Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 28, 2020 - I Don't Speak German

01:35:48

53: Afterword to Episode 52

This time, we chat about our previous episode, '52: Genocide and The Right Stuff'. Hopefully more interesting that it sounds. Content Warning. IDSG episodes 9, 16 and 17

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to I Don't Speak German, the anti-fascist podcast in which I, Jack Graham, and my friend Daniel Harper have conversations about the far-right's conversations.
	Every episode comes with a big content warning.
	There's this weird sort of dance of the seven veils, you know, of frankness and secrecy, hiding it and being open about it, which is a really weird dynamic when you actually listen to them speak and then speak about their own, the way they speak.
	There's a very weird sort of, it's like, you know, they're playing chicken with what they actually want to say.
	Not quite saying it or at least that often sometimes they they just say it but a lot of the time they're not quite saying it and then but I mean you know that they are saying it they're just they're just talking around it they're saying it in a roundabout way.
	They know that there are certain words they can't use they know there's certain constructions they can't use and like the whole Game they're playing is for plausible deniability, not just for people listening, but for the people that run their services.
	They have a credit card processor, they have a podcast hosting service, and they have to abide by certain terms and conditions.
	They're terrified about, for instance, using copyrighted music that isn't clearly used in an openly satirical way.
	Even just a few bars of music that has not been in some way transformed because they know people will report them and get the episodes taken down because they know what they're doing.
	They work very hard to be very overtly legal at all times, which is a clear sign that you know you're doing something you shouldn't be doing ultimately.
	right is...
	To make sure that you are always saying, like, we would never advocate you do anything illegal, but yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That's interesting, actually.
	There's actually, you know, the medium conditions the message.
	Actually, the structure of how they're operating, you know, the political economy of it, if you want to put it that way, of the podcasting medium and, you know, acting as an online business, etc., etc., actually conditions how they talk.
	That's really interesting.
	I mean, they're still constrained by capitalism.
	They're still constrained by kind of the rules under which they do things.
	So even when they are trying to be very open about the things that they believe, they're forced to use certain subterfuge.
	And one of the old ones, and I think I told you this a couple of years ago, I don't think I ever said it on the show, but one of the things that they used to do, And this was kind of the alt-right in general.
	This was kind of more in that 2017 era, is they would use names of companies instead of slurs.
	So instead of the n-word, they'd say Googles.
	Like, look at those Googles over there.
	Or instead of the slur for a Jewish person, they'd say kayak, etc., etc.
	Because kayak is the name of a travel company, like an Expedia-type company.
	Those words can't be censored because that would mean like stifling commerce, right?
	Yeah, they haven't really been doing that usage for a long time, but it is like they constantly move through like different ways of doing it.
	Like right now the big one is after the Armaud Aubrey case, the big one is they use the word jogger.
	To refer to is their word for the n-word at this point, you know.
	Look at that jogger.
	All right.
	You know, he's just jogging.
	He's just being a jogger.
	That's, you know, for a while it was gamer.
	After, like, I think, you know, PewDiePie was using, like, the gamer word.
	Or someone had defended themselves like, oh no, I use the n-word, but it's just a gamer word.
	You just use it when you're gaming.
	And so that became, you know, code for, you know, an African-American person or a black person.
	And so they just use the word and then everybody knows what they mean and when you hear them do this of saying Everybody knows what you mean, even though you're not saying it like in context We all know it's it's very it's very weird when then they just deny that anyone else has ever done this in history Yeah, yeah entire movement is predicated on this Yeah, we're using code words and everybody knows what we mean.
	Yeah, well, we know what you mean as well.
	No, no, we don't mean that.
	Right.
	It's all about plausible deniability.
	It's all about, you know, in 70 years it's going to be like, no, there was a gaming subculture and this is what they were referring to the whole time.
	There are going to be whole books, there's going to be this whole industry built around Yeah, well, you've actually kind of subverted that tweet that Eric Stryker had, haven't you?
	Because he said, you know, what he clearly implied in however much time, I can't remember what he said, but he said something like, you know, in a certain amount of time, People will be pretending that there was a genocide and they will be using the things that were said on these podcasts as proof.
	Yeah, so he's obviously trying to be satirical about... Well, I mean, just like they pretend now that there was a holocaust and they use the completely unincriminating Vanze protocols as proof that this happened.
	You know, that was his satire.
	But I like the way you just turned it around because, of course, There is a very real possibility of genocidal fascist violence at some point in the future.
	It's a horrifying prospect, but the world is... I'm in common with a lot of people.
	I'm very frightened and horrified to see the world headed that way, potentially.
	So it may well be that in a hundred years' time historians are talking about of genocidal fascist violence that took place, you know, in the mid-21st century or something like that.
	And historians are trying to contextualize it in the socio-cultural stuff that led up to it, etc.
	And they might be talking about the way these people talk to each other in their podcasts, etc., etc.
	And when that's happening, the people like Eric Stryker of that time in the future, the people that are trying to deny it, they will indeed be doing that.
	They will be doing the, you know, oh, actually listen to the podcast.
	They don't say it.
	They don't say they want to, etc, etc.
	And that's exactly what they do now when I play that and I run an exterminationism clip.
	It's like, well, he doesn't say that, does he?
	It's not in so many words.
	And I mean, not to put too hard a point on this, but I mean, the reason I do the work that I do is to prevent As much as I can, that from happening.
	Like, I really consider my job is to do everything I can to prevent genocide.
	That's sort of the goal here.
	So, anyway!
	Just you on your own?
	Yeah, just me by myself.
	That's not true, and that's not true in the slightest, but like that's, you know, that is like in a lot of ways the motivating principle of all the work that I do.
	Absolutely.
	And I don't want to sound like self-important with that, but like that's, Really what I think I'm trying to do in my limited way with a spoon, you know.
	I get that, and I think most people of good faith listening get what you mean.
	They, of course, would deliberately pervert it by saying, oh, Daniel Harper thinks he's the Superman who is single-handedly going to stop the genocide that he's claiming without any evidence at all.
	We are currently planning and starting to implement.
	That is precisely the misrepresentation.
	Yeah, that's exactly what they'd say if they decided to play this episode.
	Or, you know, respond to it in any way.
	Which... I don't know, we might talk about it.
	Because this is episode 53 of I Don't Speak German.
	Thank you for listening, everybody.
	And I'm here with... Well, I can't... He's the... He who must not be named.
	The unnameable.
	I'm here with him.
	Can't name me.
	I can't tell you who it is.
	He's not...
	Yeah, that Harper guy.
	I'm Daniel Harper, yeah, and this is kind of a, we did, I did episode 52 last week kind of by myself and Jack just had some, wanted to follow up on some stuff.
	And so I thought, like, that will be very easy for me to just respond to Jack's questions and prep for the next episode, which will be another big one.
	We might play a clip or two, but it won't be the same way.
	It'll be Jack and me talking about someone who's very important and something very important that's going on.
	But we will find that out next week, assuming I get it produced.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	No, I mean, I think, really, if the last episode proved anything, it's that you don't need me.
	No, no.
	Not on my hands.
	It proved I definitely need you.
	Let's just be putting the knife in there.
	I was just under the table, threatening Daniel with the prospect of having to do that much work every week.
	So yeah, we are, as Daniel said, we're kind of picking up on the last episode, episode 52, because I thought there were some interesting things to talk about in there, some threads to pull out maybe.
	I think, first of all, maybe I just want to ask you about the reaction, the reaction generally, and then perhaps the reaction of the particular subjects of the episode, if there has been one.
	He asks in faux-ignorance.
	So the episode was released five days ago as we're recording this.
	We're recording this on Monday, actually Memorial Day in the United States.
	And I think we released it Wednesday morning, my time.
	So the response from the fans, from the listeners of the show was I was I think it came across in the audio that I was very worried about, like, alienating people or people kind of thinking I was trying to platform these people or, you know, just in some way making people uncomfortable alienating people or people kind of thinking I was trying to platform these people or, you know, just in some way making people uncomfortable with not just sort of the length of the clips that I had And, you know, just sort of like the editorial choices made.
	I had overwhelmingly positive, not entirely positive, but overwhelmingly positive response and appreciation.
	In particular, I got a lot of messages from trans people who were very thankful that I had kind of done that episode in the way that I did.
	There was a general consensus that I showed a lot of respect, and that's obviously a big part of What we're trying to do here is to show respect and help defend the marginalized without putting ourselves in that place.
	It's like, you know, trans people can defend themselves, but it was heartening to me that I didn't get a message from a trans person saying, this was irresponsible, you did this badly.
	And I'm not saying that no one had that response, but no one emailed me with that response or messaged me or DM'd me or anything.
	That felt good.
	I am welcome to listening to other people who have other thoughts.
	Please continue to send those messages to me.
	I can't respond to everyone, but I do take them all to heart.
	So particularly if you did have kind of a negative feeling about that, let me know.
	I did get a couple people saying, effectively, don't do this all the time.
	This was a more difficult listen even than usual, or I listen to it with, you know, my family around, and maybe they don't want to hear it, you know, sort of thing.
	So, I'm aware of that.
	I think we'll do these occasionally, but not constantly, and we'll kind of, you know, I think I know how to do it better next time.
	Let's put it that way.
	Yeah, no, I mean, you showed it to some people, including myself, before we released it, you know, for notes.
	Yeah, I mean, I think it came across very respectful and careful, but then of course, you know, I have my perspective and I'm not directly affected by these things in a way that a lot of people are, you know, so it is good to have the indications anyway, so far, that That we didn't put our foots in it, so to speak.
	Right.
	And most of our audience, I mean, this is something I've been thinking about a lot in terms of just, you know, kind of what we're doing here, and a lot of our audience are people who are kind of, like, aware of this stuff.
	I mean, I pitched the show to sort of a 201-level audience, right?
	I pitch it to someone who is vaguely familiar with this stuff but really doesn't have kind of the nitty-gritty details because there are other people doing the work of kind of getting people involved in it and kind of getting people to kind of understand the basics.
	And so I do kind of pitch it to kind of more that like slightly more educated crowd or slightly more aware crowd.
	I mean that means I get a lot of like activists, a lot of journalists, a lot of people who are interested in this stuff really need that perspective.
	And so I think if we were larger than we are and we're reaching a larger audience but who had like kind of less context for it, I think it would have come across differently.
	And so like this is something we could do at the size that we are.
	Maybe not if we were – if we actually did professionalize it, it would be a lot harder to do those kinds of episodes.
	So just putting it out there.
	That's interesting.
	So, yeah, what about the reactions of some of the people that we talked about?
	We've already talked about this a little bit.
	Yeah, a little bit.
	Eric Stryker got real mad.
	He did, didn't he?
	Bless him.
	Yeah, he got real, real mad.
	He listened to it, and the first thing he said was, you know, tell me where you proved the Holocaust.
	Tell me where you proved the Holocaust.
	I'm not listening to a 90-minute episode.
	And I'm like, yeah, no, you can listen, it's fine.
	And then you could tell how far he got in the episode by what he was tweeting about.
	He got very, very angry and didn't defend the, what I think was the central purpose of the episode, which is that, you know, the boys of the Daily Show are just lying all the time.
	He didn't confront the kind of the core of the episode.
	He wanted to kind of talk about like, oh, you didn't look at this document or you don't agree with this thing or and then he doesn't even like really refute it.
	He just gifts at me like, you know, he puts a gift of Alex Jones with a tinfoil hat and says, you know.
	Oh, this is Daniel Harper sitting around, like, thinking that, you know, we're sitting around and planning death camps, and it's like, this is not, I mean, not an argument, Stryger, you know, or Joseph Jordan, that's his real name, you know, I like to, you know, like, you know, come on, Joe, not, not, not an argument, you know, a gif of, like, you know, let me hand you my, your L, you lost, not an argument, just not an argument, you know, like, It's just not, there's nothing to respond to.
	I mean, the one thing that he does really want to stick the knife in, and like the fact that this is what he thinks is like a gotcha on this, is he keeps pointing me to this book, The Auschwitz Lie, by Theas Christofferson, which I had not read at the time that I recorded that episode.
	I kind of looked into it a little bit.
	I mentioned it at the end of the episode.
	I have no read The Auschwitz Lie, it's only 30 something, I think it's 32 pages or something.
	Yeah, that's sufficient to debunk the Holocaust.
	Right, and it's literally just a recollection from a guy who was an SS member who was working at a camp at Auschwitz but not in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Who was working on developing rubber chemistry from plants because they needed a rubber substitute in order to make tires because the war effort wasn't going well at that point.
	And he was there for some number of months.
	I'm not even going to respond to this because it's been responded to over and over again and I could give Eric Stryker the link as many times as he wants.
	And it's not going to matter to Eric Stryker or to the, you know, it doesn't matter.
	But even me responding to it would just mean that he would have something to then respond to and pretend that there is an argument here.
	What I would rather Eric Stryker do is tell me why Theis Christofferson is a better witness, a more reliable witness, than all the other witnesses we have.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	It's not a matter... before we can even have a conversation about, like, this account or that account, we need to know what method we are using to determine whether an account is valid or not.
	And so by whatever standard, you decide that this guy writing a book in 1973, which is translated into English in 79, is a valid account versus all the other accounts which are invalid.
	So let's get through that first, and then we can maybe have this conversation.
	But he won't do that.
	He will refuse to do that because, of course, once he does that, then they have like 10,000 times the evidence that he does.
	So it's over, right?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	And it's very telling that the response is not to respond directly to any of the points that you actually raise in the episode, but to respond to you with, as you say, distractions.
	Because that's the point.
	The point is the distraction.
	And then every time you provide, again, every time you provide a piece of evidence, what they then do is they don't respond to that, they provide you with another distraction.
	It's like the old thing about how the creationist logic is that, you know, they like it when people find fossils because every time people find fossils it means there's more missing links.
	I mean, I could talk, I could talk all day here about, you know, what, about some of the claims that Enoch has been making.
	Ironically, right now, I meant to just kind of leave Holocaust and all behind for a while, After I recorded that, because I was just sick of it.
	It would be nice to be able to, wouldn't it?
	Wouldn't it be nice?
	But I literally have, like, I have three separate Chrome windows open, each of which has, this one in front of me has about ten Holocaust denial links.
	And, like, the others have at least one or two.
	Because I'm looking at various different sources and, like, sourcing back and forth and, like, finding all the bullshit and, like, putting it together.
	So, because they keep talking about the Holocaust and my thing is, like, well, at least I want to look at it.
	Like, I at least want to take a glance at it and see, like, does this even pass a surface level test?
	No, it doesn't pass a surface level test.
	It hasn't.
	All this stuff has been debunked, usually, like, ten years ago.
	Usually you can find a source from, like, 1997 that has, like, thoroughly debunked this.
	So, I mean, it's.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	We could do many episodes on Holocaust denial and talk about, like, the specific claims that Mike Ianock is making.
	Mikey and Ike has put out two Paywall episodes since I put out the episode 52.
	Both of which are dripping with Holocaust denial and neither of which you mentioned me once.
	So, you know, if Eric Stryker's goal was like, I'm going to confront this directly, UNAC has just decided to post through it.
	So they didn't release an episode today, I think because of the holiday.
	We will see if they do something on Wednesday.
	I figured the response would be either he's going to get very angry and spend two hours, like, rebutting it, or he will completely ignore it.
	And I think at this point he's going to completely ignore it.
	So we'll find out.
	Hmm.
	It is, I mean, I confess to being kind of perversely fascinated with Holocaust denial.
	There is something fascinating about it, as there is about many of these types of delusional bullshit.
	You know, I've mentioned creationism.
	Creationism can be fascinating to look into, but it is nonetheless... I spent years arguing with creationists on the internet.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's kind of my origin story.
	It's in 2003.
	I was really trying to debate creationists in a really direct way.
	I'm used to it, of all things.
	And it kind of taught me a lot.
	That's also the place where I first kind of ran into the first Holocaust deniers.
	the first Holocaust deniers I really had like personal experience with.
	And so, yeah, it's, it's a, it's a very similar argumentation method.
	I mean, we could, I mean, again, we could do, we could talk about Holocaust denial.
	We could do like 10 episodes on Holocaust denial probably, but I don't think that's really where our, where our focus should be.
	No, that's what I was leading up to.
	As fascinating as it is, in a morbid sort of way, as a phenomenon, A, it's depressing and upsetting and it's not really our focus.
	But you mentioned Like, the fact that they bring up stuff that's been debunked ages ago.
	Mike Enoch actually raised the Looster Report, didn't he, on Twitter?
	Yeah, both Enoch and Striker did so.
	Now, also, another thing that Enoch has done, after I started tweeting about him going after the Looker Report, is actually, I'd probably say Leuchter, it's not Leuchter, everybody calls it Leuchter, but that's not actually how Fred Leuchter pronounces his name.
	I have it on good authority that the man's name is pronounced Leuchter, I'm gonna stick on this one.
	Besides, I like calling it Leuchter when they want to call it Leuchter.
	You know, Leuchter has a sort of a cooler German sound to it.
	I like Leuchter because it sounds silly.
	I think that's how Zündel pronounced it.
	I think everybody just picked it up from Zündel, from Ernst Zündel.
	Oh yeah, well...
	Obviously, you want to copy Ernst Zundel.
	Yeah, if there's anything, if there's any person I do not want to be like, it's Ernst Zundel.
	That's not the only person, but certainly a person.
	He was the, just for the listeners, sometimes we do get off in the weeds and leave some people behind.
	Ernst Zundel was one of the kind of major Holocaust deniers.
	He was, he's now, he's now gone.
	He's now dead, but he was sued in Canada under a law about expressing hate speech.
	I forget the exact statute.
	But it was a very famous trial that led to the Lutcher Report, and it was sort of one of the subjects of the Mr. Death documentary.
	So what I realized was that Enoch and Stryker were watching Mr. Death, and Mr. Death itself has contents that refute Holocaust denial.
	It brings on Robert Jan van Pelt.
	To, like, demonstrate in two minutes, you know, all the things that Lutcher, like, lost and missed.
	And the fact that they can watch that documentary and just kind of ignore that is remarkable, motivated reasoning.
	And in fact, Mr. Death even brings out—and we did a whole episode on this, so we should probably link to it.
	I adore this movie.
	I've watched it countless times.
	I mean, it's weird that, like, this is one of my favorite movies, but it actually is one of my favorite movies.
	It is constructed so well for what it does and we had a whole conversation about that, but it hits me on this like almost like, you know, it was like visceral like emotional intellectual level.
	It just kind of.
	I don't know.
	Errol Morris is brilliant.
	I don't love all of his films, but I love that one.
	It's truly phenomenal for me.
	And so I'm very familiar with his contents, right?
	And it brings on this guy, Roth, who did the analysis of the samples that Leutscher produced, and he describes exactly why.
	if I'd known this is what they were, I wouldn't have done the test that way.
	Because he's an analytical chemist, and he understands that, like, you have to take into account the environment of the samples.
	You have to take into account the levels that you're expecting to get out of those samples and what the conditions are.
	And apparently they just kind of mailed him off and went, like, analyzed these for cyanide concentration.
	And, like, okay, but you don't know, like, what exactly you're looking for unless you know the context of it, you know.
	And this is just basic analytical chemistry.
	You know, so.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, no, it's just kind of one of those things.
	And so the fact that they just ignore all of that, and then Stryker starts, like, saying, like, oh, no, this was disproven, you know, in this other guy's report, this, you know, Rudolph, I think is his last name, Rudolf.
	Rudolph goes in and describes how, like, no, actually the Wiltshire Report is accurate.
	And then there's this guy who has refuted that in voluminous detail during the Lipstadt trial, the Lipstadt-Irving trial.
	Yeah, there was an account produced that just kind of like absolutely obliterated it but those are actually like like Those two men are both professional chemists and so they have like actual technical expertise in which they're arguing back and forth One of them is completely wrong and the other one is right But um, you know, at least there's like some technical like stuff there and it's at least something but but
	But what happened was after I started tweeting about like how ridiculous it was that Enoch was using Mr. Death to argue in favor of Holocaust denial in terms of like look at how what a brave soul Leuchter was.
	He locked his account.
	Apparently he got a seven-day Twitter ban because somebody kind of found some tweets and reported them.
	And then he locked his account and I didn't check it just before we recorded but I checked it this morning and he still has it.
	He still has it locked.
	He's really terrified about losing his account right now and he doesn't want anybody to be able to see it.
	Well, maybe one of his followers is one of my socks.
	I couldn't tell you whether that's true or not.
	We'll just kind of leave that to be a mystery.
	You're never really hidden, Mike.
	We'll just put it that way.
	Yeah, to put it another way, it's the internet.
	Forget it, Jake, it's the internet.
	Right.
	Anyway, so that was their very humorous response was, you know, frothing childish anger or complete lack of response.
	Yeah.
	Somebody was actually tweeting, like, Mr. Death backed them up.
	No, Stryker and Enoch were both posting about that.
	Like, no, this is actually, no, it shows what a brave man he was and how the Jews went after him and, you know, attacked his credibility and he went to jail and all this stuff.
	And it's like...
	I mean, I mean, it is a mark of like how, you know, I don't want to get into Mr. Jeff again because we've already done this, but Morris makes his film and it's really not about Holocaust now, it's about Luther as a person, right?
	It's about this human being and about his, you know, He's kind of deep inadequacies as a human being right that he was sort of like Manipulated into doing this thing and then like once everybody hated him for doing this thing that he never should have done He kind of falls into this like far-right like conference world.
	He's still alive.
	I found out he's still alive He's still doing I just found this like last week as I was like prepping the last episode He's still sitting around and he's doing these like interviews with Jim Rizzoli.
	Who's another Holocaust denial who just like sucks He just sucks.
	He just sucks Luchter's cock.
	It's just a thing.
	He is the biggest, like, ball fanner of Fred Luchter imaginable.
	And I apologize for that mental image.
	But, you know, this is the man who no one loves anyway.
	But he's on Jim Rizzoli's Bitch Shoot channel doing chats about coronavirus.
	And I'm like, what world are we living in?
	You're just sitting there doing a live show and putting it up on Bitsheet.
	It's amazing.
	I'm sure he's contributing mightily to a public understanding of these issues.
	To a public understanding of coronavirus, yeah.
	I didn't really watch much of it.
	I was just kind of like, well, that is a thing that exists on the internet in the year 2020.
	And I just kind of moved on because it really wasn't my focus of what I was looking at.
	Why does anything surprise us anymore?
	Anyway, moving on.
	We have an actually interesting conversation.
	I mean, we're just kind of laughing at these dipshits now, but I think you had some actually interesting questions to ask about the content of the material.
	Yeah, there were some things that sort of jumped out to me.
	Let me see, looking through my notes here.
	Yeah, I mean, we kind of talked a little bit already about the way they talk about these things.
	I've got a note, I mean, I know it's kind of bad podcasting form to read from your own notes, but I've got a note here that says, you know, they advocate genocide and then claim they don't to their own audience for whom they perform that genocide advocacy in the first place.
	And it works because they performed genocide advocacy in a rhetorical way, one stage removed, you know, from like actually saying it.
	And then it's like their own audience want to hear them deny that they've done it?
	I mean, I just find the psychology of that so perversely fascinating.
	Yeah, I mean, it's... they're always... it's like... and this is, again, just kind of one of those, like, things... I hate to kind of do the aphorism here, but, you know, there is a sense in which A brown person living in a white neighborhood, quote-unquote, your neighbor having eating tacos instead of hamburgers, advertising that shows interracial couples, that's white genocide.
	That's the level at which, like, that's what white genocide is, right?
	But packing people onto cattle cars and shipping them even to a transfer station where a third of them die and where there will be works to death.
	Or shipping them on a container ship to Madagascar.
	Yeah.
	That is clearly not genocide.
	And so even the, like, kind of focus on, like, gas chambers is itself a sort of denial of the actual process by which this happened.
	And they can do that because there is this, like, kind of vast historical, or not vast historical interest, vast kind of mass public interest or understanding of what the Holocaust actually was, which was not, like, one event that happened on some particular day or some small set of days.
	But a process that started around 1933 and ended 1944 or 1945, depending on where you want it.
	And it's sometimes unclear about exactly what we're referring to, but it is this extended thing, right?
	Yeah, it's an extended evolving process.
	It's extended across countries.
	You know, even, like, Auschwitz itself is kind of a metaphor for this.
	You were talking earlier about the guy who's in, you know, like the, um, here's a photograph of me not doing it logic.
	You know, the guy who was in another bit of the camp and he didn't see any gas chambers because he was working on, like, the rubber for the tires and shit like that.
	He claims he didn't see any?
	He almost certainly did.
	I mean, I'm just gonna put that out there.
	I'm sure.
	There's enough... There are deep inconsistencies in his thing.
	I am not arguing it just because I don't want to get into those details, but... Sorry, please continue and then I want to kind of follow up.
	I was just going to say, like, I'm sure he did.
	But, like, it is conceivable, I'm sure, there were people working, quote-unquote, in Auschwitz who didn't see the gas chambers or didn't see the process of the mass murder.
	Because people don't...
	You know, we kind of have... This is tricky ground, and I want to be very careful because I don't want to offend anybody, but I think in some ways our culture is over-aware of the Holocaust.
	Not to say that we shouldn't be aware of it, we should.
	Not to say that we shouldn't remember it, we should.
	But we're kind of saturated with it.
	But we're saturated with a media-ized version, you know?
	Not to get into these big complexities.
	We're saturated with Schindler's List.
	I don't want to say romanticized, but sort of sentimentalized.
	Oh, I'll say romanticized about Schindler's List because I fucking hate that film.
	I really, I really don't like that film.
	And not to, again, we're not, we're not, we're not, we're not pushing in that direction.
	I hope that you will kind of go with us on this, even if you disagree with us, that Schindler's List is a bad film because it gives us the schmaltzy version.
	It gives us this romanticized and ahistoricized version of the Holocaust instead of the reality of the holocaust it gives us sort of the feel-good version of it and then it sort of like that version of it um overwhelms the um actual memory and the actual history behind it um to the degree that holocaust deniers come forward and gay well this thing was in this thing was in schindler's list and that never happened and like well yeah but nobody uses history
	no historian believes schindler's list is a real like document right except like they'll say well this is what this is the story that that jew steven spielberg is using to sort of control people's minds and to make them guilty over the holocaust when really it's all just a bunch of made-up bullshit because something something in like you know schindler's list didn't actually happen which again no reputable historian claims it happened
	and so they use the existence of these cultural products precisely as a way of um denying the holocaust in a way so So even if we agreed that Schindler's List is a great film and it has its own, you know, sort of valid artistic value or whatever, which, you know, fine.
	We can argue about that.
	I mean, I would argue against that.
	Don't worry.
	But I'm trying to take like sort of the, you know, I don't want to get angry letters.
	Even if you take that perspective, It is absolutely used by Holocaust deniers to deny the Holocaust.
	Yeah, and that's to be clear.
	It feeds a lot of oxygen into that conversation.
	To be clear, that's not Steven Spielberg's fault.
	I'm not blaming him for that.
	They are to blame for what they do, right?
	I didn't even necessarily want to talk about Schindler's List, but it's a good example of the way we've turned the Holocaust into this ideologised and, frankly, commodified thing that is hyper-saturated in our culture and sentimentalised as well.
	But at the same time, we haven't really educated ourselves about it as a culture.
	So people know about it, quote-unquote, but they don't know about it, right?
	So, I can't remember how we got onto this, but my original point was just that Auschwitz People don't realise it was vast.
	It's been described as a self-contained universe.
	It was like a city.
	It was like three camps joined together.
	Auschwitz, Birkenau and Monowitz.
	There were factories.
	This place had internal streets.
	People think of it as like...
	Much, much smaller than it was.
	So, yeah, it's perfectly conceivable that there might have been people working there that didn't witness the gassings.
	Well, how many people who work in an American prison where they do...
	Not every prison does it, but where...
	How many people working in an American prison where they do death penalty, where they actually execute people, will have witnessed an execution?
	Now, that's a bit of an unfair example just because there are not on the kind of...
	There are not that many numbers of people who are killed in the United States by execution.
	No, the scales are all different.
	One is too many.
	It's an analogy, not a direct comparison.
	The vast number of people who work as police officers in the United States will never fire their gun, right?
	And yet, there are hundreds of deaths per year by police officers.
	killing people with a gun.
	Yeah.
	And those two facts can be, can both exist in the same space.
	And so some guy said he never saw a gas chamber is just not an argument.
	I mean, you know, it's just not.
	And like, even if everything he says is absolutely true, it's just bullshit.
	You know, so.
	Yeah.
	And this actually leads us, I mean, kind of sticking close to the question of Holocaust denial, which wasn't necessarily something I wanted to do.
	But you get into Mike Enoch's own thoughts, quote-unquote, thoughts on this stuff later on in episode 52, where you quote him talking about people picking their own Holocaust.
	That's what he, he accuses people of doing this thing that they call pick your own Holocaust.
	And the example he gives is like if you talk to people they think they know about the Holocaust and then you confront them with you know questions or quote-unquote facts from you know from their perspective which is of course a bunch of bullshit.
	Well what it'll do is it'll put like a document in their face and say well look there's this document and I have a reference to this document and this document says this thing happened.
	And we know from like this photograph that that didn't happen there that wasn't real or some some version of this I'm going to prevent you I'm going to present you with like this kind of contradiction to this thing that I'm going to pretend like I'm an expert by I'm showing you a document I'm showing you like a real document I'm showing you a real photograph And I'm making you look at that, and I'm saying, like, how do you reconcile this?
	And people are ignorant, because there's no, like, real... And who spends their time... And who the hell wants to know all about this, anyway?
	I mean... Who wants to spend their life sitting and, like, analyzing photographs of the Holocaust?
	Very heroic people who I rely on for my information, frankly.
	But I've done like more than like 99.9% of people and I am in no sense an expert on the Holocaust.
	I mean, something I said previously is, you know, if you don't speak German, you're not an expert on the Holocaust.
	Like, period.
	Like, you have to have been able to read the original documents.
	This is something that interests me, because I am interested in fascism, and I'm interested in the history of fascism, I'm interested in the Nazis and Hitler, and so that is a period of history, that is a subject that interests me.
	So I know, compared to the average member of the public, who it's quite understandable that they shouldn't know very much about it, because, you know, this is a vast topic of historical specialty.
	You know, compared to like the average member of the public, I probably know quite a bit about this, right?
	I know nothing about this compared to an actual historian, or an actual expert that specialises in it, to the point where I would consider it the height, like people, you know, talking about debating these people, I would consider it the height of irresponsibility on my part to debate a Holocaust denier.
	Because I, knowing more about it than Joe Average on the street, in all modesty, I am simply not equipped to do that responsibly, because these people are very, very good at their bullshit.
	And if you get into a debate with one of them, they can run rings round you, and that can do an incredible amount of damage.
	Well, I mean, in Jan van Pelt said, and again, in Mr. Death, he's like, you know, I spent, I spent years preparing to go to Auschwitz for the first time, you know, and that's, that's true.
	You spend years to, to begin to understand the kind of details of this.
	Just again, as sort of a laughing point, I find it interesting that these men have never even tried to recommend that I debate them on this topic.
	I mean, I wouldn't, because that's not what I do, and for a lot of reasons, like, it's not a thing I would do.
	I don't know, like, make me an offer strike.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	If we can find a neutral person.
	I don't know.
	I would definitely want to set terms for this debate.
	But they'll never actually do that.
	They'd be very foolish too.
	Because I know them, right?
	That's the thing.
	That's why they wouldn't do this to me, because I know their bullshit and they know that I will bring up all of their history on this topic.
	Because the process that Mike Enoch describes in the clip that you played on the last episode It doesn't work with somebody that actually does know the topic, you know what I mean?
	You do know them, you know what they say!
	Even with a cursory understanding of common denier arguments, I can say, well I don't know that document, but why don't you, how about this other document that very clearly indicates this?
	Or, you know, I could definitely do that.
	So the thing is, what he's trying to do is to say, I'm more of an expert than you, because what happens when I go to somebody and I give them a this document and say, well, how could this be true if that is also true?
	And does this just kind of say, maybe this whole thing is bullshit?
	And reasonable people just kind of go like, well, but maybe this was what was actually happening.
	Maybe he got it wrong.
	Maybe he did this.
	And it's like, no, you can't choose your own Holocaust because there's a story, you see.
	And if you disagree with the like major narrative and you're like trying to make up details on the spot, you don't get to do that.
	And now you're just as much of a denier as I am.
	It's a really clever rhetorical trick, right?
	And it works on people.
	who are sort of inclined to think of this kind of far-right stuff is sort of a valid rhetorical space and a valid political space and who want to sort of like, you know, be anti-authoritarian or anti-establishment or, you know, whatever and be like, no, Hitler was actually good, but who, whatever and be like, no, Hitler was actually good, but who, like, don't have the sort of, like, rhetorical courage to kind of do
	And most people are not going to actually look into the details and do even the 20 seconds worth of Googling it takes to, like, you know, find a sort of basic understanding of whatever, like, bullshit line he's giving you.
	I mean, it is one of those things where, like, 90% of the stuff that he says you can disprove, I could disprove it in 30 seconds with a Google search and, like, four links.
	It's done, right?
	Yeah.
	If you're willing to read those links.
	And the rest of it, it's just a little bit more detailed and it kind of gets into, like, more technical stuff where it's harder to kind of judge a kind of particular thing because, again, they're very good at this.
	Like, they are very good.
	They're very good rhetoricians.
	And that's why, you know, I felt it was important to put their words out there and then to demonstrate that they are lying about themselves.
	I mean, this was the thing I was trying to get across, and you can tell me if I managed it, is they're lying about me and they're lying about what they said about exterminationism and what they did in that episode where J.O. is...
	is doing the unironic exterminationism bit.
	Oh yeah, no, absolutely.
	And then I'm gonna extend that and say they also do that same thing when they talk about the Holocaust.
	They do the exact same rhetorical move, and so if they're lying about what they did, they're also lying about this other thing, and I don't have to disprove every single detail of what they're saying.
	I'm giving you the parallelism here, and I don't know how well I listened to that episode a couple of times after I produced it.
	I don't know quite how well that came across, but that was my goal.
	Obviously I'm an interested party, and obviously I'm not, I wouldn't claim to be neutral or unbiased or anything like that.
	But, you know, in my opinion you completely proved your central point.
	I mean that particular quote, which is kind of the hinge of the episode as far as I could tell, was their characterisation of their own response To what was being said by J.O.
	Dilleray in that episode.
	Now you have used, I mean that's what you refer to as the unironic exterminationism clip.
	Yeah, I call that the unironic exterminationism clip.
	I've had it on my laptop for like two years now.
	Now you use that to show people that these people are
	unironic exterminationists that they talk about genocide right now or at least hypothetically kind of aligned like they considered a valid kind of political position on some level and exactly they are very friendly with and work closely with someone someone is in their organization who actively advocates it or who has actively advocated for it in the past and to my mind to my knowledge and I am very familiar with these people never repudiated it And this is it.
	What you claim about them has to be contextualised and there's a certain amount of complexity to it.
	You are not claiming about them what they claim you are claiming about them.
	You claim that a core member of their team made a speech in one of these episodes, or said something in one of these episodes, where he argued unironically for extermination of black people.
	It's the termination of all non-white people worldwide.
	That's the thing he's actually claiming there.
	Because any non-white group living anywhere can be wedged against us, hypothetically, by some outside group.
	And so if we are going to survive long term as white people, eventually All of these people are just going to have to be exterminated.
	That's the logic.
	His own logic makes it universal because he says it always happens this way.
	You always have this same problem.
	You can never solve it by segregation.
	You can never solve it by any method short of just getting rid of these people.
	By just them not existing.
	That's his own argument.
	You're talking about all non-white people, because those are your terms and that's your argument, not you, him.
	Now, what you claim about them is that this was said, unironically, by a core member of their team, who they've never repudiated, and that shows that they, at the very least,
	Validate, normalise, accept as basically reasonable and discussable, you know, worth giving headroom as a concept, the idea of an unimaginable slaughter.
	Just the worst genocide imaginable.
	And this and just again like and this is like not like a sort of an incidental thing right this isn't like a thing that's sort of like well what we're actually in favor of is this and that like we're not and along the way a whole bunch of like people are gonna be killed or you know maybe we can avoid this.
	Ethnic cleansing is the point of their ideology.
	This is what they're trying to do at their core.
	It can't be that because you always have this problem and you can't address it any other way.
	He says that.
	What they claim you claim about them is that they, on their podcast, say we plan to and are actively engaged in planning and setting up genocide right now.
	That is what they claim you claim about them.
	That we're talking about killing of millions of people in a serious way.
	That's Enoch's exact quote.
	And they also claim that their constant hinting at it and joking about it and talking around it and never quite saying uncool but saying unk unk unk and cool cool cool a thousand times every episode, that somehow doesn't count for what it obviously counts as.
	That's their other claim.
	Now, I think you demonstrated pretty clear... I mean, very... I mean, it's not hard... I mean, no disrespect, but it's not hard to prove the point.
	This isn't difficult.
	The real thing that I've done is just listen to them.
	Like, I mean, you know, like... Exactly.
	Once you've listened to them enough, it's fucking obvious.
	Like, anybody can do this if you're willing to, you know, dig through their archives.
	And if you're, I mean, I've spent, it is like one of the things that people said is like, you played like 20 minutes of their clips that I just kind of wanted to throw up.
	And I'm like, I've listened to a thousand hours.
	Like, you know, if I have one talent, it's just the willingness to listen to, I mean, that's a thousand hours of their show, not just all the other shows, right?
	You know, like, sorry, I do kind of like, Sorry, my brain just kind of imagines all the things that I have not done.
	One of these days we are going to have to have a serious discussion about why and how, but we'll table that.
	And again, why is very easy.
	Listen to those clips.
	That's why.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's the... yeah, I know.
	It's funny, fewer people have asked me why since the Christchurch Massacre.
	The Tree of Life Massacre was a big stepping stone to where, like, fewer people really asked me why, but the Christchurch one, like, literally nobody's asked me, like, why do you do this since then?
	It's been... that's a... anyway.
	It's it's weird that that's the thing that it like that's the thing that it took you know for people not to I don't know this is kind of a maybe a sideline we may have cut this but you know that's a that's really that was that was really the moment that was really the moment I was like oh no I understand no you should keep doing this people should know about this and I'm like yeah I know But there is a distinction between a reason and a motivation that we might pick at, but not today.
	Let's keep making fun of Mike Enoch, that's really the key.
	I want to keep going at this, because that one quote...
	Which is something like one show where someone was talking about some stupid shit and we weren't even agreeing with him.
	Blah blah blah blah blah.
	And it was a few years ago.
	And I think I reacted with stunned silence or something.
	Blah blah blah blah blah.
	That... Sorry, go on.
	Yeah, go on.
	No, they do that thing all the time.
	Of, like, referring to their own history.
	Or referring to a thing that happened in the past that, like, you know...
	It would take me a long time to find the specific clips if I was going to justify this.
	Dare me, Mikey Knock, I will do it.
	I promise you.
	This will not turn out right for you.
	I have your complete archives in like three different forms.
	It's fine.
	Yeah, they do that kind of like hedging around the edges.
	Hedging around sort of the edges of kind of like someone.
	A lot of like very general names.
	A lot of very general pronouns.
	a lot of kind of very general concepts.
	They take a proper noun, a specific noun, and they turn it into like, well, some guy was out there like saying this thing about us instead of like actually quoting them.
	Because if they quote you and then say like, well, here in IDSG 52, Daniel Harper says that we're claiming this specific thing.
	And let me play that clip and then we're gonna respond to it.
	That's a thing that people can listen to and kind of make their own decisions.
	If they say, oh, well, there's some guy out there saying some shit and claiming and then paraphrasing in a way that is not accurate to the thing that I've actually said, then their audience is going to be wiser, right?
	Their audience is not going to – not only does their audience get their version of events, they're spinning it their way regardless.
	But also they haven't really given their audience the tools to check.
	And this is something that really gets it – like I know that like in a podcast, like I'm not going to blame them for having a minor like kind of technical – like a misstatement of fact.
	This thing happened in 1944 when it actually happened in 1943.
	This, you know, I'm claiming that it was this senator when it's some other senator.
	I mean, that's not, that's what they pretend that I'm doing when I say they're lying, is we got some like technical detail wrong, you know?
	Yeah.
	When I say Mikey Anik is a liar, and like fundamentally he's lying to you all the time, what I'm saying is He's a propagandist who is working all the time to feed a narrative, to give you a version of events that does not care about whether it's true or false.
	Yes.
	His whole goal is to, it's not about, he's not an honest actor trying to find the truth about the Holocaust when he kind of comes in and does his thing.
	His goal is to spew enough shit.
	To make you think that there are two sides to this conversation.
	Yes.
	And you think that, like, me having 10,000 documents on my side and Eric Stryker having some guy who's probably lying about his experience in Auschwitz, is the same, then he wins, right?
	Yeah.
	And so my job is much, much, much harder because Mikey and Ike is a very good propagandist, right?
	And so I take it and, you know, I'm not saying I have done this.
	You can judge for yourself how well I've done this.
	My goal, the reason that I link to everything that they say all the time, the reason that I put show notes, I Pretty meticulous about my show notes.
	We put extended quotes in our show notes.
	The reason being is because I want people to actually be able to judge for themselves.
	And that was the thing, at a certain point...
	I have to play their clips, right?
	I have to actually say, yeah, they're saying these, they're saying these lies and it's not even like they can lie about me.
	I don't care.
	They lie about me to their audience or whatever, but at some point it became like, look, you're actually like denigrating my like honor.
	You're denigrating my like responsibility to my audience and you're saying that, you know, you're doing this thing and I want to make sure that somewhere it's put down in a place That you're wrong.
	You're just, you're lying about your lies at a certain point, right?
	Sorry, I don't want to make it about me, but it was like this kind of moment of like, well, I just have to do this at this point.
	I just have to respond, right?
	They made it about you and they called you a liar.
	Yeah.
	And I call Mikey and Ike a liar.
	I'm calling him a liar right now.
	I would love for him to pull up clips from my show and play them for his audience and demonstrate to the level of fidelity that I did.
	That's not what he's doing.
	Please, feel free.
	I don't have paywall episodes.
	All my episodes are free.
	So you can very easily go through.
	Please try it.
	And if you find an error, I will happily correct it.
	You certainly will find errors from both of us right the way through.
	And we'll say, oh, sorry about that.
	We were wrong.
	I make errors of, like, I mistake things.
	I do that all the time.
	That's the nature of a podcast.
	It's just one of this nature, which is conversational and not kind of pre-written.
	You know, and I try to correct errors.
	Sometimes I kind of let them go if it's something that's really minor.
	You know, like, I don't know, I could be better about it maybe, but this is also like, not, I don't do this for a living.
	Although, thank you to my Patreon supporters, I guess.
	Likewise.
	No, look, I mean, it's not the same, because, you know, he can call you a liar as much as he likes, you know.
	Reality is, you know, ultimately, without getting into, like, you know, quantum theory or something, ultimately reality is one-sided, you know.
	To the extent that we can know things, we can, a lot of the time, we can work out what's true and what isn't, you know.
	And if you find two guys In a house, in the middle of the night, and they both point to each other and say, he's the burglar, this is my house.
	That doesn't, you know, you don't just throw up your hands and say, oh, well, I don't know, you know, I guess there's, I guess there are, what are householders?
	What are burglars?
	You know, they both claim the same thing.
	I don't know.
	You can find out.
	One is the burglar and one is the guy that lives there.
	Their answer is, look, one of those people is Jewish and therefore it's not that guy's house.
	Yeah, well, there's ultimately the difference.
	Then, as you say, they're not interested in what's true.
	I mean, we could do this entire process again.
	Sorry, they've been talking a lot about, on this kind of far-right shithead circuit, they've been talking about this Ahmaud Arbery shooting.
	And I could I could literally do an episode like the one I did just about this shooting and demonstrate again All the lies and misstatements of fact and all the things that are just easily Disprovable that just sort of the the ways are manipulating reality.
	They do this all the time This isn't like just on the Holocaust.
	This is virtually every subject they talk about they will use this exact same set of techniques and while we're kind of focusing on the daily show and mikey knight now these techniques are endemic within this far right space and even in like right wings even like ben shapiro will do this exact same thing you know yeah well that's what that's what mike enoch reminded me of when he was doing his uh
	Because what that amounts to, what, you know, they're choosing their own holocaust, you translate that out of Nazi bullshit into English, what he means is, I can gish gallop.
	That's all that means.
	He just means, you know, just like Ray Comfort or Ben Shapiro or whoever, You know, I can pick somebody who doesn't really know what they're talking about and bombard them with factoids until they start contradicting themselves, whereupon I can start saying, well, you've changed your tune about the Holocaust, so now you're a Holocaust.
	And that's actually, oh God, I'm getting so off track, but that's another insidious thing there, right?
	Because when you say to somebody who's changed their, they're not an expert, they don't know, but they're trying to debate you, because you're a fucking Holocaust denier.
	And they change their tack because you've chucked some bit of bullshit at them.
	You say, now you're a Holocaust denier.
	What that implies is that there's this monolithic orthodoxy about the Holocaust that you're not allowed to divert from at all, otherwise you just get instantly anathematized.
	And of course what they mean is that it's the Jews.
	The Jews run this, they impose it, and they You know, the instant you depart from their imposed orthodoxy, you're a Holocaust denier.
	You're beyond the pale.
	Which is crap.
	You know, professional historians debate the Holocaust down to the tiniest detail.
	It is up for debate.
	There's no monolithic orthodoxy.
	Except the orthodoxy that is dictated by the facts, which prove beyond a doubt that it fucking happened.
	You know, yeah, the Oxford, I think the Oxford Guide to the Holocaust I read like a year or so ago.
	I'll find the I don't have the title in front of me, but very good summary of kind of the history.
	Holocaust historiography and sort of like the way that the debates go and so like what?
	the sort of the opinion of the historical community Was at the time of publication?
	indicates a wide variety in terms of functionalist versus intentionalist debates and that sort of thing.
	In fact, it is from those conversations, the Holocaust Controversies blog, which has been very, very useful to me.
	I need to send them a thank you note for their work.
	They used to have a Twitter handle, at Against Denial, but they've apparently stopped.
	They either left Twitter or were forced to leave Twitter.
	I'm not sure what the thing is.
	But they started off as historians interested in these topics, interested in actually discussing historical revisionism in terms of the Holocaust, and then ran into a bunch of fucking Holocaust deniers, and so they just started demunking and then ran into a bunch of fucking Holocaust deniers, and Like they would go and hang out in the CODOH forums.
	That's the Council of Debate of the Holocaust or something to that nature.
	It's this very long running forum.
	of, you know, shit-tier Holocaust deniers, right?
	And these are people who would go and hang out on those forums and actually argue with people.
	And so, you know, they have, they're both like people with training in history who know backwards and forwards the details of the Holocaust and who are fluent in German, who understand all of this stuff, and who will actually engage with Holocaust deniers.
	And when Mikey and I decide to quote them and spread his bullshit, they just kind of laugh.
	It's really like, yeah, I dealt with this 15 years ago.
	You're nothing.
	There's a blog post, I'll link it here, but they call Ares Stryker Denier Muppet.
	Muppet.
	Denier Muppet.
	Yeah.
	But to get back to- Sorry, we've really spent too much time on the Holocaust, honestly.
	I know you had some really interesting questions.
	This is just where the conversation goes when we're talking about this.
	I apologize.
	I feel like we've kind of gotten into the mud a little bit.
	Well, we're both kind of a little bit geeky on this subject, I think, maybe.
	But, no, I mean, to get back to where we were before I went off on that, a slight digression, you know, you were asking about how well you did, and I was saying that by, I mean, you focused in on that quote of theirs, responding to your use of the unironic extermination clip, where, I think it's, is it Mike Enoch speaking, where he says, oh, there was just one show where someone was talking about stupid shit?
	Yeah, that's Enoch, that's Enoch speaking.
	Okay, well, by focusing in on that response, I mean, I think that, So much just unfolds from there, right?
	Because, I mean, you were talking about how, you know, obviously podcasting is not an exact science and people make mistakes because you're speaking extemporary and stuff like that.
	Yeah, one show where someone was talking, that's a lie.
	Because, you know, J-O isn't just someone.
	He's a core member of the team, right?
	Talking about some stupid shit, that's not just him speaking casually.
	That's a lie.
	You can tell from the context when you listen to it in our episode, episode 52 of IDSG, presented for you to listen to.
	You can tell that that's not just someone talking about some stupid shit, and we weren't even agreeing with him.
	That's a lie as well.
	It's not quite as blatant a lie as the others, but it's not Enoch, is it?
	It's Jesse.
	His response to J.O.
	is, hmm, hmm, hmm, it's tough.
	Now that's not, we weren't even agreeing with him, and it's certainly not stunned silence.
	Well he goes on to agree, essentially.
	Just imagine, by the way, you know, just imagine for their hypocrisy, you know, I say we should kill all the white people because the history of colonialism and imperialism, which of course they now fucking fuck all about because it gives all the historical context for loads of the stuff they try to, you know, lie about.
	The history of colonialism and imperialism proves that, you know, You just can't live with white people.
	They're just going to invade your country and set up apartheid and stuff like that.
	So we just need to kill them all, right?
	And, you know, somebody's response to that is, hmm, hmm, hmm, it's tough.
	Yeah, I mean, that's a tough conversation, really.
	I mean, maybe we really should.
	That's radical and upsetting.
	That's Enoch's quote, isn't it?
	It's radical and upsetting.
	But, yeah, I mean, that's not... Well, you can tell Jesse doesn't really know how to respond in that clip.
	I've listened to this clip countless times, honestly.
	Um, for a variety of reasons.
	Um, but, uh, you know, particularly in light prepping that episode, I really wanted to make sure that I really knew it very, very well.
	Um, and, and Jesse or Sven, I don't know, I kind of alternate between the two.
	I think somebody gave me some criticism of like, why don't you call him Sven?
	And I'm like, I honestly, Jesse and Sven are like the same name as far as I'm concerned at this point.
	I don't even differentiate, um, because he calls himself both, uh, all the time.
	Um, but he kind of comes in and he's thinking, you know, he's going the mm-hmm thing and then he's, he kind of comes back with a, well yeah, but right now there's a race war.
	Right now there's a, you know, the the genocide is going the other way right now and we have to stop it, right?
	Like that's sort of the whole thing is like in their minds and their sort of like ideology and in terms of their rhetoric Well, there's already a race war, and we're losing, and we have to get together and fight against it.
	And whatever happens from that point happens.
	And maybe we can sort of like beat them to a detente, and maybe we can kind of build our ethnostate and kind of build a big wall or kind of whatever.
	And kind of keep these people out.
	Well, J.O.' 's already ruled that out as an option.
	Well, and J.O.' 's point is to sort of be the sort of like the far right kind of person on that and say like, well, that's never going to work long term.
	So eventually we're going to have to kind of kind of go out there and do a thing.
	I mean, there's a God, maybe I have this clip, maybe I don't.
	There's a clip of Richard Spencer on his own podcast kind of talking about like, you know, mint julep colonialism in which he envisions a future in which, you know, And people like him, or maybe he himself, are standing over colonies in Africa, like they were in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, drinking juleps and ruling over this mass of laborers or whatever.
	Looking up and seeing a face like his looking down at them.
	But, uh, you know, G.O.
	would consider that, like, not, like, maybe that's a stepping stone.
	Like, G.O.
	isn't, like, actively saying, like, well, you know, what we need to do is kind of take control of the U.S.
	government in 2022, and, um, go out there with nuclear bombs and, like, you know, annihilate, you know.
	He's not, he's saying, as a philosophical point of view, genocide is on the table, and I think, long term, maybe over the course of centuries, You know, he's not saying this as a, this is something that needs to happen right away, but like, you're eventually just going to have to annihilate everyone who isn't white, because we want their land, we want to go out there, these people are subhuman, and this is just something that has to happen.
	And this is, even people who find that distasteful, because I think it's fair to say that both Enoch and Sven find it distasteful, right?
	And again, I want to be very fair to them.
	Really?
	You'd say that?
	I don't, I think Enoch's response of saying like, and people will find this upsetting, people will find this, uh, you know, I think that's him expressing his own kind of, um, maybe that's to kind of make a point or maybe that's to kind of defend himself.
	I think, just based on what I know of Enoch, I don't think he particularly cares if every non-white person dies, but I think a deliberate extermination plan, like, We're gonna send out, you know, bombers or we're gonna send out like rows of soldiers to just go and like annihilate people.
	I think he does find that distasteful because he doesn't really like the results of violence, frankly.
	And I just, again, I want to be very clear about I am trying to treat these people as fairly as possible and if I'm, you know, giving them too much credit, I'm willing to kind of err on that side of this, right?
	Yeah, he obviously doesn't find it too distasteful to platform it, and discuss it as reasonable, and joke about it, and then to go on to, you know, to dignify it, and then to go on to actually, you know, in the next bit, what they're doing is they're saying, well, as you just said, well, I mean, look what's happening in South Africa.
	There's already a race war.
	There's already a genocide going on.
	It's us.
	We're the victims.
	That's the self-defense alibi.
	What they're doing there is they're saying, well, if we kill all of them, we'll be acting in self-defense.
	Which is precisely what the fucking Nazis said right the way through the Holocaust.
	They pretended they were acting in self-defense.
	Sorry, again, I feel like we're rehashing stuff from when we did this before, but, I mean, the Posen speech, where, you know, Himmler is talking privately to a group of
	SS members and kind of higher high up party people late in the war and he's talking about how difficult it is to do this thing the extermination of the Jews and how we will have honor the history will remember us for doing this difficult thing that must be that must be done regardless of like whether people find it distasteful and I think that's where I kind of land on I find a very
	Potent psychological parallelism here, you know, and I think this is why you know for me this clip is so disturbing because I do think that Enoch finds it distasteful and I think that Jesse finds it distasteful to kind of sort of think of this, you know, but they think of it as a thing that is distasteful, but probably necessary.
	To make the sort of better world, like these are the piles of corpses that must be burned in order to kind of make the utopia on the other side.
	And they do find it distasteful.
	They do find it difficult.
	And they process through that difficulty through their speech and through their actions, and even like Jesse's laugh.
	I'm not saying he doesn't have discomfort.
	I'm not saying he doesn't have discomfort over it.
	Like he's, he's kind of joking about it as, as a way of expressing his discomfort.
	And I'm not saying he doesn't have discomfort.
	I'm not saying you not, doesn't have discomfort over it.
	I'm saying they accept it as a possible course for the future.
	And they ultimately are not bothered enough by it to oppose it.
	These are not people who oppose genocide, even on this like very overt way.
	And as I was referring to in sort of the other kind of portions of that episode, Um, you know, it's very clear that, like, well, some people should just kind of be killed.
	I mean, I could find you clips of, like, you know, Enoch saying that, like, well, people with Down syndrome should just die, because, like, they're, they're, obviously they should just, they just shouldn't be here.
	Their genetic problems, um, they should, they should just be euthanized.
	I feel bad for that, but ultimately they're suffering more being here than not, and I don't like looking at them.
	And I promise you I can find that clip if he not decides to put his flag in the dirt and prove that I'm lying about him.
	I have that clip.
	I don't have the number on it.
	I don't have the exact episode number, but I can find it.
	I know where it is.
	Yeah.
	And he will.
	Well, if he decides to respond to it.
	It's really funny actually.
	I mean, you will.
	You will go through them all and find it if you have to.
	I'll find it.
	I know the context of it.
	I know how to find it.
	Don't worry.
	It's fine.
	I mean, it's really funny when Mikey Yanaki isn't around to sort of like corral the troops and kind of keep them not to kind of talk about this stuff.
	I mean, there was an episode where Mikey wasn't around, I think he was on vacation, and Jesse and Alex McNabb were sitting and talking about, I think, God, I can't remember the context, but they were talking about sort of the history of sort of Native Americans in the United States and, you know, about how you know, there were just kind of problems that the Native Americans, they kind of came into colonies and, you know, kind of killing people.
	And, you know, it's just sort of like, well, if you're going to do colonialism, you're just going to have to do a genocide, right?
	Like that's just sort of what you have to do And again, he's not saying like well, we should do a colonialism like he's not actively advocating for that But he's kind of like saying like well if you're gonna build a colony just kill everybody around you it's you know, because ultimately the racial conflict this they believe that there is a sort of fundamental racial conflict between white people and non-white people and That is irreconcilable, right?
	That there is no way for people to come together and to live side-by-side.
	And so, we're strong and you're weak.
	You're gonna come and attack, and it's our... like, ultimately, I feel bad about it.
	I don't think this is something... I don't want to do this, but ultimately, my people matter more.
	And you should just all die.
	That's the thing.
	I'm so tempted now to go off on a complete diversion about mainstream non-fascist historians of, you know, settler colonial states who basically say the same thing about how, well, yes, it was sad about all the genocide, but, you know, look, we have this wonderful progress as a result.
	But no, I'm going to resist that one.
	Yeah, no, I apologize.
	Well, and again, like, this kind of language, I mean, I'm not going to get into this.
	We should really move on.
	We're an hour and 15 minutes already, but even the stuff around sort of this like COVID-19, even around the coronavirus stuff, you know, of, you know, literally, you know, it's like the human capital is ready to move forward regardless of whether, you know, some deaths will occur or not, you know, which in a very different space, but it is like, look, there are people who just kind of like our society needs to move on.
	We need a functioning society that works in this way.
	And somebody has to die, and well, unfortunately I am a wealthy person, and I am a person who exists within a realm of privilege within the society, and I get to avoid those consequences, but you all need to die in order to make me slightly more comfortable.
	And that's exactly what this ideology is.
	You're coming up to 100,000 COVID deaths in the United States now and we're at something like, I think it's like 36 officially and probably 60,000 unofficially.
	Those official numbers are definitely under counts.
	It's much higher than that.
	It's perfectly, you know, you might get an argument, but it's perfectly respectable in Britain to say, no, I think thousands more people need to die so that we can get back to capital accumulation.
	That is a perfectly respectable, you know, mainstream viewpoint.
	But no, again, resisting these diversions.
	What you were saying about them being bothered by it and finding it distasteful, etc.
	That's actually, I think, very key.
	Because what we see there is the fact that this isn't just about shitty people.
	They are shitty people.
	They're liars and cowards and hypocrites and they're hateful shitbags.
	But the problem fundamentally isn't that.
	The problem is that this ideology is genocidal in its DNA.
	It is genocidal to the core, inherently, by definition.
	And this is why, under certain circumstances, that people like this bring about, when they can,
	It can lead, it can metastasise, it can lead to and escalate to and evolve into genocide, whether it's, you know, it starts with, like in Nazi Germany, it starts with the trans people and the disabled people, T4, euthanasia, and it leads up to Auschwitz, you know, it's not a question of it sort of stemming directly from the ideas, because I don't think history works that way, but ideas play a role, they become social forces, they become material forces for complex reasons, and these ideas, they have this built into them, and in a certain set of
	...circumstances, etc, etc, they will lead to this.
	Even when the people involved find it distasteful, you know?
	Eichmann visits a camp and he's sick.
	Himmler visits a camp and he faints, because these are... You know, they don't like it, but this isn't about them... I mean, they were evil people, but this isn't about them being... You know, they're not like, you know, Ted Bundy.
	They're not murdering people because they get off on it.
	They're doing it because they are people...
	All sorts of complex reasons, but part of it is that they're in the grip of an ideology which is inherently, to its core, genocidal.
	Because it's about the idea that some people are just inferior, and you can't reconcile yourself to them, they can't be dealt with, they can't be treated like humans, and they need to be gotten rid of.
	That is the idea.
	You can't take the genocide out of it, any more than you can take the eggs out of the cake.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And as we've said before, peaceful ethnic cleansing doesn't exist, by definition.
	You're trying to create a situation in which, at the very least, you're making a class of your society second-class citizens, subject to legal subjugation above, or underneath a white majority or whatever, however you're classifying that.
	If you're trying to push people out of your society, even by sort of denying them benefits, it's still a... You're forced to live under a police state with violence and death at every turn.
	By definition.
	And of course... You can't enforce it unviolently.
	Right.
	And of course, this is a society in which I live, unfortunately, as a white man.
	I have certain, you know, I'm not subject to that in the same way, but this is a society that I live in, not to the degree that they want, and that's ultimately their problem with, like, you know, Donald Trump, is that he has not been aggressive enough in, you know, inserting an ethno-state, you know, ultimately.
	Yeah.
	That's another reason to get a can of worms, but yeah.
	I think by zeroing in on that quote, I feel bad that we haven't talked more about the stuff about trans people to be honest.
	I think that's a subject we should come back to and focus on a bit more.
	But by zeroing in on that clip of the way they lied about their own responses to and the way they lied about how it was framed, the unironic extermination clip, I think you kind of demonstrate several things at once.
	Firstly, you demonstrate that they are adherents to this inherently genocidal viewpoint, that they give it headroom, they give it houseroom, they dignify it, they discuss it like it's a serious thing.
	They lie about that.
	They lie about what you say about them, I mean, they do precisely what they accuse you of doing.
	They misrepresent you via this misleading maximalism.
	They over-interpret.
	They maximalise what you say.
	You make this complex case about the way they frame these ideas and perpetuate them and promote them in this complex rhetorical way.
	And they turn that into you saying, oh, Daniel Harper says that we're actively advocating for genocide and actively involved in planning it, etc, etc.
	And we don't do that.
	There was just some guy who was talking stupid shit, etc.
	So I think by zeroing in on that, I think that really is the key to it, I think.
	Not to imply that the rest of the episode was irrelevant, because it wasn't, but I think it's all there, really, isn't it?
	I mean, it's all fundamental misrepresentation, and misrepresentation that is, I would argue, intentional.
	I don't know what's in their heart of hearts, I don't know what's in that.
	I have shared that clip enough times that, you know, maybe Mikey and I could not re-listen to that clip in the last two years.
	And normal people are shocked by it.
	Normal people know what it means.
	Normal people don't respond to that with, hmm, hmm, hmm, it's tough, yeah, maybe we should discuss this.
	Well, it would be, again, just to bend over backwards, just to offer the good faith.
	When there's no reason to do so, but just to prove my own willingness to listen.
	All right, maybe Mikey and I just not listen to that episode in Going on three years Because that was in I think May 2017.
	So, yeah, it's getting right up there to three years.
	Maybe he just misremembered what was in that clip.
	But he didn't care to listen, and I have shared it in places where I know he is very likely to see it.
	And Eric Stryker and some of his buddies have argued to me about that clip on Twitter on a couple of occasions.
	And so if he was uncomfortable with the contents of that, he could have, he's had three years to address it.
	And if he addresses it now, it says, like, actually, we don't agree with that.
	And we shouldn't have said that at the time.
	And Jay always said, is here, and we're going to actually not do that, and then move on to peaceful advocacy of ethnic cleansing, which they're not going to do.
	There's no version of that.
	If they see the light, I will report that.
	I will happily report that.
	I don't have a problem with that.
	I'm not... I'm...
	I'm trying to be an honest actor here and to say this is what I know, this is what I don't know.
	We don't need to make shit up.
	I understand that there's ambiguity in some of these conversations.
	If I get it wrong, show me where.
	Yeah, let's get into the details with it.
	But they're not going to do that.
	They're not going to do that.
	That's the point.
	Because the whole thing, they spend hours and hours on Holocaust nighters.
	Their fans get into my emails and get into my mentions and say I'm so sick of them talking about Holocaust nighters.
	Not even our fans, their fans message me about it.
	If that tells you anything about how sick they are about Mikey and I talking about the Holocaust at this point.
	Because he does it on every episode, sometimes for like an hour.
	It's like half the episode is just Holocaust denial.
	I can't imagine if you're like turning into a comedy podcast, it's just Holocaust denial.
	It's any fun at all for you.
	So his own fans think he's going way, way overboard on this.
	And he argues with those fans, says, we're going to do it more because this is important.
	Like he's pushing this.
	This is an overt thing that he's trying to push.
	And it's all based on a complete misreading of history.
	To the point of creating a political ideology to create this like political change that he wants to seek and that is to make a conversation about genocide to make Conversation about certain types of people that need to be eliminated from society acceptable within American particularly American but worldwide but American political discourse needs to accept this and That's the goal.
	potential topic of conversation so that we can deport and eliminate and exterminate, particularly Hispanic immigrants.
	That's the goal.
	That's what he's trying to do, fundamentally.
	That's it.
	And so all this Holocaust stuff is just meant to say, well, the Nazis weren't that bad.
	And so maybe we can do some of the things that they did.
	He's trying to make that happen by pretending it didn't happen 70 years ago.
	Period.
	That's the point.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah.
	And look, one more digression.
	I've been podcasting for, I don't know how long, but it's definitely more than three years, right?
	Somebody tells me, oh, Jack, on one of your podcasts three years ago, you were talking to whoever, and they advocated genocide, and you kind of agreed with them, right?
	I'm gonna go check.
	I'm gonna go check and find out who said what and who agreed with them.
	That's something I'm gonna check up on, I gotta tell ya.
	And if I go back and I find something that could even faintly be interpreted that way in good faith, I'm going to take it down and I'm going to address it in another podcast and apologize and try to explain and maybe do a little bit of self-examination.
	I'm not just going to go, oh, well, apparently some years ago there was some guy who was saying some shit.
	Particularly if it was me, like if I had said, like, well, maybe we just need to exterminate the politicians or whatever.
	If somebody says that to me, I'm going to find it very implausible because, funnily enough, I don't hang around with people that advocate genocide.
	Fancy that!
	But if you did find that clip and you were like, oh man, I can't believe that I put that out there, sorry.
	And certainly you would not continue to associate with me, right?
	It's so uncharacteristic of, you know, insert name of person I've podcasted because I don't want to drag anybody else into this, you know, to suddenly advocate genocide apropos of nothing in the middle of our podcast about Doctor Who or whatever.
	And so uncharacteristic of me to support them in that.
	I don't know what happened there.
	I don't know maybe that says something about Mike Enoch and the kind of person he is and the kind of people he hangs around with and the kind of things they talk about.
	Maybe it's just all a bunch of disingenuous bullshit but like I would hate to make a pronouncement or anything.
	Actually, I'm perfectly fine.
	It is a bunch of disingenuous bullshit.
	It's completely disingenuous bullshit.
	He's lying.
	He's a lying liar who lies.
	Whenever they make a, like, minor mistake or whenever they don't have a fact at hand, you know, they'll say, like, oh, I think it was so-and-so.
	I don't want to lie, and that's particularly because I've called Mikey a lying liar who lies, like, and it is, like, I live in their head written free a lot, and, you know, I really don't want to self-aggrandize.
	This isn't like the point of this podcast.
	The point was to kind of explore in more detail some of the stuff we got on the last one, but it is gratifying that, you know, I'm a meme.
	Without a name among the TRS crew, right?
	That they have to use this as a way of pretending that I'm the one who's lying.
	That I'm the one being disingenuous when it's not me at all.
	You're a spectre haunting TRS.
	Well, I kind of am.
	They know I'm listening.
	And even the fact that April doesn't even listen anymore.
	Mikey and I know, so I'm still listening.
	That's why he keeps me blogged.
	Whatever.
	I did have one other piece that I meant to add to the episode that I kind of forgot to mention.
	I do think, if you do want to talk about the trans stuff in that bit, maybe we'll wait a few more episodes.
	I mean, this might be seen as a little bit self-indulgent, so maybe we'll do it a little bit down the line.
	I would like to kind of have a conversation about like that particular clip around Magnus Hirschfield.
	I think you had some... Yeah, look.
	We've been talking for like an hour and a half now and I've got loads of stuff that I wanted to ask you about that we haven't got to yet.
	You know, perhaps particularly that.
	So I think we should make a rain check to talk a little bit more about some of this stuff at a later time.
	I would like to kind of come back to this because I mean, I was aware that there's a lot of stuff there and I'm trying to kind of give it I'm brushing past past a lot of stuff just to sort of explain it.
	But that's because I'm giving you like these clips that are kind of laden with meaning that I then need to deconstruct.
	Right.
	You know, in order to understand what's really going on.
	And I feel bad that we didn't talk a little bit more about the transgender stuff here because I mean, that's it's fundamentally vile.
	I mean, it's just that that episode is I mean, I've listened to a lot of disgusting stuff, um but their attitude towards trans people in that episode and their open celebration of their disgustingness it is one of the um is one of the worst episodes i've listened to of anything um to be fair it was deeply disturbing to listen to the clips i have to say so Somebody who's not heard it before, to have that.
	In my ears.
	I don't want to say that it was more disturbing than anything else, because they, you know, even just in the clips you present to us, they say disgusting things about Jewish people.
	And to be fair, I can present you with clips, you know, about African Americans.
	I can present you with clips about, like, various... I mean, you know, they have said it all.
	Like, you know, They have been that bad on many, many other topics, but in particular, the thing with the trans people was just, the fact that they spent two full hours on it, and the fact that it was a deliberate thing that they did, they didn't just kind of wander into this topic and start saying stupid shit, you know?
	They planned this episode, they knew exactly what they were doing.
	And it did have a particular ring to it, there was something particularly venomous and scabrous and scatological and sort of infantile and spiteful and genital obsessed about it that it was all just very weird and very horrible.
	I have an episode of Eric Stryker.
	Eric Stryker, if you're listening to this, fish, don't worry.
	We'll do an episode one of these days.
	And that will be very cryptic to everyone who isn't Eric Stryker and Boisard Boscovich.
	It's gonna happen.
	Anyway, the one thing I did want to say just before wrapping up because we're hitting an hour and 30 minutes and we've barely scratched the surface here.
	You and I used to do four-hour podcasts, but that's not what we do here.
	The one thing I would say is that Alex Nabb is a former EMT.
	He's a medical professional.
	He's someone who has a responsibility to his patients and He's now got shit canned because some of his content kind of came to the surface and some responsible people got rid of him.
	Without any other context from all the other shit that he said about African Americans and everything else and gay people, whatever, his participation in that episode is, I think, worthy of him being disbarred from ever treating another patient for the rest of his life.
	Because anybody who has any understanding of medical procedures or practice understands that like surgeries go wrong and treatments go wrong and sepsis is something that happens and you know like there's just disgusting shit that just happens from you know botched surgeries of whatever kind.
	It's just kind of a nature.
	Something like that recently happened to a member of my family.
	They had an operation and it didn't quite work out.
	I won't go into the details, but it was very unpleasant.
	It's a thing that happens.
	And nobody would pretend that everyone who went rock climbing and fell and broke their arm, and then some percentage of those people get sepsis from the treatment from that, would say that going rock climbing is validation for Hitler, right?
	You would expect so.
	That's essentially what he's arguing.
	Some of these surgeries are botched and this isn't even about like I mean rock climbing is a you know this is about like people's identities and people becoming comfortable on their own skin this is about like kind of just a fundamental like kind of reality I'm not trying to trivialize that.
	But I'm trying to say that every surgery has the risk of this and particularly trans people who, particularly poor trans people of whom I am personal friends with some number of them, who want to get the surgery but can't or who find themselves in like kind of financial dire straits and go for
	Anything that might solve their problem anything that might someone who might treat them even if you know They cut a few corners and then end up in like terrifying medical situations To use that as justification for these people should be fucking killed.
	I Cannot I literally do not have the words for how angry that makes me.
	Yeah, I'm so I'm getting emotional I do apologize but No, I'm sorry.
	They're going to say I'm just like performing.
	They're going to say I'm like being performative about this, but I actively, I can't tell you the rage that I felt when I listened to that episode and the degree to which these people need to be stopped.
	And so you ask me why I do this?
	It's because of that episode, which they are very proud of.
	It's on their bit shoot.
	They put out the full video.
	They don't do that.
	They never do that.
	They put out the whole video on their bit shoot.
	They are trying to use The existence of trans people as a reason for genocide.
	That's an explicit thing that they're trying to do.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, who is more vulnerable?
	I'm not saying they're the most vulnerable, but who is more vulnerable than trans people?
	Who has less support in society in general as a whole?
	Who is most open to attack with less support?
	They are one of the most...
	They are one of the most victimised and abandoned groups.
	And you know, like all bullies, they attack who they can get away with attacking.
	They do this song and dance about, oh, we're removed from society, is one of the things that one of them says about himself, apparently, because he holds opinions he's not supposed to hold.
	You're just doing the whole, you know, my free speech has been taken away.
	No, your consequence free speech has been taken away.
	You know, they're bullies and they go after people they can get away with attacking.
	And who can you attack with more impunity?
	And it is absolutely vile.
	They're not just attacking trans people in and of themselves.
	They're trying to use them as kind of this, as you say, this tool to legitimise Hitler.
	Who not only persecuted them genocidally, but persecuted all these other people genocidally.
	Disabled people.
	But never forget that he started with the trans people and the disabled people.
	We're going to have to do this episode, I think.
	We'll put it a few episodes down.
	Yeah, here in four or five episodes, I think we need to talk more about this and talk specifically about that.
	Absolutely, yeah, because we've underserved that issue in this episode, I think.
	So yeah, that's a definite thing.
	And that wasn't intentional, and it's not from a lack of caring or whatever, it's just we kind of went off on the... We went for the funny, making fun of the dipshits talking about the Holocaust ignorantly and didn't get into the It's just 2020 being 2020, really.
	We should wrap up.
	Jesus Christ.
	This episode is, yeah, no, this podcast is the darkest podcast in assistance, right?
	You know, like, let's do a light and funny episode of Holocaust, right?
	You know, yeah, it's fine.
	It's just 2020 being 2020, really.
	We should wrap up.
	We should wrap up.
	We should.
	No, no.
	There was a lot more I wanted to talk about, but maybe we can talk about those things in other episodes, including particularly that issue that we've talked about.
	Yeah, we'll come back to that.
	We didn't underserve it, so we'll come back to that.
	That will do for this episode.
	That was episode 53.
	Thanks for listening.
	And wow, just thanks everybody for listening and spreading the word and retweeting and sharing.
	I mean, maybe not particularly, but those people that donate to our Patreons and help us to do this that way, they're pretty good.
	I like them.
	I'm kind of amazed at the response I get from my Patreon.
	And in fact, I think we'll support this work.
	And believe me, it does make a difference.
	It does help the quality of the show and the quality of the research.
	And it does help, you know, just to sort of like make ends meet in this difficult time.
	I do have a day job for now.
	I'm still employed.
	If you can't afford it, I'm not going to blame you for it, but if you do want to support me and you want to support Jack, it is greatly, greatly appreciated.
	Yeah, I had a couple of lovely messages from people on Patreon just recently, you know, telling me, you know, I'm, you know, I'm not loaded down with cash, but so I don't know how long I can I can help you out.
	But you know, I, you know, it's just amazing.
	It's it's it really is very humbling and moving and Yeah, you know, words fail.
	They genuinely do.
	Thank you so much.
	Do not put yourself in difficulty to support us, but if you can support us safely, that is just, it's so appreciated.
	But yeah, that'll do for this week, I think.
	Bye bye!
	Cheers.
	That was I Don't Speak German.
	Thanks for listening.
	We're on iTunes and show up in most podcast catches.
	You can find Daniel's Twitter, along with links to pretty much everything he does, at at Daniel E Harper.
	You can find my Twitter at at underscore Jack underscore Graham underscore.
	Daniel and I both have Patreons and any contribution you can make genuinely does help us to do this, though it also really helps if you just listen and maybe talk about us online to spread the word.

▲