people tired of propaganda, of moralistic propaganda forced on them, tired of teaching moments, of the aggressive hectoring, of the pornography, of the cynical political uses of this. These are all valid complaints, even liberal complaints, even establishment complaints. But that assumes, of course, you're an American patriot. In any case, I will be right back. He's a writer I highly recommend for you. His name is Ernst Nolte, like the actor Nolte, but first name Ernst. He's a German historian. He's often called a denier, but he's no such thing. You have to understand that the word denier means nothing now.

When they say the word denier to normies, your average sheep will think of a skinhead and of a movie American History X and specials from Law and Order. This is the intention. But the reality is that, for example, they call even Arno Meyer, a professor, who's a Jewish professor from Princeton, whose family escaped Luxembourg, I think, before World War II. And he's a Marxist, and they call him a denier. Why? Because he maintains that Nazis actually had no plan to exterminate the Jews as Jews. But that Jews were only attacked as a sort of side effect or side project of the Nazis' war on Bolshevism. In other words, Jews were perceived as either outright communists or as the substrate population that would provide fertile ground for Bolshevism.

And so the Nazis kept them as hostages for leverage as they understood it in their war on international Bolshevism, rather, excuse me. And he provides much evidence to this N. Arno Meyer, including, for example, rate of extermination and how this hostage population extermination tracked losses on the Eastern Front. It corresponded, accelerating at times that were bad and so forth. It makes you actually think, would there have been a holocaust at all, by the way, with the French and the British consuls in Warsaw? If France and England hadn't declared war on Germany, would there have been a holocaust at all? I don't see how that's possible to maintain from even any mainstream historical perspective. But in any case,

You see, they call even Arno Meyer a denier now, so the word has no meaning. If you question any aspect of the Holocaust narrative, you're called a denier. You can admit, for example, that millions of Jews were killed, that they were targeted as Jews, and you will still get called a denier unless you accept the mythological and ahistorical moral framework they've erected around this whole religious teaching. They've criticized other major historians as deniers for a focus too much, for example, on the suffering of the Polish people in World War II. That's also denial. For example, if you just point out that millions of Poles died, that's called denial. So the problem here, of course, is the Holocaust is used as the founding myth or the founding religion

of the global world order after 1945, and history, being messy and complicated, history can never actually be a good foundation for such a public religion. So what comes to be used instead is a mythologized version of that history, which is not to say that it's entirely false, but that it depends on half-truths and half-stories. And I believe this historian Ernst Nolte, that he provides the full story and he shatters the mythological and the religious aspects of this. Because the real issue... This is what I'm trying to tell you in case you're a contrarian spurg like me. Instead of focusing on stuff like wooden doors or crematoria or whether this or that existed, and whether it was 3 million or 6 million.

These are pointless, spurgery questions for the most part, they're just embarrassing. For the most part now I'm saying the real question has to do with the historical context of these events. And this is what Ernst Nolte is about. Unfortunately his book, not always easy to find his book or writings, and I'll see what I can do for you, but the European Civil War is his main book. But I'm not even sure if it's been translated to English. But his main point, if I can summarize, is that the Holocaust can only be understood in the context of the European Civil War, so-called, something 1917 to 1945 that began with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and ended with the end of World War II. So this is a history only vaguely known even by very educated people.

But I think it's more correct telling of history than the two World Wars with a supposed period of peace in between. In theory it would also include Spanish Civil War and all the attempts to set up Soviet republics in central Europe. You know about Russia, yes, but did you know about Hungary also or about the Bavarian Soviet? In Bavaria in Germany the Bavarian Soviet was attempted and all such. And most of all, how many truly understand Russian civil war prior to establishment of Bolshevism in Russia, or the massive annihilations that were carried out by the Soviets after they came to power, how many understand this? Because this is really Nolte's point, that to tell the story of the Holocaust without

telling the story of the Soviet policy of political annihilation is to tell fundamentally a lie. Yes, it's half a story that ends up being a lie. It was the Soviet Union that first carried out the mass killings, the mass political annihilation of entire classes of people, as a novel political theory, or a political policy, you could say, an action of government. And the Holocaust itself was a response, an overreaction, you could say, to these crimes. Well, take Churchill, for example, you know, the hero of the liberals and the neocons and some others. He wrote an article, I think, in 1920 about Bolshevism. It is Churchill now, to him it sure looked like a Jewish plot. He says in this article that it looked like the Bolsheviks were pursuing Jewish aims.

So I don't know, was he a Nazi too? I don't know. More like he was reflecting the perception in large parts of Europe at the time. Because it was fundamentally true, they left Jewish interests mostly alone, But, for example, they wiped out the German Balts, the Baltic Germans, an old competitor ethnic group in the Russian Empire. The German Balts having formed much of its aristocracy and its diplomatic and military elite. Consequently, by the way, many German-Balt refugees were early Nazis, but quite aside from them were very rassified in some cases. There were also very interesting cases of full 100% Russians fighting for the Germans in World War II, very prominent ones. For example, look up Vlasov, V-L-A-S-O-V, very unusual man who was a Red Army general who defected to the Nazis

and ended up running something called the Russian Liberation Army. This is just to the point that it is indeed a European civil war of long running and not just World War I and then peace and World War II. But here's the thing that you must understand about Soviet crimes. They were massive, they were brutal, and they were lurid as well. You might have an image of Soviet crimes as just a quick bullet to the back of the head or a starvation in a labor camp. It was not just that. During the Russian Civil War, after 1917 when the Bolsheviks came, during that first Red Terror, there were absolutely atrocious crimes out of horror movies committed by the Reds. There was a woman commissar, I forget her name, but yes, it was a Jewish woman commissar

who I believe in Sevastopol or Simferopol, I forget the details, I will look it up for you, but lurid public tortures, boiling people alive, everything you can imagine. Let me give you a direct illustration of Ernst Nolte's point. Today in Holocaust story, for example, you're told about Lvov, a city in Ukraine, which by the way is an old German city that's actually called Lemberg, but that's another story. In this city Lvov, Lviv in Ukrainian, You're told of the atrocities committed by the SS after the Germans occupied the city and the people of the city They joined in what was essentially a very violent pogrom and this is true, but you're not told This other part that as the Germans were approaching the city

Thousands of people were tortured to death by the NKVD in the big prison at Vov before the Russians evacuated the city tortured in the most lurid ways from what is told, and that when the city was occupied or as the local population actually saw it, when it was liberated by the Germans, the people went on this pogrom because it was their Jewish neighbors who had participated in those crimes, who denounced their neighbors through the NKVD and so on and so forth. That part you don't hear, you know, so it sounds like it was just some senseless blood sacrifice sacrifice committed by the brave Germans who had embraced Wotan or scientific racism. But that's completely a lie. And in this context, you should be aware. You remember the historian

I mentioned before, Yuri Sleskin. Well, this neo-nazi historian I just mentioned, Yuri Sleskin. Total neo-nazi, right? I mean, sure, he's a Jewish guy who teaches history at UC Berkeley, but he has to be a neo-nazi, correct? Because he has this figure in his book that about half of the commissars in the liquidation squads of the Soviet intelligence services were Jews, and I'm not talking the Bolsheviks overall. That's kind of a red herring, but actually the people tasked with assassination and murder, and also the people, by the way, who founded the Gulag system in Russia, you can look all this up as well. That comes from Uris Slesking, not from historians like David Irving, but from Slesking. So why do I say this? I'm making a quite different point than you may think.

I'm talking about why Churchill published his article. Because you have to understand what the perception and fear was in Germany and Europe at the time. You must understand the context in which these later crimes took place. I will be right back. The fake story, the false story, is one of German depravity, supposedly with origin in the barbarism of the fogging northern forests, or as some say, in Christianity, or in scientific racism, or in anti-enlightenment, anti-scientific nationalism. They can never decide which of these mythologies it is. But it makes it impossible to understand what really happened, these mainstream narratives. The real story makes it easier to understand, is not so fantastical, Ernst Nolte's explanation

of the Holocaust as an overreaction to Soviet crimes, which are the first annihilations of the 20th century. You know, it doesn't justify the Holocaust as smoothbrains claim, but it does help you understand the truth. Nolte's arguments, however, are much broader than this. He addresses the political conceptual framework that leads to so-called annihilation therapy. It's a kind of technical term, you can look it up, but annihilation therapy as a political tool, again initiated by the Soviet Union, in which the Soviets, for no personal reason, it's not personal, but they decided to annihilate entire social classes, not because they thought any one individual from them was necessarily a bad person or a personal enemy, but because

as a class or population they represented a vector for counter-revolution, so they targeted them for mass annihilation, parts of the bourgeoisie, the nobility, the German balls, etc. So you could see it from a literary point of view. From that point of view, from a literary point of view, it's kind of a demoniac way of thinking. It's terrible. You read Dostoevsky's book demons to understand the precursors to such thinking. But it was the Soviets who opened this gift box to the world. And once opened, it's very hard to close because in atmosphere of crisis and endangerment in which the Germans found themselves, they interpreted the Jews as such a population in return as a vector for potential perpetual Bolshevik revolution.

They engaged in counter mass annihilation crimes of their own eventually. But it's a a lie to try to understand this without the earlier Soviet annihilations and at this point I think the literary understanding or moral understanding that I just hinted at is insufficient because this is fundamentally to do with the changing nature of war in modern era with the coming of democratization as it is by the way also a lie to see the mass annihilations of Japanese civilians with fire bombings and nuclear weapons you will see no doubt that was different, because Japan had not yet surrendered in World War II, so it was fair game or legal. But I believe this is a vile legalism, if I were to speak morally. But my moral indignation

here is directed more at the offense against truth, because from the point of view of this change in modern warfare and modern politics, the legal or moral justification you're using here to make this distinction, it's quite irrelevant, I find absurd. Wash your hands if you must but I'm not into washing hands. You know, from Germany's point of view, the system of Judeo-Bolshevism had also not surrendered yet either. And I doubt in any case that treatment of Japanese in America's camps would have been very good at all if the war had started to go bad for America. But it's a vile legalism to insist that such mass killings of civilians and fire bombings and nuclear weapons are justified because the enemy nation hasn't

Surrendered yet the demand itself by the way the demand for unconditional surrender Was unprecedented and barbaric and in this context you should know that Agent Orange You know the chemical agent orange I think was first developed at this time to destroy all crops in Japan and to start of them into submission I mean millions and millions of people who have died of hunger if they use that so I don't know maybe to you That's morally justified or in some way different than the mass killings the Germans undertook or for that matter You can consider the Allied war crimes at the end of World War two. Yes There's not just the Soviet crimes against German civilians Millions ethnically cleansed from cities they had built and so on that's well known but I'm talking about American soldiers raping

Not Germany, but Normandy look up Emmett Till's father raping You know big snoods raping in Normandy a great gift of liberation Burning your cities are raping your women, but mass rapes in Normandy by American soldiers Do you know why Italian troops would shoot Moroccans on sight when they invaded with the Americans in World War two? The Italians would absolutely immediately shoot Moroccans and North Africans right away And that's because the Moroccans would rape everyone and everything I'm saying they would rape men women children old men furniture, chairs. And yes, I'm not exaggerating. Please tell this to Nicholas Nassim Taleb. So why am I telling you all this? Is this whataboutism, this word that gets thrown out?

There's nothing wrong, by the way, with whataboutism. But I'm telling you this because I suppose I want you to get over the purely moral interpretation of these events, of the moral, religious, and one-sided, hysterical way these things are understood. Sure, even over the hand-wringing about how all this represents just the horrors of war. Because the fact is that something new is happening in Europe and the world at this time and this is the reality of total war, where civilian populations become targets as part of democratic warfare. This is war in the age of democracy. Do you like it? It's ugly, it doesn't matter if you like it, this is what it is. And you must study history of total war from an amoral and historical perspective to understand

why it is that the mass annihilation of populations is inherent to modern democracy as such, and to democratic warfare. It's terrible, but it's true. It's a fact that will remain with us, and that in any case, it describes the nature of war after World War I, whether or not you approve of it. And it is idiotic and a lie to single out one instance of such mass annihilations that carried out by the Germans against the Jews, as if it's something special that the Germans annihilate civilians, right? They did it all the time. If you were a village on the steppe in Russia occupied by the Germans, if somebody took a pot shot at the Germans, they would wipe out the entire village. There is a Soviet movie about this. You can see it's called Come and See.

But in any case, to pretend this is in any way unique, excuse me, the annihilation of the Jews or that it has some trans-historical significance, and to use this mythology to try to erect a completely mendacious morality after World War II based on the lies of Nuremberg and directed toward the elimination of national sovereignty. It's a lie that's intolerable and it is the use actually of a highly edited and decontextualized history to achieve the arbitrary suppression of certain nations, to get exemptions granted to others, and overall to have a reliance on a truncated understanding of human nature and history that can only be sustained by an unfree media and press. So most of all now, in middle of show, let me say something unpleasant, and even brutal.

Maybe you will hate me for saying this. But the future will belong to those nations that are willing to kill not millions, but hundreds of millions, or at least to let hundreds of millions die and to look away with indifference. And I'm afraid that China, for example, is quite able to reach this condition, but that the West and indeed all the rest of the civilized world has been made unable to do so. And I'm concerned with the survival in the long term of a certain kind of nature that I described in my book. I'm afraid that this moral obsession with genocide, which is a word invented after 1945, I'm afraid that it blinds precisely the nations that can be a vector for the nature I'm talking about. It blinds them to the needs for their own survival.

This is my show, and I'll say here what I want and what I cannot say on Twitter. And I'm not calling for anything, I'm small radio show, just one guy on radio. But I see the future, and I know those nations that are willing at the very least to be indifferent, indifferent to the deaths of hundreds of millions, only they will have the future. Forget mass breeding wars. Forget eight babies to a woman and all that imaginings. That's not what the modern world is. It never was, and it's not where it's going. Unfortunate, but true. Anyway, so yes, population Africa, for example, completely, totally unsustainable based on their own resources. Sustainable only through foreign aid. And there will come a collapse in Africa. It's inevitable, whether disease or starvation or worldwide financial crash

that cuts off the foreign spigot. And I'm afraid that millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions may die in Africa because they cannot sustain their own populations. So what will you do then? I can guarantee you, and I've said this before, China will look away. Japan will look away. Will you be able to look away? Will you be able to be indifferent? Or will this new religious education since World War II brainwash the the West and others into destroying themselves, into being flooded, into being snuffed out with mass human waves. China will not be so foolish if you spurgs need clarification. But where does this leave us then with respect to this question, what I've talked about so far, the controversies over the Holocaust or more broadly the meaning of World War II?

So I tell you now in closing segments some of my general or unconventional opinions there, mostly based on Ernst Nolte, but also some other historians I've read. So I think millions of Jews were killed, and mostly because they were targeted as Jews. But aside from what I said earlier, you must also consider that this was just phase one of the German plan for the East, because they planned also to annihilate the Slavs, which in large part they did. Twenty million Russians died in World War II. So actually, Russia never recovers from that. You know, actually, there's something very unjust and stupid and mendacious that goes on here. You take the siege of Leningrad where one million people died. The Germans were laying siege to Leningrad and one million people died, starvation and

all of these artillery bombings. And the Jews who died in Leningrad, along with other Russians, they are counted separately as part of the Holocaust. What sense does that make? How are these deaths even counted? I don't know. I'm telling you, 20 million Russians died in World War II, so the Soviet Union was actually, it was given a mortal wound, but most historians, they don't admit this yet. Some do. I think that's one in seven Russians, by the way, that died in World War II. The entire generation of Russian men was basically gone, so I don't know. Should there be a memorial to them built in Washington, D.C., too? I don't know. Why not? But let's leave the moral aspects of this behind. The German plan, call it whatever slurs you will, but Hitler's plan, murderous as it was,

it was basically sound, a sound strategic vision for Germany and Europe in a global world. What do I mean? Look at the map, look at configuration of nations in the already global world of 1900 or so, early 20th century and after World War I. So now you have beginnings of globalized world for almost the first time. What you see from inside Europe are these super states, Russia, gigantic, America, gigantic, England with its overseas empire, but okay, its hold on that was already quite wobbly. Certainly by 1930s it was very wobbly in India, England, and elsewhere too. So then if you look even you see the beginnings of era of world super states, Russia, America, China, India, enormous continental states, zones of power, and you can add, by today

at least, you can add Australia that actually rules much of the South Pacific. And Japan was trying desperately to stop the Chinese monstrosity from developing into such a super state, but it was not allowed to do so by America. Anyway, so look at Europe in this world. What do you see? It's a small peninsula jutting out of the west of the Eurasian land mass. And it's not that big. Its overseas empire even then were under threat. Americans since 19th century going around, causing trouble everywhere, other problems too. You know, financial problems. The Portuguese empire had stopped making them money for a long time. It was a cost, not a benefit for a long time. So what do you see? Europe, just Europe, this small peninsula, and how many bushels of wheat does it have?

How much space does it have? Where is its oil? How much oil does it have? You know, oil, petrol, do you see what I'm saying? If Europe was to survive as even a sovereign entity, forget a globally dominant one, it had to secure for itself a super state of the same sort that would emerge in the modern global world. And the only way to do so is to grab the European part of Russia, to grab all that land that it doesn't have, grab the wheat that is there, and grab the oil in the Caucasus and in the Middle East. I'm sorry if this offends you to grab that oil in the Middle East. I don't endorse Hitler, believe it or not, and if I felt like it, I would. I don't care what you think. But I have to concede to him that this strategic vision for the future, cruel and brutal as

it was, it was based on fundamentally sound geopolitical principles as really the only way to secure Europe's future as a free entity. And there are major historians, I'll link their books, who basically concede this in so many words. You know, Hitler's vision was sound. And England always fucks up such things. This would have depended, this whole project. Forget Hitler, it doesn't matter who would have carried it out. Whoever was in charge of Germany would have had to carry something like this out. It would have depended on a German-French alliance. And England always fucks that up, always. Historically, you could say in theory, historically that could be wonderful. England stopped a continent-wide European tyranny through history, throughout history.

Throughout pre-modern history, at least. It kept European states free. I mean, pre-20th century history. Now, I don't agree with that, but it's something you can claim. But in the modern world, what has been the effect of that? English insanity, especially in World War I and before World War I, it prevented the possibility for Europe to unite, which, in the modern world, is the only thing that would have preserved its sovereignty and its domination of the world, and therefore the cause of high culture and civilization. What is the alternative? It's not a nation, it's not three states in Europe, because dominion was given instead to the Soviets and to America, maybe. So why is that better than if a German-led

Europe had come out of the early 1900s without the later abuses of Nazism, without the development before that of Bolshevism and so forth. Why is that such a bad thing? I've always said this. But to return to the controversial question, to understand the Holocaust without these preceding events is fundamentally a lie because it leads to such absurdities as, well, oh, the Germans decided to kill Jews because of belief in Odin, they were pagans, you know, they become pagans or, you know, and the SS ruined druids, they sacrificed six million Jewish leaders to Wotan and they did it because there are bloodthirsty racist people and all of this German pseudo-masochistic perversion or fascist and nationalist perversion And you know a large number of American journalists both right and left

They believe this kind of lie when in fact one of the central pillars of the Holocaust myth That it was some European wide conspiracy Some of you know, they even interpret World War two as a war explicitly to destroy the Jews I've seen these claims, that's how far this insanity has gotten, or the delusions of Goldhagen who wrote a book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, a book that is essentially blood libel against Christians and against the German nation as a whole, against civilians, and which major historians like Kershaw, even they had to come out and criticize this crap book. But so far from it being some Europe-wide conspiracy, it's not even clear to me that it was a German conspiracy. In other words, it's not clear there was any central German government plan to kill all

of Europe's Jews or all of Germany's Jews even. By the way, do you know the Zionist right has always blamed the Holocaust on the Jewish left in Germany? I don't know if you know this, but to get back to what I'm saying, the Bonzi Conference and all of this is complete bullshit. It's mythology. That's a lie. There was no central German policy, even with respect to the Jews, by the way. In some parts of the German-controlled Europe, they were completely killed and in other parts they survived completely. Hundreds of thousands of mixed German-Jewish soldiers served in the German military. There's a mainstream book about this. There was no central consistent policy of extermination. It was a gradual process that happened haphazardly during a war through stages and inconsistently

with I believe no central policy. There were death camps. Let me put it in a certain way that you can understand, Treblinka or Majdanek, places like that for example are documented death camps where people were shot, there were no gas chambers there, they were taken there and they were shot. But I believe, and you can hold me to this crazy claim, bet with me on this, I'll bet you whatever, but I believe and I claim that historians, mainstream historians will over Over the next, let's say, five to ten years, they will abandon the idea of gas chambers entirely and will have to concede, for example, that Auschwitz was not a death camp at all. It's all bullshit. Most of the deaths were at the end of the war and from typhus, and there were no gas

chambers for killing at all, at least not anything beyond an experimental scale, if that. Hold me to that. Bet with me, because I see it happening already. I'm saying mainstream historians are quietly for now phasing out claims about gas chambers because they were always obvious Soviet propaganda bullshit and it's now becoming untenable. But the reason this issue is at all relevant is because it further demonstrates that despite millions of intentional murders there was no intended centralized pre-planned policy of extermination. Millions were indeed targeted and killed but as I say haphazardly with no consistent policy and as a result of the new modes of democratic warfare that had come about was the Soviet experiment.

The Soviet experiment, based as it was on the annihilation of classes of people, it opened the door to this. And this event, the so-called Holocaust, it makes no sense to study it on its own as itself. It is not unique. As I say, millions of others were killed in the same way, Poles, 20 million Russians. And it is important to entirely throw out not the historical facts, but the mythological and the religious construct that is used. You know, it's strange, it's not just used to promote a mass immigration in Europe and so on, as you may think, but the distortions it has on world politics go far outside that. It distorts the very notion of sovereignty worldwide, so that it promotes a process of of de-civilization in Africa and Asia as well, and it will lead, I'm afraid, to monstrous events

in the 21st century. Fukuyama is a moron, okay? So now you can call me whatever you want, but you'll end up with egg on your face eventually if you do, because in fact, you know nothing about me. I'm trying to save all you spurge and normies from the terrible fate, the xenomorph revolution of the 21st century, xenomorph transfiguration. But more on this another time. Bap out.