Piotr Nowak, "After Jews: Essays on Political Theology, Shoah and the End of Man" (Anthem Press, 2025)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode of New Books in History (New Books Network), hosted by Charles Cotillo, features Professor Piotr Nowak discussing his book "After Jews: Essays on Political Theology, Shoah and the End of Man" (Anthem Press, 2025). The conversation delves deeply into the philosophical, theological, and historical themes explored in Nowak's essays—focusing on Jewish history, the Holocaust, the enduring conditions of violence in modernity, and questions of identity, culture, and nihilism. Throughout, Nowak provides critical reflections on European history, religious boundaries, collective memory, and the prospects for humanity.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Write This Book?

• Nowak addresses the motivations behind writing, distinguishing between writers “who go out to the people” and those who prefer to “meet the great dead writers. They are enough for me.” He places himself in the latter camp:
  • “I wrote a book about Jews, but even more so, I wrote it for Jews and from polis. Mostly for the dead ones. To commemorate the past presence.” (03:47)

2. Central Thesis of the Book

• Nowak delivers a stark warning about the perpetual possibility of destruction in human society:
  • [04:49] “The conditions that made the Holocaust possible have not been eliminated. The work of destruction can be repeated again at any moment. And that this is characteristic of the late capitalism...”

3. The Meaning of "After Jews"

• Nowak explains the provocative title, noting its citation from Marek Edelman, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising:

  • [06:07] “The expression the word after Jews is not entirely my own... Marek Edelman... used this phrase in his book... ‘There are no Jews. There will never be any more.’ End of quote. I am just repeating his words.”

• He elaborates on Jewish identity and assimilation in America and Israel, underscoring loss and transformation.

4. Generational Memory & Polish Identity

• Nowak reflects on Polish memory, noting the distance of historical figures like Piłsudski and Dmowski from young Poles, but also the deep imprint of historical struggle:

  • [09:29] “[Young people] remember nothing. The names you've mentioned mean nothing to them. ...But for my generation, Dumovsky and Pusotski were people who wanted a free Poland at all costs...”

  • “[Every] Pole has this written in their national DNA, even if they don't know it, and this is why we will fight for our freedom to the very end.” (12:36)

5. Jewish Tradition as "Limiting"

• Nowak contrasts the exclusiveness of Judaism (“a closed, limiting culture”) with what he sees as the inclusivity and, sometimes, violence of Christianity:

  • “[Judaism] was entirely exclusive, dedicated to the Jews only. Christianity, to the contrary, remained open for everybody... but sometimes exclusive closed culture or religion is better because it is less aggressive.” (13:06–16:55)

• He points to the way difference is maintained, not invented, by Gentiles.

6. D.H. Lawrence and the Book of Revelation

• D.H. Lawrence was deeply entranced by the Apocalypse, which Nowak says influenced his worldview of resentment and revenge, differentiating between John the Evangelist and John of Patmos:
  • [18:29] “Lawrence, before he was 10 years old, read, as he says, the book of Revelation ten times. It doesn't matter how much he understood… the apocalypse lived in him from childhood throughout his eccentric life.”

7. Shakespeare’s Shylock and the Representation of Judaism

• Nowak interprets Shylock as a symbol both of marginalization and of common humanity. He praises Shylock’s humanity and legalistic obedience as “very Jewish”:

  • [20:40] “Shylock is... a moneylender, but he is not a swindler. …he protects himself as best as he can. …Shylock is a typical representative of humanity.”

  • He quotes Shylock’s famous speech: “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes...” (22:00)

8. Fascism and Democracy: The Truths in Political Evil

• Nowak explores the darker side of democracy, referencing D.H. Lawrence’s criticism and Bertrand Russell’s unease:

  • [24:04] “In democracy... you can kill your political opponent with a newspaper like a mosquito. …Even fascism contains some truth that compelled 95% of Germans to support Hitler until the last days of their Third Reich.”

• He links the logic of "soft terrorization" and the Grand Inquisitor (Dostoevsky) to modern politics.

9. Jacob Taubes and Political Theology

• Nowak summarizes Taubes's thesis: Paul’s Christianity was as much about reshaping Judaism as converting Gentiles. Paul’s innovation was “strictly political”:
  • [29:18] “The universalism of Christianity... was conceived not only as a way of including pagans in the Jewish world, but more as a tool for converting the Jews themselves to the right path of salvation.”

10. The Closed Character of Jewish Culture

• Nowak characterizes Jewish communities as self-enclosed (“The Jews invented the ghetto and shut themselves inside.”), with few converts and little intermarriage:
  • [31:55] “Inside the ghetto, their culture and religion are exclusive...So you have a closed circle everywhere.”

11. W.G. Sebald, German Memory, and Collective Suffering

• Nowak brings in W.G. Sebald to discuss the bombing of Germany, the complicity and suffering of Germans, and the silence around these topics:

  • [32:47] “It was revenge for the destruction of Warsaw...the decision to carry out air raids was motivated by desire for retaliation, anger, a typically human need for mass destruction.”

• He reflects on his own upbringing in postwar Poland—“I was raised to hate Germans”—and the ambiguous place of victimhood.

12. Polish Poetry, Milosz, and Memory

• Nowak examines how Czesław Miłosz compiled postwar Polish poetry, controversially omitting poets who died in the war:
  • “[Milosz] published poems only by those who managed to survive the war...He mobilized the living against death, against the dead. …This anthology was created not for someone, but against someone, against poets who died and were killed during the war.” (44:00–46:51)

13. Nihilism as Process: Nietzsche’s Legacy

• On nihilism: “Nihilism…is not a social stereotype, nor is it a historical accident…It has no specific date of origin, nor does it have an authority. Nihilism is a process, rather an event...something from which there is no escape.” (48:30)

14. Political Correctness and Academic Freedom

• Nowak recalled his own public controversy, arguing for the right of professors to speak common sense amid accusations of intolerance:
  • “[T]his affair made me one of the famous professors in philosophy in Poland. All it took was a little courage and a defense of a common sense.” (50:40–54:12)

15. Immigration, Identity, and the Risks of Repetition

• Nowak is wary of third world immigration to Europe, distinguishing it from American history and fearing for both cultural loss and immigrant safety:

  • “I don't want to share with them because I remember how hard I worked for it...People who came here from Syria and Afghanistan don't know it…Poland didn't have its own colonies...We owe nothing to the Third World.” (56:01)

• He warns that the “conditions of the Holocaust” have not been removed and could threaten new groups (notably Muslims):

  • [59:42] “If I do not want Muslims in Europe, if I am terrified by their presence in Poland, it is because I fear for their fate…History likes to repeat itself...they will die here.”

16. Religiousness and the Shoah

• On the Shoah: “The wave of secularization...could neither be understood nor accepted by religious Jews...the racist theory...was merely a pretext...its real cause was the unenlightened religiosity of the chosen people…” (61:28)

17. Secularization and the Antichrist

• Nowak references Carl Schmitt and claims the present era is pre-apocalyptic, characterized by the “Antichrist”—meaning an era governed by secularized values, bereft of spirit:
  • [63:30] “The Antichrist is the time in which we live. It is a specific aura of the twilight of old important values. It is a radical revaluation of humanity.”

18. Final Message

• When asked for a single takeaway, Nowak responds:
  • [66:56] “It will only get worse.”
  • When pressed, he concludes: “No, no. This is excellent. Full stop to our conversation, because this I believe… Just. This is the message of my book...” (67:00)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “[T]he conditions that made the Holocaust possible have not been eliminated...The work of destruction can be repeated again at any moment.” — Professor Piotr Nowak (04:49)
• “I wrote a book about Jews, but even more so, I wrote it for Jews and from polis. Mostly for the dead ones. To commemorate the past presence.” — Nowak (03:47)
• “[Every] Pole has this written in their national DNA...we will fight for our freedom to the very end.” — Nowak (12:36)
• “Jews are different than the rest of the world and we Gentiles did not invent their otherness.” — Nowak (14:17)
• “Shylock is a typical representative of humanity.” — Nowak (21:47)
• “Nihilism ... is a process, rather an event ... something from which there is no escape...” — Nowak (48:30)
• “If I do not want Muslims in Europe, if I am terrified by their presence in Poland, it is because I fear for their fate...they will die here. …the work of destruction can be repeated again and again at any moment.” — Nowak (59:42)
• “The Antichrist is the time in which we live...It is a specific aura of the twilight of old important values.” — Nowak (63:30)
• “It will only get worse.” — Nowak (66:56)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Introduction & Motivation for Writing – 02:41–04:45
• Central Thesis – 04:49–05:57
• On the Title "After Jews" – 06:07–09:13
• Polish Generational Identity – 09:29–13:00
• Jewish Tradition as Limiting – 13:06–16:58
• D.H. Lawrence & Revelation – 18:29–20:30
• Shylock & Judaism – 20:40–23:58
• Fascism & Democracy – 24:04–29:06
• Taubes: Political Theology of St. Paul – 29:18–31:47
• On Closed Jewish Culture – 31:55–32:38
• Sebald, Bombing of Germany – 32:47–41:42
• On Polish Poets & Memory – 41:42–46:51
• Nihilism as Process – 48:19–49:32
• Political Correctness Controversy – 50:40–54:12
• Immigration & Cultural Tension – 54:12–59:25
• Holocaust Repetition & Muslims – 59:30–61:28
• Shoah & Religiousness – 61:28–63:19
• Antichrist & Secularization – 63:30–66:52
• Final Takeaway: Pessimism – 66:52–67:29

---

Tone and Delivery

The conversation is philosophical and deeply reflective, marked by Nowak’s somber, sometimes caustic tone. He speaks candidly—even provocatively—about loss, difference, violence, and skepticism toward both political correctness and progressive liberalism. His warnings are not tempered by hope; he “writes for the dead” and warns repeatedly that “it will only get worse.” The exchange is direct, unflinching, and intellectually challenging, offering no easy redemptive narratives.

---

This summary preserves the gravity, depth, and controversial edge of the original discussion and is meant for readers wishing to engage with the philosophical arguments and warnings at the heart of Piotr Nowak’s work.

Transcript

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Hello, everybody.

[Marshall Po]

This is Marshall Po. I'm the founder of the New Books Network, and if you're listening to this podcast on the New Books Network, I bet you like to read. I know that I do. That's why I founded the New Books Network. So as readers, we need to know what to read. And I have a podcast to recommend for you. That being the Proofread podcast. Do you have a goal to read more this year? How about a goal to read more of what you love and less of what you don't? The Proofread podcast is here to help you. Hosted by Casey and Tyler, two English professors and avid readers with busy lives, Proofread helps you decide what books are worth spending your precious time on and what books aren't. They have 15 minute episodes that give you everything you need to know about a book to decide if you should read it or skip it. They offer a brief synopsis, there's fun and witty commentary, and there are no spoilers and no sponsored reviews. Life's too short to read a bad book, so subscribe to the Proofread podcast today. And by the way, there's a new season coming soon.

[Commercial Announcer]

Toast the holidays in a new way and raise a glass of Rumchata, a delicious creamy blend of horchata with rum. Enjoy it over ice or in your coffee. Rumchata. Your holiday cocktails just got sweeter. Tap or click the banner for more. Drink responsibly. Caribbean rum with real dairy cream. Natural and artificial flavors. Alcohol 13.75% by volume 27.5 proof. Copyright 2025 Agave Loco Brands, Pojoquee, Wisconsin. All rights reserved.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

So good, so good, so good.

[Nordstrom Rack Announcer]

Give big, save big with RAC Friday deals at Nordstrom Rack. For a limited time, take an extra 40% off red tag clearance for a total Savings up to 75% off. Save on gifts for everyone on your list from brands like Vince Cole, Haan, Sam Edelman and more. All sales final and restrictions apply. The best stuff goes fast, so bring your gift list and your wish list to your nearest Nordstrom Rack today.

[Marshall Po]

Welcome to the New Books Network.

[Charles Cotillo]

Good day. Welcome to New Books in History, a podcast channel New Books Network. My name is Dr. Charles Gautier. I'm your host on the channel. And today we are pleased to have with us Professor Piotr Novak. Professor Novak is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Biliousdoc University in Poland. He is a deputy editor of the philosophical periodical Kronos and the author of Shakespeare and the Ancients. And today we're discussing his newest book, after essays on politics, political theology, Shoah and the End of Man, in a new second edition published by Anthem Press. Welcome, Professor Nowak.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

[Charles Cotillo]

Professor, why did you write this book?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, books are written January 4th. Many reasons. For example, for money or for fame, or for recognition. An architect builds a house, and if he builds it well, the house stands. The same goes for a welder. If he welds well, he doesn't need additional recognition. It is enough for him that he has joined two parts together. A writer, on the other other hand, needs additional recognition precisely because of the impractical nature of his work. A writer also writes in order to leave the citadel of his own self. Writers, creators of culture, fall into two groups. Some go out to the people, draw inspiration from such encounters. They like other human beings and enter into relationships with them. The second group of the writers consists of people who are slightly sociopathic, certainly misanthropic. I belong to the latter. I prefer to meet the great debt writers. They are enough for me. I write for them. I try to give them a voice. Precisely because they are generally defenseless, they are easily forgotten. I wrote a book about Jews, but even more so, I wrote it for Jews and from polis. Mostly for the dead ones. To commemorate the past presence.

[Charles Cotillo]

If. If your assets could be said to have a thesis, what would that be?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, the thesis of my book could be stated as follows. The conditions that made the Holocaust possible have not been eliminated. The work of destruction can be repeated again at any moment. And that this is characteristic of the late capitalism. With this, with its highly developed organizational structure and technology. These are not just my fears or paranoia. You can read it in the works of such authors like Walter Benjamin, Hannah Arendt, Theodora Adorno, Marcuse Baumann, Novoselsky, Hansiona Sierra Swimkiewicz. And for instance, the French writer Alain Benzon.

[Charles Cotillo]

Very impressive list. In your preface you state that quote, we live in a world after Jews, unquote. What exactly do you mean by that?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

An awkward title, right? It sounds awful in Polish too. My readers pointed this out to me. The reviewer of this book from Time Literary Supplement, Jonathan Agate, also pointed this out to me. Let me tell the story. I have a friend who is an American of Jewish descent. He grew up in New York and graduated from University of Chicago. Now he is the director of Institute of Liberal Arts in Rome. His son was asking about my book. He saw the title on the shelf and asked after juice. What's that? He really didn't like it. He is 18 years old, so my friends explained him the meaning of it and his son said he will read it when he finished the two books he was in the middle of reading, namely the Iliad and Demons. This is not bad to be next after Homer and Dostoevsky. But my friend knew the reason why I choose this title. Unfortunately, many people, as well as the author of the review in tls, they don't know that the expression the word after Jews is not entirely my own. Should I explain them that it was used by Marque Delman, one of the few survivors of the ghetto uprising in 1943? He was the one who used this phrase in his book to get there before God. Let me quote this will be one sentence. There are no Jews. There will never be anymore. End of quote. I just repeating his words. Jews were only possible in the Polish Commonwealth because that was where they belonged. Jews in America are Americans of Jewish descent. Jews in Israel are Israelis, not Jews in the strict sense of this term. And it applies also to the American Indians. They are not simply Americans, they are anymore Indians as well. They are the native Americans who can live in reservations. By the way, there is an excellent book about it, Radical Hope of Jonathan Lear, who passed away recently. It's a pity I wrote a chapter in my book about radical hope.

[Charles Cotillo]

Professor, what if anything, does Pisutski and Dimowski mean to the current generation of Poles?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

What do you mean by generation?

[Charles Cotillo]

Well, I suppose in the current generation we're talking about people who are born after 1989.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, this is severe criteria. Look, for me, a generation is a group of people shaped by a shared experience. For instance, my grandparents generation was shaped by war, my parents generation by communism. My generation was shaped by martial law established by General Yorzelski. But there are also younger people, as you suggested, have been shaped, for instance. Let me guess, by Covid. Hence, by the collapse of the school system. And frankly, I teach young people at the university and it is terrible experience. They remember nothing. The names you've mentioned mean nothing to them. There are also football fans, communities, or to put it simply, just average hooligans. And for them these names are a call to war with system, with Russians, with another funds. But for my generation, Dumovsky and Pusotski were people who wanted a free Poland at all costs. They had different strategies for regaining the Poland and they were attracted towards different ideologies. Dmovsky sympathized with Russia, Pisudsky did not. If Poland is the crows from the Lears book. The both of them were a combination of plentykus, the chief of the Crows tribe. For me they are synonymous with the struggle for the free Poland. If you ask me what scares me the most today, it would be the possibility that my country would cease to exist again for the next hundred years. And I think every poll has this written in their national DNA, even if they don't know them, and even if they don't know consciously. Sorry, just skip it. And this is why we feel we will. I'm sorry, let me repeat it, the last two sentences. I said that I think every poll has this written in their national DNA and even if they don't know it, and this is why we will fight for our freedom to the very end.

[Charles Cotillo]

What exactly do you mean by stating that quote, the Jewish tradition, unquote, was quote limiting. Unquote.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

I used the word limiting. In the chapter about St. Paul. St. Paul addresses his words. I took them from the Epistle to the Romans, primarily to Christians, although it should be remembered that this word word Christians was not yet known. So he addresses his words to Christians and to potential converts living in Rome, and therefore it descends to Romans. In short, he addresses them to both Jews and pagans. Why the inhabitants of this particular city? Because at that time it played a role similar to that played by New York today. I'm thinking here of a kind of center of the world. It is important to know that the first Christian communities consisted almost exclusively of Christianized Jews and that Christianity was essentially treated as a result of the tensions within the Mosaic faith, let's say as a family quarrel, strictly religious and Jewish in its nature. But Jewish tradition was limited by the book. It was entirely exclusive, dedicated to the Jews only Christianity, to the contrary, remained open for everybody who wanted to join to it. As a Christian, on the one hand you have a very exclusive, closed, limiting culture. I mean very exclusive, closed religion. On the other hand, you have inclusive, one unconditional religion based on pure love. And look at the result. Jews have in fact different eyes. They see different things. They look as were. They eat different food than Christians kosher. And they also maintain cleanness in completely different way. They use Mikvah. Jews are different than the rest of the world and we Gentiles did not invent their otherness. And additional small remark, note that when St. Paul went through the vast territories of Asia Minor, he primarily stayed in the homes of Jews scattered throughout the world. He was fulfilling a missionary ministry. But despite the tension between the new and the old faith, he worshiped Christ within the walls of the synagogue. This did not bother anyone at that time, of course, until it was discovered that Christianity, unlike Judaism, involves proselytism. That is the often violent attraction to the new faith. And sometimes exclusive closed culture or religion is better because it is less aggressive. In such a culture, one doesn't apply for the force to incorporate peoples and nations to the new faith.

[Apple Watch Sleep Score Announcer]

If we knew more about our sleep, what would we do differently? Would we go to bed at a consistent time or take steps to reduce interruptions to our sleep? With the all new Sleep Score, Apple Watch measures your bedtime consistency, interruptions and sleep duration. Then every morning it combines these factors into an easy to understand score from 1 to 100. So you'll know how to take the quality of your sleep from good to excellent. Introducing the new Sleep Score on Apple Watch iPhone 11 or later required hi.

[Commercial Announcer]

I'm here to pick up my son, Milo.

[Charles Cotillo]

There's no Milo here.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Who picked up my son from school? Streaming only on Peacock.

[Charles Cotillo]

I'm gonna need the name of everyone that could have a connection.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

You don't understand. It was just the five of us. So this was all planned. What are you gonna do? I will do whatever it takes to get my son back.

[Charles Cotillo]

I honestly didn't see this coming. These nice people killing each other.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

All her fault. A new series streaming now only on Peacock.

[Commercial Announcer]

Experience the sequel everyone's been waiting for with Sideline 2 intercepted. Join Drayton and Dallas as they navigate the challenges of college life while trying to stay true to themselves and each other. Catch all the drama and watch Sideline 2 Intercepted starring Noah Beck and Sienna Agudong for free on Tubi this Thanksgiving.

[Charles Cotillo]

What professor, do you mean? I'm sorry, can you expand on why you believe that the novelist D. H. Lawrence was entranced by the revelation of St. John the Divine?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

D. H. Lawrence, before he was 10 years old, read, as he says, the book of Revelation 10 times. It doesn't matter how much he understood it, of it as a child was much more important. He never outgrew it. The apocalypse lived in him from childhood throughout his eccentric life. This is rarely remembered. Jesus, says Lawrence, at least as we know him from the Gospel of John, made a great discovery when he understood that the greatest power lies in renunciation, resignation, breaking natural bonds and ceasing to use force in relations with other people. Men was to be strong through the power of character manifested in self control. The point, however, is that such an attitude towards reality gave rise to a world of genuinely crippled, messed up people demanding revenge on the strong, independent and good. It is therefore Impossible that its author was John the Evangelist. The Apocalypse must have been written by another John, John of Patmos, someone who is filled with resentment toward the world, who desires revenge on the entire visible world. It was a true discovery of the age.

[Charles Cotillo]

Lawrence, can you expand on your statement that Shakespeare Shylock was, quote, a perfect representation of Judaism, unquote.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

In the Middle Ages, Christians were forbidden to engage in usury, so Jews took up the practice. Shylock is therefore a moneylender, but he is not a swindler. He doesn't non deceive people, but tries to satisfy their needs for a reasonable fee. He does not inquire whether someone is asking for money for pleasure or needs it to multiply his own capital. He doesn't care when Bassanio comes for 3,000 Dircuts, Shylock ask no questions. He's cautious. That is, he protects himself as best as he can. That's all. And perhaps there is nothing wrong with that.

[Charles Cotillo]

I.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Probably you also you, we. We both know many people who love money and do not want to lose it, but only to just, you know, multiply it. So in this sense, Shylock is a typical representative of humanity. I don't want to compete with the. Compete with Al Pacino, who played. In the movie Excellent Shiloh. But let me quote his famous speech, I am a Jew. Have not a Jew eyes, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, fed with the same food, heart with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed with the same means, worn and schooled by the same winter. And samurais Christian is. If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. In this respect he is very human. But Shylock does not break the law. He obeys it blindly, like Moses, and is in this point he's very Jewish. It should be remembered that in this play it is Antonio, not Shylock, who is the Venetian merchant. It is who creates a new reality with his capital. He's very rich, certainly richer than Shylock. And suddenly everything's every and suddenly everything goes up in smoke. His capital is lost. He needs some help of the Jew.

[Charles Cotillo]

What does agadi mean by stating that there must be some truth in fascism, unquote?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Apparently all political systems, Lawrence argues.

[Marshall Po]

Openly.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Flouts data, power, whether it comes from authority, money or brute force. Paradoxically, in this respect, democrat democracy isn't different than any other regimes. Its power lies in the Skillful, soft terrorization, Terrorization of minorities through intimidation. It is no coincidence that the institution of political correctness, which replaces the censorship that exists in totalitarian regimes, thrives so well in democracy. In democracy, as someone aptly put it, you can kid your political opponent with a newspaper like a mosquito. Infamy coming from the mainstream is as effective as bullet, capable of making someone or something invisible and useless overnight. In a democracy, says D.H. lawrence, Intimidation and lampoonery in every table take the place of power being its negative form. The writer's friend, Bertrand Russell, although he recognized Genesis in him, at the same time criticized Lawrence for his kindness towards evil, which he called fascism. A pornographic writer, fine, but fascist. The reason was Lawrence distrust of the effectiveness of democratic procedures in organizing a world of free people. He did not believe that democracy leads to freedom. Russell, on the contrary, believed it did. Russell succeeded in the relatively easy way of attributing the objective fascists to political opponents, especially when, when they come from anti democratic circles. Contemporary democrats classifying fascism as a greatest evil attach a moral label to their opponents. Anyone who is sent out into the world with this label has no place among civilized people. They are finished. Do you understand it? They are finished. A bullet in the head. If we accept this, we'll never understand that even fascism contains. Contains some truth that compelled 95% of Germans to support Hitler until the last days of their Third Reich. And you ask me, what is this truth? This is precisely the truth revealed by the Grand Inquisitor. Yes, people are divided into better and worse ones. Yes, for most of them, the language of moral difference is illegible and stale as daily bread. Moral values are indifferent for them. And if so, they should be treated like animals. Animals don't know morality. The point is that it is not only fascists who hold these beliefs. They are the pillars of modern civilization. Their elements can be found just as easily in fascism as in democracy. Fascism is therefore inherent in everyone who accepts the world in which they live today without reservation. It doesn't matter whether they are monarchists, a fascist, a democrat, an anti globalist or something else. In this sense, Lawrence is right. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor speaks the truth, not about fascism or Jesuit Catholicism. He speaks. He speaks it about ourselves.

[Charles Cotillo]

Professor, who exactly was Jacob Taubes? I'm not sure I'm pronouncing his name, his last name correctly. And what was his book, the Political Theology of Saint Paul of Tarsus about?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

He was German, Maybe Jakob Taube, but I'm not sure this Is it depends from the custom, this expression, the political theology of some. Paul is about Paul's return to the Jewish community. The Christianity of Paul the Apostle was part of the apocalyptic experience of the Jews. The universalism of Christianity, which is so eagerly emphasized today, was conceived not only as a way of including pagans in the Jewish world, but more as a tool for converting the Jews themselves to the right path of salvation. Let us consider how this came about on the road to Damascus. Paul breaks with the old faith. He breaks with the law, breaks with the religion of Moses, and like Moses, establishes a new people and new faith based on new kind of covenant on love and on faith in resurrection of the crucified one. And such an activity is strictly political, I would say. In the Acts of Apostles you have the story about Poland philosophers whom he met on the marketplace. This is my favorite one. Paul was well educated. Philosophers were curious what he is talking about. At first they started to talk about philosophy, then about the faith. When he admitted that his God died and then had raised from the ground, they said, okay, thanks. Let's talk later. They simply escaped. They had no clue how to react facing such a nonsense.

[Charles Cotillo]

What exactly do you mean when you refer to the closed character of Jewish culture? Unquote.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

I have an impression that I've already mentioned this briefly, but the Jews invented the ghetto and shoot themselves inside. Inside the ghetto, their culture and religion are exclusive. There were not many converts to Judaism. Jews are reluctant to marry representatives of other cultures. Incest was acceptable, as it was among aristocrats. So you have a close circle everywhere, I would say.

[Charles Cotillo]

And how and why do you include writer Sebold in your book?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

I really like his books. I like books of Sebald. But it was not the only reason why I included one of them in the book dedicated to the memory of Jews. Before we talk. Before we talk more about Sebald's book on the massacre on Germans, let's first recall the numbers. In the final phase of the war, the Royal Air Force dropped over a million tons of bombs on German territory. 131 cities were attacked, some of which were razed to the ground. 600,000 German civilians were killed in the air raids. Three and a half million homes were destroyed. It was mainly civilians who died. Why? Who decided this? Is this the logic of mass global conflict? Let's talk about the reasons that led the Allies to take the war deep into the Reich. There were none. No political or military considerations were decisive. It can be put symbolically. It was revenge for the destruction of Warsaw the capital of Poland, the only capital of an European country that was raised to the ground. So the decision to carry out a raids was motivated by desire for retaliation, anger and typically human need for mass destruction. Well, look at it this way, actually, everyone pointed out the counterproductive nature of the bombing crates from the very beginning. I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but in the spring of 1944, 95% of the German population still supported Hitler. There were no signs of defeatism on the German side. On the contrary, the air rates only strengthened and consolidated them as a society. The air rates also failed to destroy the military industry which continue to operate at full capacity until the last days of Nazi Reich. Looking at the figures cited by Sebald, one can conclude that at the end of the war, the front line, where soldiers shooting at each other had a chance of being taken prisoner, was safer place than the basement where a mother was hiding her small children. It seems to me that there have always been both in war and in peace. In the past and today, people like Russian generals or like Sir Arthur Harris who commanded the bomber forces at the time, they are fascinated by effectiveness and bear power which are expressed in the growing number of victims. For them, the goal is destruction itself and human suffering is just numbers. Since childhood, Sebald had sensed the existence of certain taboo. That something was being kept deeply hidden from him, something that was not talked about at school or at home. It was a kind of conspiracy of silence. This is the term invented by Charles Simic, American Serbian author. The first Abu subject was understandably the Holocaust. The second was the carpet bombing of civilian targets in the final stages of the war. And third was national support for the nsdap. The Shoah was not discussed in Germany until the early 1960s, after Adolf Eichmann was executed in Jerusalem. It was then that criminal trials began against minor Nazi perpetrators who were generally treated with leniency. The shame of supporting the National Socialist Party was not related to the criminal nature of the NSDAP but to its ineffectiveness. The dynamically developing democratic Germany had no sympathy for losers, including and perhaps above all its own, the Nazi who had ruined the country and handed it over to the Russians and to the Yankees. I have to confess something. I have a friend in Germany, Rosevita her name, whom I've known for almost three decades. She is Schelling scholar. She once showed me her family album. But somehow, shyly from the middle. Then I took the album and started living free. From the beginning it was swarming with brown shirts. Aunts uncles, young, old. Everyone was there. All nations, I would say, have skeletons in their closets. Closet. I was raised to hate Germans. They German gibberish, swastikas, German pride. My life was practically intertwined with World War II and German occupation. From the early age, through school, stories told by my grandma and her friends, movies, and even my childhood fascination with the Nuremberg trials. We both suffered. Jews suffered too. And in my eyes the Germans suffered as well deserve punishment for their collective crime against my nation. When they died. This was my dilemma. When I was 15, did they suffer as much as we did? Maybe so. After all, ants suffer too. But their right to suffer, ants and Germans, was a separate issue. Of course I denied them that right, demanding from the latter intuitively, because I couldn't express it. Some kind of reparation amends. Above all, I wanted them to admit their guilt and not relativize what had happened. They murdered Poles and Jews. They blew up my city. These are unambiguous facts. Don't pretend that some enigmatic Nazis did it. Batrisky.

[Charles Cotillo]

Yes. Thank you. You argue that Milos regarded him as a major 20th century Polish poet, citing the book Milos's ABCs, where an entry on Bazinski My apologies is included. Yet in Milos's voluminous the History of Polish Literature, Bazinski is relegated to a mere paragraph. Accordingly, it would not be true to say that Milos view of Bazinski is more nuanced.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

What do you mean by volumius? It is merely 300 pages book. It is taken for granted that it has to be condensed.

[Charles Cotillo]

But this copy from 1960s 68 is around 600 pages.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, Bachinsky was obsessed with premature death. Almost everyone of his poems is permeated with it. He was a great Polish patriot and poet. He was killed by the Germans at the age of 23. Milos knew that Baczinski's poetry was at least as good as his own. And he was unable to serve Poland as bravely as Bachinski did. And then Milosz wrote about Baczinski's Jewish origins. Paczyski says Biewash must have been aware that his place was in a ghetto. And he was aware of it. For him it was the irreconcilable problem of solidarity with the Jewish people, with whom he was connected not only by blood, but also by several millennia of history. Some of Bachinski's poems clearly speak to his dual loyalty, Polish and Jewish.

[Charles Cotillo]

Why was the volume edited by milos in the mid-1960s, post war Polish poetry so revolutionary? And why was the Paris based periodical Called Tura, so enthusiastic about the very same.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

I wouldn't say this volume of poems was revolutionary. Or rather, it was revolutionary in the same way that Polish poetry. I would say the greatest poetry in the world is revolutionary. I can prove this because Polish poetry is mostly untranslatable. But the scandal surrounding the publication of this book lies elsewhere. This anthology was published in the States. Milos published poems written by living poets. He therefore adopted a rather strange criterion for selecting the volume's authors. He published poems only by those who managed to survive the war, the occupation and the Warsaw Uprising. This anthology includes poets who demonstrated the survival skill so highly valued by Milos. Milos was mobilized, the living against death, against the dead. This is why authors such as Prabinsky, Barzinski, Chovy and Shenvald couldn't be included. In other words, all those who did not survive the war. During the war, Milosz feared for his life, and he was angry at those who had given their lives for Poland. He couldn't forgive them for that. Post war Polish poetry allowed Milosz to omit those poets, most of whom were his friends, who died in the uprising, like Braczinski, or in the front lines like Schoenvald, during the bombing, like Czechovic, or during the street executions, like Trubisky. So for whom was this anthology created? American critics did not notice it. Gedroch, the leading figure in Kultura.

[Charles Cotillo]

Did.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Not want it and preferred to remain silent. It seems, therefore, that this anthology was created not for someone, but against someone, against poets who died and were killed during the war.

[Commercial Announcer]

This is a real good story about Bronx and his dad, Ryan, real United Airlines customers.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

We were returning home and one of the flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Kath and Andrew.

[Charles Cotillo]

I got to sit in the driver's seat.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

I grew up in an aviation family, and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me of myself when I was that age.

[Commercial Announcer]

That's Andrew, a real United pilot.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

These small interactions can shape a kid's future.

[Charles Cotillo]

It felt like I was the captain.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever. That's how good leads the way.

[Stitch Fix Announcer]

Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way. Stitch Fix online. Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. And he sends just for me. Pieces, plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep what works and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started [e-mail] Spotify that's stitchfix.com Spotify.

[KFC Announcer]

A KFC tale in the pursuit of flavor the holidays were tricky for the Colonel. He loved people, but he also loved peace and quiet. So he cooked up KFC's 499 chicken pot pie. Warm, flaky, with savory sauce and vegetables. It's a tender, chicken filled excuse to get some time to yourself and step away from decking the halls, whatever that means. The colonel lived so we could chicken KFC's chicken pot pie the best $4.99 you'll spend this season.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Prices and participation may vary while supplies last.

[Charles Cotillo]

Taxes, tips and fees extra. Why do you refer to Nietzsche's concept of nihilism as quote a process, unquote, or quote an occurrence unquote?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, after Nietzsche, after the Enlightenment, and after the works of 19th century religious scholars, mostly philologists, it is no longer possible to be naive. It was then that highest values lost their value. We get used to call this state of affairs nihilism. Nihilism, therefore, is not a social stereotype, nor is it a historical accident like, I don't know, Battle of Berlin. It has no specific data of origin, nor does it have an authority. Nihilism is a process, rather an event, a R in German, something from which there is no escape, something like fate rising the stars.

[Charles Cotillo]

Can you expand on your statement that Grom Brovitz was, quote, the greatest Polish Nietzschean unquote?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Don't get me wrong, but I won't. This is ignatum perignatum. Even well educated people on the west don't know who is Gombrovich. Maybe except France. But even though I'm not so sure, entire mystery of his art includes in his brilliant, unique language the so to speak, philosophical problems Gombrovich has dealt with nowadays became irrelevant out of fashion. For instance, his critique of structuralism or SARD is out of date. No one cares about it. Therefore let's Gombrovich be a treasure of polis only.

[Charles Cotillo]

Okay, point well taken. Would it be true to say that you are not by any means an adherent of political correctness?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

In 2017, the mainstream media in Poland portraying me as a intolerant, intolerant crackpot advocating discrimination against people with disabilities. This is because I dared to raise the question in the high volume press as to whether mentally ill people and people with disorders can study at the university. If they do not meet university wide criteria, for example, because they disrupt the mode of instruction, all mainstream media, ordinary people and respectable Anti psychiatry lobbies came out against me. As one the ombudsman demanded severe consequences for me. Some for fortunately few staff members of my university wanted to re educated me. After about three months of bludgeoning on all possible forms, my antagonists said Novak is no more. Basta. Novak is as good as that. At the same time, many people, renown psychiatrist among them who knew the problem inside out, took my side privately, whereas most of my students at great risk took it publicly. Unexpectedly for me, I was assisted by two important people whom I had not known personally or knew poorly before the they were both eminent scholars. They immediately understood that there was a lot at stake and that it was in fact the stake that mattered, not Novak. Quite simply, it concerned the academic professor's freedom of speech. Can he be muffled or not? Today a lot seems to indicate that I'm over it. I'm not a politician, I don't have a thick skin. I was deeply affected by the attack from the tolerationists on me and on my family, on my PhD students, one of whom was a disabled person. It is funny because this affair made me one of the famous professors in philosophy in Poland. All it took was a little courage and a defense of a common sense.

[Charles Cotillo]

Seem to have very pessimistic and negative view of third world immigration into the advanced countries of the European West. Why so? And why are you not convinced by the arguments of our bal left liberal intelligentsia that tends to view this question from an opposite perspective?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, sorry, I mean, You know, maybe what people. What liberal intelligentsia said is true, but. Well, maybe for. For the United States, which was created by successive, successive waves of immigrants. Each time immigrants brought their own culture with them and thus contributed to the creation of American culture. Don't get me wrong, but your last name indicates that you also or your family came from Europe, from. From Italy. Am I, Am I correct or. Or not.

[Charles Cotillo]

Combination of Italian and Portuguese. Although my. My mother's maiden name is actually, even though her family comes from Venice, is Spanish. That's not a Latin language or last name. So you could say that from a very long perspective I come from a mixed family.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

All right, all right. This is what I. What I appeal to. I would like to stress this, that immigrants build up American culture and this is not the case of Poland or even Europe. I remember how hard I worked and how hard my older colleagues worked in the 90s. Some worked physically, others intellectually, and still others in their offices. We were rebuilding Poland from scratch. We were all coming out of extreme poverty, which Communism had brought upon us. We were the hardest and most most efficient working society, 14 hours a day, more than Germans at the moment. In 2025, the Polish economy ranks 20th in the world. Poland is also the third fastest growing economy in European Union. And emphasize this is the result of the hard work and the last of the last two generations. Immigrants come and say, share what you have with us. I don't want to share with them because I remember how hard I worked for it. I didn't inherit my wealth from my ancestors, as in the case in Germany and France. We built Poland up with our own hands. People who came here from Syria and Afghanistan don't know it. They don't understand that. They want compensation for the fact that rich Europe wrapped the Third World. But Poland didn't have its own colonies. It didn't exploit Africa like Belgium or Cecil Rhodes did. We did not invite Turks to work for us as Germans did. We owe nothing to the Third World. Different rationality, different habits, different customs. I can correct the behavior of the Polish student, peasant or worker, but I can't correct the behavior of any immigrant. Why? Because I will be accused of racism or nationalism. It is not fair. Another example. I go to the gym. Once a Muslim ostentatiously prayed on the towel in the locker room. It was clear provocation. We have never had Muslims in Poland. But I will not protest against crosses in the schools. It is part of the Polish tradition.

[Charles Cotillo]

Well taken. Why do you mean procrastinate? Some variant of the Holocaust.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

I can't hear you. I can't hear you.

[Charles Cotillo]

I'm sorry. Why do you believe that some variant of the Holocaust, this time involving the Muslims as victims, could potentially occur in the future?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

It certainly cannot be that Muslims immigrants will be considered racially inferior. This is. This is out of the question. Those days are over. Nor is it about them taking over certain professions, excluding Europeans from important eras of social life, buying up land or investing capital for their own profits, which are then transferred abroad. No one will believe that. If I do not want Muslims in Europe, if I am terrified by their presence in Poland, it is because I fear for their fate. Let me make this clear. I fear their presence not because I am afraid of them, but because I fear for them. History likes to repeat itself and not as a farce. In short, they will die here. They will be eliminated, crushed into European soil. Because the conditions of the Holocaust, I repeat this, have not been removed. The work of destruction can be repeated again and again at any moment. Don't ask me how and when. I don't know. I know that it can happen again. Please do. Microphone.

[Charles Cotillo]

Can you explain your statement that the Shoah was made possible by, quote, the unenlightened religiousness of the chosen people?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

The 20th century is the most ominous century in history. The wave of secularization is brought. The wave of secularization it brought could neither be understood nor accepted by religious Jews. This is after all a pleonasm. There are no irreligious Jews. In this sense, the racist theory of superiority of the Aryan race over others was merely a pretext for the Holocaust. It is real cause was the unenlighted religiosity of the chosen people which challenged the Enlightenment model of civilized civilization. I'm sorry, civilization. Both German Nazism and Russian Communism were trends modernizing the world. The point then is not that the path leading to the shore was impossible, incomprehensible under specific circumstances. The impossible became a path that had to be traversed by those for whom religious was a matter of life and death. And for Jews, religion has always been a deadly serious matter.

[Charles Cotillo]

You are a believer of Catholicism, Correct. Do you then believe in the Antichrist? And if so, when do you expect or anything we can expect for the apocalypse to occur?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Well, let me start from the philosophical remark. German philosopher and legal theorist Carl Schmidt noted that all political categories forming the basis of the modern world are secularized theological concepts. The state of emergency suspends the law in theology. In theology it corresponds to the concept of miracle. Partisans and terrorists have replaced heretics and act of grace is the former remission of sins, Placing someone outside the law is the former excommunication, and so on, so on. The point is that a similar translation of concepts can also be done in in the other direction. Our modern world must have equivalents in ancient theological categories. If so, let us ask what our secularized modern era is in strictly theological terms. Well, it is a short, pre apocalyptic time in which the Antichrist rules the planet. Don't get me wrong, he's no one special anyway. The Antichrist is not a person with burnt wings, limping on his left leg, dressed in bright yellow plaid coat. The Antichrist is the time in which we live. It is a specific aura of the twilight of old important values. It is a radical revaluation of humanity. Our era embodies the pure opposite of Christ teachings. Love is being replaced by indifferent philanthropy, faith by reason, religion by science and the eschatological dimension of death by ideas of longevity, longevity and good health. In such conditions, humanity is learning to live beyond good and evil, beyond any values that turn out to be a field of constant negotiation. People learn how to get by without God, and indeed, they can get by without Him. Today, God is replaced by supreme values, by unconditional right to life, money or security. Such a poor word.

[Charles Cotillo]

The only people. To take one thing away from your book, professor, what would it be?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

It will only get worse.

[Charles Cotillo]

Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

[Professor Piotr Novak]

No, no. This is. This is. This is. This is. This is excellent. Full stop to our conversation, because this I believe, you know, it will only get worse. Just. This is the message of my book, you know, and. Let me finish in this way. Okay?

[Charles Cotillo]

Understood. Thank you, professor, very much. I would like to thank you for being so kind as to speak with us today. This is Charles Cotillo. You're listening to New Books in History, a podcast channel, New Books Network. Thank you, President Novak, very much.

[Professor Piotr Novak]

Thank you. Thank you for the invitation.

[Charles Cotillo]

Foreign.

[Monster Energy Announcer]

Everybody knows White Monster, Zero Ultra, that's the OG it kicked off this whole Zero sugar energy drink thing. But Ultra is a whole lineup now. You've got Strawberry Dreams, Blue Hawaiian Sunrise, and Vice Guava. And they all bring the Monster Energy punch. So if you've been living in the White can branch out. Ultra's got a flavor for every vibe, and every single one is Zero Sugar. Tap the banner to learn more.