Michael Rectenwald on Free Speech and the Death of Academia | Jerm Warfare

My name is Jim. This is Jim Wolfe the battle of ideas. Yeah. Have you been to

Mars out of the pond or have you been to the African continent? No. You really

should. It's a different experience altogether. Yeah, it's amazing. I think I would

like to go there. Certainly wouldn't want to go to Israel. I'll definitely would

love to go to Africa. I love how you just inserted that. My correct and

world. I was just saying to you now, before we began recording, you were on my

podcast about five years ago, just as the madness began. Would you go back to

2019 if you could? 2019. That's when I retired from NYU. But it was 2016 when

the real fireworks began over there with the with you know when I when I did an

interview with the student newspaper about the social justice or what

model is called woke. Excesses as it were. And and that started my acceleration to

leave NYU, which happened by 2019. I sued NYU for libel and black

defamation of several professors who libeled and blasphemy, basically

they famed me on email to the whole NYU list. So yeah, I mean, this is what

happened with the lawsuit. Well, we settled. So, okay, Wikipedia says that it was

dismissed, but it's that's not true. They settled with me. I got a cash

settlement and I had I basically retired in good standing and I had I still

have access. I got all the retirement benefits, including health care and

also access to all of NYU's electronic stuff. So I'm still effectively like a

retired faculty member from NYU. Your timing was good though because if you had

stayed into 2020, that would have had a really good excuse to get rid of you. Oh,

yeah, because they would have tried to force the vaccine on me. They would have

made me abide by the mass mandates and I wouldn't have done it. So it came

early enough that I got out of there before COVID. Thank goodness because New

York was a hellhole at that time. And it is now again as well. But yeah, I mean

that whole history is kind of I basically rehearsed that hundreds of times, you

know, what happened. I criticized social justice on in an interview and they

forced me into a leave of absence, removed my remove me from campus. This

was all just for criticizing the excesses of social justice activism and

policy on on campus. And you know, it's bad when somebody like Andrew Doyle

who's gay has to criticize it. That's true. Were my my Louis anopolis for that

matter? Oh, yes, you know, I kind of look back to that late 20 teens with great

fondness. It was a good era of culture wars. Yes, it was. And that's that's what

really precipitated NYU to settle with me is when I invited Milo into one of

my classes to speak on Halloween. And the mayor of New York supposedly shut

down my classroom. My classroom was 14 students because they said it was a

think of a danger to the community. So that's how NYU got around violating my

academic freedom, which is just a complete misnomer. There is no such thing. What

do you think's happened to academia? It's been subverted and it's been under, you

know, for the most part, there are certain, you know, certain schools are

certain, and certain disciplines that haven't been too badly affected. Some

of the sciences have been exempt from a lot of this, but it's just been nothing

but a social justice crusade that began probably in the 1920s and just accelerated

when Trump ran for office. That's when it really became intolerable because the

campuses started to throw, you know, cancel speakers, institute bias reporting

hotlines, institute safe spaces, and so on and so forth. And made, you know, try to

make me put a bias reporting hotline number on my syllabus, which I refused to do.

I'm trying to think how far back this nonsense goes. I mean, I know in the 80s,

they sort of invented the idea that black people can be racist. What are they

called a critical theory or critical race theory? Yeah. And I mean, I don't

remember the term transgender ever being used up until what the late 20 teens or

something. Well, yeah, I think it was, you basically referred to people's trans

estates before that. And then the transgender movement, which is funded by billionaires,

okay, they funded this movement in order to, I think, subvert the family. The idea there,

if you don't have man and woman, you don't have husband and wife, and that husband and wife,

if you don't have husband, wife, and child. So you get rid of the family unit. Of course,

that was one of the 10 prongs of the communist manifesto abolition of the family. It

just did it by different means. Yes, it's funny. You mentioned that because you were a

Marxist for the longest time. Yeah. Yeah. And then whenever they came after me and I realized

what a totalitarian ideology it was and how if you crush individual rights, you have nothing.

There's no collective well-being or collective good or common good when individuals and their

rights are destroyed. So I became in libertarian almost overnight. And then I started to get into

libertarian theory. And I became, you know, I was a civil libertarian at first. Let's put it

away. And then I became a full-fledged economic political libertarian. And by the way,

I ran for president, as a, you know, I ran for the nomination of the libertarian party,

which I almost won. I won five times, but I won five times, but you have to reach 50% and then,

you know, somebody threw their support to another guy at the very end when he had promised

the support me for six months. So I was basically sold out. I think Trump had something to do with it

because Trump could not afford to lose any right-leaning votes. And what they did, I was a right-leaning

libertarian or right libertarian. And they didn't want me in the race. So I believe they paid off

this guy to throw his support to basically this guy chase Oliver, who's basically nothing but

a Trojan horse for LGBTQIA plus plus activism. That's all he did after he won was go to pride parades.

So that's what they think libertarianism is the freedom to cut off your penis. You know,

that's basically what it comes down to for these people.

What is libertarianism? Well, it is, for me, it is the first principle is the non-aggression

principle, naturally. That is, you cannot aggress against somebody's personal property.

And the second principle for me is basically its anti-statism. The state is the biggest enemy to

liberty. I've flirted with various aspects, I suppose, of libertarianism for a decade or more.

I've read Rothbard and Mises and Hayek. And I think my gateway was Milton Friedman.

The real terminus of this line of thinking from Mises to Rothbard is Han Sermon Hopper.

Oh, yes, he's great. Democracy, the God that failed.

Yes, excellent book. And I felt his analyses of certain things are incredibly good.

He revised the whole theory of class warfare, class struggle, by the way, and said, you know, Marx

was right. The history of humanity is the history of class struggle. But the rolling class is not

the capitalist class per se. It is the state and all of its beneficiaries. And I think that's

absolutely true. If it wasn't for the state, you couldn't have the kind of monopolies that we have,

the kind of crowning capitalism that we have. You know, we don't have capitalism at all.

We don't have freedom, free markets. We have state controlled profiteering effectively.

Well, Han Sermon Hopper pretty much converted me away from democracy to monarchy. The thing with

monarchy is that it's as he argues, it's the ultimate private property. Yeah, that's correct. The

state itself becomes private property owned by the king or queen. And also, the time preference of

of of monarchs is much lower than that of the, you know, democratically elected or installed

figures. It is a, in that, in the case of democracy or so-called, you get people in there that

have a very high time preference and they don't care about spending money. They don't care about

long-term projects because their term is short. So they're going to benefit themselves and

they're better than their buddies as quickly as possible and pillage the state and the resources

for their friends, which brings, hopefully brings us to the main topic here.

Well, I mean, yes, I was kind of segueing towards what happened in 2020 because this was

pretty much the event that, well, other than that World War II event that we aren't allowed to speak

about, 2020 was pretty much the event that redefined the modern era. Yeah. Yeah, the COVID crisis,

which was a elite-driven, super-imposition of tyranny on the pretext of a global health crisis,

which they started. Yeah. So, in other words, you can count on them to create the problem,

then cause the response, like, oh, we're all afraid and then come along with the

solution, this is the high-pegaly and dialectic in operation, then come along with the solution,

which is always worse than the problem. And the solution was a totalitarian

lockdown state with surveillance and what have you. And it's gotten worse even after COVID, I think.

COVID was an interesting era, though. I mean, I don't think it's over. I think it was a placeholder

in many ways, but it's certainly forced a lot of people to rethink everything they think they

know about everything. Yes, I think that's true. People started to realize a couple things. One

is there's a class of people that want us dead or utterly in chains in effect. And then the state

is not your friend, it's actually your enemy. And that a good deal of the population will go along

with this and becomes sentinels of the state, becoming sentinels or surveillance, and they will

become agents of the state, in fact, they will be part of what, you know,

a hovel called post-autolitarianism, but love, hovel, of all.

One of my guests, she spent, oh, I don't know, the greater part of the last six years looking into

the hospital daughter, just off New York. And she started out by trying to figure out, you know,

what was going on, as we were all trying to figure out at the time. And she said to me,

she said to me, I started out looking at New York's hospital daughter, and I ended up

questioning whether we landed on the moon. Once you go down these rabbit holes, a lot of things

start to come under scrutiny, of course, and you become skeptical of all the official narratives.

And it's, I think the best, the best demarcation device is this. If the official narrative,

whatever the official narrative is, your best bet is to say that the opposite is true,

because effectively they're always pushing the inverse of truth.

Who's it now that referred to as a cathedral? I'm thinking of Conblank. He refers to government

plus media plus... Man, it's just Goldbuck. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Man, it's just Goldbuck. There we go. What's

his real name? Yeah, so I was reading that dark enlightenment stuff many years ago. And

basically, the establishment would be the government plus media plus academia.

Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Curtis Jarvin. Curtis Jarvin, thank you. Curtis Jarvin.

Yeah, the cathedral is... He's academia, he calls like the cathedral. It is the, you know,

postmodern equivalent of the of the papacy of, you know, so for papacy, however you want to say it,

and the academics are effectively, you know, what they do is issue statements that are treated

ex-Cathodrum. They are treated like, you know, papal edicts as a word. And then the media is kind of like the

is kind of the intermediary between academia and the unwashed as a word, the public. And they,

you know, prohibit, they metastasize the cathedral's findings and holdings to the broader public.

But, I mean, that's very true. I mean, look how people metaphorically worshipped

Farchi. You know, he would go on TV and say, safe and effective. And they would throw out these

catch phrases and people would just repeat them like it was a cult. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, people just

bought into it entirely and then they coined this thing called the science, which was the opposite

of science, because science is open inquiry and debate and contestation. But they wanted to

eliminate that and say, science is, well, what did Farchi say? I am science. He said, I am science.

Unbelievable. Nothing like that has ever happened in the history of science. And I am a historian

of science. I can tell you that that's the first. I am science. I'm just for clarity. What is

science? Science is the experimental testing of empirical data or the derivative

deriving of empirical data to approach truth. But it never reaches it fully. It is always asymptotic.

It is always approaching but never reaching. So science is always the findings of science are

always provisional because further investigations and explorations and discoveries can always change

the findings and therefore the conclusions that science draws. So science is an asymptotic

approach to truth. I will say that. I think I will point that. Science is the asymptotic approach

to truth. But I mean, this is precisely what the great resets all about, or agenda 20,

or build back better, or whatever the catchphrases are, that they all mean the same thing.

It's about replacing critical thinking with sort of a cult like dogmatic approach to the science.

And if you question it, you're a science denier. Yeah. And climate science is the big one.

I think that the COVID thing was like a test run to see how people would respond to climate

lockdowns and climate curtailment of free of freedoms, like freedom of mobility. And of course,

all of this is being introduced and executed at the local level where it has to be in order to

function. And so you're seeing cities in the United States and elsewhere. I'm sure and

great Britain. I don't know about Africa, but they're basically moving toward the 15-minute

city model where you're supposed to not go outside the periphery of this 15-minute city where you

can get to by public transportation, bicycle, or walking within 15 minutes. And they're trying to

restrict automobile traffic. They've ruined the streets in this city where I live, Pittsburgh.

Making all these bike lanes where nobody rides bikes, trying to make it more difficult to drive.

And in Great Britain, they have zones where you can't drive at all at certain times. I forget

exactly the details, but they restrict driving in particular zones in the UK, like in London and so

forth. So agenda 2030, the Great Reset, they're effectively the same thing.

It is, the Great Reset is merely the world economics forums implementation, as the word I'm looking

for, implementation of agenda 2030 through corporate stakeholder capitalism.

Yeah, there they see, there we go. That's the hook, because people get caught up in that false

dichotomy of, well, it's either communist or it's capitalist, but that's the beauty of the

technocratic system. It merges the state and private companies. Yes, it's economic fascism.

And that's what stakeholder capitalism is. It is this idea that corporations,

will do the work that states were unable or unwilling to do.

And that is, it will, using the ESG scores, whatever they're calling it now, it will

restrict certain production. So as to restrict certain consumption along the lines,

according to these green imperatives, and it's also a monopoly scheme for these corporations,

because they drive out all competitors this way. And it's all done through basically BlackRock,

State Street, Mancart, and all those, yeah, and those three top asset managers who basically

determine who gets, you know, who's stocks are going to be purchased, who's going to get capital

infusions. And if they don't abide by the ESG, they're going to lose capital infusions. And

quote, now Larry Fink is not only the CEO of BlackRock, he's also now the chair of the world

economic forum. I mean, we already knew he was running it. He's just coincidence. He's officially

running it now. It's unbelievable. So I argued, you know, way back that actually Larry Fink was

the operative driving figure, because he was on the board of the WF. Now he's the chairman.

So that BlackRock is really the driving force of the great reset.

And I mean, speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing, this is what the world economic forum and NGOs

are in many ways, because people look at them as these innocent structures. Yeah, they're supposedly

humanitarian or, you know, environmentalists or, you know, immigration friendly and all that,

that they're actually accelerating the technocratic, the imposition of the technocratic state,

which will be in the United States and probably everywhere else under a palantir panopticon,

where, which refuses AI and facial recognition and a number of other, I don't know what else,

all the technologies that go into palantir, but palantir is the big panopticon that's being erected.

Well, I mean, palantir is a great example of state capitalism or stakeholder capitalism.

It's a public-private partnership. I mean, there are private companies that work hand in hand with

the state. Yes, they get the big contracts from the state. Trump handed them one early in his

the second term here. And now they're actually getting most of their money from state and also

from Israel. They also use the palantir in Gaza. And that's part of the way they use the facial

recognition and AI and so forth to locate people and to imprison them so forth and kill them.

So this is precisely the end game, though. Yeah, oh, absolutely. Yeah, the end game is

you want nothing to be happy and you'll be under total surveillance. Your speech rights will be

curtailed. You may not even your thought rights. Really, we should start talking about thought rights

because... Well, I mean, you've all heard Rari said that. He said that humans will become hackable.

Yes, totally hackable beings. There is no such thing as free will. He said it's a complete myth

and we can hack you at any, you know, you can be hacked and they could take over your brain.

This is what I wrote about in my novel thought criminal. I don't know if you've seen that, but

the premise... Yeah, okay, yeah. The premise there is that they use nanobots to take over the

neo cortex, which is not... I like how you call it a novel. I called it a novel because

I didn't want it to be called conspiracy theory. That's it. It's like calling the matrix a movie.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I called it a novel because I didn't want to be dubbed, you know, I was

trying to find ways to fight back against the COVID regime and trying to counter the propaganda

and essays and stuff like that. But I found that the best way to get some of these things across

is actually through analogy, which fiction really is, it's analogy. Like this is to the present

as that is to the present in the novel. So it allows people to extrapolate much more easily

about what's happening now. Yeah, but I mean, the term conspiracy theorist is kind of like being

called a racist or a homophobic whatever. It's a label that has lost its meaning. Conspiracy,

I mean, most people don't know how to weaponize by the CIA back up to the JFK assassination, yeah.

CIA weaponized it, but you know who really started this? Whole poo pooing of conspiracy theory was

Karl Popper in his book, The Open Society and His Enemies in 1944. And he called it the conspiracy

theory of society, which was a straw man because he suggested that conspiracy theories claim that

all events can be attributed to conspiracies by conspirators. But nobody, nobody that's a conspiracy

theorist so called, is saying all events are determined that they're saying that there are

conspiracies and there are. And the conspiracy theorist is somebody that theorizes about a conspiracy.

And they're, you know, so it's a real weaponized term used to dismiss people. And I've written

an essay called the epistemological status of conspiracy theory. Epistemologically, a conspiracy theory

should not be discounted automatically for being a conspiracy theory. Period.

But I mean, if you just think about it for 10 seconds, it's so stupid because when someone says,

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, right? I mean, what are they saying? The JFK just happened to

coincidentally being a car when there were stray bullets flying around. Or the Julius Caesar just

happened to fall in a bunch of knives. I mean, it's so, it's so, it's so wantipythonisk in

its stupidity. Yeah. Yeah, it's absurd because conspiracies are not only exist, but they're prevalent.

And a conspiracy is just one, two or more people. A bank robbery is a conspiracy.

Okay. Yeah. You know, you can spire with a couple other people or more to rob a bank. And the

conspiracy theory is to try to find out who did it. That's all simple. I mean, COVID was a conspiracy.

Explain to me how the whole world just coincidentally started locking down countries in March 2020.

All at the same time. With the exact same mechanism.

Yeah. I mean, there was very few exceptions. I think Sweden was one.

Well, it's what I forget. But anyway, yeah, it's been, it seems like COVID is like a nightmare that

I not remember all the details of it this juncture, but yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking back to when the lockdowns began in March 2020. And I remember thinking

I have never in my life heard the term social distancing. Had you heard the term before?

Never before. And the funny thing is I mocked it early on. I was in a grocery store when they

started using that term. And I said, Oh, I better not get too close, you know, social distancing

to a person and they did not laugh. And because they were taking it very seriously, social distancing.

I mean, that is a, that's a loaded term. Suggestive of the idea that they want to isolate you

from other people. And then it was the ad council that ran an ad called alone together.

Okay. Yes, I remember. Yeah. Anyway, yeah, it's crazy.

There's a subtle segue here, Michael, because I remember questioning what was going on early on.

I had David Ick on my podcast. I think it was April 2020. And immediately it got taken down

from YouTube, you know, obviously. And I know that you're an advocate for free speech.

What do you mean, though, by that? When you say free speech, what do you mean?

It's the ownership. So since I own myself, okay, self ownership. This is a libertarian principle.

Since I own myself, I have the right to do with myself what I will short of violating

somebody else's rights. And so free speech is using your self ownership to other things or

right things or otherwise communicate things using your own body and mind.

And I ask that because I for many years have had an internal tug of war with the idea of free speech

and what it means. For example, I don't like people talking on their cell phone in a cinema.

And I'm okay with their speech being curtailed so that I can listen to the movie.

That's a context, you know, like so say you go into a private room. Okay, so in a private space,

the owner of the space has the right to determine what's allowed.

Like I'm not going to have you in my house if you're like an antifa member and want to burn down

the place or otherwise, you know, say all kind of things. In other words, it's ownership that

determines free speech rights. So a university that owns the space or controls the space and owning

really means having control over it can can can impose certain restrictions in certain contexts

definitely. And that's a that's a property rights issue. Yeah, that's that's kind of where I was

going because it isn't the focus on free speech and misdirection. Shouldn't the focus be on

property rights? Yes, that's really what comes down to. It's a property rights issue. So in my

property or in non-owned property like public space, although, you know, that's another matter

we could get into, but in my own property, I'm allowed to say whatever the hell I want, you know,

and I can use my self-ownership to use myself, my mind, my body to utter whatever I particularly

want to say. And long as it's not an indirect incitement, like a direct incitement to violence,

like to approach other people to breach other people's rights.

But then you see because this is why I'm saying I've got this tug of war because then

you have property rights occurring all around you. So your property becomes highly localized.

You have self-ownership, that's it. And that and in your own property, you have free speech.

Which is why I was going to say, which is why you want to reduce the state ownership property

then. That's where I was going. You want to have all, that's why you want a private property

society. And that's why Hans Hermann Opposite, you could physically remove people who are

inimical to the private property society that you establish. Because they don't have the free

speech to start advocating for communism or the revocation of your property rights. So they

can get thrown out. Thus the meme physical remove property rights goes hand in hand with what's

going on in Gaza. Yeah, very much so. In fact, Israel is violating the non-aggression principle

constantly. They're encroaching upon the property rights of the Palestinians, not only their land,

but their persons. And it's also, I think, a double NAP non-aggression principle violation,

because they're also extracting wealth from the United States citizens to do it. And that

is also a property rights infringement. So all taxes are infringement. But in this case,

we're being extorted to pay for genocide. You started a group called Aezapak. Is that right?

Aezapak. Aezapak. Yes, the anti-synast American

pact. First of its kind in the world. And first of its kind in America for sure. First and only

pact that's explicitly anti-synast. And our objective is to remove Zionism from the US government.

It is not about ending Israel. It is not about from the river to the sea. We don't have any of

those slogans. What we're saying is this. Zionism in the United States in particular is the

bribery and blackmail of our political class and the extortion of taxpayers for Israel.

That's all that matters to me. I don't care what Israel thinks it is. I don't care what other

Zionists say it is because that's what it means to us. We're being extorted for Israel. And then

Israel is using that extortioned money to slaughter people. That's why I find it so narrowly so that

we don't get into discussions about, well, that means you don't want the self-determination of

Jewish people to have their own state. Now, we're not saying that. We're not saying that Israel

shouldn't exist. We're not saying that at all. What we're saying is from the American standpoint,

Zionism is extortion and blackmail and bribery. I mean, ultimately, it doesn't matter if Jews

want to homeland. I mean, Zulu's can have a homeland. Why people can have a home and Christians

can have a homeland? I mean, it doesn't really matter, right? Yeah. I mean, look, everybody, look,

I think people should be able to have self-determination. I think, you know, but they don't allow this.

For example, in the United States, there's a group setting up a white community, white only.

You have to be from European extraction. And they're being challenged by

the ADL and all these other organizations for doing what Israel is doing there, which is to have

their own. Now, Israel is not a real private property society at all in the first place then.

The Israel, a land authority, the Israeli land authority, owns most of the land and real estate

in Israel. And they rent it to people. And you get it first on the basis of your Jewish

affiliation, or I don't know what to call it, ethnicity, religio, ethnical background, whatever

they call it, they define Jewish. I don't know because to me, it's very nebulous.

Okay, so Michael, is Israel a proxy of the US? Or is the US a proxy of Israel?

That's a great question. This is cuts to the heart of the difference between my view and

Asapak's view and typically what left the Stanty Zionists say. They think that the, you know,

that Israel is just a proxy or like a outpost of US imperialism. I think quite the opposite,

actually. The United States is the military industrial arm of Israel. And we are, it's,

well, you mentioned the matrix, the best metaphor I can think of is we are the batteries

and the matrix, feeding that beast. And it is not the other, it is not that we don't get anything out

of, for example, the imperialist wars that Israel would have us fight at their behest.

For example, the Iraq war. What did we get out of that? We got hundreds of thousands killed

of US soldiers. We got a trillions of dollars worth of debt. And we got nothing but complete chaos

and then also immigration. So they caused the immigration crisis through a lot of the immigration

crisis through the displacement of people. And what did we get out of Afghanistan? The same thing

and it was done for Israel. I don't want to get into the details about why that is or how I could

explain how it was for Israel, but it was. And then the bombing of Iran recently and now the new

threats to attack Iran right now, this is all for Israel. It doesn't benefit the US at all.

And certainly the extortion of the billions and billions and billions, tens of billions of dollars

since October 23, 7, 2023 from the United States to Israel. How does that benefit us? How does that

benefit the United States that we sent them $33 billion since October 7, 2023? It doesn't benefit us

at all. In fact, it harms us tremendously. So I don't see the US imperial regime, you know,

the empire increasing at all. We're not increasing the US empire. The whole plan is to create

increased Israel's empire and its greater Israel project and its other territorial and worldwide

ambitions. I mean, look at the total imposition of Europe. I don't know what it's like in Africa,

but it's almost illegal to protest Israel. In Germany, for example, you know, it's illegal

basically to protest Israel. It's unbelievable. And in the United States, they're trying to make it

illegal too. They've made it illegal for college students effectively because they have equated

using the anti, using the IHRA definition, the International Holocaust Remembrance

associations, the definition of anti-Semitism. It is really illegal to criticize Israel or to say

that they're racist or say they're like the Nazis or to say basically anything. And that's a

working definition, which means they can change it and add to it in any time and they do.

Well, Trump doesn't like my country very much because South Africa is the only country that

attempted to take Israel to the international court. You might remember.

But I mean, it doesn't mean anything. It's just symbolic, I suppose, because nothing will come of it.

Do you mean if Trump's hatred for South America?

No, no, no. I mean the court case.

Oh, yeah. I mean, that's true. I mean, it's just, you know, I think the, you know, the ICC has

said and declared that Mennjal, who is a work criminal, the ICCJ, has said it's plausible genocide.

I don't know exact terms, but it's, you know, basically genocide. The UN has basically said it's

genocide and nothing will happen because the United States acting on Israel's behalf will veto

anything, any resolutions that would punish Israel at all, no matter what it does. It could blow

up the whole Middle East with a nuclear bombs and it won't matter.

That's what I don't understand, Michael. Why? Why is the U.S.

Israel's bitch? How did this happen?

It's a long series of subversions starting, you know, at least as early as JFK.

Yeah, he was, he was kind of neutral and then every president after that has been

dishonest. That's correct. Everybody after he was less, I don't think he was neutral actually

because he was trying to inspect the demona reactor and he was trying to make what's now A-PAC,

it was called something else then, register as a foreign agent, and then he was shot, so.

Well, you also tried to dismantle the CIA, or you wanted to?

Yes. I think Mossad and the CIA collaborated to take about.

I think that's a fair conclusion. No, I think that's pretty, I think that's pretty fair.

Okay. Trump is one of the most intense Zionists of the recent U.S. President lineup.

Yes, the mask has come off. I brought an essay and it's up on the Azapak site, which by the way

is azadashpac.com. We have an essay section and I have an essay called Zion Don,

the completion of U.S. Zionization. And under Trump, we have seen a total accelerationism

of Zionist take of Zionism in the United States policies and in the United States,

you know, not only foreign policy, but domestic as well, domestic Zionism.

So, you know, this, the writing was on the wall from the first administration with the Abraham

Accords with the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem with the, you know, saying.

Turning Gaza into a holiday strip.

Starting it into the Riviera of the Mediterranean, unbelievable. But even in the first administration,

the posture towards Iran, the Abraham Accords, as I said, and the Golan Heights annexation,

ratification by the U.S., the, you know, the no longer calling West Bank, occupied territory,

all of that. I mean, just unbelievable. There's some good essays out there on that. One is

by Jose Nino. He talks about this. I don't remember the title, but if you look up Jose Nino on

on a substack, he's really good on this and he's associated with our pack.

Do you think there's a link between Greta Israel and the great reset?

That's a great question.

I think so, because the link is the, is the Pan-Opticon, you know, what they're trying to

rat the Pan-Opticon of total surveillance and control, under a kind of Zionist dictatorship.

You know, so I hadn't put these things together until, you know, maybe a year and a half ago.

But I think that there is a definite connection. I think they're effectively going to fuse

the two projects. Greta Israel is just the regional element of Zionism. It's not the whole of it.

The regional element, the whole of Zionism is to control the governments of all the countries

in the world. And that's pretty scary. But that's the conclusion I've drawn after

quite a bit of consideration in research. You know, I infiltrated all these governments,

you know, it's illegal to criticize them almost anywhere in Europe.

And trying to, you know, last bastion, once again, as always, is the United States,

but we're under siege. We're under a Zionist siege right now.

I think it was Jury Bezmanov, who he was a former KGB operative. He said in a great interview

back in 1994, ironically, with G. Edward Griffin. He said that the U.S. will destroy itself from within.

Yeah, that's right. Subversion. He talked about the way that Subversion works.

He didn't tie it to Zionism, but I think it's easily extrapolated, you know, speaking of which,

going back to Hoppa, you know, Hoppa said that in a private property society, you would eliminate

in the medical ideologies, or people that hold in the medical ideologies would be physically removed.

They would be requested to leave, and if they didn't, they would be physically removed.

Well, Zionism is one of those. It is an ideology that is

a totalitarian. It means to, it means to infringe our rights tremendously, and it means to

extort money from us. So it is one of these ideologies that would be physically removed.

A Jewish phenomenon said to him, Zionism is just simply the right to have a Jewish homeland.

Yeah, I mean, that's fine, but the problem is, what constitutes having a Jewish homeland

happens to be starting with, you know, the Nakba, and then further into the further oppression

and isolation and control of the Palestinian region and the Palestinians,

the Constants, onslaughts against them, and their infringement of their rights, that's the whole

thing. It started from terrorism. It's Haganah, Ergon, and the Stern gang. They were terrorists.

They conducted terrorism not only against Arabs, but against the British.

When they blew up King David Hotel, killed all these British people,

British ambassadors, all kind of stuff. So the whole project begins with

the violation of other people's rights and continues on that basis. So in that sense,

it's not true that it just means the right for Jewish people to have a homeland.

I mean, they could have that homeland somewhere else that wouldn't infringe on other people's

rights. Go buy an island. Go buy, they have the enclave in Russia, which was set aside for them.

Go buy some other real estate and so forth. You don't steal it. Now, they did buy some.

To be fair, there were infusions of cash from the Rothschilds to buy properties from the Palestinians

or the Arabs. But then when they used terror to remove the rest,

just for clarity, though, because people often think that when you say Zionists,

you're only referring to Jews. I mean, in America, I think around 70 million Zionists

or those evangelical Christians. Yes. So we make this very clear. Okay. There's three things.

Not all Zionists are Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionists. Then there's a third thing.

Zionism benefits Zionist Jews. Yeah. And that's what it's for. Okay. So the other people,

the Gentiles, the Christian Zionists, they're serving the agenda of Zionist Jews.

And that's through indoctrination through the own doctrines. Yes, through their own religious

doctrine or cult. It's the whole Christian Zionist theology, if you want to call it that,

political theology is really what it is, was Zionist sion to begin with?

Yeah. Derby, Skofield, etc. Skofield, etc. Yeah. Skofield by, you know,

dealt, you know, Hunter Meyer being the main, Elyazon between the Rothschild and the Rothschilds

and Skofield and, and so forth. Yeah. I mean, you said earlier that you'd like to remove Zionism

from the U.S. government. Yeah. I mean, I think that's probably the starting point, but

possible. It's, it's, look, it's, it's a, it's a Herculean task. But the options are basically two

others, one, to effectively lay down and let it happen, to be, and to be bold those over like

Rachel Cory. I'm not saying she let that happen, but, you know, to be bold those like Rachel Cory,

or armed revolution, and that's not going to happen because it's just not going to happen.

So, and because people say, well, you can't vote your way out of this. Well, what is your

proposal? That's what I'd like to know. If you can't vote, you're saying we can't do anything

politically, we can't vote our way out of it. So, what's your proposal? They don't come up with one.

It's typically, they just allude to this idea that there's some other way, but tell me what it is,

and they don't really have an answer. So, I think that we're using electoral means. This is

purely peaceful, using the electoral system and the following the Constitution of the United States,

nothing illegal, nothing violent to remove these people from office through electoral means.

We're not talking about hopping and physical removal by, you know, extracting them and throwing

them out of the country. We're talking about voting them out of office. It is the problem is,

yeah, go ahead. Yeah, but the problem is that you won't have any government.

Well, we'd have to replace most of the people. True. Well, we're just trying to get a block

in right now in the midterms and we're trying to get a block, a small block, if we will, of

anti-signists who are going to make an abstractorist, to be obstructionist in there.

And then, hopefully, that block grows over time. And we'll work to make that block grow over time.

Well, I mean, Katherine Olson, if it's like to say, you change the world one person at a time.

Yeah, that's right. So in the case of people that won't change their ideology,

we'll just have to get rid of them, not physically. Okay, I got to be careful.

Next time, yeah, are they going to call me Hitler too or something? I'm saying this is purely

through a legal electoral process. And if they won't change their views, and we try to work on

that too on that end, try to change the views of people that already are in office. Now,

there's other lobbies that are trying to do that part too, pro-Palestinian lobbies and things

like that. And we're working with some of these. But we have a different approach in the sense that

we think, and left to Sant Designism has made it, has been ineffective. This will be real.

It's been ineffective because it's approaching the problem from the wrong side.

It's trying to let Democrats into office, in some cases, in really Republican strongholds.

And that will never happen. So what our, what our approach is is to get Republicans to go after

the Republican side of it, to replace the Republicans with other Republicans who are non- or

anti-Zionist. Because you're up against basically the whole mega cult also.

Well, they're following a part, though. Mega is breaking up because of this issue.

Mega is divided. It's fractured. I'd say there's a huge disaffection amongst the mega crowd

over this particular issue itself. Many people see the writing on the wall. It's like, what is

this? Is this the United States of Israel or what? And they, they, they see, if those who really

fall, you know, were mega because of the America first principles that Trump espoused

and then utterly betrayed, then they're going to be disaffected. They're going to be

uh, disaffected mega people. There are some other types, of course, that are loyal to Trump no

matter what he does. And that's just a cult. But there are non-called members amongst mega and

they're peeling off. And you can also see some pretty big commentators starting to swing. I mean,

Charlie Kirk was, I think, on the verge of turning. Yes, he was. I think he was very, he was turning.

He was beginning to turn. I mean, he said straight up. I can, in a text message that's been

publicized. He said, I have no other, no other option but to, uh, to, to, to, what did he say exactly

to no longer support? Israel. And you can see this with, with Candace Owens. She, I mean, that was

her big thing with Ben Shapiro and they, they kind of split up and now you can see Tucker Carlson is

also starting to, uh, to question things. Oh, yeah. Tucker Carlson's been very strong on this.

And he's, he's, they, I mean, they named him the anti-Semite of the year last year.

Uh, I mean, they even had Miss Rachel in that contest, you know, this group called Stop Antisemitism.

I really, I really find these kind of things. Don't think people realize that when you try to

like stop something, you produce, you end up producing it because people hate you for trying

to control their behavior and their speech. Well, I mean, all that you have to do is when somebody

calls you anti-Semitic, you respond by saying, I'm not anti-Semitic. I've got nothing against Arabs.

Ha, ha, ha, that's right. That's a good one. That's very good. Yeah. Very good because, you know,

this, uh, the Palestinians are semites. Okay. And they're slaughtering. They're the ones, I'd say

Israel is the biggest anti-Semitic entity on earth. And they produce anti-Semitism on purpose,

I believe, because they, and they conflate it. Yeah. They, and they conflate anti-Semitism with

anti-Zionism on purpose in order to say that any opposition to what they're doing is anti-Semitic.

And that's the total, it's a total ruse. It's a complete sham. I mean, it's a trick. And a lot of

people fall for it. What would you say then is the moral of the story here? Yeah, that's a very

question. The moral of the story is, um, what we're, we're trying to find, we're, we're fighting for

our freedom. And we have to acknowledge the obstacles to that freedom and remove those obstacles. We

have to fight against those obstacles and whatever they are. For example, if China was running the

United States, I would be anti, I would have found that an anti-CCP pack. Okay. But it's not China

running the country. So you have to identify the obstacles to liberty and attempt to remove those

obstacles. And the true value has got to be freedom and self-determination and, uh, and individual

sovereignty. The great reject. Exactly. The great no. Yeah. Okay, Michael, how can I follow you?

Well, um, on X is really where I'm the most random bunch of, so I should say, that's at rec the regime,

at our EC love regime. And then, uh, my personal website is michaelreptinwalt.com. I also have a

stop stack. You just search for our EKT rect, uh, michaelreptinwalt rect. And then our website for

the pack is azah-pack.com, azah-pack.com. And you've also got a few books going back to snowflakes

and wokeness now about the great reset. I have 14 books now. Uh, I just published another academic

book called authority and contest periodicals and British knowledge politics, 1820 to 1860.

And then before that was the great reset. Yeah. So I, I continue, I, I don't know how many more

I've left, but I still think there's a few books left in me. And there were models. And there's two

novels. There's the thought criminal novel. And then there's the kabal question novel, which is another,

that's, that's, that came in between after the great reset book.

All right, michaelreptinwalt, let me try that again. Michaelreptinwalt has been an

absolute pleasure chatting to you. Thank you for joining me in the trenches. It's great to talk to you. Take care.