Latest / NO FILTER / Joe Rogan Experience _2303 - Dave Smith _ Douglas Murray

Transcript

Joe Rogan Experience _2303 - Dave Smith _ Douglas Murray · NO FILTER

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Check it out.
• 0:03
  Speaker 2: But Joe Logan Experience Train by Day, Joe Rogan Podcast
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: by Night, all day.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: All right, we're up coming. Good to see you guys.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: What's happening? Are you going to? No headphones?
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: Oh?
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Keep the do I'll do.
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: I'm not quite sure where they ad.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: There we go? All right.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Uh.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: The goal of this is every time I see people
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: that disagree with anything that's happening, any gigantic world events,
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: it's one of these retarded shows where they're a screaming
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: as the word again they brought it. We're just talking
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: about the word retarded is back. And it's one of
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: the great culture victories that I think is spurred on,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: probably by podcasts. But these things are always like Pierce morgany,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: which is fine. You know, where everyone's screaming over each
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: other and you know there's five different people talking of
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: each other. There's never just rational conversations where you discuss things.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: And I respect both of you. I think both of
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: you are brilliant, and I thought, I bet you agree
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: on a lot of things. I bet you disagree on
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: a lot of things. It'd be fascinating to see your
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: perspectives on these things. So that's why you're here together.
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: Okay, Well, can I ask you something? Yes, sir, since
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: the war in Israel began and since the war in
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: Ukraine began, you've had quite a lot of people who
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: vary against both in different ways.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: Do you think you've had enough people on who are
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: supportive of by the war?
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: I don't know that word enough, If that's a good word.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: Let's say, let's say enough people who are on the
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: side of Israel instead of wild critics.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Well, I've had a few. I mean, I believe God
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: said is on the side of Israel for sure. Jordan
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: is on the side of Israel. Yeah, Mike Baker Hughes, Yeah, I.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: Holm and did it for like twenty minutes. It wasn't
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: why he was here.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: No, I mean, none of them and none of them
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: is why they're here. You know. It's a good question.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Do you think you've tilted one way me personally?
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: No? No, no, just with a guess the guests.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, probably more tilted towards the idea that perhaps the
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: way they've done it is barbaric.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: But why do you think that is just out of interest,
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: just because it's interested in your selection of guests, Because
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: you're like the world's number one podcast.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not. I don't. I don't think about it
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: that way. I just think i'd like to talk to
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: this person.
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: But can I just if you're going to interview historians
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: of the conflict or historians in general, why would you
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: get somebody like Ian Carol.
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: Or Yeah, but he and Carrol. I didn't bring him
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: on for that purpose. I brought him on because I
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: want to find out, like, how does one get involved
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: in the whole conspiracy theory business? Because his whole thing
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: is just conspiracy. Sure, you know, but do you have.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: Any I mean, there's been a tilt in the conversation
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: in both conversations in the last couple of years, and
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: it's largely to do with people who have appointed themselves
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: experts who are not.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Experts Emian like Ian, I don't think he appoints himself
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: an expert in anything.
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: Who's that other dude who thinks he's an expert on Churchill?
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: Oh, Darryl Cooper does not think he's an expert.
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: In fact, I think it's everybody else is always calling
• 3:28
  Speaker 3: him an expert, and he's like, I'm just a history.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: Have you ever absorbed any of his material? Have you
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: ever consumed any of his podcasts or anything like that.
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: I tried. Yeah, it's pretty hard to listen to somebody
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: who says, I don't know what I'm talking about, but
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: now I'm going to talk, or I don't know about this,
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: or I'm not capable of debating this historian, but I'm
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: going to just tell you what I think.
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's nice. That's not exactly what Daryl was saying.
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: I mean Darryl's point of view. However you feel about this,
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: darl What Daryl's saying is he doesn't really like doing debates.
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: He likes to do long format stuff where he can
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: really explain him.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: If you throw a lot of shit out there, there's
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: some point at which I'm just raising questions is not
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: a valid thing. You're not raising questions, you're not asking questions,
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: you're telling people something.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Do you think girl's doing that.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: I think there's a whole bunch of guys doing that.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: I think Dave is doing that very obviously. Dave's a comedian,
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: but he's now mainly talking about Israel.
• 4:29
  Speaker 3: I don't know if I'm talking about Israel opinion, but
• 4:33
  Speaker 3: you must be what you've seen that.
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: But that is also your stick now, isn't it?
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: Well, what do you mean by it? That's my stick?
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: Oh, you're not a geopolitics guy in general, are you.
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: I don't even know exactly what you're asking.
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: I'm saying you've decided being a comedian, You've decided now
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: to become somebody who talks about it.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: I think you're incorrect. I don't think it's a decision.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: I just think you have long form conversations and more
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: of them. It's a huge event that's in the news,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: so it comes up. I don't know the thing. I
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: think if you're on the outside, you'd say, oh, look,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: they're trying to get attention by talking about this very
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: polarizing issue publicly.
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: You do get attention from that. If you'd spend the
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: last year speaking about me and MA, you would not
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: be on my lips.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: But he does talk about Yemen constantly. He talks about
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: a lot of things and aren't in the news.
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: I tend to talk about the conflicts that my government
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: is directly involved in, which I think is reasonable to me.
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: But I don't quite get, like, what's all the appeal
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: to authority stuff? I mean, you have to be an
• 5:35
  Speaker 3: expert or I.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: Think authority matters, and I think that if you just
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: throw a lot of shit out there and then say
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: I'm not interested in the alternative views on this, and
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: particularly when it's a counter narrative that is wildly off
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: and when you get people, look, I just feel we
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: should get it out straight away. I feel you've opened
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: the door to quite a lot of people, You've now
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: got a big platform who have been throwing out counterhistorical
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: stuff of a very dangerous kind.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: You mean Darryl you're talking about Darryl.
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: Who's the other one.
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: I don't think Darryl has Derek.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: Cooper?
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: Which one is Cooper?
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: Who's the other one? There was one I just checked
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: on the way here, Daryl Cooper and then yeah, Darryl,
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: Coopery and Carroll. Look, these guys are not historians. They're
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: not knowledgeable.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: No, one can't eat Carroll.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: But then why listen to their views on Churchill's not?
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: He's not.
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: Several reasons. One is when he was offered to debate
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: the current greatest living biographer of Churchill, he said, I
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: can't because he knows much more than me, and I
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: admire his work and I've learned from it, but I
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: can't possibly debate him. That's Andrew Roberts.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: But you don't have to be able to debate people
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: to have opinion.
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: No, no, you don't have to debate people if it's
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: not your thing. But if you, for instance, well okay,
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: but if you say, I've decided that Churchill is the
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: bad guy.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: And somebody said to somebody said, somebody.
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: Said, neither Carolin nor Cooper said that.
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: Well listen, I don't know what Carol said, but Darryl
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Cooper has not said that. What he said was he
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: he jokes with his friend Jocko, who's an Anglo Saxon.
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: He jokes with him. You know, I think that Churchill
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: was the secret villain of World War two. And what
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: what he's saying is by Churchill's actions the war escalated.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: He's not He's not he's not saying anything.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: He's not just asking questions, then is he He's just
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: asking questions and he has a point of view.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: He gonna explain this better.
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: He literally says he said in the comment, he goes, listen,
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: I'm being hyperbolic, and then he once again disclaimed, he goes,
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: and I'm not claiming Churchill committed the most atrocities or
• 7:55
  Speaker 3: was the worst part. But in many ways I do
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: view him as the chief villain, as my hyperbolic, provocative statement.
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: But Douglas that well, okay, But Pap Buchanan wrote an
• 8:05
  Speaker 3: entire book on this. Is he not allowed? Is he
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: not an expert? Is he not allowed to beat?
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: It's not an expert. He can be interviewed. I've watched
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: Pat Buchanan debate. I watched Pat Buchanan debate against Churchill historians,
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: and he was absolutely leveled because he doesn't know what
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: he's talking about.
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: When did Pap Buchanan debate and get.
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: Well about twenty years ago. I'm just debated against Andrew
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: Roberts and several other historians intelligence squad in London. I
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: was there. He didn't know what he was talking about.
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: He had a contrary view, and it was interesting and
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: stimulating to hear. But if you only get the contrary view,
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: which is isn't it fun If we all pretend Churchill
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: was the bad guy of the twentieth century, at some point,
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: you're going to lead people down a path where they
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: think that's the view, and that's horseshit of the most
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: profound kind.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: I don't think that's what he's trying.
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: I think that's exactly what they're doing. And the problem
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: is is that because you, I mean, your own platform
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: has come about because you're very successful comedian, are much
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: more and you do ask questions and you are interested.
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: But there are a lot of people who have come along,
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: partly I think, because they've come on this show, who
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: have come along and they've decided I can play this
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: double game. On the one hand, I'm going to push
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: really edgy and frankly sometimes horrific opinions. And then if
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: you say that's wrong, they say, I'm a comedian. How
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: do you tell me I'm just a comedian.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: What horrific opinions that's wrong are you talking about? Specifically?
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: Once, guys like this get into very obvious stuff, which
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: is guys like the ones I'm describing.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: You very listened to Darryl to really understand what he said.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: If you take his Daryl's words out of context, Daryl
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: has some of the most nuanced, balanced and charitable views
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: on all the figures in history, well, particularly Hitler. Seems no, no,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: you're wrong, you're wrong. He doesn't what did he call him?
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: How did he describe him?
• 10:06
  Speaker 3: I think he compared him to a metht out psychopath
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: who was holding an entire nation of people hostage.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: I believe.
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: He also said on here that he was an anti
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: Semitic until the Holocaust. There were no speeches of Hitler's
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: in the nineteenth a.
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: No, he said he was not public.
• 10:27
  Speaker 3: He said he was downplaying it to win. He said
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: there was a period where he was downplaying it to
• 10:31
  Speaker 3: win over popular support.
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: In Jermy yeah, was sorry. There is no historian of
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: World War Two who thinks that Hitler was downplaying antisemitism
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: in the nineteen thirties. That was what he was doing.
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: He wrote a book about it in the nineteen twenties,
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: he got to power on it, and he grew his
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: power on the back of it. The idea that you
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: can argue that in the nineteen thirties Adolf Hitler was
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: downplaying the antisemitism, like, there's no historian who would agree that.
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: So why would you throw out the idea that in
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: the nineteen thirties Hitler was not being anti semitic in public.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: That was what he was doing. In public, He announces
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: to the German Parliament what he wants to do. So
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: when you're throwing out claims like he was keeping it
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: down in the nineteen thirties. First of all, what are
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: you doing? And secondly why?
• 11:24
  Speaker 3: Okay? I mean, I think that it's kind of horrid
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: because I don't even know exactly what Daryl's point on
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: that was, and so I'm not really in a position
• 11:32
  Speaker 3: to argue what he was saying. They are I don't
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: think you're giving him the most charitable interpretation.
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: I don't need to give him the most charitable interpretation
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: to be able to see.
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: I think you're strong learning him.
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: I should say, look, anyone can look up what he
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: said on this show and others what these two guys
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: in particular said on repeated podcasts with both of you.
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: It's an attempt to downplay Hitler and always to do
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: down Church. No, I said in conversations with you and others.
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: This is the stick of these guys. They've decided it's
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: edgy and funny, and I think this is very, very
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: interesting and also very dangerous because we live in an
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: era and now that the writer's got some mojo. Back
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: in America, we saw years of crazy left over each
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: where they tried to make us all say the craziest
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: things and completely predictably, there are now figures on the
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: right playing with really dark and ugly stuff on their side.
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: I agree the mainstream, I don't think. I think it's
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: partly being mainstream by the two people I just described,
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: And both of you have kept speaking to these people
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: and you don't get on the historians who know about this,
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: and that that's just alarming to me.
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: Well, can I just say so because I kind of
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: do agree with part of what you said there, Like,
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: I do think it is true that almost as a
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: reaction to like the woke insanity that we've seen on
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: the left, and I think literally I think nobody has
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: been a more effective critic of that than you. I
• 13:04
  Speaker 3: do think there has kind of been a right wing
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: reaction that has embraced UH racialism and is dangerous and
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: not a good pattern.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: Flirting with denial.
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: And I think you're wrong to include Darryl in that group. Now.
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: The other thing is, I'm sorry, Maye, I'm misunderstanding what
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: you're saying. You're saying people that I've had conversations with
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: the holocaustst Well, who are the two guys?
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: Daryler.
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: I've never podcasted with Ian Carroll. I have podcasted with
• 13:37
  Speaker 3: Darryl Cooper once and there he absolutely did not downplay
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: any of the Nazi atrocities at all, and I would also,
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: I would I think that if we're zooming out here
• 13:46
  Speaker 3: a little bit, maybe this is kind of part of
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: the disconnect broadly speaking, in American culture, the idea that
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: it has not been driven into people enough that the
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: Nazis were bad, and that Adolph Hitler was a He
• 14:00
  Speaker 3: is literally the modern devil. He is much more so
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: than the actual devil. Adolf Hitler is what's viewed as
• 14:07
  Speaker 3: the most evil thing, to the point that, I mean,
• 14:10
  Speaker 3: just my entire life growing up, if there was a
• 14:12
  Speaker 3: guy who sold soup on Seinfeld who was like authoritarian,
• 14:16
  Speaker 3: he is a souper Nazi, everyone was Hitler. The Left
• 14:19
  Speaker 3: called George Bush Hitler, and they called Obama Hitler, and
• 14:22
  Speaker 3: they called Trump Hitler. Every single enemy that we've gone
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: to war with always called Hitler. Saddam Hussein's the new Hitler.
• 14:29
  Speaker 3: Malmore Kadaffi is the new Hitler, Putin's the new Hitler.
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: It is so so the idea that like, we haven't
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: driven into people enough. I mean, Adolf Hitler wasn't.
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying just as
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: the left likes to play with very dark, ugly stuff,
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: and they've done it for decades. They have done They
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: have played down Chairman Mao's murder of the Chinese throughout
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: his ear and power. They played down Stalin. They still
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: march on occasions with posters of Lenin. They they've spent
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: decades trying to do down evils that were done on
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: their side. And I would suggest that one of the
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: things that is going on at the moment is despite
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: or maybe because of, what you just describe, there are
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: movements now on the right in America, subcultures, including people
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: who follow both of you, who are very interested in
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: playing with this absolute, beyond the pale thing. Why somebody
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: like Jake Shields wants to play around with Holocaust denial? Why?
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: I can't answer for Jake Shields. I don't know.
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: Why do you think have no idea? I think I'm
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: telling a lot of people get captured by this by audience,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: Captured by their audience. Yeah, I think that's the thing.
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: You get a lot of positive reinforcement from a bunch
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: of twisted people.
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: Well, it's also I mean, it's there's something about Michael
• 15:55
  Speaker 3: Malice had that great line he goes, when you take
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: the red pill, you're supposed to take one and not
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: swallow the whole bottle. And I think there's like this
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: dynamic what happens is and then of course people know
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: the red pill is the analogy from the matrix, the
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: idea that you wake up to realizing that so much
• 16:10
  Speaker 3: of the stuff you believed was bullshit propaganda and it's
• 16:13
  Speaker 3: all lies. And this is a real danger when the
• 16:17
  Speaker 3: establishment and the institutions are all caught with their pants
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: down having sold a bunch of very consequential policies based
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: on lies. And then once people realize that, they go, well,
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: what else have they been lying to me about? And
• 16:30
  Speaker 3: then they almost want to look into every single thing
• 16:32
  Speaker 3: and go, yeah, I think the whole thing was lies.
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: Now I agree with you, there's danger in that, and
• 16:36
  Speaker 3: I think that there are some things that then people
• 16:38
  Speaker 3: jump to conclusions that are totally wrong. But I guess
• 16:42
  Speaker 3: I tend to look at that and go, well, then
• 16:44
  Speaker 3: maybe the people with power, not random podcasters, but like
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: the people with real power, should do a better job
• 16:51
  Speaker 3: of not lying through their fucking teeth about everything.
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: Well, maybe you have power maybe you have power, both
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: of you. We live in an era where podcasters have
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: a lot of power. If you go on a podcast
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: with Jake Shields, and Jake Shields goes onto another podcast
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: and says he doesn't think six million Jews were killed
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: in the Holocaust, What do you think is happening there?
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: That's an exercise of power, okay, A and I agree
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: with you about the breakdown of trust. Absolutely. We have
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: lived through an era where in real time we saw
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: something called a conspiracy, the lab leak, which turns out
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: to be true as you and others said it might
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: be from the beginning.
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: I find that to be very racist.
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: And it used to be when we were saying that
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: the it was likely that the COVID variant had come
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: out from the place making COVID.
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: Very exactly seemed like it seemed like it was possible
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: to us. By the way, ask yourself this, who has
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: access to your medical history? In theory is just you
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: and your doctor, But in real hundreds of shady companies
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: called data brokers are keeping tabs on every symptom you google,
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: every treatment you research, and every pre existing condition they
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: think you might have. That's valuable intel for advertisers and
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: insurance companies who will take any excuse to raise your premiums.
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: But there's a way to get your privacy back, and
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: that is with Express VPN. With ExpressVPN, one hundred percent
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: of your online activity is rerouted through secure, encrypted servers.
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: This makes it impossible for third parties to invade your privacy.
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: ExpressVPN also hides your IP address, which is the number
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: used to identify you on the Internet. Without your IP address,
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: data brokers can't use it to track and sell your activity. Plus,
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: ExpressVPN is easy to use. It just takes one click
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: and it works on all your devices, phones, tablets, desktops,
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: even TVs and on up to eight devices at the
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: same time. This is why Express VPN is the number
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: one rated VPN by the experts at c net and
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: The Verge and the Best Part. Podcast listeners can get
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: four extra months of Express VPN for free at express
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: vpn dot com, slash Rogan, or by tapping the banner.
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: And if you're watching on YouTube, you can get your
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: four free months by scanning the QR code on screen
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: or by clicking the link in the description I was I.
• 19:29
  Speaker 3: Was referencing the New York Times calling the labla races,
• 19:32
  Speaker 3: which is just the funniest thing ever that they go,
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: it's racist to think that there was a sophisticated lab
• 19:38
  Speaker 3: where they were developing like gain of function research, and
• 19:40
  Speaker 3: you go, No, what happened is these freaks were eating bathheads. Wait,
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: that's not racist. The other one was racist?
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: Well that one that one fell upon in front of
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: our eyes. Well it's you. And I've said repeating, it's
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: kind of inevitable to me that if you see something
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: that is called the racist conspiracy theory fall apart and
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: become also what we used to call true in a
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: few years, it's likely to blow a lot of people's minds.
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: But the question then is do you help those minds
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: that have been blown blow themselves out some more by
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: doing a whole load of other conspiracy stuff. Do you
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: decide to go, Hey, what else have we been lied to?
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: Maybe Churchill wasn't a great guy. Maybe Hitler wasn't such
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: a bad guy. Maybe the Holocaust that.
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: No one is saying. Maybe Hitler wasn't such.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: A bad ads saying that no one was saying. In
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: the nineteen thirties, Hitler the antisemitism down.
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: But that's not what he's saying. What he was saying
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: is that he didn't do it as publicly he was
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: doing it in meetings because the support for that kind
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: of thinking wasn't as ubiquitous as it was is.
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: I've seen this. I've seen this before. I know exactly
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: what these guys are drinking. They're drinking a couple of
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: very very discredited historians like David Irving, and they are
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: just regurgitating it. And it has always been the same thing.
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: It is always an attempt to minimize Hitler's anti Semitism actions.
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: Eventually down the road you get to minimizing his actual
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: involvement in the Holocaust, and then you can you.
• 21:20
  Speaker 3: Can't say that, actually what you're what you're guilty of
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: here is kind of similar to I think something that
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: the woke left has done, which is this concept creep
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: where you're talking about some people online who are doing
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: this thing, and then you're lumping in other people with them. Listen,
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: I'll just say this right now. Daryl Cooper is currently
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: I believe almost finished or he's working on a big
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: World War two series, and when this comes out, it's
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: going to be on We Can See Wee podcast. Yeah,
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: he does long form podcasts. When when this comes out,
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: I am quite confident to say beforehand that if you're
• 21:53
  Speaker 3: going into it expecting him to be downplaying the atrocities
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: of the Nazis or downplaying the evil things, that you're
• 22:00
  Speaker 3: going to be disappointed.
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: Point is, why are we even talking about this guy?
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: Because you brought him, Yes, because he comes on podcasts
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: like this. My point is, this is not a serious history. No no, no,
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: no historian.
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: He's been he never, never claims to be. He's been
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: doing these long form podcasts on these subjects for over
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: a decade. And if you go back to twenty and
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: fifteen and listen to Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem,
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: it's an incredible piece. And it's how many hours long?
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: Thirty something, and it literally starts from the persecution of
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: the Jews, where they're being driven out of Europe. It's
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: like this horrific account of what happens to these people.
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: It's what he's trying to do is paint a picture
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: of how the world goes mad and how the world
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: goes sideways. And he's doing it from the perspective initially
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: of these Jewish people that are living in Europe that
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: all of a sudden, their neighbors are turning on them,
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: and they're being intact like it's incredibly charitable. But what
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: he's trying to do is show what happens to human
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: beings when they're confronted with unbelievable atrocities and how things
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: go so incredible side.
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: Lots of people have written and spoken about that. So
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: why is he not allowed to He is allowed to,
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: so when he is allowed to, I'm saying that there
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: is a there's a weird way in which figures like him,
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: whose ideas are not be encountered when they are raised,
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: are given platform after platform to spread their views. They
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: are welcome to those platforms. I'm not saying they shouldn't
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: be platformed and saying these are very very fringe figures
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: who are pushing ideas that are either debunked now, have
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: been debunked before, or they will not stand up against
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: somebody who disagrees with them.
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: Oh okay, I would just say, maybe this is the
• 23:47
  Speaker 3: disconnect here when you say there's like not pushback. Darryl's
• 23:51
  Speaker 3: one line on Tucker Carlson, this one line where he
• 23:54
  Speaker 3: himself said he was being hyperbolic and kind of says
• 23:57
  Speaker 3: this to Proud and his buddy got more pushback than
• 24:00
  Speaker 3: any one line I've ever heard on a podcast. There
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: were numerous articles written by historians, numerous shows that covered it,
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: people went through their Twitter threads about it. So I
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: don't exactly get your point, like there was lots of pushbacks.
• 24:13
  Speaker 3: If you're saying he should go and debate somebody who's
• 24:16
  Speaker 3: giving him pushback on that, okay, maybe I also think
• 24:19
  Speaker 3: it's reasonable.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: For him to do.
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: I think it's weird to mainstream very fringe views constantly
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: and not give another side. I think that's weird.
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, okay, I think there's a little bit
• 24:31
  Speaker 3: of a contradiction here. You're saying now that these are
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: fringe views, but then you're also saying that these are
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: enormously powerful.
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: Contradiction. Let me clear it off if you think there is.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: I think there are very fringe views that have become
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: mainstreamed on the right.
• 24:45
  Speaker 3: But then aren't they not fringe by definition?
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: Sure you can play in a pistemological game.
• 24:49
  Speaker 3: No, I'm no, I'm just saying, what's you don't understand
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: the concept? Don't you that fringe ideas become mainstreamed? Okay?
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: Sure, so that's it.
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: Okay, I still I'm not exact exactly. So you're saying
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: that what Joe shouldn't have Daryl Cooper are I'm saying
• 25:04
  Speaker 3: that you should.
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: Debate that there will have that if you mainstream very
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: very fringe views which are easily able to be debunked
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: if you if you, if you mainstream them, at some
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: point that view that was so fringe will be what eager,
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: very uh disconnected, unhappy people are going to start playing
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: with two And if if these people are such experts
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: in how you see a society go weird, they can
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: look at what is happening to a portion of the
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: right everywhere on this stuff. There is a portion of
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: the right across the West that is playing this very
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: dark game, and they're doing it deliberately, and you can't
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: not be aware of that. I agree with that.
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: I don't think Daryl Cooper is doing that, but I
• 25:51
  Speaker 3: do agree with your your characterisation. Do you think it's
• 25:54
  Speaker 3: a pretty important distinction there.
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: You're just taking this one statement and then this Worries
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: trying to joke around with his buddy, this this Churchill statement,
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: and this is.
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: Because he basic and these other guys are all doing
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: the anti Churchill stuff now.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: But he's not doing an anti Churchill stuff.
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: He and the other Churchill.
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: Churchill was the author of this whole Operation Unthinkable right
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: where they wanted to use the Nazis to invade Russia.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: Wasn't that Churchill? Is that not true?
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: We're gonna have to get into the weeds on Churchill.
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: There is always going to be a corner which you
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: can get me on on a bit of Churchill.
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: But that's the point. You'd have to say, that's the point,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: which is a comprehensive view.
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Churchill was never working with the Germans to invade.
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: No, no, no, this is a plan that was drawn up.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: Do you do you know about Operation pull it up, Jamie.
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: Operation Unthinkable was at the end of the war. I
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: believe Churchill was concerned about the rise of Russia in
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: the rise of the Soviet Union, and the idea was
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: And we'll find out what the historical facts are about this.
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: Operation Unthinkable the name given to two related possible future
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: war plans developed by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: against the Soviet Union during nineteen forty five. The plans
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: were never implemented. The creation of the plans was ordered
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on May nineteen
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: forty five and developed by the British Armed Forces Joint
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: Planning Staff in May nineteen forty five the end of
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: World War Two in Europe. One plan assumed a surprise
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany to oppose
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: the will the United States imposed, rather the will of
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: the United States and the British Empire upon Russia. The
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: will was qualified as a square deal for Poland, but
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: added that that does not necessarily limit the military commitment.
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: The assessment, signed by the Chief of Army Staff on
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: nine June nineteen forty five, concluded, it would be beyond
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: our power to win a quick but limited success, and
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: we would be committed to a protracted war against heavy
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: odds the cause.
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: This is okay. First of all, I never do Wikipedia.
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: That's okay, that's okay, this is okay. But first of all, yes,
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: at the end of the war and a plan requested
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: that wasn't seen through that suggests that after the defeat
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: of Nazism, communism of the Soviet form is also going
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: to be a threat to Europe. Was simply an evidence
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was obvious. True, It's what Churchly worried
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: about throughout the forties, worried about it in Alta, worried
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: about it everywhere. I'm sorry, but I have to return
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: to this point that this man manages to do one
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: of the most heroic things in human history in standing
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: alone against evil in its most concentrate form, and he
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: does about as much as any human being can do
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: to save the civilized world. If you just park that
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: and you go on to a plan in ninety forty
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: five to try to counter Soviet domination of Europe, you
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: see what I'm saying. This is but this is not
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: doing something in the round.
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's also Look, I mean, look, I'm not even
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: like the ex I'm not at all the expert on
• 29:17
  Speaker 3: World War two, and I'm not like gonna debate with
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: you about World War Two. But I would say that
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: like that is, there's a lot of room for nuance
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: and disagreement with what you just said. You know, in
• 29:29
  Speaker 3: the twentieth century we had two World wars. They're the
• 29:32
  Speaker 3: worst thing, objectively speaking, the worst thing that's ever happened
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: in the history of the world, and the Second World
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: War is the biggest blood bath in human history, and
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: it ended with handing the man who you just mentioned,
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: Joseph Stalin half of Europe. So listen if you want
• 29:47
  Speaker 3: to argue, I'm Jewish in my of German descent, so
• 29:50
  Speaker 3: like I'm not against the argument that it was the
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: Nazis had to be defeated and that was the most
• 29:54
  Speaker 3: important thing. But there still is just the basic facts
• 29:58
  Speaker 3: that it was a It almost couldn't have gone worse.
• 30:01
  Speaker 3: It was like just a nightmare for civilization. And if
• 30:05
  Speaker 3: people want to look back at that and go, man,
• 30:07
  Speaker 3: was there any other way this could have been handled?
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: Was there any other way? Were there blunders that were made? Here? Now? Personally,
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: what I feel much more comfortable arguing would be that
• 30:17
  Speaker 3: I try to blame everything I can on Woodrow Wilson
• 30:19
  Speaker 3: as much as I can, because also he created the
• 30:20
  Speaker 3: income tax on the Federal Reserve and did so much
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: to damage my country. But I think American entry into
• 30:26
  Speaker 3: World War One was really a disaster, and imposing the
• 30:30
  Speaker 3: Treaty of Versailles on Germany was a disaster. I also
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: think that's kind of fairly mainstream history, Like that's not
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: a particularly controversial view that like imposing the Treaty of
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: Versailles on Germany ended up in disaster.
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: Well no, except that, as Martin am has said, the
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: only way to not get to the Treaty of Versailles
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: would be for Germany to win World War One.
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: But yeah, yeah, but we're not talking about the Nazis
• 30:51
  Speaker 3: winning the war. We're talking about you know, listen, I
• 30:54
  Speaker 3: think that.
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: Secondly, sorry, I just have to address that fundamental You say,
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: the outcome of World War two and everything happened, and
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: it was the worst thing that's ever happened, and the
• 31:06
  Speaker 2: worst thing imaginable, worst possible outcome you said just about
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: you said worst possible outcome. Let me give you a
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: much worse possible outcome. Hitler wins, right, Okay, so it's
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: not the worst possible outcome.
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: I mean that's true, listen, But okay, Hitler, Yes, okay,
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: I'm not saying you can't dream up a worse outcome.
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: I'm saying what you have dreaming up, that's just what
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: my country and others.
• 31:25
  Speaker 3: When what did end up happening was the sixty million
• 31:29
  Speaker 3: people died, including the Holocaust, and then Joseph Stalin takes
• 31:32
  Speaker 3: half of Europe. So okay, fine, I should I'll correct
• 31:35
  Speaker 3: that there is a worse outcome, right, but that's not
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: a great one.
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: No, nobody said it was. This is like, it's a
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: very weird argument that you now hear about this, the this,
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: this attempt to revision this, and I know why it's happened.
• 31:47
  Speaker 3: I don't think I don't think there's revision.
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: I think there is, but this this attempt to sort
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: of say, look, you know, the end of World War two,
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: what have we got? Stalin has half of Europe? What
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: was the point? And so on. That's that's going on.
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: That's going on, and there are people who are feeding it.
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: That argument is very similar. This particular school of as
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: it were, history is doing something that I've seen happening
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: with American history as well, particularly with Lincoln. Lincoln's an
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: interesting comparison to make with Churchill on this. There are
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: people who will criticize Churchill for mistakes made not hard
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: to do, quite hard not to make mistakes while fighting
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: at a war of total annihilation against your country. People
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: will say, oh, he didn't sort this out in ninety
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: forty five. You know, it's rather like Lincoln. He didn't
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: solve every problem in the world for all time. But
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: he solved a hell of a big problem for his time,
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: and that requires some kind of generosity of spirit and
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: understanding in hindsight as opposed to I will find something
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: that he did that I wouldn't have done, because if
• 32:56
  Speaker 2: I'd have been running the British Empire nineteen thirty nine ninety,
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: I know exactly how to do it, and I don't
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: known how to hold the whole thing together, and I'd
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: have kept styling back and he'd have been great at Yolta.
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: And this is.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: But I don't think anybody's saying that.
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with you.
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: I think there's a tendency of like Woke left kids
• 33:12
  Speaker 3: to do this, But I don't think that's what certainly
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: not what I'm saying, and I don't think what Daryl's saying.
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: I do also think that one of the bigger, kind
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: of the bigger picture dynamics to all of this is
• 33:24
  Speaker 3: that we have at least since nine to eleven been
• 33:28
  Speaker 3: in a state of perpetual war. And all of these
• 33:32
  Speaker 3: wars have been disasters. They have been so many lies
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: involved in selling all of them. I mean, the whole
• 33:40
  Speaker 3: Iraq war, the whole war in Afghanistan, just lying the
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: whole way through. I mean I remember literally having conversations
• 33:46
  Speaker 3: with green Berets in the middle of the war in Afghanistan,
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: and they're like, George W. Bush is telling you that
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: the army we're building up there is really successful. This
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: thing's gonna fall in a week without us. And then
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: all through the Obama administration it's just like lie after
• 34:00
  Speaker 3: lie after lie with disastrous wars. And so this does
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: create a fertile ground for people to say I wonder
• 34:06
  Speaker 3: if they were lying about all these wars. Sure, again,
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: I'm not really trying to argue about World War Two.
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: I'd rather argue about the wars. I think the interesting
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: question is whether you're busy watering.
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: It, which should you not talk about mistakes that were
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: made overall?
• 34:19
  Speaker 2: Absolutely okay, you should absolutely right all four go back
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: and looking at missus.
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: So what are you what is your argument?
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: Then it's a very weird thing to go back zone
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: in on a man say this one thing is a
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: mistake and should characterize him, and you ignore everything.
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: You're taking him out of context. When you're talking about Darryl,
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: who's done what was it thirty plus hours?
• 34:40
  Speaker 2: So what thirty plus hours? But you take it you
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: do that.
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: In a week, UFC three point fourteen is headed to
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: South Beach and it won't be all glitz and glamour,
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: but the stars will be out. Don't miss any of
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: the action at Draftking Sportsbook, the official sports betting partner
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: of the UFC. It promises to be another banger of events,
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: especially the featherweight main event between two evenly matched fighters,
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: Alexander Volkanowski and Diego Lopez. It should be wild first time.
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: Just pick something simple like a fighter to win and
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: make your pick. It's that simple. And if you're new
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: to DraftKings, listen up. New customers can bet five bucks
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: to get one hundred and fifty dollars in bonus bets
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: instantly step into the octagon with DraftKings Sportsbook. Download the
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: Draftking Sportsbook app now and use the code Rogan. That's
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: code Rogan for new customers to get one hundred and
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: fifty dollars in bonus bets when you bet just five
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: bucks only on DraftKings. The Crown is yours.
• 35:37
  Speaker 4: Gambling problem called one in t en Dred Gambler in
• 35:39
  Speaker 4: New York called eight seven seven eight Hope and wire
• 35:41
  Speaker 4: text hopin y four six seven three six nine in Connecticut.
• 35:45
  Speaker 4: Help is available for problem gambling called eight eight eight
• 35:47
  Speaker 4: seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit CCPG
• 35:50
  Speaker 4: dot org. Please play responsibly on behalf of Boothill Casino
• 35:53
  Speaker 4: win Resorting Kansas twenty one on over agent Eligibility varies
• 35:56
  Speaker 4: by jurisdiction, void and Ontario New customers only. Bonus Betsy
• 36:00
  Speaker 4: Spire one hundred and sixty eight hours after issuance. Four
• 36:02
  Speaker 4: additional terms and responsible gaming resources see dknng dot co
• 36:06
  Speaker 4: slash audio.
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very it's very very different. It's very different.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: He's not doing a podcast like talking to people.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: Okay, nor is he doing scholarly work, nor is he
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: working in the archives. Clearly, come on, I mean this
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: is he is not the historian of our era.
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: He's not complaining me to be.
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: This is the thing, Joe, This is like punching jelly.
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: But work what I'm saying, because I don't need to
• 36:30
  Speaker 2: consume endless versions of a revisionist history. I understand where
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: this convision is history.
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: If you listen to his work, it's not revisionist history.
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: He's basing it on historical But yeah, I know.
• 36:42
  Speaker 2: But okay, So this is my point about jelly. It's
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: a shape shifting thing. Comedian or historian. He's not a comedian,
• 36:51
  Speaker 2: historian or podcast it would be historian or actual historian.
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: You say, he doesn't claim to be a historian, but
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: he's pumping out tens of hours of.
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: His Stan Carlin. He doesn't claim to be a storian either.
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: You see my point about the move. It's like some
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: weird jiu jitsu move. I don't where you say, hang on,
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: you know all about this as well. You say, I'm
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: not a historian, but I'm going to spend my time
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: talking about history. I'm not a journalist, but I'm going
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: to spend my time talking about this thing. I'm not
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: an expert on this, but I'm going to spend my
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: time talking about this thing. It's a weird move. Yeah, no,
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: you don't think.
• 37:27
  Speaker 3: No, I'm a free American. I can talk about what.
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: I talk about.
• 37:30
  Speaker 2: I not you can. But so we all point. The
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: point is what are you pushing? What are you watering?
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: What am I pushing? Liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: getting in another stupid catastrophic war, which we're on the
• 37:45
  Speaker 3: precipice of right now. That's what I'm pushing. What are
• 37:48
  Speaker 3: we on the presipose of Well, I think you weren't
• 37:50
  Speaker 3: you just talking about it the other day. Everyone I
• 37:51
  Speaker 3: hear on the inside says we're about to attack around
• 37:56
  Speaker 3: I think you just said something about that the other day.
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: Am I wrong about that? I thought I saw on
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: one of your innervis is that you did possible.
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: That doesn't mean we are on the verge of a war.
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: I mean you keep referring to WI being in wars.
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: There's a very big difference between a country having a
• 38:09
  Speaker 2: military that's engaged and a country being at war. This
• 38:14
  Speaker 2: country has not been at war for twenty five years.
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: You have not been fighting for the American homeland for
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: twenty five years.
• 38:20
  Speaker 3: Yes, we haven't, that's true. We haven't had a war
• 38:21
  Speaker 3: our shore. As we've been picking on third world countries
• 38:23
  Speaker 3: halfway around the world.
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: Well, you haven't been randomly picking on them. I mean
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: Afghanistan you went.
• 38:28
  Speaker 3: I didn't say it was round them?
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah, right, okay. It wasn't like you suddenly decided to
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: bomb again. Me and mah or something. We went to
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and take revenge for nine
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: to eleven and stop an attack like that. Happening again
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: on the American homeland. That is very different from a
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: country being at war.
• 38:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's a total mischaracterization of the war in Afghanistan.
• 38:49
  Speaker 3: It's one thing to say that might be an accurate
• 38:51
  Speaker 3: characterization of the Special Operations Mission in late two thousand
• 38:54
  Speaker 3: and one, But then we thought, then we thought a
• 38:56
  Speaker 3: twenty year regime change war against the talents.
• 38:59
  Speaker 2: You got drag into the quick sound of war.
• 39:02
  Speaker 3: Okay, fine, but fine, I thought it wasn't a war. Like,
• 39:05
  Speaker 3: I don't get it was a war.
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: It's your it's your use of we as if you're
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: personally like suffering this war. Yeah when I say we,
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: so we pay for it? Okay, Fine, You if I went.
• 39:16
  Speaker 3: Back and corrected you on every time you've used the
• 39:18
  Speaker 3: term we to refer to your government or something like that,
• 39:21
  Speaker 3: Like if I were to say, oh, we just imposed tariffs,
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: would you point out that I didn't and it was
• 39:25
  Speaker 3: the Trump administration.
• 39:26
  Speaker 2: You take it obviously very personally, and that that's your
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: right to do so. Of course, I'm just trying to
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: make sure we're accurate here.
• 39:32
  Speaker 3: Well, what do you think I'm taking personally.
• 39:35
  Speaker 2: That the American wars? Sure?
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think they've they've killed hundreds of thousands of
• 39:40
  Speaker 3: people and cost my country eight trillion dollars and degraded
• 39:44
  Speaker 3: my country very much.
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: And there's a very good argument to make on that.
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: I'm still slightly bemused about this move from I'm an
• 39:53
  Speaker 2: expert on this, and I have used to I'm a comedian.
• 39:57
  Speaker 3: I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.
• 40:00
  Speaker 2: This is the problem, Joe. I mean, if if somebody you.
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: Have to claim to be an expert on something an opinion.
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: You don't have to be. You don't have to be.
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history, but
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: I'm not. I'm talking all the time about that.
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: But you're not even talking about specifically on what he
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: just said.
• 40:18
  Speaker 2: No, I'm saying, this is my point about this heat.
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: You say I'm not an expert.
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: So what's the solution to not talk about it?
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: No, it's to have more experts around.
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: The expert class hasn't done a great This is follow
• 40:32
  Speaker 3: the science.
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: But you know what I just say, you I agree
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: during all of.
• 40:39
  Speaker 3: COVID, I will put my track record against any of
• 40:42
  Speaker 3: the expert class on COVID. I'm glad to do that.
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: So should I have just shut up? Should I have
• 40:47
  Speaker 3: shut up by opposing lockdowns and opposing vaccine mandates, the
• 40:51
  Speaker 3: argument that that's the entire argument that you're making.
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: Let the experts you're not an expert, miss not listening
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: to what I'm saying. I think you have to take.
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: I think we should agree, perhaps on the following that
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: one major thing can break down in front of your eyes,
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: or many major things. And it does not mean that
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: every single one of the sewer gates should be lifted.
• 41:17
  Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, I get that point, right.
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: Who's saying it should be?
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: I'm saying this is a chatter on what is part
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: of our side at the moment, is that a lot
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: of the sewer gates are being lifted, sometimes by people
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: who know that they're doing it, sometimes by people who don't,
• 41:34
  Speaker 2: sometimes by people who say, I don't know. I'm just
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: throwing it out there. But at the very least, there's
• 41:40
  Speaker 2: some damn hygiene that should be required, isn't there. Yeah,
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but sure, just
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: that let's have a bit of hygiene on our own side,
• 41:52
  Speaker 2: not lift every sewer gate.
• 41:53
  Speaker 3: And you mean the right wing broadly.
• 41:56
  Speaker 2: Speaking, broadly speaking, and I'm sort of funny about Libertarians.
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: I'm never quite sure. I always I always say I
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: think libtones essentially the bisexuals of politics. They should just choose, Joe,
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: they should choose. It's kind of they just want everything
• 42:09
  Speaker 2: at the buffet.
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: It's very funny.
• 42:11
  Speaker 3: Well, I think we want some things. I don't know. Okay,
• 42:14
  Speaker 3: that's a that's a weird way to put it, but
• 42:15
  Speaker 3: I gee the point all right, Well, I mean I
• 42:18
  Speaker 3: don't know. Look, I mean, essentially, I just don't Maybe
• 42:20
  Speaker 3: there's something I'm missing here. But if your argument is that,
• 42:23
  Speaker 3: like you're saying, I claim to be an expert, but
• 42:25
  Speaker 3: then I have like a parachute to get out of
• 42:27
  Speaker 3: it by being like, hey, I'm just a comedian who's
• 42:29
  Speaker 3: just saying this. But I don't think I've ever like
• 42:31
  Speaker 3: really claimed to be an expert. But it's interested in
• 42:36
  Speaker 3: these topics.
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: I know. But isn't it weird to go around for
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: instances get to the last you know, It's it's a
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: bit weird to be simultaneously saying I'm not an expert
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: on a conflict and talking about it everywhere.
• 42:50
  Speaker 3: I don't think so, not really, I mean, I don't
• 42:52
  Speaker 3: know I don't think, like, I don't see how you.
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: Which things. All these things that we're talking about some
• 42:59
  Speaker 2: of them, are you in expert I am on some. Yes,
• 43:02
  Speaker 2: you talk about something that you're not an expert on.
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: What should you do if those subjects get preached?
• 43:07
  Speaker 2: Well, I think that you educate yourself as much as.
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: You Shouldn't you say I'm not an expert and then
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: give your opinion if you're in the middle of a conversation.
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: As I say, I think that it's a weird move
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: to say I'm not an expert on this, but I'm
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: going to talk about it NonStop. I think that is true.
• 43:21
  Speaker 3: Listen, I will certainly concede that I am weird, So
• 43:23
  Speaker 3: I'm not disagreeing with you. It's weird that I'm as
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: obsessed with all this stuff as I am. I mean, like, okay,
• 43:28
  Speaker 3: I'm a weird guy. I do. I tell jokes at
• 43:31
  Speaker 3: nightclubs and then get obsessed with politics and monetary policy
• 43:34
  Speaker 3: and like, okay, fine, But I just like fundamentally disagree
• 43:38
  Speaker 3: with this idea that which I really do think is
• 43:41
  Speaker 3: quite anti democratic in spirit and quite you know, elitist,
• 43:47
  Speaker 3: that there's an expert class they can have opinions on
• 43:50
  Speaker 3: all of these things. It's weird for any regular person
• 43:53
  Speaker 3: who's just read about it.
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: And my view not my view.
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: It seems like what's not your saying.
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: I concede it already. I said a long time ago
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: that I believe much of the expert class let itself
• 44:02
  Speaker 2: and us all down very badly. And I think that
• 44:04
  Speaker 2: happened in foreign policy in areas, not every area, but
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: it happened in some areas. I think it happened with
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: COVID in many areas. But that does not mean that
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: it's just a free for all. No, there are some
• 44:17
  Speaker 2: things we can still verify to be true and can
• 44:20
  Speaker 2: still agree on as baseline levels of agreement in a
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: free society. And yes, everyone is free to air their views,
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: but it does not mean that everyone who sounds off
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: on an issue, whether it's World War two, war in
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, has an equally
• 44:40
  Speaker 2: valid point of view.
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: No, I certainly wouldn't argue that to me is just
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: batting down a straw man. I mean, I certainly wouldn't
• 44:46
  Speaker 3: argue that everyone has an equally valid point of view,
• 44:49
  Speaker 3: and I certainly wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be some
• 44:51
  Speaker 3: standards of like who you would want to find interesting
• 44:54
  Speaker 3: and talk to and who you wouldn't. But also it's like,
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: so let's have the conversation that way. I don't know,
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: like if there's if there is, if there are experts
• 45:05
  Speaker 3: out there who can smack all of this stuff down
• 45:07
  Speaker 3: or just destroy every point that I make over the
• 45:10
  Speaker 3: years or whatever, like okay, so then do it and
• 45:12
  Speaker 3: then let's see.
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: Well that's a bit weird because also that then it's
• 45:16
  Speaker 2: like the debate me bro thing. But yeah, I know,
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: let me just make the main point. I think what
• 45:25
  Speaker 2: I'm trying to get at, Joe is that it's a
• 45:27
  Speaker 2: bit like the Twitter algorithm thing, which is, yes, everyone
• 45:32
  Speaker 2: is and should be free to say what they like
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: on Twitter, apart from whatever, I mean, the very fringe
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: things of like immediate excitement to violence and all that
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: kind of thing. But we all know that one of
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: the oddities of Twitter, including since Elon took over, is
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: that what you hope is a restored marketplace of ideas
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: ends up pushing you really crazy shit. Yes, and that
• 45:56
  Speaker 2: is what I'm suggesting is happening on a podcast level
• 45:59
  Speaker 2: and maybe on a level beyond that I get stuff
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: on Twitter. I just do not want. I do not
• 46:06
  Speaker 2: want a guy with one half thousand followers who's got
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: some zany new view on something, who isn't an expert
• 46:12
  Speaker 2: but is an expert to be pushed at me, and effectively,
• 46:16
  Speaker 2: what is happening with the Twitter algorithm is happening everywhere
• 46:19
  Speaker 2: else as well. And we're all for the open marketplace
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: of ideas. I want that I thrive in it. But
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: it is different once you get into the thing of
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: is something manipulating the algorithm behind? Is the algorithm being
• 46:33
  Speaker 2: pushed on me? Why am I being given this? Why
• 46:36
  Speaker 2: am I not being given that? Why am I being
• 46:38
  Speaker 2: constantly pushed this view? And I think that the answer
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: to a great degree is the same thing in your
• 46:44
  Speaker 2: world as it is in the Twitter world, which is,
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: if you go straight online and you say, you know
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: JFK file drops watch live stream of Kennedy historians reading
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: the papers live, You're not gonna get any views. No
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: one's gonna watch it. That's what kind of what's needed
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: is for the people who know the documents to go
• 47:07
  Speaker 2: through the documents. But you and I know that if
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: as there was some guy who did immediately you do
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: something like live stream moss and involvement in JFK, you're
• 47:18
  Speaker 2: gonna milk it. You're gonna cream it online the money
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: comes in. I'm saying that there's a similar algorithm in
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: all of our lives that we're not as aware of
• 47:27
  Speaker 2: as we should be, which is that we because we
• 47:30
  Speaker 2: all know this at some level, that there are certain
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: things that get your bit of your base going, or
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: get people going interesting and crazy and then they start
• 47:41
  Speaker 2: debating it and all that sort of thing, and that
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: algorithm of online seems to me to be spilling into
• 47:46
  Speaker 2: the real world.
• 47:49
  Speaker 3: I don't disagree that there's certainly more sensationalist stuff will
• 47:53
  Speaker 3: get you more clicks. I also don't think that's a
• 47:55
  Speaker 3: It's not really unique to social media or podcasting.
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is Believa right for the tabloids.
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah right, this has always been true. Right, So yeah, okay,
• 48:05
  Speaker 3: so it's kind of one.
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: Of the problems arguing against that. You know, it's certainly
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: never my intention when I talk to someone to try
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: to get more views. It sounds crazy, but I'm only
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: talking to people that I'm interested in talking to, And
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: in Daryl's case, it's because I've been a listener of
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: his podcast for years. That's it. This is like genuinely
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: how I pursue it things. That's why you're here. I'm
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: genuinely interested in your views as well, even though you
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: completely disagree with him. That's I mean, this is the
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: marketplace of ideas in real time.
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: I agree, although, as I say, I think you've massively
• 48:47
  Speaker 2: underrepresented the pro Ukraine argument and the Prosabel argument in
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: the last two years.
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: I mean, well, that's my observation.
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, you're totally allowed to have that observation.
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: What is the what's the.
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: Pro Ukraine argument that you think is not being represented enough?
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: Well? My broadview is that again something to do with
• 49:16
  Speaker 2: the algorithm that anything that is conspiratorial about Zelenski or
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: the Ukrainians in the conflict does very well. Anything that says, actually,
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: the Ukrainian army is fighting to try to retain as
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: much of their country as they can doesn't do as well.
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: I think that everything that is pushing the idea that,
• 49:42
  Speaker 2: for instance, the Americans caused it or something like that
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: does well. I think everything that says actually In February
• 49:51
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, Vladimir Putin's tanks invaded Ukraine and they
• 49:56
  Speaker 2: shouldn't have done. Doesn't do as well.
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that what
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin did wasn't horrific.
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: That's not my point. The point is that after that
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: there's a whole set of things. Let's look at, for instance,
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: the issue of corruption. Ukraine is a pretty corrupt country
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: by EU standards, by the by weld Bank standards, and
• 50:21
  Speaker 2: it's been a problem as it is in that neck
• 50:24
  Speaker 2: of the woods. And it's understandable that if the US
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: is one of the countries putting money and arms into Ukraine,
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: then it's going to be a subject of legitimate interests
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: to the American people and others, the European taxpayers. Nevertheless,
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: you end up in this and I know this because
• 50:42
  Speaker 2: it's the same thing in the old media. You end
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: up on like the new bit of the story, and
• 50:47
  Speaker 2: there's always a risk that you will lose sight of
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: the beginning of the story. For instance, I mean Putin's
• 50:55
  Speaker 2: corruption is legendary, gargantuine, and not as interesting. It seems
• 51:03
  Speaker 2: to me the algorithm doesn't push that, and I think
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: that's to a greater extent the case with the Israel
• 51:12
  Speaker 2: jimazwar as well.
• 51:14
  Speaker 3: Well, isn't there a little bit of a concern, Like
• 51:16
  Speaker 3: I would say a couple things here. Number one, I'm
• 51:19
  Speaker 3: not denying I don't know how the algorithm works or
• 51:22
  Speaker 3: what it's pushing, and it's an interesting thing that we
• 51:24
  Speaker 3: probably should all know more about. But I think there's
• 51:27
  Speaker 3: a danger when you're to just classify everything as well
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: the algorithm pushes this and doesn't push this. It's like
• 51:33
  Speaker 3: it could also be that some ideas are just resonating
• 51:35
  Speaker 3: more and some ideas are more popular than other ideas,
• 51:37
  Speaker 3: and there's probably both of those things are at work
• 51:39
  Speaker 3: in that dynamic. But I also think that something like
• 51:42
  Speaker 3: the reason why, say, talking about Ukrainian corruption is more
• 51:46
  Speaker 3: interesting in a lot of ways than talking about Russian
• 51:49
  Speaker 3: corruption is obviously because like, well, one of these countries
• 51:53
  Speaker 3: is an enemy and the other one is one that
• 51:55
  Speaker 3: we're sending tens of billions of dollars to. So yes, well,
• 52:00
  Speaker 3: eating on between Zelenski and the weapons companies, I don't know.
• 52:03
  Speaker 3: He says he only got seventy billion dollars of it,
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: but we've spent closer to one hundred and seventy, so whatever.
• 52:08
  Speaker 3: But the point is that obviously, if there is a
• 52:11
  Speaker 3: country that we are propping up, funding, arming and they're corrupt,
• 52:17
  Speaker 3: I would say my starting point would always be to
• 52:20
  Speaker 3: be more concerned with that corruption than an enemy country,
• 52:23
  Speaker 3: which it's almost kind of a given, is a correct country,
• 52:26
  Speaker 3: like I don't know. I'm sure there are fringes of
• 52:29
  Speaker 3: the right who might say, like Vladimir Putin's some great
• 52:31
  Speaker 3: guy or something like that, but that is I really
• 52:34
  Speaker 3: do not think that is the argument that most people
• 52:36
  Speaker 3: who are critical of this of Biden's policy are making.
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: Sure. I mean, I think one of the interesting things
• 52:42
  Speaker 2: that happens in this is the old cliche of losing
• 52:45
  Speaker 2: the wood for the trees. It just happens an awful lot,
• 52:49
  Speaker 2: and it's the nature of the old news cycle, let
• 52:52
  Speaker 2: alone the current one the social media era. Actually I
• 52:56
  Speaker 2: remember that, so I don't go back to well to
• 53:00
  Speaker 2: let me just very critty. I remember this debate with
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: Pat Buchano when he was debating much more learned historians
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: on the subject of the origins of World War Two,
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: and the whole thing got lost in all of this
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: sort of mad puzzle of views about iron ore production.
• 53:13
  Speaker 2: In Bavarian forest and this sort of thing, and I
• 53:16
  Speaker 2: remember that everyone was all over the place. And the
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: moderator turned to the historian Andrew Robertson said, Androbers, why
• 53:22
  Speaker 2: did World War two begin? And he said world War
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: two began because Hitler invaded Poland. And those moments come
• 53:31
  Speaker 2: along quite often at the moment, which is, yes, there's
• 53:35
  Speaker 2: an awful lot of very interesting things to look into.
• 53:38
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of very interesting things going on which
• 53:40
  Speaker 2: we should all be able to talk about and do
• 53:42
  Speaker 2: talk about. But sometimes you have to remember the origin
• 53:47
  Speaker 2: causes of things as well, and you have to stick
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: to keeping that in mind.
• 53:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: Well, and I think that a lot of people are
• 53:54
  Speaker 2: pretty bad at the moment of keeping that in mind.
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: Like you can concede Ukrainian corruption, you can concede all
• 54:02
  Speaker 2: sorts of things and still not lose sight of the
• 54:06
  Speaker 2: thing of if Russia rolls tanks into neighboring countries, it
• 54:11
  Speaker 2: can't be allowed.
• 54:13
  Speaker 3: Well, listen, Okay, So on that, I think we have
• 54:15
  Speaker 3: an area of agreement, and I do think like, even
• 54:18
  Speaker 3: while I much prefer the path that Donald Trump is
• 54:22
  Speaker 3: pursuing to the path that Joe Biden pursued, when it
• 54:24
  Speaker 3: comes to the war in Ukraine. And of course this
• 54:27
  Speaker 3: is you know, Donald Trump's thing is once you piss
• 54:30
  Speaker 3: him off, He's gonna call you every bad nickname that
• 54:32
  Speaker 3: there is.
• 54:33
  Speaker 2: But when he but when he's a l.
• 54:38
  Speaker 3: I believe he said that Zolensky started the war, which
• 54:42
  Speaker 3: is like, okay, all right, that's a little bit ridiculous.
• 54:44
  Speaker 2: He said start of the war, and Zelensky was the dictator.
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: Yes, okay, So Trump said that, yes, he's but it
• 54:51
  Speaker 3: was after.
• 54:53
  Speaker 1: Started the war.
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but it was.
• 54:55
  Speaker 3: This is how Donald Trump is love him or hate him,
• 54:57
  Speaker 3: for better or for worse Donald Trump. It's like if
• 55:01
  Speaker 3: he feels that you disrespected him or came at him,
• 55:03
  Speaker 3: he's going to be ten times more efficious.
• 55:05
  Speaker 2: By the way, this happened two weeks before the disastrous
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: over office meetings. Yeah, and I wrote the next day
• 55:12
  Speaker 2: the covering the new your Post, which was a big picture
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: of Vladimir Putin with the headline this is a dictator.
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: Just again, as I say, not to lose track in
• 55:22
  Speaker 2: all of the mele not to lose track of the
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: basic facts.
• 55:26
  Speaker 3: Well, look, I will say this as somebody who is
• 55:29
  Speaker 3: I'm very anti war broadly speaking, and I do agree
• 55:34
  Speaker 3: with you that it should, like we should be able
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: to have conversations about all the things that led up
• 55:40
  Speaker 3: to the war and all the different you know, like
• 55:42
  Speaker 3: blunders that were made, and also still recognized that Vladimir
• 55:46
  Speaker 3: Putin invaded a country and is responsible for you know,
• 55:49
  Speaker 3: at least hundreds of thousands of people dying. And you
• 55:52
  Speaker 3: know Scott Horton, who I always try to promote on here,
• 55:56
  Speaker 3: he just wrote this book called Provoked. I think it's
• 55:58
  Speaker 3: the best book that's been written on the history leading
• 56:01
  Speaker 3: up to the war between its basically it takes you
• 56:04
  Speaker 3: from the collapse of the Soviet Union up to the
• 56:06
  Speaker 3: war in Ukraine. And even in that book, the book
• 56:08
  Speaker 3: is called Provoked, and the argument is that Western policy
• 56:12
  Speaker 3: was very provocative toward Vladimir Putin, and there were a
• 56:15
  Speaker 3: lot of off ramps that could have been explored and
• 56:18
  Speaker 3: should have been explored. But he has an entire chapter
• 56:21
  Speaker 3: in the book where he is saying, like, look, these
• 56:23
  Speaker 3: are Putin had a lot of other options. He didn't
• 56:26
  Speaker 3: have to do this. It's not as if any of
• 56:28
  Speaker 3: that justifies his invasion. And so I do agree with
• 56:31
  Speaker 3: you that whenever we're talking about a war, particularly a
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: war of aggression, that should always be in the front
• 56:38
  Speaker 3: of people's minds. I mean, you can criticize, you know,
• 56:41
  Speaker 3: I would say I think I'm consistent on this across
• 56:43
  Speaker 3: the board. You can criticize lots of things about the
• 56:46
  Speaker 3: insurgency in Iraq, certainly, but you should remember that George W.
• 56:52
  Speaker 3: Bush invaded the country when he shouldn't have and based
• 56:54
  Speaker 3: off lies. So I say that when my government does it,
• 56:57
  Speaker 3: I'll say it when the Russian government does it. Also.
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: That being said, there's a very strong argument that there
• 57:03
  Speaker 3: were many policies that the US, you know, NATO and
• 57:08
  Speaker 3: Europe as well, but mostly the US pursued that were
• 57:11
  Speaker 3: just almost like, if you wanted to come to this
• 57:16
  Speaker 3: inevitable conflict, this would have been the policy to pursue,
• 57:19
  Speaker 3: to give you the best chance to end on.
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: One of the you know, I was with a British
• 57:23
  Speaker 2: military fund recently and somebody asked what does the fog
• 57:27
  Speaker 2: of war mean? And he gave a brilliant example of
• 57:32
  Speaker 2: what it means on the battlefield, which a lot of
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: people don't understand. There's a version of the fog of
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: war in history as well. The great Czech writer Milan
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: Condera had this beautiful phrase in a book of his
• 57:44
  Speaker 2: from the nineties School Testaments Betrayed, where he said, the
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: odd thing about mankind is he said, we walk through
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: life in a fog, and we stumble along a path,
• 57:54
  Speaker 2: and we create the path as we stumble along it.
• 57:57
  Speaker 2: So that's not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: that when we look back, we see the man and
• 58:03
  Speaker 2: we see the path, but we don't see the fog.
• 58:06
  Speaker 1: Hmm.
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: Everything looks inevitable when you're standing in the present, Everything
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: looks like it was going to happen this way, and
• 58:15
  Speaker 2: you have these endless, often fascinating, often futile explorations of
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: what might have been. But it doesn't take into account
• 58:25
  Speaker 2: the fog. That's a very good point, and the fog
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was
• 58:32
  Speaker 2: pretty considerable. The efforts in the nineteen nineties to bring
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: them into a more obvious part of the international order failed.
• 58:41
  Speaker 2: My own view has always been that in part we
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: missed an opportunity to pay a kind of civilizational respect
• 58:49
  Speaker 2: to the Russians, which they deserved, but also throughout the
• 58:56
  Speaker 2: period that people now say there are all of these
• 58:58
  Speaker 2: offer amps and Now, so many of people claim that
• 59:02
  Speaker 2: NATO went around the region desperately trying to provoke the
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: Russians into some kind of war or inevitably leading them
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: that way because of NATO expansionism. They never take into
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: account what was in my memory and experience very clear,
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: which was NATO didn't go to go around recruiting people
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: came to NATO. Countries came to NATO wanting to join,
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: precisely because they feared the aggression that Ukrainians have suffered
• 59:30
  Speaker 2: since February twenty twenty two. And indeed, before I was
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: in Georgia just after the two thousand and eight war began.
• 59:36
  Speaker 2: The country, not the state, always has to be confirmed. Otherwise,
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: people who invaded Georgia the Bustards. But I was in
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: the country of Georgia and Putin had tried to invade
• 59:51
  Speaker 2: them and had seized South Seti and Avcasia, and they
• 59:56
  Speaker 2: were desperate to join NATO. In fact, they're desperate to
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: join the European Union. I rather frivolously said to a
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: Georgian friend, if you want, we can swap. You can
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: take our British membership of the EU. But in the
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: NATO thing, they were desperate for it, and they were
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: desperate for it precisely for the reason that many of
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 2: the Ukrainians were desperate for it, which was only way
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 2: to stop Putin expansionism. So you know, in the whole
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 2: fog of the post Soviet era, that is one of
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 2: the many things that gets left out of the conversation.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: And by the way, Putin's actions in February twenty twenty two,
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: and since all he's done is provoke to new countries
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 2: to join NATO, and his borders with NATO have grown.
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: Finland and Sweden wanted to join. And the only reason
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 2: Finland and Sweden wanted to join was because they too
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: are scared. It's a heck of a thing to get
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 2: the Swedish to join a military alliance. It doesn't come
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: easy to them, it doesn't come natural. And these these
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: countries joined because, like Georgia, like Ukraine, they desperately feared
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: Putinist expansionism. And they weren't wrong.
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 3: Okay, but I get your point. First off, the war
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 3: in Georgia in two thousand and eight actually came was
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 3: it two or three months after the Buchares Summit, where
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 3: NATO announced that Georgia and Ukraine would be entering NATO.
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 3: So just making that point that the NATO aspirations came first.
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 3: But listen, I don't think you're wrong. I don't think
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 3: anybody is ever implying that like we've expanded NATO through force,
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 3: and that the countries who were joining, or at least
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 3: the governments of the countries who were joining, didn't want it.
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 3: Although in the case of Ukraine, there's a great piece
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 3: in the Washington Post about this in two thousand and
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 3: six where joining NATO was actually very unpopular and there
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 3: was a lot done, and largely because they just didn't
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 3: want to take on the headache of the conflict that
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 3: this might provoke. But you know, the question I think
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 3: isn't necessarily like do these countries wish to join NATO?
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 3: Of course, I think most countries in the world would
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 3: like to join NATO. I think most countries in the
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 3: world would like the most powerful government in the history
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 3: of the world to guarantee their defense and subsidize their defense.
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 3: The question is is that in America's interest And in
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 3: terms of your point of seeing through the fog. I mean, look,
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 3: there was as you know well in the nineties, in
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 3: the late nineties, during the first round of NATO expansion,
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 3: there was a lively debate amongst this. And I don't
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 3: mean a debate amongst outsiders or non expert experts or whatever.
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 3: I mean within the real deal experts, the wisest gray
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 3: bears in the national security apparatus. There was a real
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 3: debate with at least three Secretaries of Defense who warned
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 3: against this. Robert Gates, Robert mcnamhar, William Perry, the Secretary
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 3: of Defense at the time, almost resigned, said his biggest
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 3: regret in life is that he didn't resign over it.
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 3: George Kennan was able to see right through that fog.
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 3: He literally that the cold warrior, founder of the containment strategy,
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 3: saw right through that fog and goes, this will inevitably
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 3: lead to a conflict with Russia. And his exact words were,
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 3: and then when there's a Russian response, everybody will say, look,
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: this is why we needed to expand NATO. But the
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 3: point here is okay. Even within that deep debate, which
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 3: there were lively debates about, even the people who are
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 3: on the pro expansionist side of things, like Henry Kissingar,
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 3: even he said Ukraine would have to be a special arrangement,
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 3: Ukraine will not come into NATO because obviously that's leading
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 3: to a war with Russia. And so I don't think
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 3: it's unreasonable, and I think this is a fair thing
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 3: that we should do in all conflicts. Is like to have,
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 3: as Meerscheimer puts it, to have strategic empathy, to say, like, hey, listen,
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 3: let's reasonably place ourselves in the other person's shoes and say,
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 3: how would we react if somebody was expanding their military
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: alliance that is explicitly anti us and is bringing it
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 3: up to our borders and now is openly for years
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: and years and years saying that we are going to
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 3: bring your largest neighbor, where you have very important strategic
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 3: interests from your point of view, into our military alliance.
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 3: And you are saying over and over again, this is
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 3: our I just read line, do not do this. And
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 3: then they keep flirting with doing this over and over.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 3: Then they back a street push that overthrows the government there.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 3: Don't you think maybe that would be a provocation.
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: First of all, two things, the if you want that
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 2: strategic empathy that meantime I'm not an admirer of. But
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: if you want to do that, you can do it
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 2: the other way around as well, surely. Yeah, I mean
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: do the same thing with the Ukrainians. Absolutely, yeah, the
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 2: Latvians and others. Yeah, but I would never douggles.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 3: But my response to you was never, I can't understand
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 3: why the Latvians or the Literuanians would want Again, I understand, yes.
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 2: Right, And I can understand why Russia thought that Ukrainian
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: membership of NATO was a red line. I can understand that,
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 2: but that wasn't why Putin invaded in twenty twenty two.
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 2: He and I think that I think there's an oddity,
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 2: if I can say so, maybe this particularly comes across
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 2: on the libertarian bisexual side, but the I think there's
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: an oddity of the.
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 3: The record show him a happily married, heterosexual man.
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 2: They all say that. I think there's an oddity that
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: sometimes particularly happens on the libertarian side, which is which
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 2: is a presumption that things only really happen in the
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 2: world because we make them so. And you know, Russia
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 2: invades Ukraine because of American policy. In Eastern Europe post
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 2: nineteen eighty nine, nineteen ninety something happened in the least
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 2: because of American policy, And I think it's a very
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 2: blinkered and parochial view of things, because my experience in
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 2: countries around the world is that there's a heck of
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: a lot going on that America is frankly not really
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 2: involved in.
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 3: Well, that's certainly a strong man of my possession.
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 2: I'm no what I'm saying, no, no, no, But what I'm
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: saying is it is very in fact, it's partly since
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 2: you kindly raised the issue, Joe, you buy your book.
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: It's one of the things over seasoned deaf cult.
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: It's one of the things I find very interesting about
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 2: this with democracies, which is it is one of the
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 2: things in the nature of a liberal democracy that because
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 2: we have the right to air our opinion, because we
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: have the right to criticize our government, and much more,
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: we end up doing all of that. And there is
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 2: a misapprehension people can come to, I don't know if
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 2: you do, but they can come to, which is effectively
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 2: we are the only force that causes action in the world.
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: And there's a reason for that, which is that we have,
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 2: thank god, a say in how liberal democracies are run
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 2: and how we're governed, and we can chew over all
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 2: of the disagreements that we have. But when a liberal
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 2: democracy comes against the kind of rock like a death cult,
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 2: a tatalitarian regime, a dictatorship like Russia or the Iranian
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 2: revolutionary government, there's always this temptation to say, to focus
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 2: our attention on our own side because we can't do
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 2: a dumb thing about the other one. It's a version
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 2: of you know, the great late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynhan
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 2: said when he was ambassador to the UN, he had
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: this great rule. It's sort of known among those or
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 2: who know about it as Moynhan's rule, which is he said,
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 2: if you sit at the UN, or you and human
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: rights counts or any of these bodies, you would come
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 2: away with the belief that the most abused people with
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 2: the fewest rights in the world live in America and
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 2: other Western liberal societies. And he came because we're the
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 2: ones that talk about it. You know, if there's one
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 2: incident of racism in America, the whole world knows about it.
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 2: Everyone reason is that there'll be protests everywhere. If there's
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: one incident of racism in North Korea, it's not going
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 2: to make any news. And then you have, on top
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: of that, the fact that the way in which despotisms
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 2: and death cults and dictatorships work, the information just doesn't
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 2: come out. And moynan Is rule ended up being that
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 2: the is an interesting point. He said that his rule
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 2: by the end of his time in the UN was
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: that the number of human rights violations that occur in
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: a country happen in exactly inverse proportion to the numbers
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 2: of claims of human rights violations, because only only the
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: countries which care about it and which such things can
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 2: be aired in are ever going to get it out.
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 2: But the point of Moynihan's law, and the warning of it,
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 2: is be careful not to come away with the mistaken
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 2: idea that the freest and most liberal societies are the worst.
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 2: And I think there's a version of Moynihan's law that applies,
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 2: whether it's from the least to Ukraine and Russia, which
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 2: is we come away with this, People may come away
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 2: with the impression that the bad things in the world
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 2: effectively all come from here. And there is quite a
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 2: lot to be said for some of that, but there's
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 2: not everything to be said. And much of the world
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 2: runs on a dynamic kind of dynamo which you can't
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 2: do a dumb thing about other than to try to
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 2: understand it.
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, so I mean again, I certainly there is
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 3: truth to a lot of that, and I think that
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 3: is a fascinating kind of dynamic where there is something
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 3: about kind of like, you know, I noticed this even
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 3: just with my own kids. Like it's like and people,
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 3: when you have kids and you raise them really you know,
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 3: like you're really sweet to them and you don't hit
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 3: them and you give them a good life, small things
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 3: end up becoming huge, like things in their mind, like
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 3: someone pushed me at the playground and it's like, whoa
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 3: this is Whereas like the way I grew up, that
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 3: would have just been kind of like a non event.
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 3: But anyway, I think it would be certainly incorrect to
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 3: assume that everything that happens bad in the world is
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 3: somehow a consequence of us meddling. I also think that
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 3: there's people on the other side here, maybe the people
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 3: who are more Neokon leaning, more war hockey leaning. They
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 3: have a tendency to only focus on the bad things
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 3: that everybody else does and act like our policies have
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 3: no impact on this, right. So very specifically, you know,
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 3: with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I'll just get
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 3: two like bullet points on this and there. We could
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 3: talk about a lot of this. But look Number one,
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 3: in two thousand and eight, as you well know, right,
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 3: the Joe Biden's CIA director, who was the CIA director
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 3: for the entire war up until Donald Trump just came
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 3: back in, he wrote the net means net memo to
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 3: Condoaliza Rice, a private cable to the then Secretary of
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 3: State when he was ambassador to Russia, to let her
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 3: know that this flirting with bringing Ukraine into NATO is
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 3: gonna end up in a war, and by the way,
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 3: the Russians don't want to do it. His words, exactly,
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 3: if you keep pushing with this that Russians are going
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 3: to have, they are going to have to make a
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 3: decision that they don't want to make, which is whether
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: they intervene or not. And number two Straltenberg, if I
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 3: might be butchering that again, but the head of NATO,
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 3: he himself said that Vladimir Putin sent him a draft
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 3: treaty in late twenty twenty one and said, look, if
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 3: you just put into writing that you will not bring
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 3: Ukraine into NATO, I won't invade. Now, if you want
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 3: to argue that.
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 2: This admire your appeal to authority, to the head of
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 2: the CIA, it does not appeal to authorities. Well, how
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 2: is that an appeal to authority. You've got the view
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 2: of the CIA director on that occasion is being useful
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: for your argument. But secondly, but yeah, secondly, there's an
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 2: oddity to believing what Vladimir Pudin said.
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 3: No, wait, hold on, but you didn't let me force
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 3: my point. OK, So don't believe what he says. I'm
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 3: not going to pretend to read his heart and mind
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 3: or something like that. But at the very least you
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 3: handed him the giant excuse in order to do it.
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 3: I mean, maybe he doesn't really believe it, but this
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 3: is his argument to his own people and to the
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 3: world that it's like, look, and we put him in
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 3: a position. You know, if you hate Latimer putting in
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 3: such a terrible god, will we put him in this
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 3: position where he gets to now very plausibly say to
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 3: the international community in the same way that if the
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 3: Soviet Union had survived and the United States.
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 2: And they were he doesn't very plausibly have the opportunity
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 2: to do that. He invaded Ukraine because he wanted to
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 2: annex the whole country, because he was trying to pretend
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 2: that the whole place had been run by Nazis. Well,
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 2: I mean, okay, the whole place was Nazis, is what
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 2: he told the Russian people. Oh, hero, when you can
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 2: lie an awful lot, when your a dictator and you
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 2: have the ability not just to run all of the
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 2: media but to kill your political opponents, I mean, you
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 2: can do an awful lot. Sure, none of none of this,
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: you know. I just got back from Ukraine again the
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 2: other week, and it's so weird. I saw the the
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: Oval Office meeting as it happened from a trench in
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 2: the front line between the Russian and Ukrainian positions in
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: the east of the country, and it was so weird
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: seeing the way in which this country's territory was being
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: talked about by outsiders, particularly by America, because there's so
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: many oddities about it. But the people who are fighting there,
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: the soldiers on the front lines, are the ones I
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 2: was with. They're not fighting against Putin forces because of
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 2: NATO expansion or anything. They're fighting because he lied to
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: his own army, he lied to his own people. He
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 2: lies to the world, and he decided he wanted to
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 2: gobble up Ukraine because he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: And as a result, these young men are in dugouts
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 2: in the middle of winter fighting Russian soldiers because the
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 2: Ukrainians' homes are thirty kilometers behind them. And I just
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 2: I think, among much else that stuff that cannot be
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: forgotten about. None of this is simply about NATO expansion
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 2: or this or that. It's about a country whose people
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 2: are suffering in their third year of war, and it's
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 2: almost total war. It's as much total war as we've
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 2: got in the modern age.
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 3: And but that's not but that's not I'm not disagreeing
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 3: with any of that. I'm not saying the Ukrainian people
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 3: were fighting because they wanted to keep their country. People
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 3: don't very much like being invaded by foreign countries. I
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 3: understand that completely, And I've also always said throughout this
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 3: whole thing, that is their right. They have a right
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 3: to do that. We as Americans have a right to,
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 3: you know, have an opinion on whether our government ought
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 3: to be funding and arming the thing. But all I'm
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 3: saying is that I'm not making an appeal to authority here,
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 3: I'm just saying that you have the top people at
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 3: the in the Russian government all unanimously saying like, this
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 3: is our red line. You keep flirting with NATO expansion
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 3: into Ukraine, and then you have all the people at
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 3: the top of NATO and at the top of the
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 3: US government admitting it too and going like, yeah, this
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 3: is the whole beef. So why is it like these
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 3: two things aren't mutually exclusive.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 2: But I mean, the they weren't going to expand NATO
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 2: to Ukraine.
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 3: Well, they kept flirting with it, and you know.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 2: That that the Ukrainians wanted membership, and it was very
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 2: unwise whenever anyone from the rest of the West even
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 2: flirted with.
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 1: It, didn't Colin Harris openly say that NATO was going
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: to join you, Yeah, shortly going to join NATO.
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I never saw her as a kissinger.
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 3: Agreed, there's a there's some area of agreement.
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 2: He's the guy.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 3: Well obviously that guy is the future. But but okay,
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 3: but it is still the vice president of the United
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 3: States of America, and.
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 2: It's it's not that's not why Putin invaded, but you
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 2: can invade invaded because he because the thing he's dreamt
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 2: off since he full of falling down to.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 1: The Soviet Union, is you know how he dreams.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 2: We know a lot from what he said and what
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 2: he's done since the fall of the Soviet Union and
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 2: his statements certainly very early on in his presence.
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: But if he does have a red line and you
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 1: violate that red line, is that because he's following his
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 1: dreams or it's because.
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 2: He's dream is said many times, is the reconstitution of
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 2: the Soviet Union's territory.
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 3: I don't think that's exactly what he said. He's he's
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 3: alluded many times to like how great the Soviet Union
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 3: was and what a tragedy it is that it collapsed,
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 3: and things like that.
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 2: But regardless of something, we can agree what a fiction
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 2: on his part.
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 3: I mean, oh, I think the Soviet Union collapsing is
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 3: one of the greatest things that's ever happened in the
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 3: history of the world, one of the regimes, if not
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 3: the American action. Uh sure, there's there were a lot
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 3: of factors in.
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 2: There and pro American views.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 3: I want, I will certainly concede that US uh luring
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 3: them into Afghanistan was played a huge role in weakening
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 3: the Soviet Union. It came with the minor little price
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 3: tag everment nine to eleven. Okay, that's uh, but you
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 3: know that's uh.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 2: The Soviet Union did not full just because of Afghanistan. No,
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 2: I didn't say. I said it played a role.
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 3: I didn't say it was just because of Afghanistan things Europe. Also,
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 3: because communism is an economic model doesn't work, and it
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 3: was a disaster and it was destined to collapse, like
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 3: all centrally planned, totally socialist economies are destined for bad results.
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 2: I don't like the word destined in that because I
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 2: mean my experience, things that don't work can go on
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 2: an awfully long term.
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 3: Well look, the Soviet Union went on an awfully long time.
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 2: I mean it was I thought when I went to
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 2: North Korea some years ago that couldn't go on for
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 2: much longer, and on it goes.
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah. No, okay, so fair point there, But certainly it's
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 3: going to be you know, it's a much different dynamic
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 3: for a communist country like North Korea, who is a
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 3: relatively small and not expansionist, whereas the Soviet Union was
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 3: trying to maintain an empire, which is a much tougher
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 3: thing to do. Look, the United States of America is
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 3: going broke trying to do it, so it was pretty
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 3: tough for them to do. All I'm saying here is that,
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 3: like you if the dynamic again, it's not just that.
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 3: Like first off, in two thousand and eight at the
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 3: Bucharest summit, we announced we were doing it. Now, we
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 3: didn't give them a map plan, but we announced they
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 3: are coming into NATO. Over and over, not just Kamala
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 3: Harris comment over and over and over again through the years,
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 3: people at the highest level of the US government asserted
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 3: that this is going to happen, that it's a matter
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 3: of time. And then the twenty fourteen this was a
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 3: major major provocation towards the Russians that we backed this
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 3: street protest against the democratically elected government there.
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 2: And that's again it's tricky because the Maydan protests were
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 2: genuine students in the center of the city who were
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 2: uprising against a corrupt government. I'm not even arguing that claim,
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 2: you know. And that again it's like it's the people
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 2: of Ukraine, like other countries, when they do have agency
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 2: beyond what Washington.
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not claiming any of those people don't have agency.
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 3: I'm just claiming that Washington poured one hundred million dollars
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 3: into the thing and sent our politicians over there, our
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 3: politicians openly saying where on your side, where you have
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 3: the backing of America.
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 2: Look, dougla, Historically, historically, you know, America does like to
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 2: be has liked to be on the side of people
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 2: who desire freedom of over autocracy.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 3: When it's convenient, not so much when it's not. Well, yeah,
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 3: not in Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt.
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 2: I'm glad you joined me in my dislike the House
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 2: of Soud.
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 3: Okay, fine, but look it does attack yeah, but it
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 3: does attack your central point there that it's like, no,
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 3: I'm sorry, Like, see, this is my be My beef
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 3: isn't ever with talking about the corruption or the evil
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 3: things that other governments do. What I don't like is
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 3: this whitewashing over our own corruption and the evil things
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 3: that are the idea that America we have a history
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 3: of just standing with the people because we love democracy
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 3: so much. No, we use that as an excuse when
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 3: we think it's in our strategic advantage. We will overthrow
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 3: democratically elected governments with no problem, which, by the way,
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 3: Yanikovich was democratically elected with elections verified by the EU.
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 3: But I'm not denying any of those kids had agency,
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 3: and I'm sure a lot of them were protesting against
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 3: their own corrupt government. But the point is that, like, look,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 3: imagine on I think Jeffrey Sachs came up with this
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 3: isn't mine, But imagine on January sixth, if like uh,
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 3: Chinese politicians were coming over and handing out sandwiches to
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 3: the the rioters and saying, we have your back, we
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 3: have I mean, listen, we would lose our collective minds
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 3: if another country came in and did something like that. Okay,
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 3: And but I mean we lost our collective minds about
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin installing Donald Trump and it was all just
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 3: completely made up. It wasn't even a real thing. But
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 3: so to think, okay, the people.
• 1:20:27
  Speaker 2: Subsets for.
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 3: Me being thee yeah, for me being the bisexual libertarian
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 3: here you have you have corrected me on my collectivism
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 3: several times here, and you are right, Yes, we didn't
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 3: lose our mind I am speaking, but others, many other
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 3: people here did.
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 2: But you look, I.
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 3: Mean, you're pouring one hundred million dollars into a street
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 3: protest against a democratically elected president of Ukraine, and the
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 3: whole issue is over essentially whether he's going to tilt
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 3: toward an economic deal with Europe or tilt toward an
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 3: economic deal with Vladimir Putin. I mean, Douglas, like, if
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 3: anyone did that in our region of the world, we
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 3: would d C would overthrow that government, invade in a moment.
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 3: If China poured a hundred million dollars into Mexican protests
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 3: and was able to overthrow the democratic elected government, what
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 3: do you think DC would.
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 2: Change the subject? Maybe? But Kata pours hundreds of millions
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 2: of dollars into this country billions indeed, and tries to
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 2: change policy in this country. And nobody's trying to overthrow Kata.
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 2: Nobody's trying to throw the overthrow the emir or his family,
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 2: and they are. They've been poisoning American universities, American institutions,
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 2: buying up American politicians. They pulled billions into this country.
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 1: I just sent you something this morning.
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 3: Yes, I mean, well, okay, but that is a little
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 3: bit different than overthrowing our neighbor government and.
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 2: Trying to you're saying that we'd lose our mind if
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 2: anyone tried to interfere here. There are lots of people.
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 2: I wasn't saying if anyone, and the most obvious one
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 2: is kata which is pause money into DC and into
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 2: elite institutions and universities in this country. And I don't
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 2: find from one week to the next anyone who's particularly
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 2: riled up about it.
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 3: Well, so they've been. I mean, so they're pouring money
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 3: into d C. And so do you think that they
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 3: are influencing US policy through doing that.
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 2: I think they're trying to.
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe they are trying to.
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, they're definitely succeeding with the universities and others.
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 3: Maybe they should try with the political class more if
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 3: they're trying to turn US anti Israel or something like that,
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 3: because both major parties in this country will fund and
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 3: unconditionally support Israel no matter what. So I mean, I
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 3: don't know, I don't know whether what.
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 2: But I mean Katas is definitely trying to influence things
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 2: their way as other countries are. I mean, I just
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 2: I cited as an example of something is very interesting,
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 2: which is an attempt to interfere in American public life,
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 2: which gets almost no attention. And in the governments, whether
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 2: a Democrat or Republican, still seem to adore the Qataris,
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 2: even as they act as one of the backers of
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 2: terrorist groups across the Middle East and elsewhere. And I
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 2: cannot understand why it doesn't get more attention.
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 3: Well, according to the former Defense Minister of Israel, they
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 3: were begging cut Her to pour that money into Hamas.
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 2: No, that's not what happened.
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 3: Well that's what he said, yea, his words, begging.
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 2: You're referring to the funding of Jimaz in the twenty tens. Yes, yeah, no,
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 2: the Qataris poured the money in. And the question on
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 2: the Israeli side was what you allowed to do with
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: funds that were going into Gaza, And the Israelis allowed
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 2: the funds to go from Kata.
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 3: Well, I think a little bit more than that. I
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 3: think when the funds dried up, Netnyak, who sent the
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 3: head of the massade, and they're to beg him to
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 3: keep the funds going.
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: Again, I'm not sure. It's like quoting the head of
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 2: the CIA, quoting the head of the Masad, So maybe
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 2: it's not the that's not the evidence of the last
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 2: eighteen years.
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 3: I mean it's you can, okay, So I I mean,
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 3: I guess I think I'm allowed to quote powerful people
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 3: when they admit what they're doing.
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 2: I mean it's kind well no, I but again, I mean,
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 2: it's just it's just an interesting thing because again it's
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: a discipline about this, which is, do I only quote
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 2: powerful people when they say the odd thing that I
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 2: agree with? Or do I simultaneously distrust all powerful people.
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 2: It's just an interesting rhetorical.
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 3: Well, no, I mean I think that obviously, like I
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 3: don't blindly trust any anyone in the political class or
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 3: the media class for that matter, either.
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 2: But when they.
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 3: Admit things that are like very against their interest to
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 3: admit and kind of give away the whole game that
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 3: now they're pretending doesn't who.
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 2: The IA or must add that it isn't just if
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 2: they say something that you happen to want to be
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 2: the case.
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 3: Well, this is kind of like saying if I were
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 3: to on trial and I were to like I'm the prosecution,
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 3: and I'd enter into evidence a written confession by the defendant,
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 3: and you go, well, are you only entering this in
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 3: because this kind of goes along with your case, Like
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 3: I suppose we're all guilty of having these these incentives
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 3: to some degree. But I do think it's a relevant
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 3: detail that the former Defense secretary admitted this, and by
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 3: the way, Netanyahu's admitted this, Ahood Barack has admitted this, admitted.
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 2: That they allowed funds to go from Kuta to Hamas
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 2: because for.
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 3: The reason of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state.
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 2: No, that was not the case.
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 3: That is what Netanyahu said, that is what Ahud Barack said.
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 3: It's all up and down.
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 2: One claim. There's one recording of Natanna who saying something
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 2: along those lines. But look, I mean, you know, we
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 2: should get on we should get onto it.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 3: I could read you the quotes from Ahood Barack as well.
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 3: It's all of them. I talked about it.
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 2: The situation let's let's get on to it. The situation
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 2: there on. The war of the last eighteen months, now
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 2: more than eighteen months in the Middle East is a
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 2: result not of that, but of Hamaz deciding to start
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 2: another war with Israel and trying to annihilate their neighbor.
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 3: But you don't think if they if they were being
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 3: propped up by Israel, that has nothing to.
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 2: Doing propped up by Israel. The reason why Hamas were
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 2: in power, as you know, much much against the interests
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 2: of the Israelis, was that they were voted into power
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 2: after the Israelis withdrew from Gaza in five Condoleeza Rice
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 2: and other American states folk insisted that the Palestinians should
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 2: have elections straight after the Israeli withdrawal. They had elections,
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 2: perhaps unwisely, and Hamas won and then didn't have another
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 2: election again and ruled the Gaza for eighteen years until
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 2: they finally got the great fruit of their labors on
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 2: the seventh October twenty twenty three and went around southern
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 2: Israel massacring everyone and they could, including young people at
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 2: a dance party, and then caused in turn the destruction
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 2: of the place that they were meant to be governing.
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 2: It's a the whole thing is a great tragedy, and
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 2: all of it is at the feet of Hamaz.
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 3: I certainly agree with you that it's a it's a
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 3: great tragedy, and I do you know, I think it's
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 3: it's you know, when you accuse me of using the
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 3: quotes that kind of you know, back up what I believe.
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 3: I think it's very convenient here to remove all responsibility
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 3: from the Israelis. Like even if I'm telling you that
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 3: you have these quotes, I mean again, I'm not talking
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 3: about fringe figures. Figures. We could read through the list
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 3: of people who have admitted what the strategy was with
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 3: them funding Hamas and property. But hold on, let me
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 3: just say so if you're going to tell me, Israel
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 3: props up this this terrorist organization in order to kill
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 3: the peace process, in order to make sure that the
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 3: international community gives them a no one by the way,
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 3: Smotrich right, the the Finance minister, Okay, he's on record,
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 3: it's on record saying, look, Hamas is an asset the
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 3: Palestinian authority, they're the liability. Hamas is an asset because
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 3: we then we can tell the international community, well, look,
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 3: what do you want us to do. There's a terrorist
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 3: organization here. We can't do business with them. And then
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 3: even Ahood Barack admitted like this was also so that
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 3: liberal uh Israelis. You know, if it was the Palestinian authority,
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 3: they'd be like, hey, we should make a deal with them,
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 3: but since it's Hamas, they can't. Okay, So if Israel
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 3: props up this terrorist organization and then as a response
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 3: to them committing a horrific act of terrorism, decides to
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 3: level the entire place and just slaughter women and children
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 3: in large numbers.
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 2: Do that and didn't do that.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 3: But yeah, it didn't level the place. Gauz is not
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 3: hasn't gone.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 2: Stroy Pty leveled by now. Yeah, but it did not
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 2: go in to level the place like that.
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 3: Okay, they went in and leveled the place, but that
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 3: wasn't Thet's just let's just.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 2: Go back to the beginning if we can sure, because
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: it's important since you're interested in the question of the
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 2: Palestinian state. The Palestinian were given another state in two
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 2: thousand and five, when every single Jew was removed from
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 2: the Gaza by the Ideaf, and when even the graves
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: of Israelis in Gaza were dug up and taken into
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 2: the rest of Israel. Of all of the waifs of
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 2: Palestinian Arab history, the era since two thousand and five
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 2: should be one of the great watifs, which is what
• 1:29:25
  Speaker 2: if the American taxpayer's money that was poured into Gaza,
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 2: the European Union taxpayer money that was poured into Gaza
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 2: had been used by a government in Gaza to build
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 2: a state that lived side by side with their Israeli
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 2: neighbors and flourished. And it's not like the money wasn't there.
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 2: It's not like there wasn't the international will Ishmael Henier
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 2: and the other leaders of Hamaz used that money, as
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 2: you know, to make themselves billionaires and to buy themselves
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 2: and their kids condos in Katar and to live extremely
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 2: well whilst with holding the money from the Palestinian people,
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 2: whilst building their network of tunnels throughout Gaza and building
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 2: an infrastructure of terror. And that's what they did with
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 2: eighteen years in Gaza, and of all of the wadiffs,
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 2: just consider that that one was in their hands. The
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 2: Israelis did not make them vote in Hamaz. The Israelis
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 2: would not want a terrorist entity that wants to annihilate
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 2: the State of Israel, that is there on their doorstep,
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 2: constantly firing rockets, starting wars every few years. Why would
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 2: the Israelis want a group there. That means that if
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 2: you're living in towns like Stirrat or Ashklon or ash Dodd,
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 2: your children grow up all the time knowing that they
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 2: might have to go to the bomb shelters, and that's
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 2: during peacetime.
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 3: Well, according to them, the reason they want it there
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 3: is because then it kills the peace process and then
• 1:31:02
  Speaker 3: you have no one to negotiate with certificate, and that
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 3: then you can keep your eyes on building up settlements
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 3: in the West Bank.
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 2: There are as now many people to negotiate with mak
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 2: Mudha Bas. Maybe I don't know, as the joke goes,
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 2: currently in something like his twentieth year of his first
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 2: four year term as head of a Palestinian authority, but
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 2: mak Mudha Bas is there in Ramala. The compounds of
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 2: the Palestinian Authority, which I've been too many times in Ramala,
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 2: are there. They run their portions of the West Bank.
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 2: They could be there to negotiate with at any moment.
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 2: The Israelis have said they want to negotiate with them
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 2: at any moment and come to the deal. In fact,
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 2: Netanyahu you're fond of quoting, said again before this war began,
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 2: that he would come to the table with no red
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 2: lines to begin with, to start another negotiation with the
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 2: Palestinian authority. But let's just get back to this thing,
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 2: because this is so crucial. I am so startled by
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 2: the post October the seventh world, not just in Israel
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 2: and Gaza and everywhere where I spent most of the
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 2: last eighteen months, but in what's happening here in the
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 2: United States of America. It blows my mind much of
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 2: the response here and the desire to leap over the
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 2: first victims of this and go on to all of
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 2: the proximate causes, theoretical causes, what ifs, and so on.
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 2: I was, as I described in the opening of this book,
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 2: I was in New York on the seventh October, and
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 2: I woke up and started seeing what was happening, and
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 2: discovered that later that day already there were attempts. There
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 2: were plans to organize a protest in Times Square, and
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 2: what was a protest in Times Square? Massive protests in
• 1:32:52
  Speaker 2: support of hamaz As. The massacre was still going on.
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 2: And one of the things I just cannot get out
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 2: of my head is why, in the last eighteen months,
• 1:33:03
  Speaker 2: when Hamas did what they did, have so many people
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 2: made excuses for them, or decided to side with them,
• 1:33:11
  Speaker 2: or deny their actions or excuse their actions.
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: Why do you think there.
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 2: Is several very very big things. One is I think
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 2: people wanted to ignore the nature of the atrocity because
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 2: it was so appalling that it went against much of
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 2: their narrative. I was at a reunion of one of
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 2: the survivors of the Nova Party on one occasion, and
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 2: he said to me, what would you do if this
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 2: had happened in your country? And I thought, well, it
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 2: hasn't happened at this scale, but something like it has happened.
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 2: The Ariana Grande Arena bombing in Manchester in twenty seventeen,
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 2: the Bataclan massacre in Paris in twenty fifteen, the Pulse
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 2: nightclub shooting in twenty fifteen. But all of these occasions,
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 2: when young people were murdered for being at a pop
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 2: concert or a nightclub, the world's attention, the world's empathy,
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 2: the world's sympathy went to the victims. Only in the
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 2: case of the young Israelis dancing in the early hours
• 1:34:15
  Speaker 2: of the morning on October seventh, twenty twenty three, do
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 2: the victims become victimized again and not believed. The era
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 2: we lived through in the late twenty tens was the
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 2: era of believe all women, and of all the Israeli
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 2: women who were raped that morning. Much of the international
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 2: community does not want to listen to them at all,
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 2: and certainly doesn't want to believe them, and there are
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 2: many reasons. One at the most fundamental level is that
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 2: I think a part of a generation that's coming up
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 2: has been told there is something especially wicked about Israel,
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 2: that there is something especially wicked about Israel's existence and
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 2: its actions and its people, and it means that when
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 2: their people are burned alive in their homes or raped
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 2: at a music festival and shot in the head, they
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 2: are uniquely undeserving of sympathy. And I think that people
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 2: have been indoctrinated by very bad actors into this and
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 2: as a result have excused atrocities or make excuses for them,
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 2: make excuses for the people who do them. I think,
• 1:35:24
  Speaker 2: in addition, it plays to the some of the darkest
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 2: things of the regional mind as well as the international mind.
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 2: The aims of Hamas their stated aims include the annihilation
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 2: of the Jewish people, and October seventh they had their
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 2: best go at doing that. And the fact that in
• 1:35:51
  Speaker 2: a decision between whether or not you're on the side
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 2: of the people who want to dance and live in
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 2: peace with their neighbors, or whether you're on the side
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 2: of the people who want to rampage through a dance
• 1:36:03
  Speaker 2: party bar in the early morning machetteing at people. I
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 2: find it amazing that there are so many people who
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 2: don't know which side they're on, but there are a
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 2: lot of them. There are a lot of reasons for that,
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 2: but one of the foremost reasons is the fact that
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: the state of Israel has been uniquely libeled, has been
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 2: uniquely lied about. Its history, has been uniquely lied about.
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 2: It has been uniquely put under an international spotlight and
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 2: then misrepresented in a way which I cannot think of
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 2: many other countries in the world that have been treated
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 2: that way. And there are deep reasons for it and
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 2: shallow reasons for it. The deep reasons include some of
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 2: the most ancient bigotries of the human heart, and the
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 2: shallow reasons are people who don't know what the hell
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 2: they're talking about.
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 3: Okay, I think that there's Look, I'm not gonna speak
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 3: for what every person out there believes. I don't exactly
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 3: agree with, like the characterization that there was no outpouring
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 3: of like feeling after October seventh, and certainly like everybody
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 3: I know was just like, oh my God, there's like
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 3: a horrific atrocity and like an unprecedented terrorist attack from Hamas,
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 3: the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history against Israelis, and
• 1:37:27
  Speaker 3: it was horrible. I think what a lot of I'm
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 3: not arguing that there are no people who are actually
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 3: pro Hamas or there are no people who are actually
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 3: like hate Jews or something like that. I do think
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 3: that what happens is that a lot of people get
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 3: put in that category who do not belong there, much
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 3: like we've seen this over the last year and a
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 3: half where a lot of people, you know, you have
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 3: John pod Horritz calling Thomas Massey anti Semitic scum because
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 3: he said, we're dead broke, we can't afford to fund
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 3: everybody else's war here. People have been calling Tucker Carlson
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 3: anti Semitic all over the place, when these are two guys,
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 3: Thomas Massey and Tucker Carlson who have never uttered the
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 3: words the Jews in their life, like they're just not
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 3: anti Semites at all. So there's a lot of people,
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 3: I think who are when they're critical of the Israeli
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 3: government's response to this, get lumped in as pro Hamad.
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 3: I will certainly say that's certainly not my position. I
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 3: think your description of them death cult. By the way,
• 1:38:24
  Speaker 3: the same term that Daryl Daryl Cooper used to describe Hamas,
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 3: I think is an accurate one and it was horrible.
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 3: But I think that the you know, I think that
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 3: your characterization for Asta all that they gave the Palestinians
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 3: a state in two thousand and five is just wrong.
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 3: I just think that is not at all an accurate
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 3: way to describe the disengagement. Which we could get into
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 3: more if you want to, but first of all, I
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 3: would just point out that if the two states solution
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 3: was achieved, I assume you're arguing it was taken away
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 3: after that, you're not still arguing that the Palestinians have
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 3: a state, or you're saying they, I've had a state
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 3: since two thousand and five.
• 1:39:02
  Speaker 2: They had they were given a state in the Gaza.
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 3: And when did it When was it taken away?
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 2: Well, they kind of screwed it up themselves on the
• 1:39:08
  Speaker 2: seventh October.
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 3: So you're saying from two thousand and five all the
• 1:39:11
  Speaker 3: way till October seventh, there was a two state solution,
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 3: it had been achieved.
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 2: Well it was another state.
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 3: Yeah, Okay, but that would be two states.
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 2: Then it would be another state. It was different from
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 2: the PA.
• 1:39:21
  Speaker 3: Okay, right, but I'm saying a Palestinian state. Yeah, okay.
• 1:39:24
  Speaker 3: So what's interesting about that is that this is not
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 3: how like, this is not how any of the leaders
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 3: really describe it. I mean, when Netanyahu himself is not
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 3: claiming that they had already achieved a two state solution,
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 3: why are you talking about this? What happened in two
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 3: thousand and five in the disengagement was that essentially Israel
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 3: went from occupying the place to surrounding the place, and
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 3: they've had it under a brutal blockade since two thousand
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 3: and seven.
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 2: And yes, you were right, but think why do you
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 2: I don't agree the blockade was brutal by any means. Really,
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 2: you don't think the blockade of Gaza was brutal? I mean,
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 2: how brutal? Do you think Egyptians pretty brutal? Mine?
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 2: They laid allowed stuff.
• 1:40:05
  Speaker 3: In, Okay, I mean, since some stuff has gotten in, Yes,
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 3: that's true, Since some stuff okay, some from I'll say
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 3: this right, because there's been different levels of blockade even
• 1:40:17
  Speaker 3: before two thousand and seven, going back, I know in
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 3: nineteen ninety six, they had like a pretty strong blockade
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 3: that year. According to the World Bank, it contracted forty
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 3: percent of the GDP of Gaza. So just for for reference,
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 3: the Great Depression we was a thirty percent contraction. This
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 3: was in nineteen ninety six. For one year, they gave
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 3: them something worse than our Great Depression. That was just
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 3: one year. They From two thousand and seven on, there's
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 3: been a blockade of that country. You don't think that's
• 1:40:46
  Speaker 3: kept the country poor?
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 2: Why do you think is a blockade of any kind?
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 3: Why is there a blockade? Well, I mean, the the
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 3: argument from Israel would why do you think I would say, Okay,
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 3: I think that the dis engagement. I think Smotrich was
• 1:41:01
  Speaker 3: correct when he said I'm sorry my mistake there. I
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 3: think the which another quote that I'm sure you're familiar with,
• 1:41:07
  Speaker 3: but Douve Weisklapp, who was the senior advisor to Sharon
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 3: was the Prime minister at the time, he essentially said,
• 1:41:13
  Speaker 3: the reason we're doing the disengagement, the reason we're doing
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 3: this is so that we can put the peace process
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 3: in formaldehyde. This is the reason we're not.
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 2: Asking my question. I'm getting the right wing Israeli politicians
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 2: but what I'm getting this reason I'm getting there.
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 3: I'm saying, so I think they disengaged in order to
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 3: kill the peace process. I think they put the full
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 3: blockade around the country for the reason that they've always
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 3: kind of done it there that, Yeah, they don't want
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 3: too much stuff getting in. They want to keep them
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 3: as they put it on a diet, and they don't
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 3: want rockets to fly into Israel.
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 2: The second one is a kind of important one, isn't
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 2: it the final Yes, it is. I if the Palestinian
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 2: leadership in Gaza after two thousand and five had not
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 2: from the get go decided to use Gaza as a
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 2: stockpiling place for rockets to fire into Israel, all of
• 1:42:04
  Speaker 2: it would be different. If they had just resisted the
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 2: temptation that so many of us do in our lives
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 2: to stop keeping RPGs in our sellers and then Katusha
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: rockets in our children's bedrooms, all of it could have
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 2: been different. If that desire to live in peace beside
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 2: your neighbors had superseded the desire to stockpile rockets, it
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 2: would all be different, described.
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 3: Them for sixty years, it would all be different too.
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 2: Well, you believe in self determination. I'm sure. Yes. Believe
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 2: in individual rights, yeah, okay, individual rights, and that includes the
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 2: right to make bad decisions.
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 2: The Palestinians in Gaza when they voted in Hamaz made
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 2: a very bad decision. Yeah, of course, hang on, hang on,
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 2: And in the years after that, they made bad decision
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 2: after bad decision. It was a very bad decision to
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 2: continually fire thousands of rockets into Israel. It was a
• 1:43:06
  Speaker 2: very bad decision. To use what boats came in early
• 1:43:10
  Speaker 2: on and the and and to use the smuggling networks
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 2: from Egypt. Not to bring in supplies you could actually
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 2: build a thriving society with, but to bring in rockets.
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 2: It was a very bad idea. No, there was not
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 2: starvation in Gaza after two thousand and five. No, there
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 2: was no deficit of goods coming in. I've been plenty
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 2: of no deficit. There are plenty. How many have you
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 2: been to the crossing points? Now? When were you last there?
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 1: At all?
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 2: I've never been, You've never been? Well?
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 3: Am I not allowed to talk about it?
• 1:43:44
  Speaker 1: Now?
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 3: Have never been to? Have you ever been to Nazi Germany?
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 3: Are you allowed to have feelings about them?
• 1:43:48
  Speaker 2: You can't time travel, but you can travel.
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 3: Okay, but so what so what's the point Like? No, Okay,
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 3: I find that lots of people have.
• 1:43:55
  Speaker 2: Been there and agree with me, and lots of people
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 2: have been there and agree with you.
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 3: I'm going to.
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 2: Spend a year and a half talking place about a place,
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 2: you should at least do the courtesy of visiting it.
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 3: I just think this is a non argument. No, I
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 3: think it's a non argument.
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 2: But if you're an.
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 1: Expert, wll you have to go and touch the ground?
• 1:44:11
  Speaker 2: No? I think you have to see. I think it's
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 2: a good idea to see stuff, particularly if you spend
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 2: a career talking about something. Yes, I have a journalistic
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 2: rule of trying never to talk about a country, even
• 1:44:22
  Speaker 2: in passing, unless I've at least been there. Okay, it's normal,
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 2: it's a normal thing to do. You're talking about hang on,
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 2: you're talking about crossing points, and not only have you
• 1:44:33
  Speaker 2: never been to a crossing point in either Egypt or
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 2: in Israel, but you've never even been to the region.
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 3: Okay. Again, I think this is a non argument.
• 1:44:40
  Speaker 2: It's not a non ars is. It's not a non argument.
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 2: If you're insisting that you're an expert of some kind
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 2: or not claiming you're an expert, but still talking about it,
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 2: about the provisions going into Gaza or not. If you've
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 2: never seen any of this going on.
• 1:44:57
  Speaker 3: So you're amazing things that you've read about. You can
• 1:45:00
  Speaker 3: only speak about things that you've seen with your own eyes.
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 2: You can talk about what you want, as you're proving.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: But that is a different matter from spending an awfully
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 2: long amount of time talking about an issue in a
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 2: region you haven't even had the courtesy to visit, whilst
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 2: developing all of these views about it. I mean, now
• 1:45:27
  Speaker 2: I slightly get an idea of where you're coming from.
• 1:45:30
  Speaker 2: You've read about this blockade, and so you imagine that
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 2: that's what it is. I imagine you've read all the
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 2: people who say that Gaza was a concentration camp, and
• 1:45:42
  Speaker 2: you probably think that too, Am I right?
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 3: I mean again, literally a concentration camp. It shares a
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 3: lot of similarities.
• 1:45:51
  Speaker 2: I would think, Wow, Well, as I say, you can't
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 2: time travel, let's.
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 1: Go back to the let's go back to the book.
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 2: At least actually visited.
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 3: Okay, the World Bank said in nineteen ninety six, for
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 3: the one the World Bank, it doesn't mean anything. This
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 3: is a non argument. Yes, I'm saying. The World Bank
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 3: did their own analysis of this and they said that.
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 2: It was a.
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 1: Hold on, you've got to stop interrupting, Okay, let him finish.
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 3: The World Bank said that forty percent drop in the
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 3: GDP of one year due to the blockade, and there's
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 3: been a blockade from two thousand and seven on. So
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 3: are you saying that this hasn't had an economic effect?
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 3: Is that the argument?
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 2: No, I'm of course it'll have an economic effect.
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 1: So you're saying you have to be on the ground
• 1:46:36
  Speaker 1: and do an audit of the blockade in order to
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 1: be the common.
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 2: You should at least know what it is, what the
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 2: territory is, what the situation is in the region.
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, and the only way to do that is
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 1: to be there in person.
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 2: I think that's the best way. It's not the only way,
• 1:46:48
  Speaker 2: but it's the best way for sure. For sure. If
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 2: you have never seen the countries in question, you've never
• 1:46:55
  Speaker 2: spoken to the people in question, you've never interviewed anyone,
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 2: you've never gone around, you've never seen the terrain and
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 2: so on, and you've used Wikipedia, I'm sorry, No, that's
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 2: not the same thing.
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 3: Okay, Well, I've not just used Wikipedia. But didn't you
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 3: write a big piece when the war in Ukraine first
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 3: came out titled something like I've been to Ukraine and
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 3: they can win. They can repel the Russians. So you
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 3: could go there and still get it wrong, right, No.
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 2: I was with the Ukrainian Armed Forces in twenty twenty
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 2: two when they were retaking territory from the Russian.
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 3: Right the last time they had any advances.
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 2: Yeah, right, I said, I can see how they can win,
• 1:47:28
  Speaker 2: which will be advances like that. Yeah.
• 1:47:30
  Speaker 3: You said if we just fund them or if we
• 1:47:32
  Speaker 3: just they can, then they can that.
• 1:47:34
  Speaker 2: The Ukrainian Army was not making great successes, which it
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 2: was when I was with them in the full of.
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 3: Twenty Okay, listen, there were lots of people who went
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 3: to Iraq and said, we'll be greeted as liberators and
• 1:47:42
  Speaker 3: it'll be paid for in oil, and democracy will spread
• 1:47:45
  Speaker 3: through the region. So I don't know, either take on
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 3: the arguments or don't, but I don't.
• 1:47:48
  Speaker 2: Think but your argument is incorrect.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 3: Okay, Fine, well, then then present a counter argument to it.
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 3: But to just tell me I'm not allowed to talk
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 3: about something. You're not an expert, so you shouldn't talk
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 3: about it. I've been there. Yeah, I know, but you
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 3: keep playing this game where it's like the whole opening
• 1:48:04
  Speaker 3: to this podcast was like the non experts talking about
• 1:48:07
  Speaker 3: this is such a problem. Now you're saying, I haven't
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 3: been there, I can't talk about it. Is there a
• 1:48:11
  Speaker 3: blockade there that's causing economic devastation or not? The World
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 3: Bank therets.
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 2: First of all, I don't think it's a game. I
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 2: don't think it's a game at all.
• 1:48:21
  Speaker 3: Me neither.
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 2: I'm not playing a game.
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 1: Okay, but this is semantics.
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 2: No, but this is important. I've seen plenty of this
• 1:48:30
  Speaker 2: up close. I've seen plenty of this with my own eyes,
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 2: because I do believe that one of the things you
• 1:48:36
  Speaker 2: should do if you're talking about something is to see it.
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you'veished, Okay, is there a blockade?
• 1:48:42
  Speaker 2: The blockade that existed, to the extent it existed, was
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 2: a blockade to try to make sure that the Israelis
• 1:48:47
  Speaker 2: and the Egyptians knew what materials were going in and
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 2: out of Gaza after the first rocket fires when Hamaz,
• 1:48:54
  Speaker 2: in fact, before Hamaz was elected, the Israelis and the Egyptians.
• 1:48:57
  Speaker 2: The Egyptians didn't do a very good job of it.
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 2: Were meant to be trying to make sure that the
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 2: materials that went into Gaza were not materials that could
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 2: be used to build up the Guards and Hamaz war machine.
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 2: The reason why trucks get searched is not because the
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 2: Israelis want to search through grain or flour. It's because
• 1:49:20
  Speaker 2: they wanted to stop the trucks containing the arms and
• 1:49:24
  Speaker 2: the munitions that the Guards and Hamas and Islamic she
• 1:49:28
  Speaker 2: had fighters were going to use the fire against Israel.
• 1:49:31
  Speaker 2: And I'm sorry, it just makes the most obvious strategic sense.
• 1:49:34
  Speaker 2: As the great, late great Joan Rivers once said, if
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 2: if if as an appeal to authority.
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 3: That one I like.
• 1:49:43
  Speaker 1: She also said that Michelle Obama is a man.
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I know you did that. I'm saying, go ahead.
• 1:49:49
  Speaker 2: But as Johan Rivers said, if New York was being
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 2: rocketed from New Jersey, we would level New Jersey. I
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 2: don't think you need to level it, by the way,
• 1:50:00
  Speaker 2: but you would at least try to make sure that
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 2: rockets weren't being imported in larger quantities into New Jersey.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 2: Of course, okay, that's all the Israelis were.
• 1:50:07
  Speaker 3: Doing, and they haven't alway, and they would they haven't told.
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 3: They haven't said that you can't bring potato chips in
• 1:50:12
  Speaker 3: you can have cookies because they have dual use. Now,
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 3: isn't this their whole argument that there's anything that could
• 1:50:17
  Speaker 3: be used to build a rocket has to be excluded.
• 1:50:19
  Speaker 2: Anything that could be used to build a rocket. Yeah right, yeah, yeah,
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 2: but that's a good reason. Again not to build rockets
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 2: and fire them at your neighbors. Is almost there's a
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 2: cost to play. It's almost like there's a cost to
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 2: pay for instead of living in peace with your neighbor
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 2: constantly trying to wipe them out. And that is what
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 2: Hamaz did for eighteen years, eighteen years. This is what
• 1:50:42
  Speaker 2: this is why I think it's so unbelievable taking agency
• 1:50:47
  Speaker 2: away from the Palestines of Gaza, is that the Hamaz
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 2: had eighteen years. And eighteen years is obviously the time
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 2: from the birth of a child to the end of
• 1:50:56
  Speaker 2: their formal education. They literally had the opportunity to create
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 2: a generation in Gaza that wanted to live beside their
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 2: Israeli neighbors. And from everything I've seen since the seventh
• 1:51:07
  Speaker 2: of October in the region, and from all of the
• 1:51:10
  Speaker 2: dead and the survivors and the family members I've seen
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 2: so many of them. Particularly the people in the south
• 1:51:15
  Speaker 2: who were attacked on the morning of the seventh were
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: literally people who dreamed of living in peace with their
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: Palestinian neighbors. They were people like Vivian Silver, whose body
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 2: wasn't identified for months because there wasn't enough of her
• 1:51:27
  Speaker 2: child remains left to even extract DNA from. She spent
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 2: every weekend, like so many people in the communities in
• 1:51:33
  Speaker 2: the south of Israel, every weekend driving children with the
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 2: most rare medical conditions that couldn't be treated in one
• 1:51:41
  Speaker 2: of the Hamas run hospitals in Gaza into very specialist
• 1:51:45
  Speaker 2: units inside Israel. And she spent every weekend doing that
• 1:51:48
  Speaker 2: and working with bet Selemon, all of these radical Israeli groups.
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 2: And it didn't matter a bit when Hamaz came in,
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 2: because they burnt her in her own home. Anyway, My
• 1:51:57
  Speaker 2: point is, in all of the counter factuals of this conflict,
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 2: the most important one is what could have happened if,
• 1:52:06
  Speaker 2: instead of educating a generation into wanting to annihilate their neighbors,
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 2: Hamaz in power had spent eighteen years building up a state,
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 2: teaching peace, creating coexistence with their neighbors. You think any
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 2: of the people and the kid put sim in the south,
• 1:52:25
  Speaker 2: or the young people dancing at the Nova party weren't
• 1:52:28
  Speaker 2: dreaming of the day that the Palestinian government in Gaza
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 2: would have created those conditions for them to live beside
• 1:52:36
  Speaker 2: as well, of course.
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 1: No race.
• 1:52:40
  Speaker 3: Everybody, nobody's argument. Douglas, it's just again and here, I mean,
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 3: it's not what I'm saying. Look, I'll say this again
• 1:52:47
  Speaker 3: because you bring up the point about agency again, and
• 1:52:51
  Speaker 3: I hear this a lot as a counter much like
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 3: I said in Ukraine. It's not denying anybody agency. I'm
• 1:52:57
  Speaker 3: not saying that. Believe me, if I was in control
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 3: of how people acted, I would certainly there are.
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 2: This there.
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 3: Palestinians could have handled things much better, and there are
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 3: different points where we probably all would agree that we
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 3: wish they had done it this way and not this way.
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 3: And I think that embracing for those Palestinians who embraced terrorism,
• 1:53:20
  Speaker 3: which from you know, which pretty early on. I mean,
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 3: Israel and Palestine have been at war since the existence
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 3: of Israel, really, and I know it's convenient to like
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 3: kind of preten October seventh was like the first thing
• 1:53:30
  Speaker 3: but actually there's a long history here. I'm not denying
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 3: any of them agency. The problem is that I see
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 3: it as like you only seem to focus on the
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 3: agency of one side. And then, you know, if you
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 3: want to talk about counterfactuals, I think the most interesting counterfactual, well,
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 3: maybe I'll give you two. Number one would be Kim Weizman,
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 3: who was essentially supposed to be the David Bengorian like
• 1:53:51
  Speaker 3: he was in line as like the number one ranking Zionist.
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 3: This is pre the creation of the State of Israel,
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 3: who urged all of the Zionist militias to not embraced terrorism,
• 1:54:01
  Speaker 3: and he ended up losing that battle ultimately in many ways,
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 3: this terrorism was introduced.
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 2: As the president of the state.
• 1:54:07
  Speaker 3: David Bengurian, was I saying heimwise, yes, yes, And he
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 3: basically ended up losing his position to David Bengurian because
• 1:54:15
  Speaker 3: they just wanted to be more hardcore. And and by the way,
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 3: the uh you know, the the Ergon and the Lehigh
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 3: in the Haganah, they openly embraced terrorism to drive out
• 1:54:24
  Speaker 3: an occupying force. This is literally the story of the
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 3: creation of the State of Israel. The Palestinians fell into
• 1:54:31
  Speaker 3: a terrible tragic mistake early on. And I'm saying, listen,
• 1:54:37
  Speaker 3: I reject terrorism as we all should, just because killing
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 3: innocent people is wrong. I'd like to get to that
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 3: a little bit more in a second, because it's interesting
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 3: that we haven't really gotten into the what I think
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 3: is a great humanitarian crisis here. But they were following
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 3: I think in some ways they were very influenced by
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 3: the Algerian model that they were like, hey, look we
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 3: could listen. There's a lot of groups, whether it's which
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 3: I was driving the French out war, yes, and right,
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 3: But look, I mean there's a lot of these scenarios
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 3: where we look back at Nelson Mandela for example. You know,
• 1:55:10
  Speaker 3: Nelson Mandela was not imprisoned because he was, you know,
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 3: making picket signs. I mean, there have been people who
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 3: have embraced violence as a means to achieve a policy end,
• 1:55:21
  Speaker 3: including the early Zionis settlers, including the Israeli government, including
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 3: the US government, and lots of governments around the world.
• 1:55:27
  Speaker 3: The tragic, tragic mistake in terms of political outcome from
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 3: the Palestinians is that they really just underestimated the fact
• 1:55:35
  Speaker 3: that these Jews had no home to go to this
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 3: was their home, and you could drive out the French
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 3: from Algeria because they go, screw it, We're going back
• 1:55:43
  Speaker 3: home to France. The Jews had been so persecuted in
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 3: Eastern Europe that there was no home to go, and
• 1:55:47
  Speaker 3: of course then after World War Two they were here
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 3: to stay. And so it's of course it's been a tragedy,
• 1:55:52
  Speaker 3: and of course a lot of Palestinian actions I wish
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 3: would be different. I wish Hamas didn't exist. It should
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 3: be pointed out by the way that in two thousand
• 1:55:59
  Speaker 3: and five you did mention that it was really part
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 3: of the Bush administrations exporting democracy around the world that
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 3: put pressure on them to have these elections. It should
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 3: also be mentioned that Hamas did not win a majority
• 1:56:10
  Speaker 3: in one single precinct. They won pluralities all around. So
• 1:56:13
  Speaker 3: just saying, when we're bringing up this election, half the
• 1:56:17
  Speaker 3: population of Gaza today is under the age of eighteen.
• 1:56:20
  Speaker 3: They were toddlers if they were alive in two thousand
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 3: and five. Of the other half, that maybe half of
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 3: them voted in these elections. It was never a majority
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 3: that supported Hamas. They eked out a victory, and then
• 1:56:32
  Speaker 3: of course there was an attempted coup after that, and
• 1:56:36
  Speaker 3: that's when Hamas seized complete control. The coup failed. Regardless
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 3: of any of that, I agree with you that, like, yeah,
• 1:56:44
  Speaker 3: the Palestinians have agency, and I wish some of them
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 3: had made better decisions. Now many of them have made
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 3: better decisions, and it still resulted in nothing better happening
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 3: for them and their people. And so I do find
• 1:56:55
  Speaker 3: it kind of hard to like lecture a group of
• 1:56:58
  Speaker 3: people who are going through so much, like the level
• 1:57:01
  Speaker 3: of human suffering that's being inflicted on the people of
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 3: Gaza right now cannot be overstated, and so you know,
• 1:57:07
  Speaker 3: to lecture them about how you're supposed to handle that exactly.
• 1:57:11
  Speaker 3: But I will say, men, I think there's kind of
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 3: this selective empathy that you have here.
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 2: Like I agree with you, you.
• 1:57:19
  Speaker 3: Know, talking about these these teenagers being slaughtered at a
• 1:57:21
  Speaker 3: music festival on October seventh, it's like, my God, Like
• 1:57:24
  Speaker 3: I have little kids. I can't like imagine the nightmare
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 3: of this happening to somebody's children. But at the same time,
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 3: we're not having this conversation on October ninth, or in
• 1:57:34
  Speaker 3: November or December of twenty twenty three. We're having it
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 3: in twenty twenty five, where the tragedy that's been inflicted
• 1:57:42
  Speaker 3: on Gaza is orders of magnitudes greater than October seventh.
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 3: There are just every day people are inundated with images
• 1:57:49
  Speaker 3: of just dead women and children. This is like one
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 3: of the most brutal wars, and by several metrics that really,
• 1:57:57
  Speaker 3: you know, like personally matter to me, like the number
• 1:57:59
  Speaker 3: of dead kids ds. I think that's a pretty good one.
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 3: It's more children have died than in any recent war.
• 1:58:05
  Speaker 3: I mean, this is like it does. I do think
• 1:58:07
  Speaker 3: there's almost like a fundamental framing bias that you get
• 1:58:11
  Speaker 3: into when people have these these debates, and I've had
• 1:58:14
  Speaker 3: several of them, as you have also, But it seems
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 3: to me that there's almost an implicit difference in the
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 3: value that you place on Israeli life versus the value
• 1:58:25
  Speaker 3: that we place on Palestinian's life. And to even like
• 1:58:28
  Speaker 3: we've gone this far into the conversation and haven't even
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 3: talked about the fact that like Israel has feel however
• 1:58:34
  Speaker 3: you feel if you want to argue, I haven't been there.
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 3: Stuff does get through the blockade. Okay, fine, this is
• 1:58:39
  Speaker 3: a captive people. You know that Israel has dominated since
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 3: at least nineteen sixty seven.
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: Many of them are there.
• 1:58:46
  Speaker 3: Because of the creation of the state of Israel who
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 3: used to live in what is now called Israel, and
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 3: they are just I mean, the amount of human suffering
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 3: that's being inflicted on them, when even as you kind
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 3: of acknowledged with the George W. Bush exp exporting democracy,
• 1:59:01
  Speaker 3: Hamas in many ways was forced on these people. In fact,
• 1:59:05
  Speaker 3: we saw protests against Tamas just recently. So I don't know.
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 3: I mean that to me seems to be the greatest
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 3: human tragedy, and I think much more so than you
• 1:59:12
  Speaker 3: can characterize it as people being pro Hamas or people
• 1:59:15
  Speaker 3: being anti Semitic. But I actually think that the mass
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 3: movement around the world of people who oppose this war
• 1:59:21
  Speaker 3: has been that people feel really awful about all these
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 3: babies and who are being slaughtered.
• 1:59:27
  Speaker 2: Okay, quite a few things. First of all, just let's
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 2: just get one term correct, because you said you do
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 2: think it's a concentration camp.
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 3: He said to share as many you know.
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 2: And you Wilso say that there's a disproportionately heavy youth
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 2: population in Gaza.
• 1:59:45
  Speaker 3: Yes, do you think that's not accurate?
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 2: I think the second one is accurate, right, But it's
• 1:59:51
  Speaker 2: a very strange thing to say that there's a population
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 2: boom in a concentration camp in Auschwitz in the nineteen forties.
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 2: Was not a doubling of the population.
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 1: He didn't say it was a concentration because it shares many.
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 2: Auschwitz was a concentration camp. Now, yes, it started as
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 2: a concentration and you'll notice that people were not doubling
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 2: inside their number because of the children they could have
• 2:00:21
  Speaker 2: in Auschwitz.
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 3: But nobody's making nobody else holding a concentration camp because it's.
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 2: Okay, But let's just just just at least tied up
• 2:00:29
  Speaker 2: the language a bit. Either you think the place is
• 2:00:31
  Speaker 2: a concentration camp or you think it's not a concentration camp.
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 2: And I don't think it can be a concentration camp
• 2:00:36
  Speaker 2: or any such term is suitable when you're talking about
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 2: a place which you yourself have admitted has a disproportunately
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 2: young population.
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 3: So that's the first thing I don't thinking in any way.
• 2:00:45
  Speaker 2: Argues again, but okay, I don't hold.
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 3: A concentration camp.
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 2: You said it has many of the same.
• 2:00:50
  Speaker 1: But you asked him if it did. You asked him
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 1: if it had any characteristics of a concentration.
• 2:00:55
  Speaker 2: Just because he said earlier that it did.
• 2:00:57
  Speaker 3: Okay, well long before, so much more, let me be
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 3: much more precise. Okay, So I'm not claiming that it
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 3: is a concentration camp or that it is akin to Auschwitz.
• 2:01:06
  Speaker 3: I'm saying that it's been under full blockade since two
• 2:01:08
  Speaker 3: thousand and seven. Israel rules the sea, is the heirs.
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 3: They control electricity that goes in. They're not allowed to
• 2:01:13
  Speaker 3: have an airport, they're not allowed to have a seaport.
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 3: They don't have the freedom to leave without permission from
• 2:01:17
  Speaker 3: the Israeli government. They don't have the freedom to trade
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 3: with the world. They don't have a freedom to vote
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 3: over the government that rules them.
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 2: I don't know. Call it whatever you want to. That's
• 2:01:26
  Speaker 2: the situation in which all of which is the result
• 2:01:29
  Speaker 2: of the election of Hamaz.
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 3: None of it's Israel's not responsible for one of the
• 2:01:33
  Speaker 3: babies that have died, the bombs that they are driving.
• 2:01:35
  Speaker 2: Let's get onto that then, Because you say it's one
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 2: of the most brutal wars, it's a very brutal war.
• 2:01:41
  Speaker 2: It's a very brutal war. It's certainly not even sadly
• 2:01:44
  Speaker 2: about among the standards of our time, any means the
• 2:01:47
  Speaker 2: most brutal. We don't need to get into the rather statistician,
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 2: ugly debate about whether or not you follow the Hamaz
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 2: government in Kaza's figures for them death counts, which is
• 2:02:01
  Speaker 2: what they which most of the world's media rely on,
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 2: and which I don't think are reliable to the least extent.
• 2:02:06
  Speaker 2: But you don't need to rely on that to say that,
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 2: even by the standards of a conflict in neighboring Syria,
• 2:02:14
  Speaker 2: the highest Hamaz death count inside Gaza for the appalling
• 2:02:20
  Speaker 2: last year and a half is less than an average
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 2: year has been for the last decade in Syria during
• 2:02:28
  Speaker 2: the civil war.
• 2:02:29
  Speaker 3: So the whole deck I mean total, far more people
• 2:02:32
  Speaker 3: died in Syria. I'm not arguing that, but you're saying,
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 3: and it's less than any year I think years that were.
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 2: Six to eight hundred thousand people have been killed in
• 2:02:40
  Speaker 2: Syria during the civil war there, And I give it
• 2:02:44
  Speaker 2: as an example of far too many examples of wars
• 2:02:47
  Speaker 2: in the region and in the wider world to go to.
• 2:02:50
  Speaker 2: But I think we get once again back to the
• 2:02:52
  Speaker 2: issue of language on this. It says one of the
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 2: most brutal wars. Is simply obvious that it's an appalling war,
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 2: but it is not by any numerical or other standards.
• 2:03:03
  Speaker 2: For the most appalling war of our time. It's the
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 2: war that Hamaz started because they shouldn't have invaded their
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 2: neighbor and they shouldn't have tried to genocide their neighbor. Now,
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 2: if the war can be prosecuted, could be prosecuted. It
• 2:03:16
  Speaker 2: was always for two reasons, always for two reasons. The
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 2: first one, as stated by the unanimity of Israeli politicians
• 2:03:26
  Speaker 2: and others, was to retrieve the hostages, who we also
• 2:03:29
  Speaker 2: haven't spoken about, but there are still hostages in Gaza
• 2:03:31
  Speaker 2: held for the last eighteen months Byjmaz, including young Eden
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 2: Alexander from New Jersey. If Hamaz had not stolen the
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 2: hostages and hidden them in their tunnels and hidden them
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 2: into civilian homes, this war would have all been different.
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 2: If they had have given them back, and they could
• 2:03:49
  Speaker 2: give them back tomorrow, it would all be different. But
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 2: they didn't. They decided to do what they did on
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 2: the seventh and to hold on to the two hundred
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 2: and fifty ho hostages as it was at the begin
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 2: from the beginning. The second reason why the war is
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 2: still being prosecuted is because of the stated aim to
• 2:04:06
  Speaker 2: destroy Hamaz, which is the stated aim of the Israelis.
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 2: Neither of these things is remotely easy, okay, and just
• 2:04:16
  Speaker 2: from a point of humility, I think on every one
• 2:04:19
  Speaker 2: side we should concede. None of that is easy. It
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 2: is not easy to get two hundred and fifty hostages
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 2: back when they have been distributed across Sagaza to civilian homes,
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 2: hidden in tunnels, surrounded by munitions, and much more. Hamas
• 2:04:34
  Speaker 2: is not an actor like Denmark. Its backers don't behave
• 2:04:42
  Speaker 2: the way that our governments do in the West. They
• 2:04:46
  Speaker 2: have a totally different time scale that they think along
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 2: they have a totally different scale of values as well.
• 2:04:54
  Speaker 2: The taunts of Hezbolla's leadership, of Hamaz's leadership, of their
• 2:04:59
  Speaker 2: backers in Tehran our annihilationist to their core. But at
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 2: any point in the last eighteen months, the Qataris, for instance,
• 2:05:12
  Speaker 2: or the Iranians, the Uranian revolutionary government, or the Turkish
• 2:05:16
  Speaker 2: government or others could have put their pressure on Hamaz
• 2:05:19
  Speaker 2: to return the hostages who are still being held in captivity,
• 2:05:23
  Speaker 2: and everything would be different. Secondly, as you know. I'm
• 2:05:28
  Speaker 2: sure you don't have to have seen this with your
• 2:05:30
  Speaker 2: own eyes to know it, as I'm sure you know.
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 2: The way in which Hamaz built up the structure of
• 2:05:35
  Speaker 2: the Gaza throughout the eighteen years that they had was
• 2:05:37
  Speaker 2: precisely to flout and use every law of war against
• 2:05:42
  Speaker 2: the Israelis. Every army in a conflict has certain rules
• 2:05:50
  Speaker 2: of war that you're meant to abide by. One of
• 2:05:53
  Speaker 2: the most obvious is that you are identified as being
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 2: a combatant, not as a severe Okay. Another is you
• 2:06:03
  Speaker 2: don't put weapons in civilian houses and civilian buildings. You
• 2:06:08
  Speaker 2: do not fire from houses of worship rockets, You do
• 2:06:12
  Speaker 2: not launch attacks from hospitals. You do not keep detention
• 2:06:17
  Speaker 2: facilities where you can torture and disappear people inside hospitals
• 2:06:21
  Speaker 2: and other medical facilities. All of these laws of war
• 2:06:26
  Speaker 2: are the laws that Hamaz breaks every minute of every
• 2:06:29
  Speaker 2: day by their actions. So if you want to get
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 2: the hostages back, and if you want to destroy Hamaz,
• 2:06:38
  Speaker 2: when you're fighting against a force which does not only
• 2:06:42
  Speaker 2: not follow the rules of war, but uses your following
• 2:06:47
  Speaker 2: of the rules of the laws of war against you,
• 2:06:51
  Speaker 2: at least concede this is a highly specific and complex
• 2:06:55
  Speaker 2: military operation, and if you have or anyone else has,
• 2:07:00
  Speaker 2: and I say this genuinely a better way to get
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 2: back the hostages and to destroy jamaz I at any
• 2:07:11
  Speaker 2: rate them allly is okay?
• 2:07:14
  Speaker 3: Okay, Well, there's there's a lot there. So number one, like,
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 3: I do agree generally with your point about having some
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 3: humility in these complex situations. But I would also say, like,
• 2:07:24
  Speaker 3: do you not then at any point, as you're like
• 2:07:26
  Speaker 3: a very well known public figure who's supporting this war,
• 2:07:29
  Speaker 3: think about the level of human suffering that is being
• 2:07:32
  Speaker 3: inflicted on these innocent people and go like, man, is
• 2:07:35
  Speaker 3: there another way? Maybe I'm getting this wrong. Maybe this
• 2:07:37
  Speaker 3: is the Iraq war all over again, you know, which
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 3: you also supported that, Like, maybe that was a big mistake.
• 2:07:42
  Speaker 2: If I don't need to think about it. I've seen it, Okay,
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 2: I know. I describe it in my book. I describe
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 2: what I see in Gaza with the Palestinians when they're
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 2: when they're moving down the humanitarian corridor.
• 2:07:55
  Speaker 3: Okay, let me just respond to some of the stuff
• 2:07:57
  Speaker 3: you say. Oh, okay, So then I guess it's not
• 2:07:59
  Speaker 3: really that much of humility involved in this. But there's
• 2:08:02
  Speaker 3: two very different goals that are being stated here right,
• 2:08:05
  Speaker 3: Like there's the retrieving the hostages, and then there's taking
• 2:08:08
  Speaker 3: out Hamas. Now that retrieving the hostages, and actually many
• 2:08:12
  Speaker 3: of the families of hostages who are taken have been
• 2:08:15
  Speaker 3: some of the only people really protesting this war in
• 2:08:18
  Speaker 3: Israel because of course, you know, if you imagine if
• 2:08:20
  Speaker 3: you have your family over there and your government is
• 2:08:22
  Speaker 3: leveling this place, that is not the best path to
• 2:08:25
  Speaker 3: pursue to make sure you get all the hostages out alive.
• 2:08:28
  Speaker 3: I would say that it fell apart. But Donald Trump
• 2:08:33
  Speaker 3: having his envoy Witkoff go over there and work out
• 2:08:36
  Speaker 3: this ceasefire deal that they had for a few weeks,
• 2:08:38
  Speaker 3: they did get I believe thirty hostages back during the
• 2:08:41
  Speaker 3: phase one of this ceasefire. Seems to me like that
• 2:08:45
  Speaker 3: would be the method to pursue to try to get
• 2:08:48
  Speaker 3: the hostages back. But if you're trying, if you're talking
• 2:08:50
  Speaker 3: about eliminating Hamas, and I think there's something kind of
• 2:08:53
  Speaker 3: interesting that you touched on there. I don't completely you know,
• 2:08:55
  Speaker 3: I disagree with much of your characterization of it. That
• 2:08:59
  Speaker 3: like Israel, the good guys who always follow the rules,
• 2:09:01
  Speaker 3: we could kind of get into some of that. There's
• 2:09:03
  Speaker 3: lots of rules like in that Israel does not follow.
• 2:09:06
  Speaker 3: That being said, yes, of course, I mean you're describing
• 2:09:09
  Speaker 3: gorilla warfare, terrorists organizations, that's right. They stated differently, Gaza
• 2:09:15
  Speaker 3: doesn't have an air force or an army or a navy.
• 2:09:19
  Speaker 3: They're just a basically militias running around, terrorists who are
• 2:09:23
  Speaker 3: trying to do everything they can to fight an asymmetrical war.
• 2:09:26
  Speaker 3: And just like we helped teach Osama bin Laden how
• 2:09:29
  Speaker 3: to do the Soviets and then Osama bin Laden successfully
• 2:09:32
  Speaker 3: did to us, the whole game in these asymmetrical wars
• 2:09:36
  Speaker 3: is to get exactly what Hamas got out of this, right,
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 3: Like Osama bin Laden knew that he couldn't bankrupt the
• 2:09:41
  Speaker 3: United States of America by taking down the Twin Towers,
• 2:09:44
  Speaker 3: but he thought he could lure US into a war
• 2:09:46
  Speaker 3: in Afghanistan that would bankrupt us. Now, it didn't completely,
• 2:09:50
  Speaker 3: but it came pretty close. That being said, well, I
• 2:09:54
  Speaker 3: just mean in terms of how much it drained the treasury,
• 2:09:56
  Speaker 3: it was way more than could have any terrorist attack
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 3: possibly done. That being said, the idea that it's not
• 2:10:06
  Speaker 3: like I don't think morally speaking, when you're inflicting this
• 2:10:10
  Speaker 3: level of suffering on a group of people, that the
• 2:10:13
  Speaker 3: calculation should be, like, what, we want to remove Hamas
• 2:10:16
  Speaker 3: from power, that's the goal justice for October seventh. You know,
• 2:10:20
  Speaker 3: there's lots of governments around the world that we wouldn't
• 2:10:23
  Speaker 3: exactly a government, but there's lots of regimes around the
• 2:10:26
  Speaker 3: world that we would all like to see removed. But
• 2:10:29
  Speaker 3: that doesn't mean that we would approve of any means
• 2:10:31
  Speaker 3: by which to get there. You know, if you were like, hey,
• 2:10:34
  Speaker 3: I think Kim Jong UN's government should be dissolved, I'm
• 2:10:37
  Speaker 3: sure we would all agree with that. But if you
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 3: were like, I'm going to level the place and just
• 2:10:42
  Speaker 3: like slaughter people in order to do it, you might
• 2:10:43
  Speaker 3: be like, Okay, hold on. But aside from that, this
• 2:10:47
  Speaker 3: has been acknowledged at the highest levels of Israeli intelligence
• 2:10:51
  Speaker 3: and US intelligence that there's just no way to get
• 2:10:54
  Speaker 3: rid of Hamas without it being replaced by more Hamas
• 2:10:57
  Speaker 3: or amas like group. Because it's the basic understanding of
• 2:11:00
  Speaker 3: this whole situation, right It's it's General mccrystal's insurgent math.
• 2:11:05
  Speaker 3: There's still people Hamas are popping back up in the
• 2:11:09
  Speaker 3: areas that Israel's already leveled, and the more innocent people
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 3: you kill, the more radicalized you're going to get this population,
• 2:11:16
  Speaker 3: the more these people are going to hate you and
• 2:11:18
  Speaker 3: join up with the resistance movement. And so I just
• 2:11:21
  Speaker 3: think that to use the justification that we're trying to
• 2:11:24
  Speaker 3: get rid of Hamas and therefore it's not like it
• 2:11:28
  Speaker 3: doesn't matter how many innocent women and children die in
• 2:11:30
  Speaker 3: the process, of course, or there's no responsibility on you.
• 2:11:34
  Speaker 3: You now are not responsible for the bombs that you drop,
• 2:11:37
  Speaker 3: how many people they kill.
• 2:11:38
  Speaker 2: No, of course you're responsible.
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 3: So Israel is responsible.
• 2:11:41
  Speaker 2: Then they're responsible for the means of their retaliation and
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 2: their war aims. Yes, of course. Ok, first of all,
• 2:11:46
  Speaker 2: let me first of all, let me just say I'd
• 2:11:49
  Speaker 2: totally disagree with your characterization of Asama bin Laden than
• 2:11:53
  Speaker 2: what he wanted to do, and I don't think that
• 2:11:55
  Speaker 2: been Laden stated public usterances along those lines. But anyway,
• 2:12:00
  Speaker 2: the reason why the hostages have been released the numbers
• 2:12:04
  Speaker 2: that have is because of constant kinetic force by the Ideaf.
• 2:12:10
  Speaker 2: The only Hamaz does not come to the table and
• 2:12:13
  Speaker 2: ever handover hostages out of goodwill.
• 2:12:17
  Speaker 3: It doesn't know its of their.
• 2:12:19
  Speaker 2: Own heart, it does it because of the constant kinetic
• 2:12:23
  Speaker 2: force of the IDEF in Gaza, and if it weren't
• 2:12:26
  Speaker 2: for that, all two hundred and fifty hostages will still
• 2:12:29
  Speaker 2: be there. Second thing is, when it comes to Hamaz itself,
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 2: I totally disagree with the presumption that if you tackle
• 2:12:40
  Speaker 2: a terrorists entity you will create more terrorists. Ago you
• 2:12:45
  Speaker 2: should not attack the terrorist entity.
• 2:12:47
  Speaker 3: That's not the argument that I'm making, But okay.
• 2:12:49
  Speaker 2: It's it's a commonly held argument that if you respond
• 2:12:54
  Speaker 2: to terrorism, you create terrorism. And of course the only
• 2:12:56
  Speaker 2: thing in that case is you just have to sit.
• 2:12:58
  Speaker 1: Back and say.
• 2:12:58
  Speaker 3: The argument that I'm making is that why you slaughter
• 2:13:01
  Speaker 3: innocent people, those people around them tend to hate your guts.
• 2:13:05
  Speaker 3: That's the argument that I'm making.
• 2:13:06
  Speaker 2: First of all, your characterization of the slaughter, it's it's
• 2:13:10
  Speaker 2: horrible the war in Gaza. It's horrible that young Israelis
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 2: have to go in yet again to Gaza and try
• 2:13:17
  Speaker 2: to find Israeli hostages and try to get the leadership
• 2:13:20
  Speaker 2: of Hamask. That's horrible case. It is not the case, yes,
• 2:13:24
  Speaker 2: because I think as a consequence of starting wars, But.
• 2:13:27
  Speaker 3: So it's not horrible for the people who didn't start
• 2:13:29
  Speaker 3: a war. It's why do we become collectivists as soon
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 3: as a war.
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 2: Stults for everybody involved.
• 2:13:36
  Speaker 3: No, it's the most horrible for the Palestinian people in
• 2:13:39
  Speaker 3: Gaza right now. That is the group of people who
• 2:13:41
  Speaker 3: are being fucked over the most right now.
• 2:13:44
  Speaker 2: No, Yes, at the moment, yes, but they're not being
• 2:13:47
  Speaker 2: fucked over. The idef has been moving through Gaza for
• 2:13:51
  Speaker 2: eighteen months. No Israeli soldier I have spoken to ever
• 2:13:55
  Speaker 2: wanted to go and see the Gaza again. Okay, nobody
• 2:13:58
  Speaker 2: wanted to go back. They were dragged back because of
• 2:14:02
  Speaker 2: Hamas's actions. And if Hamaz had acted differently, or the
• 2:14:05
  Speaker 2: Palascenes are voted in different people into government, it would
• 2:14:08
  Speaker 2: all be different. But again that's a hypothetical. The reality
• 2:14:13
  Speaker 2: of the war on the ground is that in this
• 2:14:16
  Speaker 2: incredibly heavily built up area with weaponry hidden everywhere, with
• 2:14:22
  Speaker 2: soldiers I've spoken to too many of them, they go in.
• 2:14:27
  Speaker 2: You have a group of people coming out of a
• 2:14:29
  Speaker 2: civilian building with their hands up, and from their midsts
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 2: come a bunch of Hamaz terrorists firing at you in
• 2:14:35
  Speaker 2: the hope that the idea for fire back at the civilians.
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 2: Gaddi Eisencott, one of the members of the war cabinet
• 2:14:41
  Speaker 2: in the early stage of the war, lost his own
• 2:14:43
  Speaker 2: son and then his nephew. His nephew was killed in
• 2:14:47
  Speaker 2: a firefighting Gaza because the Hamas terrorists were firing from
• 2:14:52
  Speaker 2: a mosque, and that was why Gaddy Eisencott from the
• 2:14:55
  Speaker 2: Israeli cabinets nephew died. The whole operating thing is hideous
• 2:15:02
  Speaker 2: because of what Hamaz has done to the Gaza. The
• 2:15:05
  Speaker 2: reason why Sinnoir cropped up in Rafa finally, the mastermind
• 2:15:09
  Speaker 2: of October the seventh, one of the most brutal sadistic
• 2:15:12
  Speaker 2: psychopaths to use an overrated term you can ever imagine.
• 2:15:17
  Speaker 2: And then he is really prisoned by the way for
• 2:15:18
  Speaker 2: having strangled Palestinians to death in the two thousands. But anyway,
• 2:15:22
  Speaker 2: the reason why Sinoar crops up in Rafa late last
• 2:15:26
  Speaker 2: year is because there was nowhere else for him to
• 2:15:28
  Speaker 2: run because of the actions of the IDF to pursue
• 2:15:32
  Speaker 2: the leadership of Hamaz that was responsible for the seventh. Now,
• 2:15:36
  Speaker 2: can all of Hamaz be destroyed? Probably not. Can you
• 2:15:42
  Speaker 2: make it a function, can you make it effectively impossible
• 2:15:45
  Speaker 2: to function? Or incapable of functioning, unable to fire rockets
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 2: and govern the Gaza.
• 2:15:52
  Speaker 3: Yes, right, but it comes out I'm swording tens of
• 2:15:56
  Speaker 3: thousands of innocent people. No, no, and you're you're accepting
• 2:15:59
  Speaker 3: that price.
• 2:15:59
  Speaker 2: No. And every single war of this kind will include
• 2:16:03
  Speaker 2: civilian casualties, and you and I will almost certainly disagree
• 2:16:06
  Speaker 2: on the numbers.
• 2:16:07
  Speaker 5: I'm not that will be, but there will be almost
• 2:16:12
  Speaker 5: the best the best case analysis is that one innocent
• 2:16:18
  Speaker 5: Gazan has been killed for every one terrorist.
• 2:16:22
  Speaker 2: That's the best case scenario you can hear. But that
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 2: would be almost unparalleled in the laws of war. And
• 2:16:27
  Speaker 2: it's not how the American or British militaries operate in
• 2:16:30
  Speaker 2: terms of casualties to terrorist ratios. But when we had
• 2:16:35
  Speaker 2: the campaign against ISIS a decade ago, after isis's fighters
• 2:16:41
  Speaker 2: had gone and massacred people at the Battle Clap Theater
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 2: in Paris and so on, we used Turkish fighters, brilliant,
• 2:16:49
  Speaker 2: brave fighters from the Peshmeerica militias to work on the ground,
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 2: and the French and American and British air forces bombed
• 2:16:57
  Speaker 2: like hell from the air, and we made Isis effectively
• 2:17:03
  Speaker 2: touch wood. Ten years later, operationally incapable in capital cities
• 2:17:08
  Speaker 2: in Europe, has isis as a whole gone away. No,
• 2:17:13
  Speaker 2: they still have pockets in Syria and in Iraq, but
• 2:17:18
  Speaker 2: we stopped them from being able to do what they
• 2:17:21
  Speaker 2: most desired to do, and the same is possible with Hamaz.
• 2:17:26
  Speaker 2: Will they be replaced by some other group again? Then
• 2:17:29
  Speaker 2: we get to one of the crucial decision points for
• 2:17:32
  Speaker 2: the Palestinian people. Is it inevitable that they constantly have
• 2:17:37
  Speaker 2: to elect people who want to annihilate their neighbors or
• 2:17:41
  Speaker 2: will there ever be a generation that can find a
• 2:17:43
  Speaker 2: way to live in peace with their neighbors. I agree,
• 2:17:47
  Speaker 2: most people don't like being bombed. In fact, nobody does.
• 2:17:52
  Speaker 2: But if the people of the Palestinians in Gaza can
• 2:17:57
  Speaker 2: find it within themselves to rear the thing they asked
• 2:18:01
  Speaker 2: for in the elections is the thing that has destroyed
• 2:18:04
  Speaker 2: the area they live in. And like that brave young
• 2:18:08
  Speaker 2: man two weeks ago in Gaza who rose up against
• 2:18:12
  Speaker 2: Hamaz and was identified by the people who remain in
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 2: Hamas and was tortured and then his body's thrown onto
• 2:18:17
  Speaker 2: his parents doorstep in the Gaza, and the parents started
• 2:18:21
  Speaker 2: a or the family the clan started a bit of
• 2:18:24
  Speaker 2: a war against Hamas. But that's how that's how Hamaz
• 2:18:27
  Speaker 2: treats Palestinian dissidents. But if there were more people like
• 2:18:31
  Speaker 2: that young man, and of course, as we all know,
• 2:18:32
  Speaker 2: the host history of to tartarian and terrorist groups running
• 2:18:35
  Speaker 2: societies is they're very successful and they stay in power
• 2:18:39
  Speaker 2: because they're willing to torture and use violence and much more.
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 2: That it's a horrible thing you have to contend with.
• 2:18:47
  Speaker 2: But if more people like that young man had come
• 2:18:49
  Speaker 2: about in Gaza in the last eighteen months or before, yes, yes,
• 2:18:53
  Speaker 2: it would all be different. And if they could avoid
• 2:18:57
  Speaker 2: electing a terrorist group that invades their neighbors and fires
• 2:19:01
  Speaker 2: rockets at the neighbors, yes, it could all be different.
• 2:19:03
  Speaker 2: It could all be different tomorrow. And I'll tell you
• 2:19:05
  Speaker 2: so again. There is not a person living by the
• 2:19:10
  Speaker 2: Gaza in the south of Israel who does not dream
• 2:19:12
  Speaker 2: of the day that such a generation of Palestinians emerges. Yeah,
• 2:19:17
  Speaker 2: I think that.
• 2:19:19
  Speaker 3: Okay, a few things here Syria there, because it is true,
• 2:19:24
  Speaker 3: I mean I think so, okay, So John Brennan and
• 2:19:27
  Speaker 3: Barack Obama, the head of the CIA, and of course
• 2:19:30
  Speaker 3: the former president of the United States of America had
• 2:19:34
  Speaker 3: a policy of committing literal treason before they ended up
• 2:19:38
  Speaker 3: accusing Donald Trump of treason, which was all bullshit. But
• 2:19:40
  Speaker 3: they had a policy of committing literal treason by funding
• 2:19:43
  Speaker 3: al Qaeda and ISIS in the Syrian Civil War, poured
• 2:19:47
  Speaker 3: billions of dollars and tons of weapons into that conflict.
• 2:19:51
  Speaker 3: When Donald Trump, now, it is true by the way
• 2:19:52
  Speaker 3: that you are correct that, like there certainly were military
• 2:19:56
  Speaker 3: actions taken against ISIS after they invaded Iraq, which was
• 2:20:00
  Speaker 3: not supposed to be part of the plan. There was
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 3: also a lot of military actions taken by Vladimir Putin
• 2:20:05
  Speaker 3: against ISIS after he came in on Asad's request. As
• 2:20:08
  Speaker 3: you know, in twenty seventeen, when Donald Trump came in.
• 2:20:12
  Speaker 3: One of the best things Donald Trump ever did he
• 2:20:14
  Speaker 3: cut off the CIA program to fund the anti Asad rebels.
• 2:20:18
  Speaker 3: And this was also a big part of what ended
• 2:20:20
  Speaker 3: up like taking the you know, the energy out of ISIS. Also,
• 2:20:24
  Speaker 3: I think there was a lot of good reporting that
• 2:20:26
  Speaker 3: just they turned enough people on the ground against them,
• 2:20:29
  Speaker 3: they were even just too radical, and just people ended
• 2:20:31
  Speaker 3: up hating them. It is true that they receded for
• 2:20:34
  Speaker 3: quite a while, although the former emir of al Qaeda,
• 2:20:37
  Speaker 3: al Jelani, is now ruling Syria, which does not seem
• 2:20:41
  Speaker 3: like a great deal or something that people in America
• 2:20:44
  Speaker 3: should support the true enemy of the American people, al
• 2:20:47
  Speaker 3: Qaeda now being in charge of Syria. I think that,
• 2:20:53
  Speaker 3: you know, it's it's easy to talk about how like
• 2:20:56
  Speaker 3: if the palestin has had done this different, then maybe
• 2:20:57
  Speaker 3: things would have worked out different. But I just think again,
• 2:21:01
  Speaker 3: when you look at things when you say, which essentially
• 2:21:04
  Speaker 3: I think is your point here, right, which I mean
• 2:21:06
  Speaker 3: I tried to push you on this, but you're saying, look,
• 2:21:08
  Speaker 3: we can degrade Hamas, but the cost of that is
• 2:21:12
  Speaker 3: gonna be slaughtering a whole bunch of people. Okay, I
• 2:21:17
  Speaker 3: think you're okay. They're not being slaughtered. They're being killed, Okay,
• 2:21:22
  Speaker 3: whatever word you want.
• 2:21:23
  Speaker 2: In a brutal war started by Hamas.
• 2:21:25
  Speaker 3: Yes, yes, it's it's babies, uh and little kids screaming
• 2:21:29
  Speaker 3: out for help under rubble and no help is coming.
• 2:21:32
  Speaker 3: They sit there under the rubble until they die. That
• 2:21:35
  Speaker 3: is the level of human suffering that's being inflicted. And
• 2:21:37
  Speaker 3: if you want to say, well, listen, that's a price
• 2:21:40
  Speaker 3: that I'm willing to pay to try to degrade Hamas,
• 2:21:42
  Speaker 3: even though you yourself recognize that we can't totally eliminate them,
• 2:21:45
  Speaker 3: but we could maybe degrade them or maybe take them
• 2:21:48
  Speaker 3: down a peg. And the price for that is these
• 2:21:50
  Speaker 3: babies being tortured to death essentially whatever you want to
• 2:21:54
  Speaker 3: call it.
• 2:21:55
  Speaker 2: That okay.
• 2:21:56
  Speaker 3: But from the other side of that story, like if
• 2:21:59
  Speaker 3: there's like I got little kids, I don't know if
• 2:22:01
  Speaker 3: you have kids. I know you have kids, Joe. If
• 2:22:03
  Speaker 3: anybody ever was saying to me that, like my kids
• 2:22:06
  Speaker 3: were the acceptable price for this policy that we want
• 2:22:09
  Speaker 3: to put into place, I'm saying, I don't think there's
• 2:22:12
  Speaker 3: any scenario, any scenario, Douglas, where there would be any
• 2:22:15
  Speaker 3: time where you would accept Israeli kids dying like that
• 2:22:18
  Speaker 3: as an acceptable price for a policy that you're going
• 2:22:21
  Speaker 3: to be advocating for.
• 2:22:24
  Speaker 2: First of all, again go back to the what is
• 2:22:27
  Speaker 2: actually happening. There is no desire or aim by the
• 2:22:35
  Speaker 2: IAF or the IDEF to go into Garz and kill
• 2:22:38
  Speaker 2: women and children. Well they're doing it, hang on, hang on,
• 2:22:41
  Speaker 2: there is no desire for that. Does it happen collaterally? Certainly? Certainly?
• 2:22:47
  Speaker 2: And that is one of the very ugly rules of
• 2:22:49
  Speaker 2: war and things that happens in war. And it's another
• 2:22:52
  Speaker 2: of the reasons why it's almost like you shouldn't start
• 2:22:55
  Speaker 2: a war and hide your rockets and your terrorists inside
• 2:22:57
  Speaker 2: civilian buildings.
• 2:22:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, this point a lot of times.
• 2:23:01
  Speaker 2: But okay, well it clearly can't be made enough because
• 2:23:05
  Speaker 2: there is no intention on the Israeli side to cause
• 2:23:09
  Speaker 2: the death of non combatants.
• 2:23:11
  Speaker 3: Oh come on, I mean, listen, what you think you think?
• 2:23:14
  Speaker 2: Why do you think the Israelis would want to go
• 2:23:17
  Speaker 2: and kill children in Gaza?
• 2:23:18
  Speaker 3: Listen? Let me just how about I say it like this? Okay?
• 2:23:21
  Speaker 3: And by the way, when I say it like, I'm
• 2:23:23
  Speaker 3: not claiming that disputes between nations are the same as
• 2:23:27
  Speaker 3: handling dispute domestically. I'm just saying on the idea of
• 2:23:31
  Speaker 3: intentionality or who wants to do this or whatever. Look,
• 2:23:34
  Speaker 3: if you even if you had the right, let's say
• 2:23:36
  Speaker 3: somebody broke onto your property and killed some of your
• 2:23:40
  Speaker 3: family members, and you want to go kill this guy.
• 2:23:43
  Speaker 3: If he goes back to his apartment building, and you
• 2:23:46
  Speaker 3: know that there's women and children in that apartment building,
• 2:23:49
  Speaker 3: and so your move is to blow up the building,
• 2:23:51
  Speaker 3: what you would be charged with is murder in the
• 2:23:54
  Speaker 3: first degree, cold blooded, premeditated, intentional murder. Now you could
• 2:23:59
  Speaker 3: sit there and tell the judge, I didn't want to
• 2:24:02
  Speaker 3: kill all those people. Why would I want to kill
• 2:24:04
  Speaker 3: all of those people. I just had to kill that
• 2:24:06
  Speaker 3: one guy. But that's bullshit. That's not what counts. You
• 2:24:09
  Speaker 3: did it intentionally. You dropped a bomb knowing that there
• 2:24:12
  Speaker 3: were women and children in that building. You're taking an
• 2:24:15
  Speaker 3: action knowing that these innocent people are gonna die, Then
• 2:24:18
  Speaker 3: that is by definition intentional. And you know, you could
• 2:24:21
  Speaker 3: sit here and talk about and it is true. There
• 2:24:23
  Speaker 3: have been documented cases of Hamas placing missiles in mosques
• 2:24:27
  Speaker 3: and in schools and things like that. But when you
• 2:24:29
  Speaker 3: look at the aerial footage of Gaza, that does not
• 2:24:32
  Speaker 3: describe every single strike that Israel Is that Israel has launched.
• 2:24:36
  Speaker 3: There have been tons of bombs dropped where it's simply
• 2:24:39
  Speaker 3: and we have very good reporting on this, where they've
• 2:24:41
  Speaker 3: literally just have information that they believe with some degree
• 2:24:47
  Speaker 3: of certainty that a couple of Hamas militants are in
• 2:24:50
  Speaker 3: this building, and so they blow up the building. That
• 2:24:52
  Speaker 3: is intentionally murdering innocent people. And you if you're going
• 2:24:56
  Speaker 3: to advocate for this war. I don't see how you
• 2:24:59
  Speaker 3: can do it without saying that, like at least bite
• 2:25:02
  Speaker 3: the bullet that Madeline Albright dead when she was asked, bet,
• 2:25:05
  Speaker 3: we've played this clip on the show before when she's
• 2:25:07
  Speaker 3: point blank asked about the sanctions on Iraq and our
• 2:25:11
  Speaker 3: five hundred thousand children, is that price acceptable? And she said, yes,
• 2:25:15
  Speaker 3: we believe that price is acceptable. You're saying, if you're
• 2:25:18
  Speaker 3: going to support this war, you know this is the
• 2:25:20
  Speaker 3: price of it. So why can't you just say yes,
• 2:25:23
  Speaker 3: that price is acceptable, because then we could have a
• 2:25:25
  Speaker 3: real conversation about why the other side is going to
• 2:25:28
  Speaker 3: look at you like a monstar because festival.
• 2:25:30
  Speaker 2: I don't agree with any of the characterization you make
• 2:25:33
  Speaker 2: any of it. Okay, you say that these readies get
• 2:25:37
  Speaker 2: some information, as if this is like what they're making
• 2:25:41
  Speaker 2: it up or you think then to drop a bomb. No,
• 2:25:45
  Speaker 2: they they act. They act on information about where the
• 2:25:49
  Speaker 2: terrorists are, just like they act on information of where
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 2: the hostages are. Secondly, when you talk about the destruction
• 2:25:58
  Speaker 2: the gods or something you probably haven't haven't realized, but
• 2:26:01
  Speaker 2: is one of the reasons why the destruction looks so
• 2:26:04
  Speaker 2: bad and is so bad is because when the IDF
• 2:26:09
  Speaker 2: were clearing the areas that they'd asked the civilian population
• 2:26:12
  Speaker 2: to leave, and we're going house to house and it
• 2:26:15
  Speaker 2: isn't just stories here or stories there. It's every second
• 2:26:21
  Speaker 2: or third house in Gaza that has either munitions or
• 2:26:25
  Speaker 2: tunnel entrances, every second or third house. This is not
• 2:26:29
  Speaker 2: the odd case. One of the things that everybody who
• 2:26:33
  Speaker 2: has been there nose is that you go into a
• 2:26:34
  Speaker 2: mask and you know there will be either rockets and
• 2:26:38
  Speaker 2: or tunnel entrances. You go into a hospital and you
• 2:26:41
  Speaker 2: know that there will be grenades or tunnel entrances or
• 2:26:46
  Speaker 2: stungeons or whatever. Just on a light. To note early
• 2:26:50
  Speaker 2: in the conflict when the Shifa complex which is used
• 2:26:52
  Speaker 2: as a Hamaz headquarters and has also been used as
• 2:26:55
  Speaker 2: a hospital, but even in twenty fourteen the BBC said
• 2:26:58
  Speaker 2: this is where Hamas are operating from when that was
• 2:27:01
  Speaker 2: shown by the Israelis to we have massive weapons stores
• 2:27:04
  Speaker 2: in the in the tunnels and sellers underneath it. They
• 2:27:09
  Speaker 2: had grenades, RPGs, clash necoffs and the BBC's chief at
• 2:27:13
  Speaker 2: least correspondent was asked live on air why would these
• 2:27:16
  Speaker 2: things be in a hospital, and Jeremy Bowen said, well,
• 2:27:20
  Speaker 2: it's perfectly possible, because there's a lot of you know,
• 2:27:22
  Speaker 2: guns in the Middle East. Is perfectly possible. The security
• 2:27:25
  Speaker 2: department of the hospital had the clash ne coffs, I said, yeah,
• 2:27:28
  Speaker 2: and did the grenades belong to the cardiologists? I mean,
• 2:27:32
  Speaker 2: why why is this so normal that these every civilian
• 2:27:37
  Speaker 2: mill building like this, and every second or third house
• 2:27:40
  Speaker 2: in Gaza is a weapons dump or a place that
• 2:27:42
  Speaker 2: you enter the tunnels from. But the reason why the devastation,
• 2:27:47
  Speaker 2: which it is in the north in particular, but also
• 2:27:49
  Speaker 2: in Rafa and elsewhere is what it is is because
• 2:27:53
  Speaker 2: every time the IDF went into an area where they
• 2:27:57
  Speaker 2: had told the civilians to leave, the hamas terrorists that
• 2:28:03
  Speaker 2: remained were in civilian buildings and booby trapped a very
• 2:28:10
  Speaker 2: large number of the buildings. So what they did as
• 2:28:13
  Speaker 2: they proceeded through those areas of the Gaza to clear
• 2:28:15
  Speaker 2: them was to set off munitions which the American military
• 2:28:19
  Speaker 2: and others use, which sets off secondary explosions in places
• 2:28:22
  Speaker 2: that are booby trapped. And much of what you see
• 2:28:25
  Speaker 2: in the photographs that you see and many other people
• 2:28:27
  Speaker 2: have seen from Gaza is the result of that. It
• 2:28:31
  Speaker 2: is the result of the IDEF trying to clear an
• 2:28:34
  Speaker 2: area which has been very carefully and well booby trapped
• 2:28:38
  Speaker 2: for years. Let me make one other very quick point
• 2:28:41
  Speaker 2: about the bigger picture that you said, because I think
• 2:28:44
  Speaker 2: it's important. We were talking about the Syrian you mentioned
• 2:28:48
  Speaker 2: the Syrian conflict of isis. I think again it's really
• 2:28:52
  Speaker 2: important to keep this in mind what I said earlier
• 2:28:54
  Speaker 2: about let's not think we are the primary actors everywhere
• 2:28:59
  Speaker 2: or even that important. I remember the debate over the
• 2:29:02
  Speaker 2: Syrian intervention issue, and at the time, despite being in
• 2:29:07
  Speaker 2: many cases an interventionist, I said, on that occasion, I said,
• 2:29:10
  Speaker 2: we didn't know what we were doing, clearly didn't know
• 2:29:13
  Speaker 2: who were going to back. If you remember John McCain
• 2:29:16
  Speaker 2: went to Syrian speak to some rebels and one of
• 2:29:18
  Speaker 2: them immediately turned out to be a kind of head
• 2:29:20
  Speaker 2: hacking g headist. Yeah, that wasn't great. I said, I
• 2:29:23
  Speaker 2: don't have any confidence that we know who to back,
• 2:29:26
  Speaker 2: And despite many Syrian friends of mine imploring me otherwise,
• 2:29:29
  Speaker 2: I said, I don't think it's something we can get
• 2:29:30
  Speaker 2: involved in. However, if you look at the last ten
• 2:29:35
  Speaker 2: years or more, what is it now thirteen years of
• 2:29:37
  Speaker 2: conflict in Syria. The US and the Western Powers are
• 2:29:42
  Speaker 2: not remotely significant actors in that conflict. The significant actors
• 2:29:46
  Speaker 2: in that conflict were always have been the Russians, the Iranians.
• 2:29:54
  Speaker 2: I mean, one of the things that blows my mind
• 2:29:57
  Speaker 2: in the analysis of the region is the fact that
• 2:30:01
  Speaker 2: the prime mover in the region, the revolutionary Islamic government
• 2:30:06
  Speaker 2: in Iran, that has been oppressing the Iranian people since
• 2:30:08
  Speaker 2: nineteen seventy nine and has been holding a great civilization
• 2:30:12
  Speaker 2: in captivity. That the Iranian Revolutionary government in Tehran has
• 2:30:17
  Speaker 2: literally been colonizing the region. I have this rule about
• 2:30:21
  Speaker 2: I took it from Vasaly Grossmann, the great Soviet Jewish writer,
• 2:30:24
  Speaker 2: who had this great line about tell me what you
• 2:30:26
  Speaker 2: accuse the Jews of, and I'll tell you what you're
• 2:30:28
  Speaker 2: guilty of. This absolutely runs as well with the accusations
• 2:30:32
  Speaker 2: against the Jewish state in the region. The Iranian revolutionary
• 2:30:35
  Speaker 2: government is constantly accusing the Israelis of colonialism, of expansionism.
• 2:30:40
  Speaker 2: It is the Iranian revolutionary government that has been colonizing Iraq,
• 2:30:44
  Speaker 2: colonizing Yemen, colonizing and destroying Lebanon, and colonizing Syria and
• 2:30:49
  Speaker 2: The amazing thing when you look at the disaster that
• 2:30:52
  Speaker 2: has happened in Syria in the last thirteen years, and
• 2:30:56
  Speaker 2: I don't see it getting especially better under the current head.
• 2:31:01
  Speaker 2: The disaster is not of our making. Primarily we are
• 2:31:06
  Speaker 2: bit players. America is in Iraq. In Syria, we are.
• 2:31:11
  Speaker 3: But you mentioned Iraq in there too, And what.
• 2:31:13
  Speaker 2: With the great idiocy of of of that was that
• 2:31:16
  Speaker 2: that Iraq notices our failings, our lack of staying power,
• 2:31:21
  Speaker 2: our desire to get out as soon as possible, and
• 2:31:24
  Speaker 2: much more, which is all understandable. Hang on, hang on,
• 2:31:27
  Speaker 2: and they moved in. And they moved in, of course.
• 2:31:30
  Speaker 2: But I was talking about Syria. In the Syrian theater,
• 2:31:35
  Speaker 2: the the main actors are not us. And one of
• 2:31:38
  Speaker 2: the things I'm still interested in about this mindset that
• 2:31:41
  Speaker 2: you have is why does it always have to be us.
• 2:31:46
  Speaker 2: It's other people who have actions in the world. Again, Russians,
• 2:31:50
  Speaker 2: the revolutionary government in Iran, they are so busy.
• 2:31:54
  Speaker 3: I see.
• 2:31:54
  Speaker 2: I think it is a region.
• 2:31:55
  Speaker 3: This is all about framing here, because I don't think
• 2:31:58
  Speaker 3: I've ever once made this claim. You've made this point
• 2:32:00
  Speaker 3: several times so far. I've never once made the claim
• 2:32:02
  Speaker 3: that everything is always US. I think you're the one
• 2:32:05
  Speaker 3: who's downplaying the influence and impact that we have. We are,
• 2:32:08
  Speaker 3: after all. When I'm saying, well, I'm saying the United
• 2:32:10
  Speaker 3: States of America's federal government is the largest, most powerful
• 2:32:12
  Speaker 3: organization in the history of the world. It is the
• 2:32:15
  Speaker 3: world Empire. And to sit there and say Iran colonized Iraq, No,
• 2:32:20
  Speaker 3: George W. Bush invaded the country on a bunch of lies,
• 2:32:24
  Speaker 3: a war that you supported. He went in there and
• 2:32:27
  Speaker 3: overthrew Saddam Hussein and installed democracy in the Shiite majority country.
• 2:32:32
  Speaker 3: Of course, he handed the thing over to Iran. But
• 2:32:35
  Speaker 3: to say that that had no impact on Syria, or
• 2:32:38
  Speaker 3: that the US military funding and arming the anti Assad
• 2:32:41
  Speaker 3: rebels had no impact, I'm not claiming the entire thing
• 2:32:45
  Speaker 3: is America. But shar Al Assad was an actor. There
• 2:32:48
  Speaker 3: were other forces there aside from the US meddling there.
• 2:32:52
  Speaker 3: But at the same time, you got the most powerful
• 2:32:54
  Speaker 3: government in the history of the world, who, as we
• 2:32:56
  Speaker 3: all know, put Syria on its seven countries in five
• 2:32:59
  Speaker 3: years list of who were going to go overthrow. And
• 2:33:02
  Speaker 3: it's had a profound impact on the region. Of course
• 2:33:05
  Speaker 3: it did. It was a huge contributing factor to that
• 2:33:08
  Speaker 3: civil war to begin with.
• 2:33:09
  Speaker 2: I think America is obviously a major act. It certainly
• 2:33:12
  Speaker 2: could be is meant to be the major actor on
• 2:33:14
  Speaker 2: the world stage. I think that the history of the
• 2:33:15
  Speaker 2: region and many other regions around the world is that
• 2:33:18
  Speaker 2: America does not have either the staying power, the capability
• 2:33:21
  Speaker 2: of the intelligence, the kind of people that you would
• 2:33:24
  Speaker 2: produce in order to have the kind of impact that
• 2:33:26
  Speaker 2: you actually think it has. American weakness in the Middle
• 2:33:30
  Speaker 2: East has been I mean, I say this as somebody
• 2:33:33
  Speaker 2: obviously from Britain, but when Britain was a dominant world power,
• 2:33:38
  Speaker 2: she produced the type of person who was keen to
• 2:33:43
  Speaker 2: go and be a governor of you know, a Stan
• 2:33:46
  Speaker 2: somewhere and learn the local dialects and you know, run
• 2:33:50
  Speaker 2: the civil service.
• 2:33:51
  Speaker 3: You guys were better at Empire.
• 2:33:53
  Speaker 2: They produced that sort of person because they wanted to stay.
• 2:33:57
  Speaker 2: America has never produced that sort of person, and it
• 2:34:00
  Speaker 2: certainly hasn't in the Middle East in particular. It acts
• 2:34:04
  Speaker 2: militarily on occasions, and in my view sometimes well, sometimes poorly.
• 2:34:09
  Speaker 2: But the reason why America was so badly outplayed by
• 2:34:13
  Speaker 2: the Moullas in Iraq was simply that, as you say,
• 2:34:16
  Speaker 2: after the war, America had nothing alike. The staying power
• 2:34:20
  Speaker 2: of the Mullers in Tehran had nothing alike, the ability
• 2:34:23
  Speaker 2: to affect post war change like that the Iranian revolutionary
• 2:34:26
  Speaker 2: government did. And so yes, if we create a vacuum
• 2:34:30
  Speaker 2: like that, or somebody else creates a vacuum. And after all,
• 2:34:32
  Speaker 2: we did not cause the beginning of this. We the West,
• 2:34:35
  Speaker 2: I'm saying on this occasion, did not cause the beginning
• 2:34:38
  Speaker 2: of the Arab spring as it was it was optimistically
• 2:34:41
  Speaker 2: called at the beginning or the over or the beginning
• 2:34:44
  Speaker 2: of the revolutionary uprising in Syria in twenty eleven. These
• 2:34:49
  Speaker 2: things were ground up and the actors in the region
• 2:34:54
  Speaker 2: moved in much more definitely and effectively than we did.
• 2:34:56
  Speaker 2: It's the same with Lebanon. It's the same with America.
• 2:34:59
  Speaker 2: Does don't even have eyes over Lebanon. Iran has an
• 2:35:03
  Speaker 2: army that has a checkpoint at Beirut Airport that will
• 2:35:07
  Speaker 2: check you on behalf of his bolla when you come
• 2:35:10
  Speaker 2: in there. You can't tell me that America is just
• 2:35:13
  Speaker 2: because America's on paper and much more has the power.
• 2:35:19
  Speaker 2: That America is the deft operator in the Middle East.
• 2:35:21
  Speaker 2: There are so many people who outwit America in the
• 2:35:24
  Speaker 2: Middle East all the time.
• 2:35:25
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but you can't tell me that there hasn't been
• 2:35:27
  Speaker 3: an impact from the eight trillion dollars that we've spent
• 2:35:30
  Speaker 3: there and the multiple regime changes all around the Middle
• 2:35:33
  Speaker 3: East that were done by America. These weren't just going
• 2:35:36
  Speaker 3: to happen on their own. Are you saying that didn't
• 2:35:38
  Speaker 3: have an impact?
• 2:35:38
  Speaker 2: Was certainly done by America, of course.
• 2:35:40
  Speaker 3: Okay, so Iraq was certainly done by America. Libya NATO, Right,
• 2:35:45
  Speaker 3: But okay, but NATO is the European wing of the
• 2:35:48
  Speaker 3: American Empire. I mean, let's get real that that's the
• 2:35:51
  Speaker 3: American decision. Sure, right, I'm saying it's not. It's not
• 2:35:55
  Speaker 3: because some random European country.
• 2:35:57
  Speaker 2: Just because, I mean, the Libyan intervention I was pretty
• 2:36:01
  Speaker 2: iffy about at the time. But that was done not
• 2:36:06
  Speaker 2: to create an empire or anything like that. It was
• 2:36:09
  Speaker 2: done for one very clear reason. And I remember the
• 2:36:11
  Speaker 2: debates in the European capitals and in Washington, d C.
• 2:36:15
  Speaker 2: At the time. There was a belief that after the
• 2:36:20
  Speaker 2: uprising against Gadaffi began, that there would be a mass
• 2:36:25
  Speaker 2: slaughter of genocide carried out by Gadaffi against the people.
• 2:36:29
  Speaker 2: It's two and eleven and it was two thousand and eleven. Yeah,
• 2:36:34
  Speaker 2: there was a belief. Everybody believed it. He had started
• 2:36:37
  Speaker 2: his son, if you remember Saif Gadaffi, formerly of the
• 2:36:39
  Speaker 2: London School of Economics, showing that we can produce the best.
• 2:36:43
  Speaker 2: Saif Goodaffi stood up and said we will fight to
• 2:36:47
  Speaker 2: the last bullet and so on, and everybody believed them.
• 2:36:51
  Speaker 2: And the desire to intervene was caused in an attempt
• 2:36:54
  Speaker 2: to not to people do not want the resources of Libya,
• 2:36:58
  Speaker 2: and nobody wanted Libya to fall up or anything like that.
• 2:37:01
  Speaker 2: They did it because there was a genuine belief in
• 2:37:04
  Speaker 2: what was called the time, which has gone out of fashion,
• 2:37:06
  Speaker 2: but right to protect.
• 2:37:07
  Speaker 3: Okay, Well then, so okay, if that's what's important, it's interesting,
• 2:37:12
  Speaker 3: it's interesting. Well, I don't act, but I don't think
• 2:37:15
  Speaker 3: it's correct. I mean, you always kind of like ascribe
• 2:37:17
  Speaker 3: the best of motives to Israel and the West, and
• 2:37:20
  Speaker 3: nothing but the worst of motives to all of their enemies.
• 2:37:22
  Speaker 3: So just riddle me this. Then, if we just went
• 2:37:25
  Speaker 3: in because there was this uprising in twenty eleven, and
• 2:37:27
  Speaker 3: because we were worried that Kadafi was about to go genocidal,
• 2:37:30
  Speaker 3: something that your own the UK Parliament did an investigation
• 2:37:33
  Speaker 3: into and found out what I said it was just complete,
• 2:37:36
  Speaker 3: completely wrong. But why is it then that I got
• 2:37:40
  Speaker 3: four star General Wesley Clark, Supreme Commander of Supreme Commander
• 2:37:46
  Speaker 3: of the NATO Forces. Why is it that he told
• 2:37:48
  Speaker 3: me that he saw the plans in two thousand and
• 2:37:50
  Speaker 3: one to overthrow Gaddafi and that this was part of
• 2:37:52
  Speaker 3: a strategy to overthrow seven governments in five years, and
• 2:37:57
  Speaker 3: all of them except one have been done at this point.
• 2:38:01
  Speaker 3: So you're telling me it's just complete coincidence that he
• 2:38:03
  Speaker 3: saw that the neo conservatives had this plan to overthrow
• 2:38:05
  Speaker 3: more market Doffy, and then ten years later we happened
• 2:38:08
  Speaker 3: to do it when we have the opportunity. The two
• 2:38:10
  Speaker 3: aren't related at all.
• 2:38:12
  Speaker 2: First, it's nice to hear the end word again, the
• 2:38:15
  Speaker 2: n word conservatives.
• 2:38:18
  Speaker 3: Oh that one. I was thinking of a different one.
• 2:38:20
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 2:38:23
  Speaker 2: First of all, I would assume I would hope that
• 2:38:25
  Speaker 2: there's American military planning for absolutely everything. I would hope
• 2:38:29
  Speaker 2: that there is a scenario for absolutely everything somewhere in
• 2:38:33
  Speaker 2: the American In Pentaconel.
• 2:38:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but he didn't say growing up. He said, this
• 2:38:38
  Speaker 3: is the plan that we're going to assume that.
• 2:38:42
  Speaker 2: I would hope that any major power like America would
• 2:38:46
  Speaker 2: have plans in place for almost everything that is likely,
• 2:38:49
  Speaker 2: including I mean this America could have well, we should
• 2:38:54
  Speaker 2: have started planning for some kind of kinetic force in
• 2:38:59
  Speaker 2: Libya from the nineteen eighties, of course, of course.
• 2:39:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but again this is not what This is not
• 2:39:05
  Speaker 3: what Wesley Clark's laid He wasn't saying like, we've drawn
• 2:39:09
  Speaker 3: up war games. We've drawn up war games with everybody.
• 2:39:12
  Speaker 3: We have war games with China, wargames with Russia. We've
• 2:39:14
  Speaker 3: mapped out how a kinetic war would work, even with
• 2:39:17
  Speaker 3: countries that have nuclear arsenals, like just in case we
• 2:39:19
  Speaker 3: have to fight a traditional war and nukes aren't being used.
• 2:39:22
  Speaker 3: That's not what he's talking about. He said that. Not
• 2:39:25
  Speaker 3: only he was told we're in Afghanistan now this is
• 2:39:28
  Speaker 3: late two thousand and one. He goes, next, we're going
• 2:39:31
  Speaker 3: to Iraq. After that, we're going to Libya. After that,
• 2:39:34
  Speaker 3: we're going to Syria, Somalia, was it Sudan, and finishing
• 2:39:39
  Speaker 3: off with Iran. He laid out the path of what
• 2:39:43
  Speaker 3: we're about to do and then we did it in
• 2:39:46
  Speaker 3: the next administration. You don't think there was any connection
• 2:39:48
  Speaker 3: between those two.
• 2:39:49
  Speaker 2: We did Somalia in Sudan.
• 2:39:52
  Speaker 3: No, I'm sorry, he's his I'm sorry. If you go
• 2:39:54
  Speaker 3: look at the list of seven countries, it was Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
• 2:40:00
  Speaker 2: Uh.
• 2:40:01
  Speaker 3: I believe, Somalia, Sudan and around.
• 2:40:05
  Speaker 2: I believe why would America want to do any of
• 2:40:08
  Speaker 2: those things? Who wants to do it?
• 2:40:10
  Speaker 1: Well?
• 2:40:11
  Speaker 3: What he said is that essentially these plants. He said
• 2:40:13
  Speaker 3: later in an interview with Pierce Morgan that he that
• 2:40:16
  Speaker 3: he had seen the plans at first in nineteen ninety one,
• 2:40:18
  Speaker 3: that they came from Paul Wolfwitz. That basically then they
• 2:40:21
  Speaker 3: got what's funny about what the forestar general said?
• 2:40:25
  Speaker 2: Can continue?
• 2:40:26
  Speaker 3: No, I'm just curious what's laughable about this?
• 2:40:29
  Speaker 2: Uh? Paul Wolfowitz is a great figure for almost any
• 2:40:37
  Speaker 2: deep conspiracy in this country. Because he was in deputy's
• 2:40:41
  Speaker 2: Secretary of Defense at the highest in his life. He
• 2:40:45
  Speaker 2: is forever being ascribed almost almost supernatural power.
• 2:40:53
  Speaker 6: I don't think anyone The largest the highest position he
• 2:40:56
  Speaker 6: ever got to was a is Donald Rumsfell's deputy and
• 2:41:00
  Speaker 6: it's it's a very strange thing always when Wolf's name
• 2:41:04
  Speaker 6: comes up, because he was a relatively low level person
• 2:41:08
  Speaker 6: to whom almost everything can be ascribed.
• 2:41:11
  Speaker 3: Well, I didn't describe. Again, if this is I didn't
• 2:41:14
  Speaker 3: describe every you did to I'm literally telling you what. No,
• 2:41:17
  Speaker 3: I'm telling you what the four star general said about him.
• 2:41:20
  Speaker 3: And I wouldn't say Deputary Secretary of Defense is like
• 2:41:23
  Speaker 3: a nothing position. It's pretty consequential position. Yeah, yeah, agreed,
• 2:41:30
  Speaker 3: but what but who said it was? I just feel
• 2:41:33
  Speaker 3: like you're batting down straw Man. I never said that
• 2:41:34
  Speaker 3: he is the creator of all conspiracies or anything. I'm
• 2:41:37
  Speaker 3: literally saying that the four star general said that he
• 2:41:40
  Speaker 3: first saw the plans from him, that he had brought
• 2:41:42
  Speaker 3: this to the National Security Advisor and it had basically
• 2:41:45
  Speaker 3: been like, we'll look at this after the election, and
• 2:41:47
  Speaker 3: that then it was resurrected later by Richard Pearl, and
• 2:41:50
  Speaker 3: that these guys were producer. Again, not me saying this.
• 2:41:53
  Speaker 3: This is for Star General Wesley Clark. He said in
• 2:41:55
  Speaker 3: a study paid for by the Israelis. And yeah, you
• 2:41:59
  Speaker 3: can laugh this all you want to, Douglas, but you
• 2:42:01
  Speaker 3: can go read the Clean Break Memo for yourself. This
• 2:42:04
  Speaker 3: was the neo conservative strategy, along with their counterpart the
• 2:42:07
  Speaker 3: Lekuds in Israel, that they wanted to remake the region
• 2:42:11
  Speaker 3: in a way. And I'm sure by their own justification,
• 2:42:13
  Speaker 3: they believed that democracy would sweep the region and it
• 2:42:16
  Speaker 3: would be better off for them. Nonetheless, they pursued this
• 2:42:19
  Speaker 3: path that has ended in nothing but disaster. And I
• 2:42:22
  Speaker 3: don't think that to say that in twenty eleven it
• 2:42:24
  Speaker 3: was like a purely humanitarian mission to go overthrow Momar Kadafi,
• 2:42:28
  Speaker 3: I do not think is right.
• 2:42:29
  Speaker 2: Well, first of all, before I get to the substance
• 2:42:31
  Speaker 2: of it, why would they want the current situation in Libya?
• 2:42:36
  Speaker 3: Huh?
• 2:42:36
  Speaker 2: Why would they want the current situation in Libya?
• 2:42:39
  Speaker 3: Well, because they wanted Kadaffi out. Why Well, okay, if
• 2:42:44
  Speaker 3: you read the clean Break memo, what their argument essentially
• 2:42:47
  Speaker 3: is is that you wanted to have regime change against
• 2:42:49
  Speaker 3: the hostile surrounding Muslim countries. But was Kadafi not hostile
• 2:42:54
  Speaker 3: to Israel?
• 2:42:56
  Speaker 2: To Israel, yeah sure, but he was. I mean the
• 2:43:00
  Speaker 2: Europeans and everybody else in native found that Goadafi was
• 2:43:03
  Speaker 2: a really relatively easy person to get on with.
• 2:43:05
  Speaker 3: Latterly, right, Yeah, No, I think it was an insane No.
• 2:43:09
  Speaker 2: You'll notice that after he hands over the nuclear program
• 2:43:13
  Speaker 2: and thus makes himself very vulnerable unfortunately for the future
• 2:43:18
  Speaker 2: of world peace. He Libya has been unanswerably disastrous. Hang
• 2:43:24
  Speaker 2: ONDI disasters for you.
• 2:43:27
  Speaker 3: I agree with you.
• 2:43:27
  Speaker 2: And and Somalia and Saddan. Why why why does America
• 2:43:31
  Speaker 2: or Israel want to do I do regime change in Somalia?
• 2:43:35
  Speaker 3: Can I just ask you? Can just ask you a
• 2:43:37
  Speaker 3: clarifying question on this. What when you say that was
• 2:43:39
  Speaker 3: a disaster for the prospects of world peace, you mean
• 2:43:42
  Speaker 3: overthrowing Goadafi was a disaster.
• 2:43:43
  Speaker 2: I say that that him being sorry, I should have clarified.
• 2:43:47
  Speaker 2: My thing is him being overthrown after he's given over
• 2:43:51
  Speaker 2: the nuclear weapons as a disaster, because it leaves on
• 2:43:53
  Speaker 2: the table this thing that you have to hold on
• 2:43:55
  Speaker 2: to nuclear weapons, and if you don't hold on to
• 2:43:57
  Speaker 2: nuclear weapons, you can be dead.
• 2:43:58
  Speaker 3: Do you think maybe the Israelis should stop using the
• 2:44:01
  Speaker 3: term the Libyan model to push for negotiations with a
• 2:44:04
  Speaker 3: round No.
• 2:44:04
  Speaker 2: I don't think anyone should should use lib What happened
• 2:44:08
  Speaker 2: to Daffia's being a good precursive.
• 2:44:10
  Speaker 3: Well, we certainly have a lot of agreement there. It
• 2:44:13
  Speaker 3: was an absolute disaster. Particularly to do it, to let
• 2:44:16
  Speaker 3: a guy get sodomized to death after he denuclearized is
• 2:44:20
  Speaker 3: not a good president to.
• 2:44:21
  Speaker 2: Set I agree, and that's one of the reasons why,
• 2:44:24
  Speaker 2: one of the reasons why. I'm not sure. It's just
• 2:44:29
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's sodomized to death as you put it.
• 2:44:31
  Speaker 2: But yeah, they want a nuke because they I mean,
• 2:44:35
  Speaker 2: if you like what the Iranian Revolutionary government's done since
• 2:44:38
  Speaker 2: nineteen seventy nine, you'd love what they'll do with the
• 2:44:40
  Speaker 2: world when they've got a nuke. But anyway, put that
• 2:44:42
  Speaker 2: aside for a second. I mean, the I just, I'm sorry,
• 2:44:46
  Speaker 2: was slightly come back to where we started. But I
• 2:44:50
  Speaker 2: when you start talking about Paul Wolfwitz and Richard Pearl,
• 2:44:53
  Speaker 2: I just it's it's all awfully noxious smelling. Richard Powell
• 2:45:03
  Speaker 2: was a member of the Defense Policy Board, which had
• 2:45:08
  Speaker 2: an advisory capacity towards the Pentagon in the early two thousands,
• 2:45:13
  Speaker 2: but it was in no by no means a policy
• 2:45:18
  Speaker 2: board that dictated Pentagon policy. Okay, In the last thirty
• 2:45:25
  Speaker 2: years of American foreign policys, there have been many major actors.
• 2:45:29
  Speaker 2: Paul Wolferz is a relatively major one. But we come
• 2:45:34
  Speaker 2: slightly back full circle. In my view, I'm not saying
• 2:45:38
  Speaker 2: you're guilty of this, certainly not knowingly. In my view,
• 2:45:41
  Speaker 2: when people start talking about Paul Wolfertz, I always remember
• 2:45:44
  Speaker 2: that line of Mark Stein's many years ago, and he said,
• 2:45:47
  Speaker 2: you can't help thinking that one of the reasons why
• 2:45:48
  Speaker 2: people find Wolforitz so appealing to talk about is that
• 2:45:51
  Speaker 2: his name starts with a nasty animal and ends Jewish.
• 2:45:58
  Speaker 2: People love saying it's because he's perfect for and.
• 2:46:07
  Speaker 1: He looks perfect.
• 2:46:09
  Speaker 2: You say, oh, the crafty crazy No, no, just just
• 2:46:16
  Speaker 2: let me continue with the thought. So I I remember
• 2:46:20
  Speaker 2: those days and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, was like the
• 2:46:28
  Speaker 2: ruler of the world at that time. He had such charisma,
• 2:46:35
  Speaker 2: such genius was attributed to him for the initial invasion
• 2:46:40
  Speaker 2: for rat people. You can't imagine the admiration that existed
• 2:46:46
  Speaker 2: in the defense establishments around the world. For for Rumsfeld.
• 2:46:50
  Speaker 2: Dick Cheney was so powerful that people of right and left,
• 2:46:57
  Speaker 2: particularly on the left, spent all those years in the w.
• 2:47:01
  Speaker 2: Bush administration saying w wasn't the real president. He was
• 2:47:04
  Speaker 2: being run by Dick Cheney because he was the brilliant
• 2:47:07
  Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera.
• 2:47:08
  Speaker 3: You're certainly listening to him at the beginning.
• 2:47:10
  Speaker 2: Okay, But I'm just saying it goes back to this
• 2:47:13
  Speaker 2: thing of when certain ideas catch hold and what's really
• 2:47:17
  Speaker 2: going on in them. Night To attribute American foreign policy
• 2:47:22
  Speaker 2: in the last forty years to Paul Wolfowitz and Dick
• 2:47:26
  Speaker 2: Pearl is knowingly or otherwise to encourage a conspiracy that
• 2:47:31
  Speaker 2: has very obvious legs, and I just urge you not.
• 2:47:35
  Speaker 1: To do it.
• 2:47:36
  Speaker 3: Okay, let me respond to this a little bit. First
• 2:47:39
  Speaker 3: of all, I did not It is not at all
• 2:47:43
  Speaker 3: saying that these guys therefore just control everything. I'm just
• 2:47:48
  Speaker 3: pointing out what a four star general claimed, where plans originated,
• 2:47:53
  Speaker 3: and that they ended up being implemented. That doesn't mean
• 2:47:56
  Speaker 3: that they were the absolute ruler or arbiter of what
• 2:47:59
  Speaker 3: was going to happen. But again, I gotta say for
• 2:48:02
  Speaker 3: you to say that I can't bring up the neo
• 2:48:05
  Speaker 3: conservatives or okay, let me just write, but the implication
• 2:48:10
  Speaker 3: is that I'm unwittingly giving fertile ground to some like
• 2:48:15
  Speaker 3: jew hating conspiracy. If I bring up a guy who's
• 2:48:18
  Speaker 3: got a Jewish last name, who was a consequential person
• 2:48:20
  Speaker 3: in our government. This is like identical to the arguments
• 2:48:24
  Speaker 3: of the woke left that would just be like, oh,
• 2:48:26
  Speaker 3: if you even say something. You know, if you bring
• 2:48:27
  Speaker 3: up the crime rate in Chicago, you're basically a bigot
• 2:48:31
  Speaker 3: because other people could take this and run with it.
• 2:48:34
  Speaker 2: Come on, no, you come on.
• 2:48:35
  Speaker 3: What's the argument if you said to me, I said,
• 2:48:37
  Speaker 3: a forster general said something, and there's no what's the response.
• 2:48:41
  Speaker 2: If if you said to me or somebody said to me,
• 2:48:45
  Speaker 2: don't you think there's a that some people are running
• 2:48:49
  Speaker 2: the global financial system? And I said possibly, and you
• 2:48:54
  Speaker 2: and I said, who do you think it is? And
• 2:48:58
  Speaker 2: they said the Rothschilds. I think I'd be right in
• 2:49:05
  Speaker 2: saying there was something a bit off about the character
• 2:49:10
  Speaker 2: of the person doing that, because it seemed like they
• 2:49:12
  Speaker 2: were playing to some kind of lazy old trope. And
• 2:49:16
  Speaker 2: I think similarly that if you if you give the
• 2:49:19
  Speaker 2: implication that a kabbal of people, particularly and you should
• 2:49:24
  Speaker 2: be really careful about this because of the people who
• 2:49:27
  Speaker 2: will come up underneath you. If you give the implication
• 2:49:31
  Speaker 2: that these cabals exist, and you decide to elevate the
• 2:49:36
  Speaker 2: Jews or people with Jewish names, in it and then
• 2:49:40
  Speaker 2: play down the non Jews. I can tell you will
• 2:49:43
  Speaker 2: be opening up a world of madness.
• 2:49:47
  Speaker 3: But the non Jews, I mean, go look at the
• 2:49:51
  Speaker 3: stuff that I've said about Obama, about George W.
• 2:49:53
  Speaker 2: Bush, middles Dick Pearl and and I said, no.
• 2:49:59
  Speaker 3: No, no, no, I mean this. This is why I'm saying
• 2:50:00
  Speaker 3: this is a woke leftist tactic. I literally just mentioned
• 2:50:04
  Speaker 3: that a four star general said that I'm quoting him,
• 2:50:07
  Speaker 3: and now you're telling me that this is the same
• 2:50:10
  Speaker 3: thing to me.
• 2:50:11
  Speaker 2: That when you quote somebody it's a totally arbitrary thing
• 2:50:13
  Speaker 2: she just pluck out of the air.
• 2:50:15
  Speaker 3: I'm not I'm not arguing that it's arbitrary. I'm saying
• 2:50:18
  Speaker 3: I'm using the quote for a reason. I was connecting
• 2:50:21
  Speaker 3: it to an argument.
• 2:50:23
  Speaker 2: And I'm saying to you, I'm giving ground to Jew
• 2:50:26
  Speaker 2: haters to mention that I think that when you decide
• 2:50:31
  Speaker 2: to elevate what is a conspiracy of people who are
• 2:50:37
  Speaker 2: overthrowing the governments of various countries, some of which haven't
• 2:50:41
  Speaker 2: been overthrown and others of which have. By the way,
• 2:50:43
  Speaker 2: we're not overthrown by American dominance, certainly not in Syria
• 2:50:48
  Speaker 2: and then you say that the people who are doing
• 2:50:50
  Speaker 2: it are kind of these people with Jewish names. I
• 2:50:53
  Speaker 2: think you should you should be more judicious than that,
• 2:50:58
  Speaker 2: because you probably know what bubba up underneath you online.
• 2:51:01
  Speaker 3: By now, yeah, look, I mean there's no question that
• 2:51:04
  Speaker 3: there are you know, no matter what. And by the way,
• 2:51:07
  Speaker 3: you know, it's funny just hearing you say this to me.
• 2:51:10
  Speaker 3: I mean, look, and by the way, I completely agree
• 2:51:12
  Speaker 3: with you. I think you've been one of the best
• 2:51:13
  Speaker 3: champions on opposing Europe's insane immigration policy. I also think
• 2:51:18
  Speaker 3: the United States of America has had an insane immigration policy.
• 2:51:21
  Speaker 2: I'm happy to see that that seems that.
• 2:51:23
  Speaker 3: Seems to be being reversed. But imagine you made a
• 2:51:26
  Speaker 3: point about immigration and I were to say to you,
• 2:51:28
  Speaker 3: be careful what's bubbling up online, because now you get Look,
• 2:51:32
  Speaker 3: the fact is, if you are taking a position that opposes, say,
• 2:51:37
  Speaker 3: Muslim immigration into the UK, then yes, it is quite
• 2:51:41
  Speaker 3: possible that a lot of people who really just hate
• 2:51:43
  Speaker 3: Muslims are going to end up liking what you had
• 2:51:46
  Speaker 3: to say or following you. But that doesn't mean you're
• 2:51:48
  Speaker 3: responsible to it. And if I were to say that
• 2:51:50
  Speaker 3: to you, you would be the first to very eloquently
• 2:51:52
  Speaker 3: point out that that is a complete non argument. The
• 2:51:55
  Speaker 3: question is is this policy good or is it bad?
• 2:51:58
  Speaker 3: And whether there's not And if you want to say
• 2:52:01
  Speaker 3: to me, hey, I should like disclaim when I make
• 2:52:04
  Speaker 3: this point that like, hey, I'm Jewish, I love Jewish people.
• 2:52:08
  Speaker 3: The fact that there were some Jewish people involved in
• 2:52:10
  Speaker 3: our foreign policy establishment does not mean that it's the Jews.
• 2:52:14
  Speaker 3: Then fine, I'm happy to say that. But I just
• 2:52:16
  Speaker 3: think it's a non argument to say that, like, oh,
• 2:52:19
  Speaker 3: you know, you're you're kind of like giving you're creating
• 2:52:23
  Speaker 3: fertile ground for this hatred. If I'm being completely honest,
• 2:52:26
  Speaker 3: I think we've seen what you're talking about bubbling up
• 2:52:28
  Speaker 3: on Twitter. Do you think that's gotten worse over the
• 2:52:31
  Speaker 3: last eighteen months?
• 2:52:34
  Speaker 1: Uh?
• 2:52:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, right.
• 2:52:35
  Speaker 3: I think kind of what Israel's doing in this war
• 2:52:38
  Speaker 3: and the US funding and arming it have been something
• 2:52:40
  Speaker 3: that is really a great facilitator for that stuff to
• 2:52:43
  Speaker 3: webble up.
• 2:52:44
  Speaker 2: We could go back to that, but I disagree. I
• 2:52:45
  Speaker 2: think that Israel has every right to go in and
• 2:52:47
  Speaker 2: destroy the terrorist group that carried out of the mass Yes.
• 2:52:50
  Speaker 3: But again but no one, but no one's arguing that
• 2:52:52
  Speaker 3: they have the right to destroy the terrorists, the questions
• 2:52:53
  Speaker 3: they have the right to kill innocent.
• 2:52:55
  Speaker 2: People again, which I think we're.
• 2:52:57
  Speaker 3: Just not answering what I'm saying to that, But just just.
• 2:53:00
  Speaker 2: To go back to the meat of that, I think
• 2:53:04
  Speaker 2: you don't realize that actually, people like me who have
• 2:53:09
  Speaker 2: a voice and write and much more do think about
• 2:53:13
  Speaker 2: that all the time. It's a profound concern and responsibility.
• 2:53:19
  Speaker 3: So I agree with.
• 2:53:21
  Speaker 2: Right right, and don't think I don't worry all the time,
• 2:53:25
  Speaker 2: and make sure I intervene into the debate very carefully
• 2:53:31
  Speaker 2: at times when I think some people have picked up
• 2:53:34
  Speaker 2: something that I've been saying and are going to go
• 2:53:36
  Speaker 2: wrong with it. I that scares the hell out of me,
• 2:53:41
  Speaker 2: and I do it regularly.
• 2:53:43
  Speaker 3: I do it too, by the way, I have to listen.
• 2:53:45
  Speaker 3: So okay, so that's a point of agreement too. But
• 2:53:47
  Speaker 3: you don't start believing in that policy for it, and
• 2:53:49
  Speaker 3: you want to start.
• 2:53:50
  Speaker 2: That, I do say, But you do say, okay, I mean,
• 2:53:54
  Speaker 2: most obvious one on that if there is something where
• 2:53:58
  Speaker 2: something really fet it happens, something really terrible and there's
• 2:54:05
  Speaker 2: a bunch of people that decide to riot or commit
• 2:54:10
  Speaker 2: violence or something like that, I know that I have
• 2:54:14
  Speaker 2: to as a duty say absolutely, this is to be condemned.
• 2:54:21
  Speaker 2: If it is people trying to pretend that all Muslims
• 2:54:25
  Speaker 2: this or all that, absolutely I intervene to stop that.
• 2:54:30
  Speaker 2: I think that it is. But I think that this
• 2:54:31
  Speaker 2: is one of the responsibilities that comes with putting out
• 2:54:35
  Speaker 2: ideas in the public square. And I think that none
• 2:54:38
  Speaker 2: of us are blamed free, but all of us have
• 2:54:44
  Speaker 2: some kind of responsibility to know that what we put
• 2:54:50
  Speaker 2: out there is very carefully watched, very carefully followed, and
• 2:54:55
  Speaker 2: that we have to tread well.
• 2:55:00
  Speaker 3: Well, okay, so I agree with that. But when you
• 2:55:01
  Speaker 3: say you intervene, what exactly do you mean by that?
• 2:55:04
  Speaker 3: You mean you voice opposition to it? You say, Hey,
• 2:55:07
  Speaker 3: that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, like we
• 2:55:09
  Speaker 3: have to have the same immigration policy that's good for
• 2:55:11
  Speaker 3: our commentry.
• 2:55:12
  Speaker 2: Sure, I know, say which politician I think can deal
• 2:55:15
  Speaker 2: with it decently and which ones will not. I mean,
• 2:55:17
  Speaker 2: I've made plenty of enemies in the European right by
• 2:55:21
  Speaker 2: saying who I think is bad and who will not
• 2:55:24
  Speaker 2: do this? Well, but yeah, I just put it out there.
• 2:55:26
  Speaker 2: I think I I literally I say it as a
• 2:55:28
  Speaker 2: point of caution.
• 2:55:32
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean I don't disagree with that, and
• 2:55:35
  Speaker 3: I've certainly done the same thing and said that, Like,
• 2:55:37
  Speaker 3: I don't know, like, I don't like the I don't
• 2:55:41
  Speaker 3: like gew hatred on Twitter, and I don't like people
• 2:55:44
  Speaker 3: jumping to wild conspiracies that they don't have enough nearly
• 2:55:47
  Speaker 3: enough evidence to uh, you know, actually back up, which
• 2:55:50
  Speaker 3: I've seen quite a bit of.
• 2:55:52
  Speaker 1: That.
• 2:55:52
  Speaker 3: Being said, I also think there's a whole lot of
• 2:55:54
  Speaker 3: real conspiracies and I'm not going to stop talking about
• 2:55:57
  Speaker 3: those just because some people on Twitter might take it
• 2:56:00
  Speaker 3: in a bad direction.
• 2:56:01
  Speaker 2: Well, as the Great Michael Mallis said, as you quoted,
• 2:56:05
  Speaker 2: one red pill, not the whole bottle.
• 2:56:07
  Speaker 3: I've been trying to limit people to one red pill,
• 2:56:09
  Speaker 3: one red pillar year.
• 2:56:11
  Speaker 2: A lot of people they take one of those things
• 2:56:13
  Speaker 2: and they just get hungry, sort of like boosters, like boosters.
• 2:56:16
  Speaker 3: Well it ends up, it ends up. Yeah, exactly, take
• 2:56:19
  Speaker 3: none of those. No, you're supposed to take one red pell.
• 2:56:23
  Speaker 2: What's the one in front of you?
• 2:56:24
  Speaker 1: Which one?
• 2:56:25
  Speaker 2: That one there? That one?
• 2:56:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's nicotine.
• 2:56:27
  Speaker 2: Oh, that's the chewing ones.
• 2:56:30
  Speaker 1: It's like a pouch.
• 2:56:31
  Speaker 2: Chris Williamson showed me yesterday this one that you He said,
• 2:56:35
  Speaker 2: weightlifters are using in Austin. It's like a powder or something.
• 2:56:41
  Speaker 1: Weight lifters, Yeah, nicotine powder.
• 2:56:43
  Speaker 2: No, it's it's not nicking it something like it creating. No,
• 2:56:46
  Speaker 2: it's it's like it's it's a sniff.
• 2:56:49
  Speaker 1: Oh no, no, no, that's smelling salts. That's right, golf
• 2:56:54
  Speaker 1: for silly. We do that to be silly.
• 2:56:56
  Speaker 2: I hadn't heard of that since horrible nineteenth century women
• 2:56:59
  Speaker 2: who thought they had the vapis. And he said, well
• 2:57:02
  Speaker 2: for boxers when they got knocked out? Is that to
• 2:57:04
  Speaker 2: wake them up?
• 2:57:05
  Speaker 3: That was it?
• 2:57:06
  Speaker 2: That was it?
• 2:57:06
  Speaker 1: It? Well, it works for weightlifters. You sniff it before
• 2:57:11
  Speaker 1: you lift incredible amounts of weight. Allegedly powerlifters use them.
• 2:57:15
  Speaker 1: That's literally why they sell it. It just jolts your
• 2:57:19
  Speaker 1: entire central nervous system because it's so horrific. Want smell.
• 2:57:23
  Speaker 3: No, This is, by the way, a little insight into
• 2:57:27
  Speaker 3: the comedy community. The deal is that Joe will help
• 2:57:31
  Speaker 3: advance the careers of comedians unlike anybody since Johnny Carson.
• 2:57:34
  Speaker 3: But then the cost is you do have to sniff
• 2:57:36
  Speaker 3: smelling sauce. We all have to do that. It's a
• 2:57:41
  Speaker 3: bargain of sorts, but it is what it is.
• 2:57:44
  Speaker 1: Do you have a heart out, Douglas kind of.
• 2:57:46
  Speaker 2: I got to get to d C Okay, one of
• 2:57:49
  Speaker 2: these favorite cities in the country.
• 2:57:51
  Speaker 3: But the other area of agreement there we go.
• 2:57:55
  Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you for doing this. Appreciate it. It was
• 2:57:58
  Speaker 1: very very good. I enjoyed it very much. And thank you, Dave.
• 2:58:01
  Speaker 3: I do yeah, of course, thank you to you John.
• 2:58:03
  Speaker 3: Thank you Douglas very much. I do appreciate that. While
• 2:58:05
  Speaker 3: we do fundamentally disagree on a lot of this stuff,
• 2:58:07
  Speaker 3: I do admire that you will have these covers.
• 2:58:10
  Speaker 1: Show everyone in the book here Jesus Christ avoided on
• 2:58:14
  Speaker 1: myself luckily, on democracies and death cults Israel, in the
• 2:58:18
  Speaker 1: Future of civilization. Douglas Murray, did you do the audiobook?
• 2:58:22
  Speaker 2: I did do the audiobook, and you can hear thesefluous tones. Yes,
• 2:58:26
  Speaker 2: love it.
• 2:58:26
  Speaker 1: It would be a tragedy if anybody else did it.
• 2:58:29
  Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Yes, all right, beautiful, all right, goodbye,
• 2:58:33
  Speaker 1: every Boddy take