Welcome, Caribbean Resumes, episode 91, and on show I have again guest Thomas 777, what I have called Gewalt Menschen der Kultur, a violent man of culture. He call himself a wood, or you might think of something like a national, I don't want to say national socialist, now we will have law enforcement on our backs, but you can think national socialist biker who mixes high culture with low brow energy and violence. And I like this mix. I try to use this too. And my friend Scott Laughlin, he good writer, he uses same mix. For some reason is very powerful mix today, a mix high brow with low brow humor. In any case, I have Thomas on show today. We will talk history and revisionism and science fiction and many such thing. Hello.

Thank you. That's quite an introduction. I appreciate the opportunity for us to connect up again, man. It's been too long. It's been a long time and I can tell you Thomas is always a popular guest on the show. Many people always ask me when Thomas is coming back. It's an honor to have you on. And since last time you have published a new book. Is this correct? yes that is correct and it's performing quite well but I mean that's that's secondary to the fact that it's a long been an ambition of mine I mean frankly it's it's been something since I was very young you know since I was an adolescent really it's it's something that's been kind of developing in my mind for better or worse so it really gave me kind of a sense of fulfillment

to see it put the print so yeah I mean that's basically what went up to that and I've got a few other things in the works but yeah primarily I've been working on this ongoing science fiction project the second volume of which I'm hoping is gonna drop around December but yeah that's basically been my focus lately since we last had one of these sessions it's called steel storm yes yes sir obviously a younger influence Ernst younger it is but yeah it I think that Science fiction is a I mean, it's a very versatile platform for political theory as well as Revisionism and I think there's a real spirit of speed I just want to tell audience you must get this book is booked with spirit of speed and

Many different visions and it doesn't hammer you over the head with political messages very subtle, which is how it should be been art, science fiction, so forth. Yeah, no, I appreciate that, man. And that's exactly what I was going for. Because yeah, politics, particularly the theoretical aspect, I mean, it should be interstitially bound up to the human experience, you know, if you're telling a story. Because that's real life. And it's fantastical as a science fiction narrative may be. You've got to humanize it by making sure it touches on concerns, human affairs, and the present. And I think I've accomplished it. And that endorsement coming from you means quite a lot. I'm being quite sincere. No, I'm very glad you publish a novel,

you know, a delicious taco who I don't know if you know him very well, but he wrote The Pussy and he also wrote another novel, very he's been on show a few times, but he spearheaded this self-publishing on Amazon and so forth on people in R-sphere, and I say R-sphere because he's not even right wing at all, but you have this other channel now through, it's not only Amazon but Amazon other kind of publishing, to put things that could never accept by establishment presses and so forth. Some of us are left-wing, some are right, some are hard to categorize. But you like tacos, have you read his book? Yeah, he's a talented guy. I've read a lot of his shorter-form stuff and just excerpts that people have referred me to, but he's

quite a wordsmith. I mean that in the most positive terms. And yeah, even 15, 20 years a guy like him wouldn't have seen the light of day because publishing really was a controlled monopoly and you had to have access not just to hardware but you also had to have the right kinds of connections for manuscripts to see the light of day and you had to grease the right palms and there really was not an opportunity for young writers to get any exposure for for their work product, let alone turn a profit. So these are exciting times. And yeah, he himself is a pioneer, and so are a lot of other guys who developed that medium into a viable business model. So yeah, there's a lot of props. Yes, you know, there is a lot of quenching, often by traditionalists,

including some well-meaning ones on our side. There was a recent article about me taking somewhat the lines that the internet is a bad thing, The Internet lowers people's attention. The Internet is part of the conspiracy to remake the world into some kind of a pre-modern collective or something like that. He was trying to make this point. I will address this perhaps on future show or I will write something myself on it. Actually the bureaucrat, our friend, the city bureaucrat, he has one of the most wonderful articles on the meaning of the Internet called, I think, Ideologies of Delayed Informatization. You can find this on American Sun. But I think Internet has been, for people like you and me, a great thing.

It's allowed me to spread my psychosis around the world into many other people's minds. I see these boosters for globalization, like Max Boot, who's a nobody, and William Kristol, and so forth, and they beat their chests about their wonders of free trade and globalization. And actually, these people like Max Boot are, I made this point recently, as they are very parochial people who they do not have audience abroad. Nobody reads their books except, you know, they are recycled in this kind of D.C. pig troll where a foundation buys their book in bulk and gets distributed at conferences. And it's a creation of artificial discourse, like took place for decades after 1950 at least, where it was almost impossible for new or interesting ideas to enter discourse

because of this model I just spoke. And actually, internet breaks that and allows people like me and Thomas, delicious tacos. Again, we are quite diverse, both in politic and otherwise. And I am better at globalization than Max Boot. I don't know what he would have to say about that. He's a booster for it. I am against globalization overall. But you know, I have audience in Scandinavia and Russia and Japan, and I can spread my psychosis around the world. And now Thomas Book is doing very well also, and I think it will pick up over time even more. So I don't know. I think Internet is very good for people like us, no? Well, I mean, it's good. Any technological innovation that is that sociologically impactful is both a benefit than a hazard.

I mean, you can sit here and you can say that, like, yeah, you know, the Internet reduces people's ability to really perceive data, you know, and instead it promotes this kind of, you know, these kind of glandular responses and that, you know, it's basically pornographic in terms of you know the majority of content but on the other hand people people under about 50 or 60 they they take for granted the power of visual media i'm talking even traditional visual media like television and film you know that was the first truly immersive kind of media and it really does affect the the mind in a way that it people become emotionally immersed in it the way they would the personal memory you know and like gerbils made that point a lot

um just kind of like he just kind of reflect i don't he didn't make that point even publicly i mean he reflected on it in his diaries he was a prolific diarist so if you have uh if you have some if you if you have some sort of narrow coterie of people who controls that medium you know whether it's a government you know like in the old soviet union or whether it's a conglomerate you know like the big three networks were ABC, NBC, CBS you know that there's remarkable power there to shape perception you know whether you're talking about social values whether you're talking about you know power politics you know whether you're talking about what you know what what people's conception is of of the world kind of outside their their little corner of it

you know the internet shattered that for all time you know and that's why now Now it's almost like all mainstream media almost has a comedic aspect because that's all they can do to stay relevant is to pretend that they're self-consciously aware of the fact that they don't have real credibility. And even when I was a kid, when I was a teenager, during Gulf War I, that was kind of its last gasp of traditional media because the 24-hour news cycle had come into its own in a real way, owing to the ubiquity of cable and the Gulf War kept people glued to their TV. That was kind of like the last gasp of traditional television media to truly shape the conceptual horizon of the American people. The fact is it doesn't matter if 80% of the Internet is literally or figuratively pornographic

or garbage or, you know, just kind of shill advertising. The fact that that 10 or 20% is, you know, an organic description of life as it actually is for people all over the world, that basically is an instrument of liberation, if you'll forgive me for invoking a phrase that makes me sound like some kind of old commie or something. So yeah, I forgive the long-winded tangent. The audience love tangent, Thomas, but yeah, you know, it's just this internet broke them. We are trying to reestablish control with censorship. We will see how far they can do that. I want to remind people that besides a platform like Gab or whatever other that exists, there's also VKontakte and so forth. But for now, we must keep fighting on the main platform like Twitter and so forth and humiliate them.

Thomas Seben, your timeline on Twitter, I can tell you, is read by very many people that few would expect they go to you for your insights and humor, and it's very nice. But it's just interesting that, you know, we have fans all over the world. I doubt that, I just want to press more on this joke, irony that the boosters for globalization, Like Max Boot or Bill Kristol, I don't think their books are read abroad, nobody knows who they are. And these people don't realize how dependent they are on national American economy, because if their American donors drop them, I doubt that they could sell their PR talents in China or France or whatever, you know, they're very parochial people, you know. Well, it's the same thing with the State Department.

Look, I made the point before that the State Department and its cheerleaders, even people who aren't in the diplomatic corps, but who kind of fawn over it, like these people like Rachel Maddow, they sound almost as parochial as like some 1950s John Bircher. It's like day after day, it's like they're talking about them Russians and how they talk funny and they don't like the way they do things and their funny religious beliefs. It's like they sound like a bunch of fucking ignoramuses from flyover country and supposedly they're saying people like us are like these backwards intolerant people. So says the guy who speaks one language. He never leaves his hotel or the entertainment district when he flies to Korea or France or wherever he flies. These people are absolutely

There was one during the height of Russia hoax, there was some major Rachel Maddow-type leftoid who had several viral tweets or articles saying that Russia culture had given the world nothing but authoritarianism. Maybe they heard of Dostoevsky once in high school or this, but they don't know anything uh yeah i mean it's just it's dopey dumb dumb shit and it's not the way i mean it's not even a question of political disagreement or you know like a clash of values it's like these people they're they're just like literally fucking stupid and ignorant you know what i mean they're like they're like a caricature like the flyover rubes that like they purportedly you know are so superior to it's really strange like i uh but it's been that way for a while i mean it's just

more kind of flagger now but the like america's always america's always kind of gotten by with moral cant in lieu of having actual you know informed opinions in the rest of the world and i mean during the cold war like you could kind of get away with that because uh the cold war was a battle of sound bites in a way that you know was i mean there's all kinds of things that are peculiar to that kind of like conflict dyad but it's like you know i've made the point again and again that um everything else aside uh there's something really really outmoded um yes about uh just even the language they invoke you know like authoritarianism and freedom and you know the free world like they that has no context outside of the cold war like even if you don't like iran or even

if you don't like russia or even if you don't like azerbaijan or whatever like like pretending as if there's some you know the soviet union actually win the cold war and like i didn't hear about this is there is some competing like non-free world where like there's there's a party state where they don't hold you know contested elections like what does it even mean you know it's it's the language of it's the language of 1970 extrapolated the 21st century and it doesn't they have one word actually trying to unpack what that means it doesn't actually mean anything and like years which i mean which wouldn't matter except these motherfuckers are these are the people in the State Department are supposedly in charge of diplomacy. It's

like you can't, like shrieking at people in your own language, you know, like these kinds of, this kind of faux moral outrage. I mean that's a lot of things, but one thing it's not is diplomacy. So yeah, I mean forgive the rant. No, but your thing about Hillary Clinton or some other clown in a pantsuit who State Department sends to quote-unquote negotiate while While threatening your country with some horrid bombing campaigns, this is famous line, Thomas. But I think we have been doing some banter here. I enjoy talking to you, but I want to get to the meat of the issue for the first segment, because on this show, we will leave some talk of science fiction and we will talk also movie Dune and movie Blade Runner and idea of science fiction and historicism, but that's for later in the show.

In beginning, I know you are enthusiastic to talk about one of favorite topics, revisionism. You are doing much writing on this lately and we will discuss this. I had Moldbag on show about two weeks ago, whatever, two shows ago Moldbag was on show and some people thought, oh Bep is having Moldbag on and then Thomas right after because he wants to put them in some kind of contrast. No, I tell audience it has nothing to do with that. It was not planned that way. I have people on show and I feel like it and when it's fun to talk to. But since people think that, and since you told me that lately you are working on this problem of revisionism, which I think we talked about before on the first show, I think maybe

because Mollbug said on my show, he had one line, he said that the Holocaust was the best documented part of World War II or something like that. And actually I think maybe he was making a subtle joke because he was trying to say that most of World War II, it's not well understood at all, it's not well documented at all. And so relative to that, the Holocaust is better documented or something. I don't know. It doesn't matter. I did not want to challenge him on it because I wanted the show to be about the Cold War, not about World War II, that this topic can be done another time. By the way, if Thomas and Mollbug want to discuss revisionism or anything else, they should meet and have debate directly, not through me.

And I encourage both of them to do this, and we can set something like this up. But I did not want to get into detail, argument with Mollbug about Holocaust, World War II, because I wanted meat of historical part of that show to be Cold War, because we both like this writer, Ilair du Berriere, who show that State Department morons and CIA morons are also this help actually spread communism around the world is a little known fact. You know, when I mentioned this, I get more hate, Thomas, than for anything else. Whenever I point out that CIA went around the world helping socialist parties, destroying traditionalist and destroying monarchist parties. James Jesus Angleton, his first job was to undermine the Italian monarchy. This is just one example that comes to mind.

There are thousands of examples. I direct people to Maud Bagshaw or to my own, I discuss this on my own Caribbean rhythm, I think number 25 and elsewhere. In any case, that's what I wanted to talk to him about and not World War II. But since he mentions that and you are working on it, I know you'd like to take issue with that. You don't have to argue with him. You can just tell me what you've been working on lately on this matter of revisionism. I just want to remind people, Thomas introduced me long ago to Ernst Nolte, who I have an entire show, I think, dedicated to Ernst Nolte. I think it's show number 16, if I remember right. And I agree, Thomas has convinced me with his historical research and his takes on World War II matter over a long time. Thomas, what do you have to say on this?

Well, I mean, there's a few different nuances here. First and foremost, the problem with people like Moldbug is this. They begin the debate with an assumption already. Why are we even talking about the experience of Jews and the war as a, quote, Holocaust? Like why are we privileging it? You know, why are we reducing this conflict of literally global proportions to a kind of Jewish theological narrative of murderdom and horror? You know, why is that a litmus test, like, oh, so you, quote, deny the Holocaust? Like you're already privileging a political narrative that really is more theological than it is political, okay? So nobody denies that horrible things happened during the war, and I don't think that the murder of Jews actually is particularly well documented.

If Moldbook wanted to make that point, he should have. The Reichspierer SS, Himmler, in 1943, the speech that he gave to the higher SS and police leaders where he openly acknowledged the ethnic cleansing of Jews. You did this on two different occasions, okay, it posted on October, 1943. Like if you want your code documentation, like there it is, like beyond that, like David Irving's always making the point, like actually there's not like documentation. Like you don't, that's not really the way military organizations work. I mean, unless you're, there's a, I mean, you will find some kind of gruesome statistics that sort, particularly in conflicts of an asymmetrical nature where the body count is considered to be some kind of victory metric.

and obviously that became very very in vogue not to be flippant about it you know in the 60s and 70s but generally there wouldn't really have been any reason for the Germans to document that kind of activity um aside from the fact that people would be morally outraged about it that's just that they wouldn't have done that any more than the allies would have said like well you know we've got to count like all the body parts we find at Dresden you know like that's just not that's not really the way warfare is waged and for better or worse the uh the uh the Germans did not the Germans did not view the Jews as civilians any longer okay incident to a total war and if you accepted their perspective they viewed uh the Jewish world of social existence as the

progenitor of communism and they viewed communism as a force that um almost uh almost like a virus like a psychic social virus that when implemented was leading to the extermination of the European way of life and this wasn't just some paranoid fantasy if there's repeating as Robert Conquest documented it certainly was no national socialist or national socialist sympathizer the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1939 murdered approximately 10 million non-combatants within its own borders and what we would consider to be death camps okay so you're talking about these people like moldbug like like you know the third reich you know the german reich was this kind of uniquely insidious regime that you know just engaged in this kind of murder campaign of horrendous proportions without precedent

like that's really that's really ahistorical and um i'd go a step further um speaking of the conversation you had lately with moldbug on the cold war i emphasize the military dimension of the cold war a lot because it ties into what we're talking about and everybody's familiar with the concept of mutually assured destruction which is kind of a I mean the doctrine in military strategic terms is kind of nonsense but it became a polemical device but it was extrapolated from an actual military doctrine that had strategic merit called assured destruction. Assured destruction in a nuclear war is the point at which you had killed an enemy society It's the point at which you have implemented such attrition that they can no longer reconstitute.

And the SIOP, the Single Integrated Operations Plan, which was the American war plan for nuclear war from the 60s onward, it estimated that a country the size of the Soviet Union, probably between 130 million and 180 million people would have to be annihilated in order to implement assured destruction on the Soviet Union by the 1980s. So literally America was willing and able and planning to kill tens of millions of people if it came to war after 1945, once there was approximate parity, probably by the 70s. So my point is this, I'm not being flippant about the casualties inflicted on any civilian population in the second world war or any war but if there's one thing that's characteristic of the 20th century it's this it's the massive scope and scale of warfare and once warfare

is scaled to that point and once mobilization becomes that total um human populations become uh become targeted for destruction in uh according to uh the strategic logic of total war and I don't really understand why it's morally acceptable for the communists to annihilate millions, and communist regimes annihilated 100 million people in the 20th century. That's documented. That's not hyperbole. I don't understand why that's morally acceptable in some basic way or just kind of an unfortunate occurrence. I don't understand why nuclear war planning, which the potential combatant states had every intention of implementing I don't understand why there's just some kind of unfortunate you know occurrence or accident of history but the experience of Jews is a quote Holocaust

like no one's ever been able to explain that to me in good faith um and no one seems willing to acknowledge that it owes the fact that you know the conceptual horizon of America is a Jewish conceptual horizon you know on ethics on politics on matters of race on matters of sexuality and on questions of history and who has the moral high ground in war and wars in the 20th century and who are the villains or the perpetrators of atrocity. So I think that's the issue really and I don't believe people like Bold Bug are willing to acknowledge that. They just claim that people like me, I can't speak for them but I know people like him and they just claim that I'm using some kind of legend to promote some kind of racist idea or something. But that's a cop-out. Forgive the long-winded tangent.

No, I like a long-winded tangent this good, actually. But I encourage you and Mollbug again to have a debate directly about this. Yeah, I'd be willing to do that. your recent work on revisionism, is it, I have not had the chance to read it yet, Thomas, is it precisely on this thing, this topic you just mentioned now, or different? I mean, lately, I've been digging more into the political side of what preceded hostilities. Something that's really interesting to study is the case of Poland. You know, in the 1930s, Poland was under a military junta. It was not a, quote, democracy or some kind of, you a country like 21st century Sweden or whatever court historians claim. It was an aggressively nationalistic military dictatorship.

It basically refused to come to terms with Germany over Danzig because Chamberlain gave an unconditional war guarantee to the Poles, so the Poles, not really having good strategic intel, believed that in case of a war with Germany, they'd find themselves eventually marching on Berlin, which is what they wanted to do. You better believe that. Yes. The most interesting thing is the Polish ambassador to the United States in 1938, a man named Count Jerzy Potocki, or Potocki, I'm probably butchering this, so any Polish cats listening, I mean forgive me, I'm not good with Slavic languages. Yes, Pirozhki, Jerzy Pirozhki. Yeah, yeah, you know. By accident he ran into William, Petoskey was in Washington on official business in

February 1938 and he ran into William Bullitt and William Bullitt, his official role was ambassador to France but he was Roosevelt's de facto Secretary of State because Roosevelt didn't really trust Cordell Hull and William Bullitt incidentally married a woman whose father was very active in the Communist Party in the United States in its early days. This was obvious where his sympathies were, but Bullitt engaged Pataki and Pataki wrote a report back to Warsaw and what he said quite literally, and I quote, the pressure of Jews on President Roosevelt and the State Department is becoming ever more powerful. The Jews right now are the leaders in creating a quote war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe.

This mood is becoming more and more apparent, in the Jewish definition of democratic states the Jews have also created real chaos, they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and above all raised the banner of a burning hatred against Nazism. This hatred has become a frenzy, it is propagated everywhere by every means, in theaters, in the cinema, in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all humanity in an ocean of blood. Now this was the Polish ambassador, this was not some national socialist functionary, this was not Goebbels, this was not, you know, Ribbentrop. The Poles in 1938 themselves had a real hatred of the Germans and this was their impression

of America as a place whose foreign policy had been completely hijacked by Jewish interests that were seeking any ingress to war with Germany. I mean I think that speaks for itself. And if you raise that to people, like court historians, they'll say like, oh, of course you said that, the Polish are anti-Semitic. It's like, well, that may or may not be, but why would a poll of all people be coming down on the side of the Germans in the event of a German-U.S. conflict and citing the United States as basically generating a war fever without devoid of strategic logic against the Germans in 1938? Like that doesn't make any sense, you know, I mean it's obviously it was an accurate rendering of the situation on the ground and these documents were, there's all kinds of, all kinds of exculpatory

evidence was deprived, the defendants at Nuremberg, but including, this became known as the Polish documents because like the USS and the final days of war during the retreat, they'd seized these documents relating to Pataki's diplomatic mission to the United States and several of the German defendants, including Ribbentrop, wanted to introduce these documents as exculpatory evidence and of course an urban court precluded it. But I've been focusing a lot on that, I've been focusing a lot on the meaning of the motives of the new dealers and how their domestic policy priorities can't really be extricated from their foreign policy priorities and both these things constitute a total ideology of anti-fascism. That's what I've been writing about lately, especially on my sub-stack.

I ultimately intend to put this in book form, but for now I'm focusing on my science fiction and just kind of writing long-form stuff on revisionism on my substack. But yeah, that's basically where I'm at with my research right now. This is very interesting and it brings to mind two questions I've had for some time on World War II, specifically so-called Holocaust revisionism. I call it the Holocaust, because I think it's right. That's a meme, that's right. But do you have time for this segment, I hope it does not get a bit too long for you or for the audience. Thomas, do you have time? Can I ask you on this segment what you think? Yeah, yeah, of course, by all means. Because I think there are two questions. One is this matter of how do you count a Holocaust death.

One of the most perverse things I've ever heard, and I saw it again recently in an article where they are counting Jewish victims of the siege of Leningrad, they are counting them as Holocaust victims. Now, what kind of sense does that make? One million people died in siege of Leningrad, one million civilians, I think. The Jews in Leningrad died alongside the Russians and others who were in that city. They died because of a siege. They were not specifically targeted as Jews. So why are they counted as Holocaust deaths? And that's just one example, and you multiply that maybe many times, and I say maybe because I'm asking you and I ask others who study this history, have you ever come across in your research of something that tries to disaggregate the death somehow?

So in other words, that says, well, you know, 20 million Russians died in World War II. A lot of people died because it was a horrible, brutal war. The Jews happened to live in territory between Germany and Russia and that part of western Russia and Poland and so forth. So has anybody ever asked, let's pretend for a second that Holocaust had not occurred. How many Jews would have died just because, you know, under normal war conditions along with everyone else? And what does that do to the total number claimed? Do you count Jews who were, let's say, forced to dig ditches against the advance of the the Red Army on Budapest, along with others who are not Jews, and they happen to die in that forced labor. But are they counted as part of Holocaust too? I don't know.

But that main question, how many would have died anyway, even if they had not been targeted? And let's say, OK, we grant that they were targeted, even racially and so forth. But how many would have died? Have you ever come across this question? Well, yeah many times and what people need to understand and the reason why I focus so much on Nuremberg It's not just because I got a background in the law. It's because the way history was characterized everything else aside, um the way history is characterized is it's really tailored to substantiate the The criminal indictment that was presented at Nuremberg So and if you know anything about the law if you're gonna convict somebody a homicide, you know

whether you're talking about a courts martial or whether you're talking about, you know, an ordinary civilian courtroom. I mean you basically got to satisfy elements of specific intent that's not privileged, you know, there's you know, there's not any affirmative defense to mitigate liability of the perpetrator. So basically, people have extrapolated Nuremberg reasoning to history by saying okay, there was this conspiracy of men, You know whether it was from the Fuhrer himself or whether it was at Wannsee There's this conspiracy to murder every Jewish person on the planet basically or like every Jewish person within the greater German Reich So presumably like in the mind of any German in uniform, you know

Whether he was um part of the order police whether it was part of the SS whether he was part of the Wehrmacht in his mind you know he had a notion that part of the mission orientation was to commit homicide against Jewish civilians so he carried it so he carried out that based upon the superior orders of men who had hatched a criminal conspiracy so any Jew who died as a result of you know act or omission by a uniformed Axis soldier is part of the quote Holocaust because like the way I put it to people too you know the first the first massacre of Jewish civilians on the Eastern Front was actually carried out by the Romanians I can't remember his name because it's getting over getting sick but this Romanian colonel who was attached to Army Group North he got blown up by

partisans who'd set an IED and I mean a couple dozen civilians died too but like he was the target so like the Romanians retaliated by maybe they retaliated by rounding up a bunch of the local Jews and known communist party members and shot them in the back of the head, kicked them into a shallow grave. If you believe in the quote Holocaust, that's when it happened. That's when it commenced. Now if you put it to somebody like okay, but that was the Romanian chain of command, they'll say oh it doesn't matter because they were attached to the Wehrmacht and all orders came from the OKW when anything the OKW did those orders came from Hitler I mean that's not really how military organizations work but obviously it doesn't make sense to you know reduce these things to some kind of singular

conspiracy I mean I made the point before it'd be like saying that like it'd be like taking the man who committed the My Lai massacre and suggesting that you know okay general Westmoreland and Lyndon Johnson and you know maybe Curtis LeMay like all got together in a room like looking over a map and said like okay you know this is Pinkville here's me like like let's you know let's we're gonna annihilate everybody in you know within this five square mile radius that that's just not the morality aside that this is like not how military operations work you know so um yes that that's basically the rebuttal but it's also people will tell you it's it's like in bad taste even bring this up like if you raise with people that this problem with this

narrative like though they'll act like you're you're bringing up something that's just totally improper almost like you're talking about like you know sex or something like oh that's just not something we talk about and we're just crazy even we're talking about historical events I mean however brutal and distasteful those events may be but that's that's the basic rebuttal from what I've gotten from people as I began to deep dive into this specifically a few years ago when the issue of command authority and responsibility and what you know how how can we consider any given victim to be you know part of the same like nucleus of causation yes yeah so that I mean that's that's it there's not an easy answer so forgive the longness no it's fine long is good people

enjoy historical details they don't get this kind of fact anywhere else Thomas So, I want to ask one more question, actually you touched on it, because I saw some comment a while ago that there were actually two stages of Holocaust, Holocaust 1.0 and 2.0. And the 2.0 was the German one, but actually the 1.0, it was initiated, as you say, well, you said the Romanian army, but I saw this person say it wasn't even initiated by army, It was initiated by local Ukrainian, Belorussian and others, and so not by the Germans. The first stage of Holocaust was pogroms or massacres that happened when the German military, let's say, liberated these areas from the NKVD and from the Soviets. The locals retaliated against the local Jewish population because of the excesses of the NKVD.

Of course, you never hear that. You hear of all the long centuries, long tradition of anti-Semitism that goes back to Christianity. But they do not tell you what, you know, you told me also this statistic from Yuri Sleskin, who write a neo-Nazi, Yuri Sleskin. He's a Jewish professor, he points out something like 40 or 50% of the liquidation squads, these are the death squads of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police, 40 or 50% were Jews and they committed horrible documented atrocities, whether it was in Sevastopol, where during, I believe this was prior to the—this was the Cheka, this was during Lenin time or slightly, you know, just as the Soviets were coming into power and they did things like boil people alive in public in Sevastopol.

But many such atrocities, so just to give one example, as the German military was advancing on Lvov, Lviv, whatever you want to call it, in Ukraine, at the Ukraine prison, the NKVD murdered 5,000 people, and yes, they ended up being shot in the back of the head, but actually they were tortured before. And when the city was liberated, and yes, I do say liberated in this, it's liberated by the German military, and the local population, not the Germans, were the ones who retaliated against the local Jewish population for these excesses and these atrocities, and they responded with their own atrocity, a pogrom, and yes, the Germans let it happen and so forth. And the argument goes that as the war went on, the Germans were dragged into, actually

quite against their will, but they were dragged into these types of murders through various stages that, you know, maybe we can talk about on another show, they were dragged into it often with very Teutonic logic. But I don't know, what do you think about that? Well, no, that's absolutely true. And there was a huge amount of spontaneous violence against Jewish populations and even preceding that, you know, we spoke a minute ago with the Polish government being an aggressively nationalist junta, you know, one of the reasons the Germans in the polls went to war, the polls were ethnically cleansing pretty much everybody that they didn't like. They were ethnically cleansing Russians, they were ethnically cleansing Jews, they were ethnically cleansing Germans.

Like this was, yeah, you know, you got to look at, for better or worse, I mean rightly or wrongly, just in objective terms, you've got to look at Jewry as a combatant population. Whether that was right or not, that's not really for me to say, but yeah, when the Germans arrived in the Baltic states, there was already a pogrom underway. When the Germans entered Poland, the Russians were being deported and murdered. So were Germans, so were Jews. This idea that Jews were somehow assimilated and there was amicable feelings between Jews and the host countries in which they resided, but then the Germans scapegoated them. That's just bad history, however you feel about the Germans and the German Reich. I only use the example of the Romanian army beginning an official pogrom because that's

That's the first instance I can find of uniformed combatants, like taking direct retaliatory measures against Jews, like categorically as Jews, like on the Eastern Front. But yeah, you're absolutely right. And I don't see how a bunch of Lithuanians, like partisans, who were also fighting the Germans when they arrived, massacred the local Jewish population. I don't see how that can be, I don't see how you can blame the German high command for that, frankly. Okay? Whatever else you can say about it. But yeah, people, apparently people do. And yeah, to your point, like... If people did not want mass ethnic reprisals and ethnic cleansing, maybe they shouldn't have asked for democratization and modernization.

These are things that seem to accompany democratization everywhere, in Africa, in many places, you know. It's not something just to do with Jews or not Jews, you know? No, it's also too, I mean, regardless, and I know this is a controversial point, but people refuse to acknowledge what rabbinic Judaism actually is. I'm not even saying Judaism is evil, but what it is, is it's an ethnicity as well as a theology, but it's basically this oppositional subculture that defined itself by its rejection of European values, European morals, and the European way of life. I mean, you can't live among people as a 5% minority in the places where they were deepest on the ground. You can't live among a majority where you're that outnumbered and literally define yourself

in opposition to them and expect not to invite violence. You just can't. I'm not saying that's right or that's the proper remedy to these kinds of political problems but this idea that like being Jewish in Europe in the 1930s was like being a Methodist in Iowa or something, it was just this religion like any other, like that's, you're being deliberately obtuse or you're incredibly ignorant if you think that, and like really not even Jews allege that, it's only these kinds of sloppy, you know, kind of like white trashy type midwits who make those kinds of claims because they think it's the correct way to think of things, you know, so I mean that's, it's, uh, No, that was the only point that I was making. Yes, no, this is very interesting.

Thomas, look, I think this is getting quite a long segment. I think the audience needs a break. We need a break for the smoke and this. So what do you say we come back and talk a lighter thing? On the next segment, we will talk things like the Great Reset and the mass annihilation of the 21st century. What do you say? Yeah. That sounds great. Very good. We come back. Light topic. Very light topics. We'll be right back. Welcome back to show. I have Thomas 7-7 here. We have very light variety show today discussing mass genocide and such thing. But Thomas, I saw in the last few days increasing drumbeat of banning meat or limiting meat consumption. And this has been apparently a long-running obsession of the World Economic Forum people who are into the Great Reset and so forth.

It's in their brochures for years now. I remember even in high school when I went to the environmental club, because I've always cared about animals and such things, and instead of talking about cleaning air, cleaning ocean and their obsession was that beef should be banned because cows cause methane gas. Actually I should talk this on future environmental show because there is stupidity now on part of the environmental movement where they want to capture methane gases from animal livestock to be reused. And so it's a terrible idea because it will give financial incentive for furthering the suffering of animals. So instead of solving problem of factory farming and going back to some type of organic pasture

land farming and this, they want actually to put certain machines on top of pits with animals and use the gas. And this is the kind of things that so-called environmentalists get into today. It has nothing to do with what a normal person might understand, either as preservation of environment or, you know, cutting down on animal suffering, instead it actually institutionalizes in some way animal suffering. But anyways, I go on tangent like you do, Thomas. So they try to ban meat and now there are shortages and the left has been activated. You have all of these Chappo trap house. These are podcasts from Brooklyn, low IQ leftists who could not get academic positions. Some of them have, you know, the Chappo, the Chappo radio show is relatively popular, but

But most of them have very small podcasts than this. But they are all on board with World Economic Forum program and repeating, meat is a treat. Meat is a treat. In other words, to get to the point where you are medieval serf and you have meat maybe once a month or this type of thing. So I was thinking about why this is happening. On our side, we know why, or we think we do. The line that gets repeated on our side—and it's not wrong, but I think it's only half-truth—is that there is cartel of oligarchs who seek to reduce populations of the West to labor costs that are found in the Third World. And whether they do this through mass migration or this, or they do it through outsourcing, they seek to have you work for $3 an hour or this, and to atomize you to where you are

not able to unionize and protect worker rights. And this kind of popularization, what Marx called the popularization of the proletariat, would now finally be happening in the plutocratic West, so the line goes, and their future is some kind of science fiction dystopia that you might see on movie Elysium, where everybody is reduced to penury, except small group, they live in some kind of orbital station in that movie, but in this case it could be in compounds or whatever, and everyone is reduced to eating bug paste or this in the pod. We know the lines, and so the campaign against burgers and meat and so forth, and to reduce you to some kind of dwarfoid, stunted animal with poor teeth, you know, the same kind of creatures that existed in agricultural serf society, is part of the program.

And Alex Jones, he also repeat constant this, he says this is the intention of these oligarchs, And they are part of some thousand-year-old conspiracy together with the European royal houses stretching back to Babylon and so forth. Okay, you can say he goes a bit too far. I'm not trying to make this position ridiculous because I think actually there are a lot of truths to it. But I think it misses some of the point because whether this is ultimately the secret cynical motivation for, let's say, banning meat or the many other measures to lower quality of life and standard of living, which they hide also under the climate change thing. Whether this is the ultimate motivation to reduce everybody to a slave society, it may or may not be.

But there are many people who are promoting it and who believe in this, and they are not doing it because they want to turn you into a serf and they want to help Bezos build orbital station for oligarchs or this type of thing. They are doing it because they believe in equality and they have this line, feed the world. We need to feed the world. You may have heard this phrase. They repeat it obsessively and similar other phrases in which they say, well, there are Billions of people who lead very poor lives in Africa and also actually in China, which most of China, whatever the cenophiles may say, most of China is, in my opinion, a kind of Afrikanoid society. They live in standard of living similar to what you might find in Slum of Nairobi.

By the way, to those cenophiles who promote China as some kind of well-functioning collectivist I've that China is not like this is more like type of cockroaches you can find on Chinese street people dying and Chinese ignoring their own people dying on the street and such thing you that a video. This is to all the people who post as they were posting this video of a twerking shaboom running into a woman on New York Street I think and they said oh no this could never happen. And by actually comparison, East Europe also and even the European part of Russia, and certainly United States standard of living much higher than in the rest of the world. And these people say that is unjust because everybody should live well.

But then they realize that if entire world was to live at level of, let's say, average American or average Belgian, simply there would not be resources enough for that to happen. You know, there's billions of people and billions more coming, so that can't happen. So instead of accepting that there will be these differences between different parts of the world, they say, no, no, no, everyone, because we believe in equality and justice and social justice, what we must do to feed the world, quote unquote, and so forth, everybody's standard of living must be equalized. That means relative rise in standards for much of the rest of the world and relative decline, much relative decline for America and West Europe.

And whether this is achieved through mass migration or through measures of so-called climate change and other such things through which they lower your access to high wages or vacation time or, you know, beef or so forth. To them, that's fine because they are equalizing justice in the world, so-called. So this is an extension, I think, of the degraded so-called philosophy, it's not the philosophy of John Rawls, a dumber and more gray, boring writer I cannot think of, but he is appropriately the prophet of the modern, gray bugmen of the international, what you call them elite. To me, they are not an elite. I don't mean you, Thomas, but, you know, Alex Jones and these people, they say, oh, the elite. Well, these people are international lawyers for the United Nations or similar.

And this is their belief. They believe in John Rawls. And what is John Rawls? John Rawls is the inner victory of Marxism over liberalism, in which Marxist aims are achieved with superficially liberal means. So in other words, the market society and certain aspects of it exist. But the purpose of government and of international institutions becomes this type of redistribution of wealth and even redistribution of natural talents. And so what is ultimate aim of Rawls is the wealth transfer from global north to global south, which was, maybe we talk this another show, but I believe this was also the ultimate aim of Marxism, the wealth transfer from the global north to the global south, and Rawls achieves the same thing, but with liberal as opposed to Marxist or communist argumentation.

So this, Thomas, I don't know what you think about this, but my point is, how do you counter this? Because if you just go around repeating, well, this is a conspiracy by oligarchs to reduce everybody else to serve them, again that may be ultimately true, but for whatever reasons apparently these oligarchs are not that powerful that they can come and make that argument openly. Instead, these other arguments that I just said, these pseudo-Rolzian or actually Rolzian arguments are promoted and they are believed by people who are pushing for this. And so I want to tell people that, yes, yes, I believe in oligarchs want to do this and so forth actually with an asterisk. I think they actually just go along with it. They see an opportunity.

But really, I believe what drives this publicly is these arguments about egalitarianism. And so I want to encourage people to focus on arguing against this also, not just repeat the Alex Jones World Economic Forum and IMF and this World International Banking Cartel Conspiracy, but actually you have to engage with their arguments which they are using to convince a great many people, you know, the middle-aged women and others who are pushing their NGOs and so forth. You have to be able to argue against this also, against the public claims to justice so-called that they make. What do you think about this, Thomas? Yeah, I think that's basically an accurate assessment. I think there's something to particularly regards, I mean, yeah, I think that one of

the things that's most insidious about globalism is that these apparatchiks and functionaries, there's a genuine poverty of imagination there and a lot of their ambition, it's reducible simply to the fact that they have internalized this idea that government is some end in itself. So when they look at human populations, I mean, yes, there's definitely a Marxian and post-Marxian aspect to it. There's definitely a Zionist sensibility that is contempt for other races and would like to see them eradicated as meaningful cultural forms. But the brass tacks, aside from all of that, is that these oligarchs look at man as something that needs to be made more suitable for government. And that's incredibly, I mean that's absurd on its face and it's incredibly anti-human.

On the other side, with the rank and file of the people, I think a lot of these people who get on board, who kind of bandwagon with these peculiar social causes like being anti-meat. Something peculiar happens when industry meets scale, whether we're talking about warfare whether we're talking about physical production of commodities or whether we're talking about processing of food. There's something that strikes people as distasteful about massively scaled processing of meat. I think in a lot of ways, even when we're not talking about the slaughter of animals for meat, there's a reason why the family farm and the kind of mid-sized farm endured for so long i think it's kind of essential in psychological and sociological terms for

food production to be scaled in that way not just you know for freshness and quality and good health but it uh when you apply the when you economy of scale applied to um applied to food production especially but not exclusively meet even people would otherwise be sensible about this kind of thing it tends to turn their stomach a bit so that's one of the reasons why I think it's an easier case to make than some of the crazier stuff that these oligarchs and their kind of low IQ cheerleaders and media are prone to encourage it I think that that's part of it but also yeah yeah sorry just one thing you and I and many people on the right who are environmentalists I don't know how far you are into that. We never talked about that.

We would want the end of latifundia, so-called mass farms, because they actually destroy, you could say, healthy societies. The Roman latifundia destroyed Roman society, France, to be forged into a free nation of liberty. I'm not talking about French Revolution, I'm talking after the Roman Empire. It had to get rid of latifundia. There were hundreds of years of conflict over that. I am very much for political reasons against huge farms and huge tracts of land and very much for, you know, Jefferson's argument and so forth, you just repeated it, for small family farms. Second of all, yes, I would be for, let's say, meat being much more expensive because it's all grown organic and pastured and so forth. But that's not what these people who want to ban meat say, they want a mass-produced

cheap grain, mass-produced everything, because they want cheap and as much as possible to feed the teeming billions and tens of billions they expect the planet to have. And that's why part of what they're saying, yeah, some of these types are definitely Rawls types who have an ideological, they have a perverse sense of justice, which to them means you know reducing everybody the lowest common denominator but also yeah to your point like a lot of these a lot of the people you know these CEOs and the CFOs and these huge food concerns yeah they're they want to they want to feed people garbage they want to feed people like this you know so it like literally like soylent green garbage because obviously that's you know the way to cut

overhead because meat frankly is expensive you know even in the best of even even in times of plenty and even if even if um you know you've got perfect like logistical apparatus in place like meat is never gonna truly be cheap so yeah why why why would uh why would massive food conglomerates want to deliver people meat you know they're they're they're just they're just burning their own profit by doing that so yeah it's it's kind of a recipe like ideologically, practically, in terms of the internal logic of the profit motive, all these things kind of converge accidentally or purposefully to really, really harm the consumer. And yeah, this is very bad. I don't disagree at all. Yes. Alex Jones, he repeats many of the things we believe about this cabal, and they may

Maybe or you don't need to believe that they are actively conspiring. It could just be conspiracy of interest. But I do believe that, you know, oligarchs and so forth, obviously they support mass immigration into the West because they want cheap labor. That's a very clear example. And they support perhaps this drive to ban meat. They support carbon credits and so forth. So Alex Jones is right, but Alex Jones goes in another lunatic direction when he says something like, oh, the globalists believe that it's a zero-sum game and there are winners and losers, but we believe that resources are unlimited. And I think that's lunacy, Thomas. That's not a good counterargument to what is going on. Resources are not limited.

Both sides seem to have inability to accept that the first world must continue to or should fight. If it wants to survive, it needs to fight for its standard of living, and that that standard of living can never be spread to the rest of the world. There are not the resources available for it. I don't want to say the oligarchs, but this side, the left, wants to universalize a way of life, but they realize everyone's standard of living needs to come down. Alex Jones believes that billions and billions of people in the world can live at standard of living in America or Holland. That is also absurd. Why am I saying this? Because I actually believe that oligarchs are not—I will be attacked for this. They will say, oh, BAP is defending oligarchy, defending global capital. No, no.

I am the one who say you must name the 500 names and so forth. But I think actually in some ways they are not in the driver's seat and the driver's seat is the left. And my model for this is what happened in Latin America repeatedly was you have oligarch, large landowners and so forth. And they, of course, want cheap labor. And so they accept it when a leftist politician says, I'm going to bring in through internal migration from, let's say, inland provinces to coastal cities, I'm going to bring all of these people because I want voters, I want clients, and I'm going to get them as a voting base and I will pilfer and pillage the middle class with high taxes to build services for these new voters and so forth, who are essentially squatters, if you think about it, in the end.

And then the oligarchs see this happen and they go along with it because they get the cheap labor and they get to get rid of competition from middle class. But ultimately, I think who wins in this is not the oligarchs or the plutocrats. I think the left wins in this, the squatters win this. In the end, they cut the heads off the oligarchs. And another cycle starts again from there. I don't know if you agree with this. You mentioned before something about Schumpeter. I don't know if you want to repeat it for audience. But what do you say about this? Well, I mean, capitalism always contains within itself the seeds of its own demise. And that sounds like some kind of Marxian claim, but it's not. And that's not what Schumpeter is getting at at all.

What he's saying is that as prosperity is facilitated by the industriousness of a people, And as technology facilitates this continued exponential increase in value added, the political process really becomes a process by which this managerial class quite literally auctions off the wealth of the nation in order to secure their own incumbency as managers. And concomitant with that, you know, you're going to have people who get tired of the vigorous business of managing these incredibly complicated industries and concerns that facilitate that prosperity. So simultaneously, as simultaneously as the literal wealth of the country is being bargained off in the form of entitlements, you've got fewer and fewer men, and they are almost always

who are willing to rise to the challenge of innovation and dedicate their lives to innovating and perfecting the techniques that facilitated that prosperity in the first place. So there's very, very discreet conditions that give rise to prosperity. And yeah, there's certain precursors that must be present. You got to have a population that generally possesses the intellect in order to produce such things and master such technologies you got to have the resources available in order to facilitate that production or at least the means to innovate the conquest of territories that do have those resources but this cycle eventually exhausts itself and it does so sooner rather than later when increasingly the demands placed upon government by an increasingly

envious population that is uh more and more alienated. There's uh not just physically in that they they live in you know different places but uh there comes to be a divide of intellect of of sociality of way of life of conceptual horizon you know essentially there's a sociological dimension by which you know the managers and the managed just do not approach life on the same terms years and you know one or two things will happen either you'll have the majority of people increasingly kind of marginalized and subjected to a kind of haughty contempt or you'll have some kind of a situation not nearly as punctuated as the Jacobin revolution or the the red revolution in 1917 you'll have a situation where you know the the majority of the and the whoever you know

who by who I mean the formerly managed like replace the oligarchs who whatever their faults were the ones who had the intellect and wherewithal to facilitate this prosperity in the first place they are simply cast aside either because they're murdered or they're just marginalized or they just you know can no longer find a place and in managerial roles because you know they're no longer trusted to be the stewards of the country so what you're left with basically is, you know, intellectual children attempting to master a technologically driven world of very much of proverbial adults, and that can only lead to a collapse of a systemic nature. I mean, that's why I agreed on it. No, I think I agree with almost everything you say.

Would you agree that in practical terms a big part of the task isn't just calling on, you know, Bill Gates is a vampire and, you know, I'm not defending Bill Gates and these people, actually. I think probably Bill Gates should be in jail along with many others like him. But do you agree just in practical terms that a lot of argumentation has to go to destroy this fake claim to justice on the part of the Rawlsians who are doing it in the name of egalitarianism, because I think if we destroy their arguments, and they have to be destroyed I think primarily with mockery and ridicule, not with reason, but I think if we destroy their arguments, they can't go forward with these plans to lower living standards, whether

it's banning meat or banning vacation or making your daughter work for, you know, four dollars an hour or this type of thing, right, they cannot publicly tell people, I want to reduce you to a serf because, you know, I want to reduce my labor costs and live like an Elysium. They, for whatever, you know, they have to couch it in these terms of equality and so forth. This is what I'm saying. people focus on destroying those arguments without a large number of people believing in those arguments the so-called great reset another thing would have nowhere to go well I mean what I always emphasize to people is I tend to attack it from a cultural and historical perspective because people who live a historically you know people who really have no

connection to the past who have no connection to their race or their ethnicity you know they they basically have no reason to exist other than to you know kind of seek out comfort and and pleasurable sensation because you know they once they cease to exist you know there's really no impact that their existence is has rendered in any conceivable way and traditionally you know the way man always lived whether we're talking about you know a primitive kind of tribe of aborigines or whether we're talking about you know the kingdom of Prussia at its zenith you know men always understood themselves as as representing almost a link on a chain of existence that is perennial and that's one of the ways they were able to come to terms

with their own death but it's also one of the ways they could see themselves through time of hardship and deprivation you know because they understood you know it wasn't just belief in god it was an understanding that you know I'm really part of a social organism even if they didn't think about it in those discrete uh terms you know that was something that was understood so when you have people who are totally removed from any kind of historical imperative and people can't even tell you who their grandparents were or in some cases even who their parents were you know they they they basically live in a kind of... their life day to day is not really unlike that of somebody in a minimum security prison or in like a an old folks arrest home you know like they they perform

this kind of meaningless work to pass the time you know they kind of they eat this subpar food that just kind of prepared for them you know they they kind of live vicariously through television or pornography. Yes, what Tom Schmidt calls the global tenement. Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, that's really why it's so easy to make slaves of these people, because you're not really ripping them out of anything that they hold is more valuable than their own life, because nothing exists to them but their own life. And that's where the real danger is here. And there are still a minority of people who are connected to the past and understand and think in historical terms and I think that minority will come to constitute the vanguard and those are the people

who are going to have kids as you know the kind of natural slaves and the people who might have had potential but who've been effectively removed from any kind of historical existence you know kind of willfully sterilize themselves either, you know, literally or through just, you know, not having children and I think so in that way I think it'll be somewhat self-correcting and you will have this vanguard that resists that and just comes to out not reject it particularly as you know the oligarchic culture becomes stranger and stranger and kind of more and more remote from like anything normal. I mean at the end of the day if you if you take yourself out of If you step aside and step outside of the present circumstance, you realize these people

like Biden and Pelosi, they're these literally senile people sitting around talking about sexual paraphilias. That's literally senile and that's bizarre beyond belief. It's so strange. Who could possibly relate to that? People thinking objectively and honestly would do in fact realize that. people aren't particularly intelligent so I mean that's why I'm basically optimistic and you know I think most of these people are kind of happily or at least you know if not happy in this role just kind of like willing to tolerate it you know these kind of have no problem with their role as historical slaves I mean we really don't need these people and kind of the sooner the exit stage left as it were like the better I mean I know that sounds kind of callous but that's

You know, I think that's the solution. Yes, no, I am not so much worried sometimes when people talk about comparative birth rates, because if you have some obese woman give birth to many zeros, I mean, many people born now are born fucked up, you know, and the genetic degeneration of men is probably going my entire species, I think. But look, I think this is getting a very long segment again. I did not want to keep you talking again on such a dark topic. I just want to tell people, I think ultimately the dystopia you see in movies, science fiction like Elysium, is less likely to happen than a dystopia like you see now in Haiti. Haiti already exists, you know, and I think Haiti become global is a much more real danger.

In other words, the oligarchs are only profiting temporarily, they are stupid, and ultimately it is, let's say, Elysium would not have an orbital station with oligarchs. It would have insane leftoid politicians riling up the masses in murderous frenzies. I think that's more likely scenario. But let's leave these dark topics, Thomas, since we're on science fiction, we should continue next segment on nice science fiction. We talk Dune and many such things. What do you think? We want to go for a break now? Yeah, that would be great. Thomas I have this cigar and I think they poisoned it I on the last What do you call it's not a swig but the drawing of the last cigar, you know, I don't inhale but I felt like Like sort of like a white wisp a whitish wisp of like ghosts Coming into my mouth

I think they put gypsum or chalk into this mini cigar and I must take break to Clear my throat have some waters. What do you think? Yeah. No, that sounds just fine Yes, we will be right back. 7-7, extravaganza of movies, light variety show, Caribbean Rhythms. On this last segment, Thomas, everyone now watch movie Dune. Everyone talk movie Dune. I don't know if you've seen this new version. I saw it last night. It was, I won't say which country I am. I've been living in Madrid a long time. I'm not going to say if I was there or not, but it's not the United States. But it was a Sunday night, last show, it was packed, everyone very excited that they should be. I think for movie made now is surprisingly good, strong fascist aesthetic where you have

basically three competing fascist states fighting over this planet. I know you have many thoughts on Dune. I remember from years ago you you wrote about this Of what you think? Have you seen this new movie? Do you like the David Lynch version? What do you think about the dune books? I haven't seen a new version, but I know a lot of people were Concerned that it would be full of you know Woke aesthetics that that would have surprised me very much because I don't really think that can be insinuated into dune in any effective way while still preserving the narrative elements that are essential and the production team were the same people who worked on Blade Runner 2049, which I think is a brilliant movie and one of the best films of the last 20 years

honestly. In terms of the Dune books, the Sardau Kar, just to tell you you have a treat in this movie, the Sardau Kar home planet, I like this scene their throat singing on club tropical excellent planet homeworld of Sardaukar legions. And it's very inspiring to me, where blood and rainwater ritual. I want one day to have this. But yes, aside, you mentioned woke, there is nothing really woke in movie aside from maybe some casting choices where, you know, now they have a wise black woman. But that's fine, as some frog friends say recent, the wise black woman is the least offensive woke archetype. So, aside from that, there is not much woke. I think a dark movie with very moody images, I think you will enjoy quite a bit. But go on, I interrupted you.

Well, Frank Herbert was a brilliant guy. He was profoundly religious, even though he didn't like to discuss theology in direct terms but the um you know the human relationship to history and how cultures experience history in discrete capacities based on the ecologies that shape them and their values and their practices and what's familiar and how some of this is heritable quite literally at the biological level and obviously much of it is not but um this was very very against the grain for uh when he wrote Dune in 1965 and uh the relationship of uh violence and bloodletting to um not just to uh culture but but to religion and uh the the meaning of sacrifice and his uh understanding that warfare arrives like this season you know and that's even why like

You know the most cultured house in the original Dune is the Atreides and you know, they're a very benevolent ruling house As opposed to the you know, brutal kind of sanguinary Harkonnens, but even the Atreides, you know, they're they're obviously a homage to the ancient Greeks and you know People look at violence like they do sexuality in his universe it's it's certainly not something to disdain for its own sake and yes it can certainly be perverted it can certainly be utilized for evil purposes that harm the soul but there's nothing intrinsically evil about it then it's not something that should be shunned and all this you mean yeah and that's why any truly cultured adept you know whether we're talking about the the

Bedouin like Freeman or the highly cultured Atreides, they pull a few violins as something that if not revered is something that should be mastered and one must become adept at if he is to become a truly complete human. This is the way that every human culture approached such things really until the 19th century and I think that's important and I think it's a point that is important to convey to people and particularly young people who a lot of whom are going to gravitate towards Dune initially for the you know kind of fascinating optics and things but he also the understanding of I mean obviously in Dune there's a whole Jungian subtext to how you know memory becomes literally heritable But the reason what he's getting at in a metaphorical way is that what a culture really is, it's

a consciousness that perseveres over time. And like we talked about last segment, that's how individual people come to terms with their own death. But it's also any human culture that's intact is truly linear. So to speak to one of these people of their life and other ways of life, whether they're primitive or highly advanced you know you're staring really into the distant past in a way that you know precedes a formal logic or language or anything else and that's why it's such a great evil to eradicate culture you know whether by physically annihilating people or as uh the oligarchic global regime does now just like ripping people out of any communitarian practices and and habits, and forcing them to forget the ways of life of their forebears. And I mean, that's one of the reasons

people wallow in such despair, and that's why they value material wealth. That's why they resort to these deviant behaviors relating to sex and food and other things, because they're trying to fill a void that cannot be filled, what they've lost cannot be returned to them. So I find Dune to be very profound, not just as a kind of science fiction counterfactual and a vision of a possible future, but it really is a classic work of literature. So I'm happy to hear that the new version is something worthy of the source material. I'm probably gonna go see it this weekend. Yes, given what you just said, he He has this device, the shield, the personal shield, which makes sword fighting essentially come back, right?

And it made me think since, you know, mass warfare is no longer possible because of this shield with guns and so forth. So you have the return of individual swordsmanship and this, and that is the basis of all of these societies that you describe in Dune, where they are hierarchical. And I want to ask you if this is a necessary part of what you mean. In other words, I want to emphasize the hierarchical aspect of this. The only way these worlds are possible to return in work of Herbert and Hume is because the older methods of warfare are re-established, which is the basis for the rule of the nobility. But without that, if you still had, let's say, mass conscription and mass armies, would you still have the modern, dysfunctional, democratized world with all of its pathologies? I don't know.

In other words, this is what I'm asking you, Thomas. Is the prerequisite for the re-establishment of a kind of order you talk about, this, the nobility must arise, the hierarchy must arise again, and the basis of it must be a new kind of warfare? I think we were heading in that direction when, I mean not in pure terms, I don't think There was going to be a return to a nobility of the blade, but I think had the Cold War endured in perpetuity, the nuclear stalemate and these deeper parodies that really rendered First Strike, splendid First Strike impossible, you know, that's what caused the revolutionary military affairs. And that's why all these conventional weapons systems became prioritized and not just in

terms of what was budgeted for, but what research and development emphasized. I think you would have eventually, say the Cold War had endured another 30 years, you would have had a return of battlefield commanders like Blackjack Pershing, like Rokossovsky, like von Rundstedt, like true war masters. Warfare would have been taken away from the game theorists, nuclear strategists who uh you know looked at warfare almost as an abstraction and uh looked at uh you know counter value strikes almost as almost as just like you know uh yes variables on a uh on an abacus or something so to speak um but there's got to be very specific conditions to facilitate that um what is important to keep in mind and that's the reason why you know dune actually takes place

20,000 years in the future because the butlerian jihad takes place 10,000 years from our present and like when dune opens like it's 10,000 years subsequent to the butlerian jihad and um assuming man endures um for 20,000 years which i think is entirely possible um who knows what iterations of culture will emerge i mean i people have this idea particularly people who have an incredibly pessimistic view of the future. They have this idea that just the present that we live in now is somehow just, you know, any potentiality moving forward is just going to be some iteration of this. That's not the case at all. That is not the way to look at it. Why does Hakan want the great volcano Yellowstone to go off? because he say can you imagine another 30,000 years of this you know and I

agree with him but I think the reestablishment of any organic order Thomas Thomas of what you just do I hear an echo please be careful yeah no it's alright I just said I just had to plug in my own I just had to plug the power cord for a minute is that better no no it's not better the most now it's better The Mossad tried to interrupt program, Thomas, on your side, they have gone to your head. Please be careful, but the re-establishment of any organic order must be based on some kind of hierarchy in society, some type of aristocracy re-established, some type of nobility that ultimately must be based on force. I believe in this. This is not prescription for what must happen now or anything like that, but I really do think democracy is ultimately responsible for all the ills now.

Democracy gave birth to feminism, which gave birth to the destruction that we see in our time. Anyway, I'm going on a long tangent now, but do you agree with this, that any future Culture must depend on the re-establishment of some nobility of that type. Oh yeah, definitely. And it must be a nobility of force, not of commerce. Yeah, indeed. There's only, you know, cultures can be kept alive by technology and by prosperity in the absence of culture, but eventually, I mean, as we discussed earlier, you know, eventually that can no longer sustain the quality of life that people demand, and if they do not of cultural capital to ease that transition back to conditions of relative deprivation. There's just collapse and I don't believe imminently, I mean it probably will not ensue

for centuries, but I can very easily see 300 years from now a kind of dark age, quite literally, and from that will emerge real culture once again. Another book I know you love, Runaway Horses, it has an interlude in the middle about the League of the Divine Wind. I've quoted this before. It's one of my favorite passages. But Mishima state very simply there what motivated the samurai who rose up against the modernization program of Meiji restoration. They saw that you cannot have a continuation of traditions and of the kind of culture you talk about based on mass society and democracy, that it is the warrior with the hand of God, with the divine thunderbolt of the gods, the sword, that is the warrior and the noble who

preserves this culture, and only future culture can be re-established based on this. What do you say? Yeah, I agree with that 100% and that's actually a major motif of my own science fiction. I don't agree with the plot, the people who are interested in reading it and haven't yet, but one of the major plot points is that in an alternative, 1983, there's a general nuclear war and a man emerges who becomes quite literally a great khan and he is the one who sets the pattern of human development in what used to be North America, now ruined. He quite literally is the founding messianic figure of a new iteration of culture and it is it is it definitely flows from the sword and the bayonet. So yeah, that's a concept I take very seriously, and that's why I included it. Yes.

I don't know if you read, I have recent article on monarchy, I will link it again, in which I have some disagreement with, on one hand, the neo-reactionaries, Mollbug's model of monarchy as CEO in particular, on the other hand, with the so-called traditionalist Catholic integralists, I think both of their visions of what monarchy is, is very strange stuff that has nothing to do with historical real monarchy, which was based on ultimately this of what we're talking about now, some type of mastery over force. But look, we don't need to go in that direction. We can talk this another show. You mentioned also Blade Runner. You liked the recent version. I know you have many thoughts. We talked many times in the past, I remember even more than 10 years ago, you had quite

some few thoughts on Blade Runner series. Yeah, I mean, I think it's the most, I mean, I've got mixed feelings about Philip K. Dick, you know, the author of the source material, but I think the film, both films are, I mean, I think Blade Runner basically came true like that that that future vision is basically where we are at now And that's remarkable because most of these predicted futures were incredibly off-base But the whole the whole notion that uh I mean, what really creates Deckard's crisis of conscience is that he realizes there's not really any difference between Difference between him and the replicants. It's not just that he feels guilty because you know, these are living things and you know

have emotions and they have all the attachments and all the desires and all the psychic capabilities of a human man or woman what he realizes that he's as much removed from any kind of historical consciousness or situatedness as they are um so they're basically interchangeable and uh yes so he endures an existential crisis it's it's not just that he uh it's not just that he you know he has vestigial guilt about killing people because the replicants are people even if they're not created by sexual congress and uh i think that that's uh i think what is that sound in the background is that antarctica message you have hitler on the line please be careful no it's uh it's just uh i live right by the train tracks so you can hear it through my back window but uh yeah you have hitler on the other

line he's calling from the rainforest but no i mean i think uh i think uh you know I think that's really the key takeaway of Blade Runner and it's not totally on the nose, it's subtle but it's also just I mean just like the day-to-day things like there's there's incredible technology in Blade Runner at the same time like nothing works right you know and like people are reliant upon this you know totally primitive tech so yeah it's just uh there's something very immersive about it and I think part of it's because I live in Chicago and Anyone who spent a lot of time here and for years I went to school and worked in the loop and I wouldn't be returning home until late at night and anyone who's walked the streets

of the loop at night, particularly like Jackson and State, you realize you really are in Blade Runner. It came true in some way beyond the aesthetic. So yeah, that kind of owes to my attention. For the main difference I sense is Blade Runner is very similar to Hong Kong where you have a high rise in technology but you also have at the lower levels many small businesses and shops that are open late, whereas in American City you walk maybe with exception New York but even New York you walk and it's a homogeneity of businesses, many are shut down at night And so it's much worse in some ways. Blade Runner has much more variety of small shops, you know, there's much more entertainment that way. Yeah, and a lot of it, they owed obviously Ridley Scott. He borrowed heavily.

I mean, obviously he'd walk like the Ginza in Tokyo and yeah, so I mean, there are it's yeah, there are. Yes, I love how the so-called free trade supremacists, they attack Japan as a controlled, regulated economy. but you go to Tokyo, it's such a wide variety of small mom-and-pop stores and businesses. You cannot find that in any American city that's supposedly capitalist, which has increasingly the feel of Soviet cities. Things are shut down at night, it's box stores, it's chain stores, it's this, you know? No, yeah, that's why I draw the parallel a lot. it's not just because of the it's not and it's not just because of them you know octogenarian kind of failing elite the United States and the late Soviet Union have a lot in common and both had both had more in common with each other

than either did with Europe or Japan or or any other or any other major power economic or military yeah you're absolutely right Thomas since we are on this science fiction I know maybe this has been long show, I don't mean to keep you, but would you like to discuss, since we've talked Blade Runner and Dune and your own book, the role of science fiction as a device looking into human nature and looking into political possibilities and its relationship to this problem of historical consciousness and historicism that I know have concerned you for a long time? yeah I mean just briefly to wrap up um it's uh it's a great medium for counterfactual thought experiments in a way that's capable of grabbing people's attention because if you're any good at

writing it you know people become involved in the narrative arcs of the characters and things and it also doesn't come off as pedantic the way you know some policy paper would or some kind of you know speculative kind of futurist sort of academic treaties would and um you know it deals in potentialities that on the one hand people experience every day but you know the fact that they do see them every day it kind of doesn't really resonate with them in terms of the implications of these things yes and I think that's why it's important and science fiction after the Cold War I I think was in kind of a slump because it it really truly was for about 50 60 years like a platform for discussing a nuclear war It's its potentials the manner in which it it Would be waged the ethics of it

the way in which the possibility of it especially as a especially as technology reached a space age truly space age a capabilities, how it shaped human patterns of living and things, and the kind of faux utopian end of history era of the 90s really kind of killed science fiction and it became kind of like an idiotic sort of subgenre of fantasy, but I believe that's changing again and that's why that's one of the reasons I felt compelled to start writing it. I mean, this story I'm writing in serial form has been in my mind since I was a kid. But yeah, I think it's unique to fiction because it's not just speculative, but it's a platform to discuss things that one can't get away with in other contexts. So yeah, I think it's important. Otherwise I wouldn't be so focused on it right now. Yes.

Will Thomas. Okay, look, Mindy is late. I don't want to keep you. It has been a pleasure having you on show. You mentioned nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons have been a long obsession, I think, of mine, but I think that nuclear weapons are a holy grail of sovereignty. And I am for total nuclear proliferation. I think every nation that wants to be independent should have nuclear weapons, and even press organizations like our future tropical resort should have nuclear weapons would you agree with this or no in closing I mean yeah I think you're right I think that any more that is the if we can reduce sovereignty to a single variable ownership of and the ability to deploy nuclear weapons is that variable is that good or bad I don't really think it's either but if Club Tropical Excellent

wants to be a nuclear power, well I support that I guess. Yes, yes, well very good on that note, and no, there is nothing planned, I, Putler who is not sending me yet, funds for this, that's in the works, but very good Thomas. Okay, until next time, let's say you come on show again, we talk your next book installment, or even before then, what you say. Yeah, man. I got love for you all day, man. I'll come on anytime. I want you to come back. We talk about the David Lynch Show maybe next month. David Lynch movies. It doesn't need to be Dune. I don't know if you like David Lynch Dune, but I want to talk about David Lynch movies with you. Oh, yeah. No, definitely, man. Definitely. That would be a great topic. Yeah, he opened Conduit to other spirit world. I believe this.

Yeah, I don't think that's too far-fetched. Yeah, that would be great, man. Very good, then. Until next time, very good. Thank you, Thomas. And until next time, Bap out and hail Putler and Bap out!