← Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton
Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton
EP:14 - LIVE - Chaos Unfolds: Comey Falls, Gaza Bleeds, Al-Qaeda at the UN
01:15:04
Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:26]
A
It's Sam. All right, welcome. Show everybody. It's provoked. Friday nights. We're doing it live from now on. I'm Scott Antiwar.com and the Institute and all those books I wrote and the shows that I do and stuff. And he is Darrell Cooper, the most important historian in America, host of the Martyr Maid podcast. How you doing, man?
- [01:44]
B
Doing all right, man. Ready to go. I've been working all day. I'm finally sitting down, and I'm where you talk about some stuff because there's been a lot going on.
- [01:52]
A
Yeah, definitely. Hey, I got to interview Matthew Ho about Afghanistan again today, which was great. There's a new movie that they're putting out called Bodyguard of Lies, which they didn't see fit to interview me for. Not that I wrote the world's best book about the Afghan war or anything like that. But anyway, Matthew Ho and the guys are in it, so I'm sure it's fine. I'm looking forward to watching that. And Matthew Ho, of course, if you're not familiar, he was the great whistleblower in the summer of 2009 who tried to prevent Obama from doing the surge and said, it ain't gonna work. It's just gonna make matters worse, and so you shouldn't do it. And then Obama did it anyway. But Matthew Ho did everything he could to try to stop him. It's a big story, very important one. It's in the book. Yeah.
- [02:36]
B
Afghanistan's part of the story this week, so we'll probably talk about that. I mean, did he talk about this, you know, this thing from Trump announcing that we'd been negotiating with the Taliban about trying to get Bagram back and all that?
- [02:49]
A
No. You know what? We actually ran out of time before we were able to talk about that. Yeah. So much time on other stuff. But I don't know. I mean, let me ask you, I mean, with. In what you read about that, did they say in specific that they thought that they were making any headway with the Taliban on this? Because I think they publicly denounced the idea, said, this is never going to happen, forget about it. Right.
- [03:12]
B
What I saw was they had announced that they'd been talking behind the scenes about it for maybe five, six months or something. And then when Trump started talking about it again after that, he started getting real aggressive. Bad things are going to happen if we don't get that base back. And the Taliban are trolling him, saying, so I. Obviously, they haven't been getting anywhere. And, you know, this is part of. A. Part of a very Interesting series of events actually in south and Central Asia there, where, you know, on September 17, you had Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I'm sure you saw this, signed a mutual defense deal pledging to come to each other's aid. It's like, you know, it's, it's not as formal and elaborate as like NATO, but, you know, it's got a, a mutual defense clause, you know, that they'll come to the, the other's aid in case of attack, which is very interesting, obvious for obvious reasons, Pakistan being, you know, a bit of a loose cannon in terms of its relationship to the US empire and the fact that Pakistan gets 80 some percent of all of its military imports from China. So that's September 17th. The next day is when Trump first announced that we've been talking to the Taliban about trying to get Bagram back. That same day, Trump and Xi both come out. They had a phone call that was all focused on trade, apparently, but both coming out like, very positive. But then that same day as, the same day as the phone call between Xi and Trump, Trump announces that we're withdrawing the waiver for India with regard to sanctions over their port in Iran, which they've had up until now. And then finally, just yesterday, you had a joint statement from Russia, India, China and Pakistan. So roughly half the world's population, four wildly different systems of government, four, four wildly different cultures, social structures, religions, whatever, all coming together. There were several points to it, but the gist of it was sort of commending the Taliban for their efforts so far to rebuild and reform Afghanistan, blaming NATO for conditions there that they're trying to deal with, and calling on NATO to take the lead and redeveloping the country, basically. And then just unanimously and very strongly opposing any, you know, any foreign entry, military involvement in Afghanistan, Very, very clearly referring to our announced attempt to get back into Bagram. So you have these, you know, Russia, China, India and Pakistan all coming out together and saying, you're not coming back into Pakistan while also communicating to the Taliban that like, hey, you know, we're your buddies, forget about them. We're going to be the ones that help you rebuild the country and so forth. And so, you know, it's just, it's very interesting when you, when you start to see, you know, most of our adult lives, you and me and most of the people probably listening, have all taken place in the post Cold War era, right? And that whole era, really, even, even much of the War on Terror period has really been like this long vacation, you know, where in the sense that.
- [06:28]
A
Wait, your audio. Your audio went to hell there, buddy. Say that again.
- [06:32]
B
Can you hear me now?
- [06:33]
A
Yeah.
- [06:34]
B
Cool. Yeah. So this whole post Cold War period, that has been our entire adult lives. Most people listening adult lives has been like one long vacation from history in the sense that there's been this American hyperpower and all of the, like, the big geopolitical issues have been, you know, are there enough women represented in your government? What's your progress toward lgbtq, LGBTQ rights? And all of these things that like, are basically, are you or are you not in America's school book? And if you're not, you got problems. And if you are, you know, you better. You better find a way to protect yourself or get onside. That's kind of been like this fake geopolitics that we've all been living through in the age of unipolarity. And I mean, this to me is like, it's a. It's a very clear. Another very clear signal that all of the traditional things that drive history and geopolitics, you know, geography, where are you situated, what trade routes and other in airspace do you control, you know, how much coastline do you control, what resources does your country have, what's the population? All these things that like, traditionally have shaped geopolitical events are really kind of starting to reassert themselves. And it's just. That's very interesting, you know, because I think we're coming out of that vacation period and, you know, the people in charge here in the US who have all the people up top, the GS15s and SES employees and all the appointees, you know, at that level of the. Of the diplomatic service and the security services. These people have lived their entire adult lives in the post Cold War period too, you know, where there were just very few consequences for American actions, including just devastating American failures. And yet still, I mean, just never really being a professional price for the people who are executing these things, never being much of a political price, you know, in terms of the overall regime, you know, it might pass from party to party and not much of a price for the American people, really. But that era seems like it's coming to an end, man. Like, where we're really going to have to start playing with other countries, you know, as if they're real countries again.
- [08:44]
A
Well, look, I mean, they had to come up with all this clap trap about protecting women's rights and remaking Afghanistan for the future and whatever as their cheap excuse just to hold onto that damn base for 20 years. And then they gave it up, and it didn't matter that they gave it up. And it was the thinnest excuse to stay. No more robust than building schools for little Afghan girls to study in. The fact of the matter is, Bagram is essentially worthless to the United States. What are you gonna do? Station nuclear weapons there so we can launch a first strike on China from there or something like that? We got subs for that. Anyway. The whole thing is just stupid. You know, they say that it gives them leverage over Russia and China, but in what way? They're not going to put their best bombers there. They're definitely never going to station nuclear weapons there. And so that gives them no particular advantage against Iran, Russia or China, who's just a potential tripwire for conflict and expense with no actual advantage gained. The whole thing is stupid, always has been. And that was why eventually, you know, obviously people look at the form of the withdrawal and they get all stuck on that. But the thing is, there was enough of a consensus in the American foreign policy establishment to say, fine and quit to leave Afghanistan. That wasn't because my book came out. You know, that was because they agreed that, you know what, we are just pissing too much effort away on this particular pile of rocks when we could be somewhere else doing something else. And so. And most of them said, let's pivot to China or let's pivot to Russia to weaken their relationship with China or whatever, you know, And I argue in the book that that's not what I'm saying. Don't you take my get out of Afghanistan to say, let's go to Ukraine instead. But they did anyway. But, no, the Bagram Air Base is stupid. And its true legacy is America torturing people to death there by the hundreds. So, you know, at least 108 people were tortured death by the military there and in Iraq, never mind the CIA black site stuff. So, yeah, no, we had no business there whatsoever. And I guess my gut was, this is going to blow over. Somebody told Trump, man, we sure wish we could get Bagram back. And he said, all right, let's see what we can do. But there's nothing that they can do. The Taliban is not going to let them take Bagram Air Base back. And so what? They'd have to get permission. And then what's he going to do? Carpet bomb Cobble as a reprisal for them telling him? No, the whole thing is stupid. So I think that's going to blow over. You know, I hope the same is true about Venezuela. You know, there's a new report that said that Richard Grenell is in touch with Maduro. They've been talking since Trump was sworn in. So as long as that line of communication is open, all this talk about change has really got to fall away. And Trump lovers especially need to oppose. It doesn't matter if they're commies down there or what. America doesn't need any more trouble. Now give me a break with this stuff, please.
- [12:01]
B
Well, it's a good example of how we're still living in this fantasy land. I mean, just the thing I just described. India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Orthodox Christian, officially atheist Muslim, Hindu Muslim mix, etc. Like very wildly different countries. I mean, if you've, you know, I've never been to Pakistan. I've been to the other three. They couldn't be more different in most ways, and yet they don't care. They don't care that you don't share our form of government and you do things that we would not do here and maybe even we find a little reprehensible here. They're living in reality, you know what I mean? And we have just not been living in reality for a long time.
- [12:42]
A
Yeah. Hey, you know, so at the Libertarian Institute, one of our scholars, there is a guy named Joseph Solis Mullen and you can probably see behind me on the shelf.
- [12:54]
B
I'm sorry, I know the guy who runs that place.
- [12:57]
A
Oh yeah, that's me. The Institute thing. So listen, this guy, well, you can just barely see it down there in the corner. His book is called the Fake China Threat and Its Very Real Danger. And it's about how China really doesn't mean us no harm and we do not need to be picking a fight with them right now. On the other hand, it ain't like Osama bin Laden's Islamo fascist caliphate that never existed outside of Glenn Beck's imagination until of course, Obama built it for them in 2014. At least in this case, China actually does exist. And they're sitting on a mess of H bombs too. And so they are something. And what he's saying is let's not do the self fulfilling prophecy with this enemy too. Right? And now he has this great article, it's at the Institute right now, LibertarianInstitute.org and it's called the Fake China Threat Vindicated. And the reason he claims to be vindicated is because there's this new study out in the journal International Security called what Does China Want? And what they did, as good scholars should, was they pored over hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of articles by China's foreign policy elite and all of their speeches and all of their journals and all everything that they say to each other about what they want in the world. And it is not to replace the United States as the global hedgeman. It was never their goal area. Access area denial means they want to be able to keep us away. It doesn't mean they want to dominate and take on the rest of the world's problems the way only idiot America.
- [14:36]
B
Who can watch the US in the post Cold War period and want that freaking job. Like what?
- [14:42]
A
Yeah, we look at George Bush and Barack Obama and we say that's what we should do. We should blow our own brains out. It'll be great. You know, makes no sense. And so and again. And it's very real danger. If we want to really make this absolute security issue where they feel like they have no choice but for to example, replicate Russia's folly in Ukraine by reabsorbing Taiwan with force, then we could have that fight and it could even end up going to actual, you know, first world power battle between us and them and even nuclear war over something that's none of our concern. When look, all other things being equal, I'm willing to put aside all of my beliefs and whatever and just have a fair argument if the reality was that China was bent on a worldwide communist revolution and they were determined to export their commie dominance to Japan and Australia and Korea and the rest. But I just don't believe that that's true at all. But so there's no point in even having that discussion. It's completely stupid. They want to build a belt and road initiative from Shanghai to Lisbon, but they want permanent war against everyone in Eurasia on their way while they're building this highway. They want endless enmity against all Muslims in Central Asia. You know, problems with everyone in Europe. If they really have this ambition, they're going to have to build that freeway with ass kissing the whole way through. You can't do that with force. You ever seen a map of the world? Wait, you've been to Eurasia before? From Shanghai to Lisbon. That's a hell of an ambition. And you're not going to do it with threats. You know, and so I think the Americans, in a way a lot of this is because DC is just embarrassed at how much more capitalist communist China is than they are where they try to accomplish everything through violence and threats and sanctions and blackmail and CIA coup d' etats and everything like that. And the Chinese just send guys with Briefcases full of cash and get it done.
- [16:52]
B
Yeah, I have some friends who are Somali refugees. They live up in Minnesota. I knew them because whenever I would be working off the Horn of Africa, they'd be translators. And I would see the same guys all the time when I would go over there, you know, working with them. And so got to be friends with plenty of them. And a lot of them are great guys, you know, all Muslims, but they're guys who joined up to be translators for the US because they want to kill terrorists. They're very pro America, all that kind of stuff. And so the criticism that one of my friends in particular would always levy with regard to comparing the US And China was meant, like, in a. In a way of like, we, the US need to rectify this for our own good. He wasn't just coming at it as a hater. He was coming at it as somebody who, you know, loves the country. And one of the things he said is people in East Africa, like, got this idea over here that China's bullying their way into East Africa or something. He said, that is not at all what's going on on. Like, you know, there may be, like, individual little areas here and there where they, like, strong arm certain people or whatever behind the scenes, he said, but in general, the countries that they're involved in, they like China. And it's because they have a totally different structure when they come in to deal with the governments where, you know, what we would normally do is we'd say you have a gold mine and you have no engineering school or any other, you know, human capital or anything else that knows how to develop this gold mine. We do. And so here's what we're going to do. You're going to give this. Let us buy this gold mine from you, and then we're going to give you a chunk of, you know, the revenues from it as we export all the stuff, take all the gold out of there, which is fantastic for whatever dictator happens to be in office at the time, because he just takes that money and sends it all to his Swiss bank account. Eventually, some populist nationalist type rises up against him and we send the CIA in to kill that guy. And what the Chinese do is totally different. They say, look, here's what we're going to do. We're going to come in, we're going to develop this gold mine for you, or we're going to build this port for you, or develop this oil field. It's your oil field. But what you're going to do is for the next 30 years to pay us back for all of the, all the resources we pour into it for the next 30 years or whatever it is, you're going to give us a 30% discount on all the whatever it is. And they love that because of course they do like it. You know, they retain their sovereignty. You know, they retain just like it's just, it's a much better arrangement the Africans find much more compelling. And yeah, it's like you said, like the, the Americans, we just can't, they just can't accept that like maybe like the Chinese are just, they're out competing us in like non militant, non nefarious, non evil ways. You know what I mean? Like they're going out and like doing business with people. And I'm not. Look, China's got its problems. I wouldn't want to live there. Not saying any of that. I'm talking though about your, your point here, which is like, you know, like we're the ones who can't abide another country out there that does what it wants in accordance with its own interests. Like China does not care what we're doing. Even if they had, even if their GDP was double ours, they wouldn't care what we were doing in Mexico and Canada, but we care what they're doing in Taiwan. We care about what they're doing in Xinjiang and like just all of their near abroad. And the idea that that's like a, that's a line to fight on. I mean, I don't know, I haven't, I haven't gotten to that article you were talking about yet, but one of the interesting, you know, or scary things, I guess, about the way we've been escalating with China is like, you know, and you know this just from you wrote a book about it. And like, you know, I've read a lot about it over the years, but our nuclear strategy, nuclear policy was developed over many, many decades. Us and the Russians, the Soviet Union and it's, you know, it's all based on game theory, tit for tat and all these sort of like, if they do this, then we have to do that and that'll make it so that nobody will do anything, whatever it is. But all of those games are, we found a stable equilibrium that works with two players. You add a third player in there, which China's not right now. China has, as far as we know, you know, several hundred nukes, basically a deterrent force, a deterrent capability. If they ramped up so that they had like genuine first they, they became a third major nuclear player, global nuclear player like the United States and Russia. All of our strategy that we've developed over decades gets completely thrown out the window. And there was, gosh, I should have, I should have pulled this link up and found it beforehand, but I'll put it up on Twitter afterwards. There was a war game in this. I don't think it was WikiLeaks. I think it was just normally declassified, which, you know, you wonder why they did that actually, if they're sending a message. But there was a war game not too long ago. Well, it's like in the last 10 years where they were doing nuclear. Nuclear weapons scenario where China was at this point where there was a third player. And several of the scenarios, the people running our side of the war game. Once we decided to nuke Russia, we just nuked China too, because we didn't want. They didn't want to have it where Russia's destroyed, the US Is destroyed and China's just sitting there ready to inherit the world. And so he said, if we're gonna do it, let's just do it all the way. Like that's the kind of insanity that people. People start entertaining when you get into those, into those modes and you have that kind of uncertainty, you know.
- [22:29]
A
Yeah, well, that was the original. Was it the Psyop or the G op or whatever, the general war plan for the Soviet Union and China? Was it a car backfires in West Berlin, we nuke every city in the Soviet Union and China. And it was that way all the way through Eisenhower until into the beginning of Kennedy. It was Daniel Ellsberg who found this out and explained it to Jack Kennedy who told him to essentially. And they had to really fight to even get the Pentagon to admit that this was true. And then when he finally got the real war plan, it was Ellsberg who was in charge of making the Pentagon rewrite it to make it not that bad. But then. Yes. And see, I had an excise chapter out of provoked that I cut to save space. And I never have finished editing and posting the thing. It was supposed to be online as the excise chapter. I need to do it. My new chapter there. And I did a lot of research for that and it included about all of these nuclear war exercises that they did, particularly in the 1990s and in the W. Bush years where it always escalates to full scale war. There's essentially no good off ramps once they start even tossing the smallest atom bombs back and forth. It goes to general Nuclear war by that evening or whatever. Because it comes down to use them or lose them. The nuclear deterrent is not credible if you're not willing to show that you're willing to use it. And so you have to use it, or it ain't credible. And so they just trap themselves. You mentioned game theory. What it really is, it reminds me of, like, rules under zero tolerance at some junior high school where, like, really, if you just left it up to the intellect of the idiot assistant principal, she could probably figure out what to do. But the rules are very strict and inflexible to certain occasions. You know what I mean? It's the same kind of thing here where, like, look, in the event that this happens, you're supposed to open the red binder to page 12 and do that. You know what I mean? Like, it's already kind of. They worked it out. But then in the real world, what does that mean? It means we all died. He broke out the red binder, man. We're screwed now. And no. No backing down now. It's really Ellsberg's book, the Doomsday Machine. It'll trip you out, dude.
- [24:49]
B
It's like this giant. This giant chart with, like, decision trees going all the way down, and it starts out with two. What if this happens? What if that happens? And then they all just keep spreading out into variables, and then they all collapse at the bottom into. We all die.
- [25:04]
A
Yep, exactly. They all end up in general 1.
- [25:08]
B
Are you familiar with that book? Came out a few years back. I can't remember the actual writer, author's, name of it, but he worked with Admiral Stavridis to write it. It's called 2034, the third world War or something like that.
- [25:20]
A
Oh, I know what you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah.
- [25:22]
B
It's a terrible book, But I read it because I was curious what somebody, like Stavridis, like, was thinking, you know.
- [25:28]
A
And he would have been Hillary Clinton's secretary of defense, Correct?
- [25:32]
B
Yeah. And so the book is crazy. Like, this is. This is what I'm talking about. Okay? The war kicks off because a US Ship, a cruiser, is, you know, a destroyer squadron is out to sea. And there's this Chinese vessel out there that is a Chinese flag vessel that has a. Has a. There's a fire on board. And they've, you know, they've got their SOS on. And so we go and we say, we want to board the ship. And they say, no, no, no, We've got everything under control. Like, don't board our ship. And we say, oh, well, that's suspicious. We're definitely boarding your ship now. And so the captain of the commodore of the destroyer squadron sends a VBSS team onto this Chinese flagged vessel. Chinese flagged sovereign vessel detains all of the people on the boat, puts them in handcuffs, has dudes with guns, like, you know, watching over them while we go around and search the ship for anything that we find suspicious or whatever. And so they go into this room and there's a bunch of, like, beeping electronics and flashing lights and stuff. And they come in and they say, what's all this? And the Chinese just won't answer. They just kind of go silent. And so we take all of their stuff and we load it up onto the US ships. We're like, all right, we're taking this and we get it all over there. And so in the book, this was all an elaborate trap by China to manufacture a casus belli by getting us to do this. But the crazy thing about it is we are the ones going and finding a Chinese flagged vessel that does not want us to board their ship. We're boarding it forcibly with guns, handcuffing their people, training guns on them, and stealing their shit. And it is entirely portrayed in the book as like. Well, yeah, like, of course. Like, what else are we supposed to do? I mean, obviously, you know, and what do you mean the Chinese are upset about? Are you. Are they crazy? That's how it's portrayed.
- [27:23]
A
It's a defensive alliance. What's your problem, man? All right, listen, I've been totally negligent here in hosting this thing, man. The business end of this is we're live and people are chatting with us and we gotta interact with them. We got at least 2,000 people watching now. Better than that. According to Christopher here, his claims. We need to talk about our sponsors. First of all, my books, Fool's Errand and Enough already about Afghanistan and Middle east wars and Provoked about Russia. I got to sell these things. It ain't a shameless thing. I busted my ass to write these things. And also, man, Scott Horton flavored coffee. Get yourself a big ass bag of it at Mundo's Artisan Coffee. Get it? They hate Starbucks because it doesn't taste good. And so theirs is called Moon Doze. It's the opposite of Starbucks. See, and what you do is you just go to scotthorton.org coffee and it'll take you right there and I'll get a cut. And it tastes real good. And that way you can get up in the morning or drive drunk home from the thing late, you're out. And then also there's the Expat Money Summit, and that is October 10th through the 12th. And it's Mikhail Thorp, that's him right there. He will teach you how to park your money offshore in other countries, how to buy property, how to protect yourself. Not a bunch of gimmicks that are going to get you thrown in prison by the IRS or anything like that, but how to obey the rules to a T in order to protect your assets from who knows what if you got them. And maybe you just like traveling around the world and not just living in your same home county all the time like a lot of people, like me. So if you're into that and you're interested, look, the whole thing is free and. But it's not like, what, just some seminar. We're like, oh, yeah. In six months, after you've given them some unlimited amount of money, they finally tell you that you've been wasting your time where it's not one of those. You will learn all kinds of things at the summit for free. And then there are various upsells, of course, as well. But it is definitely worth your time. If you're interested in this subject, you will absolutely learn step by step how to implement these plans. And so just go to expatmoneysummit.com, use the promo code provoked so that I don't know if we get a kickback or a kick forward or what, but they'll know that we sent you and that's good and important. And Mikhail's a good dude, as I said, he was on the Tom woods cruise last year and we went and toured this year. Yeah, earlier this year we went and toured Mayan temples together down there in Mexico. It was really cool, man. He's a good dude. So I know him from real life and I can tell you that about him. So there's that. And then, oh, I see someone's talking about David Worms or in the super chats here, so we better get to it. This guy says, fear the old blood. Good evening, Scott and Daryl. Hope all as well. Thank you. And same to you. Oh, the same guy says, literally having Al Qaeda in New York City again, absolute insane. That genuinely infuriated me. You want to talk a little bit about Al Jelani slash Alshara in New York this week here, Darrell?
- [30:29]
B
You know, this isn't going to be popular on this channel, but I'm somewhat conflicted. And by that I don't mean I'm 50, 50 or 51, 49. I'm, you know, maybe 90, 10, conflicted. But, you know, I'm trying to think of. Forget about how this all got started. We agree on everything from, you know, decades go on up. But in 2025, I try to look at it and say, what are Syria's options right now? Like, what, What. What could possibly lead to a situation where your normal Syrian person has some hope of getting back to a normal life sometime during their lifetime?
- [31:14]
A
That's a good question.
- [31:17]
B
And so, like, you know, look, it was. It looked like to me and, you know, not. Not like this was entirely indigenous, obviously Turkey, a lot of other countries were involved, but it just didn't look like there was ever going to be peace in that country as long as Assad was still there. We were sitting on his oil fields, so the governments had no revenue, couldn't rebuild anything. Infrastructure was going to hell. Public services weren't being provided because they didn't have any money. And that was pretty much just gonna. That was the status quo in Syria. And that was the plan basically indefinitely until something changed and Assad was gone. And so once Assad left, you know, I look at it now and I say, this guy Jelani, I mean, you know, he. I think he started fighting when he was 20 years old, and everybody knows he's been involved with Al Qaeda, isis, you know, these groups. And he's a gnarly dude, no question about it. But, you know, I look at it too, and I say, from his perspective, you know, from. From the perspective of somebody who views the Assad regime as like a. As a. As a. An enemy that you can't make peace with. You know, if. If Red dawn happened in the United States and the United States was occupied by, you know, Russia or whatever, and I wanted to go fight the Russians, and the only. I looked around and just all there was was Nazi militias and communist, whatever. I'm going to join up with somebody that's going to be very unsavory if I want to go fight the Russians. There's no, like, moderate, nice little happy rebels running around that I can go shack up with, you know, and so now that this guy's in office, I mean, you know, he. From what I understand, and this is from people who are connected on some level of the Syrian government, including RFK junior's Middle east advisor, who invited me to go meet with Al Shara, which I have been advised not to do because I might get killed by the Israelis. That is what everybody that I tell that to has told me don't go there. The Israelis might kill you.
- [33:34]
A
They got al Qaeda phone number. So. Yeah.
- [33:38]
B
And so you know, a few people who are involved over there and who are, you know, they're not David Petraeus going on stage and feing this guy or anything, but they're trying to be pragmatic about the situation as it stands right now. And they say that this guy, look, he wants to, he wants to rule Syria and if that means he needs to put away the, you know, the Islamism and make nice with all the.
- [34:03]
A
Countries around Daryl, they're burning down Christian villages and slaughtering all the whites and everything. They're slaughtering through there been lot people.
- [34:12]
B
That brought him to power. You know, the horses that he rode in on are all a bunch of psycho head choppers.
- [34:17]
A
Yeah.
- [34:18]
B
So that's not. And but the thing is, and so he doesn't have full control of all those people. If he were to tell all those people, hey, we're, you know, going to be tolerant of the Shiites and the Christians are going to have any, they would throw him out of office and kill him and then it would be right back to chaos. And so there's like a very. But the thing is like I, you know, I look at it and I say okay, so like let's get rid of that guy. Well now what?
- [34:40]
A
Well look, I'm not saying that but the thing is, and look, the book is called Time to end the War on Terrorism. But as you know, I'm completely terrified and paranoid about Bin Laden terrorism and about their eventual return to these shores and then what would happen as a result of that too. So. But the solution is not war. The solution is to, the solution is to just but out to stop trying to intervene and solve these problems one way or the other. The last thing we did over there, we being the Joe Biden government, was encourage the Israelis and the Turks to encourage the Bin Ladenites to break out of the Idlib province and seize Damascus and that, you know what? That's enough. No more fixing these things. Right. Just stop and let these things work themselves out. And it's going to be horrible, but it'll eventually end with some kind of probably, I guess a compromise between Turkey and Israel over what they want to happen there. But even still, as, as, as absolutely evil as that is, we have to just stop. Yes. And so I don't think we need to normalize and, and be friends with them and all that. Although this does go to show if we can just have A normal relationship and, you know, an officially normalized relationship with a bin Laden government in Syria. Now, then we never needed to fight the terror war at all when this thing started. We had 400 bin Ladenites hiding out in the Nangarhar Province and no man's land on the Pakistani border, for God's sake, man. We did this for 20 years. Kill 4 million people over this. And then now they're like, oh, yeah, no, we like these guys as long as they kill Shiites. And so, you know, I, I gotta say, and it's the same thing I've been saying this whole time, just stop. There is no good solution to tie this thing up and, and to set it right before we leave. And, and, and that especially means stop funding Israel and stop arming Israel and participating in their Middle east policy over here the whole time. This is all about. Look, in fact. Go ahead, Chris. Would you put up that picture of Benjamin Netanyahu from the UN Speech this morning? We have. So I don't know if you suffered through this thing, but Netanyahu got there and gave a speech at the UN today, and he made a lot of things, and we got to get into it at some point. And hell, we're quite a ways into the show already. But look, you know, what he's doing there is he's showing the alliance of all Shiite power there. Notice Iraq is in red because of his American fifth column, the neoconservatives who lied us into Iraq War two and caused the. The Americans take the side of the Shiites in the civil war there. But then he lies that Syria is still part of the Axis Syria. Now, he's still saying, oh, well, they're run by the bin Ladenites and they're bad. But that's not what he really believes. He got what he wanted, which was a break in the Iranian Shiite arc of power between Tehran and southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah was always a problem for Israel and especially threatened that as long as Israel was mercilessly slaughtering the Palestinians, Hezbollah could always lob missiles from the north. But then the most truthful thing he said in that speech, though, was that everything's coming up Netanyahu, and he has really gotten his way here. He's completely destroyed Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. He's decimated Hezbollah with airstrikes and with the pager attack and the murder or, you know, assassination of their charismatic leader Nasrallah. He's helped Al Qaeda, which he bragged about this. He went to the border and bragged in Bosi Reid, in the Times of Israel, took credit for Al Qaeda seizing Damascus last December. So this is my accomplishment that Al Qaeda has finally ousted the Ba'. Athists. And then he hasn't really done anything to the Iraqis, although I think they're keeping their distance from him at this point. But he's constantly bombing Yemen, including yesterday they bombed the crap out of Sana' a, and in previous weeks killed their ruling council and all these people like that. And then, of course, the June war, where he eventually lured America into attacking Iran's nuclear program. And, you know, of course he threatens to repeat that process, rinse and repeat as necessary to, you know, continue to prolong Iran's nuclear progress anyway, and threatened, you know, I guess, ultimate war and regime change against them. But he's right about a lot of that stuff, that ever since the they kicked off this latest stage of the war in response to October 7, that they have really been getting their way. And now, you know, the news was Donald Trump saying he will not allow the annexation of the West Bank. But I don't know what's to stop them now. They don't really have any major opposing counterweight to their power other than Donald Trump is trying to make nice with the Saudis. But what are the Saudis gonna do? They're not gonna do anything any more than Donald Trump's gonna do anything. And I hate to say it, I'm not like giving them permission, trying to encourage it, but I just think it's inevitable that in this term we are going to see the full scale carpet bombing of the west bank like they're doing the Gaza Strip and the cleansing of those people out of that territory. I don't know what's going to stop them at this point. And I mean, look at the hubris of this guy, which, by the way, Trump today announced that we have a deal to end the war, a ceasefire and a hostage deal and all of this stuff right at the same time that Netanyahu was saying, yeah, right, I'm finishing this thing and no one can stop me. So I don't know, you know, how, how poorly or, or, you know, how coordinated or not that whole thing was or what they're doing there. It was a pretty, pretty stern announcement. The way that Trump made it was pretty definitive. Well, there was a little bit of future tense to it, but it sounded pretty definitive. While Netanyahu was at the UN saying, there'll never be a Palestinian. Well, never mind that. He seemed to say the war is going to continue until Hamas is crushed. And then again, he vowed that there would never be a Palestinian state on his watch, which is, of course, the reason for this whole policy is the Israelis, as long as they have the Americans in their back pocket, are dealing from a position of strength, so they don't have to concede anything. And so they won't. Certainly not on his watch. And so. But yeah, it's. It's pretty ugly because it just means, you know, it raises the terrible question of, well, where are we at now? And. And where are we going to be in another few years of this?
- [41:14]
B
Well, yeah, because that, that whole quote unquote strategy, if you want to even, you know, if you even want to grace it with that word, when he says, we're going to keep going until we've eliminated Hamas, I mean, Hamas is. Yeah, they're an organization, but they're also like, there's a fluidity to it that they're. Was not to say the German government in 1945 or something, you know, that you could. You could defeat the German army and the German government could surrender and order all its troops to stand down. We literally had Wehrmacht units that were fighting alongside U.S. soldiers going and hunting down, like, some remaining SS elements at the end of the war. But in Gaza, in the west bank.
- [41:59]
A
Yeah, there's surgeon fighters.
- [42:01]
B
Yeah. But, yeah, and, like, what he's really saying is not when we eliminate this organization, because that really actually doesn't accomplish his goal, doesn't actually do what he's talking about. What he's really saying is when there's no more young men left in Gaza or the west bank who want to avenge their parents, then we're done. And that's just. That's an endless war that Israel is going to win. I don't care how much more powerful they think they are, they're not going to win that kind of a war. And, you know, that's the war that they've been backed into. It turns into a war of extermination. And, you know, they've sort of rhetorically backed themselves into this place now. And the fact that the Palestinians are still digging unexploded Israeli munitions up out of the rubble and still managing to take out some tanks and trucks and kill some people after everything that's happened, the Israelis feel like they can't leave now because it'll look like they're, you know, they just can't take the heat. And they finally got worn out and had leave, and so they have to just keep on going. And this is.
- [43:00]
A
I Debated Wesley Clark again for the fourth time on Piers Morgan the other day. And at the end when I just brought up the merciless slaughter, I just condemned Trump for assisting it basically didn't get into it too much and I didn't get a chance to rebut this. But Wesley Clark's answer to me was, yeah, but what are you going to do? Just let Hamas say that, haha, we won. And it's like, well, but come on, General, I didn't get a chance to say it's the same as in Vietnam or in Afghanistan or anywhere else. And look, I learned this when I was 10 years old or younger, that an insurgency just has to not lose. And that was just a cliche out of Vietnam. Is that all they had to do? As it was said a million times over, we never lost a battle. Yeah, but that didn't matter because you didn't kill every last fighting age male in South Vietnam. And as long as you didn't, they were going to keep resisting and it wasn't even dependent on the North Vietnamese to continue to support them. It was a local insurgency and it wasn't going anywhere. And so yes, you're at one point you're going to stop and Hamas is going to say, haha, we won. Because all they had to do was not lose. And by not lose, that just means some of them survive enough to still call themselves Hamas. That's it. And so, but you know, as far as paying themselves into the corner, I think that's deliberate. Right? They know that. He knows that. He's just writing himself a blank check to keep killing anyone he can. And you know, they, Dave Smith was arguing with that idiot cop on Piers Morgan the day before I was on there, I guess. And the guy's going, well, Hamas is down on the, down in the tunnels, leave all the people up on top. And Dave goes, yeah, so you're bombing all the civilians and not Hamas. Right. Okay, good. That's what you're standing by. Thank you. As long as we're being clear about that. Careful what you accidentally admit. Oh, and then you know what? I don't know, man. There was all this different claims that he made. I'm not sure how many we really need to address here. I think we got the big ones. I mean, he, he just lied about saying there's no starvation. In fact, you know, the most important thing I guess that he said was that it's not a genocide because we're telling all the Palestinians to leave. He says, when have you ever heard of A genocide where the perpetrators let them leave first before killing them. All right? Which you could just say, like, well, yeah. I mean, didn't the Germans say, get on the boxcar. Don't make me stab you with this bayonet. I'm asking. Asking nicely for you to just go ahead.
- [45:41]
B
They had a program in place to help Jews emigrate to Palestine. You know, I mean, they had, like, they were. They were based. After the evian conference in 39, Hitler went out and mocked. In fact, this is what you hear from Zionists all the time online and from their government, you know, saying, look, the Palestinians must be really awful. I mean, all these Arab countries sure don't want them around. So if they don't want to take them, they must be pretty bad. Right? And that's exactly what Hitler said. After the Evian conference. It was a bunch of countries, including the United States and European countries, came together and tried to figure out, like, what. Can we. Can we. There's like, 180,000 Jews in Germany at the time. Like, very few Jews in Germany. And I think there were, like, maybe 5 or 600,000 in 32. And then by 39, there's like 180,000 left. And, you know, a bunch of Western countries and other countries come together, say, you know, let's figure something out. You take 10,000, I'll take 5,000. And everybody in the whole Western world and everywhere else thought that the Jews in Europe were a bunch of Bolsheviks or potential Bolsheviks. And so nobody wanted them. And this was in 1939, dude. Or maybe Evian was 38. And so Hitler comes out, and he says, yeah, that's what I thought. All your nice, sweet, honeyed words. Poor, poor, poor Jews. But when it comes down to it, you don't want them. And so they did. He said, I'll put them on luxury cruise ships and send them over to you. Just take them and you won't take them. And so, yeah, it's the exact same rhetoric that.
- [47:11]
A
Exactly. Well. And look, genocide doesn't just. You're right, everyone, right? Genocide means destroying a nation. So, yes, if he could somehow convince the Palestinians to all uproot themselves and be transplanted to South Sudan or Indonesia or whatever, the plan is for them to become Indonesians or South Sudanians, right? That they won't be Palestinians anymore. They'll have lost Palestine permanently. And by encouraging them to emigrate, he means bombing them and starving them and shooting them and murdering them, collapsing buildings on their heads, killing enough of them that the rest are so terrified or so just exhausted that they finally simply flee. And then he said, he described all this in his United nations speech as proof that this is not a genocide. That they claim that this is a genocide is absurd. All we're doing is erasing their nation from the face of the earth. What's that got to do with genocide? Right. Reminds me of Archie Bunker going, it's all about the Jews. And that ain't got nothing to do with the Bible. Right. It's like, look, it's all about exterminating their society. And that ain't got nothing to do with genocide. Well, I think it does. That's pretty much the point of it. Yeah. Yeah.
- [48:31]
B
I want to say something real quick because there were several comments about this. Just a last thought on the Syria thing. People were talking about Jelani and how, you know. Yeah, but he's. He's slaughtering villages and all that kind of thing. Now, look, I'm not over there, obviously. All of my sources are second or third hand, just like everybody else's. My understanding of it is that these attacks on the Alawites and attacks on the Christians are not emanations from the government, at least not from his office in the government. It's that he took power again riding on the backs of these jihadists who. He does not have the authority in that country to tell them, lay down your weapons, stop killing the infidels and all that. They're not going to listen to him if that. If he tries that. And that these were essentially, you know, I'm gonna say popular uprisings. That puts too much of, like a positive spin on it. But you know what I mean, where it was just. It was a bunch of lunatics down there and did it. And, you know, it's really interesting. There's some video that came out from one of the massacres of Alawites. And I mean, this is. Is. It's interesting because, you know, one of the things that's so jarring to a lot of people when they see or hear about the. The October 7th videos is that the people are just having fun. I mean, it's clear that they're having a great time while they're doing it. A lot. A lot of them. And that's very jarring and it should be. But the kind of. The narrative on that has been that because that's because they hate Jews, hate Israelis so much that they're just laughing about killing, dude. They're laughing on video, like having. They're basically having a party, killing all the Alawites, humiliating Them doing the same to Christians in other areas. Like, there's something in the jihadist culture that is just. It's just so inured to that kind of atrocity that. Yeah, I don't know, it's. I mean, it's a different mindset than people in the civilized world can really wrap their heads around. For the most part. You couldn't take. I mean, I don't. If I came up with my worst enemies and then had them kill my whole family, I still don't think I'd be laughing and throwing a party as I was, like, killing people in their village. I just. It. It's very jarring to people like us. But this is something that is kind of. That is just sort of a part of the jihadist culture, I guess. Really, really gross. So.
- [50:54]
A
Yeah. All right, look, so I have a lot more to say about Gaza. We're already running late on this show, and we got a million of these super chats we need to address here. So Micah Clark says nobody's talking about the links between the two assassination attempts against Trump and Tyler Robertson Robinson that they have in common, that all three have links to Ukraine. Now, I know that that's definitely true about Ruth, who was just convicted this week. And they didn't seem to make too much of who his friends might be at that trial. He was very much treated as a lone nut, but he definitely spent a lot of time in Ukraine and is documented to have at least had some success recruiting foreign mercenaries to come there and join up and fight. He's falsely alleged to be featured in a black rock commercial the same way that the cook from Pennsylvania was, when, in fact, that's not a black rock commercial. That's a video of a protest being held by the AOB Battalion Nazi brigade there that he was palling around with. And I think it is very fair to question whether anyone involved in the Ukrainian nationalist right had anything to do with putting Ruth up to that. Although I don't think that's really necessary to explain his behavior when you take a look at the guy and, and check him out. But as far as Pennsylvania or Utah and having ties to Ukraine there, I don't know what you're talking about there, buddy.
- [52:15]
B
Interested in any information on that, but I haven't seen it either. You know, one of the things, like with Ruth and it could just be he's a real go getter. Who knows? I don't know the guy, but it's very similar to when all these foreign fighters were showing up in Syria, especially When ISIS was still there and everything, I would ask people, I'd be like, if I were to tell an American with all your resources, with your knowledge of how to use the Internet and just everything, you're a sophisticated American person. If I were to tell you your job now is to get to Raqqa in Syria without getting killed, join up with isis, have them train you, arm you, kit you out, and go fight with them. Most people wouldn't know. What are you gonna do? You're gonna fly into, like, Istanbul and bike to the border and then walk across and hope nobody finds you and kills you? Nobody would even have the first idea how to do that, let alone some, like, dude from the slums of Karachi who's, you know, half literate and, you know, whatever. Like, obviously there's an operation involved to get that guy over there, get him trained, get him armed, because there's no possibility he could do that on his own. And again, I don't know the specific story of this Ruth guy, but I think there's a. There's a strong reason to believe, to start out at least believing that about just about anybody that went into Ukraine, that they were connected somehow. The idea that they just sort of like flew over there and went and knocked on the door of the presidential palace or something and said, hey, I want to fire whatever. Like, it just doesn't wash with me at all.
- [53:48]
A
Yeah. All right. So this guy's saying, love that you guys go live for peace. That's a extra sloppy Esquire. Thank you, sir. Nick asked about David Wormser. I thought this was hilarious.
- [54:02]
B
I was going to sit back. You go ahead.
- [54:05]
A
So Tucker Carlson says in his 911 special, that boy. And then they went right to work pushing us into war with Iraq for a foreign power, Israel. Well, it's absolutely a fact that the neocons were pushing for war with Iraq that day. We have Donald Rumsfeld, not that he's a neocon, but Donald Rumsfeld told Stephen Cambone, and we have it in his notes that we want to hit Iraq too. Sweep it all up, things related and not. And contact Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz so he can hook us up with Lori Milroy and all that crap about how Al Qaeda supposedly was affront for the Iraqi mukbarat, which the lunatic James Woolsey had attempted to prove and all that, and was obviously completely false. And at the White House that day, they were pushing for attacking Iraq. And then the same thing happened the next day, I believe was the very next day at Camp David and the rest of all the National Security Council meetings. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Especially Wolfowitz, where even Dick Cheney told, I think Andrew Card to tell Paul Wolfowitz, shut up about Iraq. Paul, we are going to take care of that, but you have to now pipe down and sit at the back of the room for a minute. And we've heard your point of view on this. And so, yes, that was absolutely what it was. And of course, it was all about Israel. So then of all the people in the world is David Wormser himself, who, quote, tweeted that and said, this is false. I know because I was there. And yet this is true. And I know because it was David Wormser who wrote the plan in black and white. This is why we need to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, because it will be good for every Israel. And I actually, I was joking with Dave Smith earlier. I was talking about how I have really felt like I want to dive into all these books I have on all these subjects that I've been meaning to get to for so long. And because I'm just so sick of saying the same thing over and over again. And I'm so sure that there are people who see me on the YouTubes out there and hear my shows or hear interviews of me and they must say to themselves, this guy's always saying the same thing. David Worms are in the Clean break in Iraq War two. And then the redirection and yada yada caliphate, etc, and then so. And I'm getting sick of saying the same thing. But then that's the key to everything. And why do I say it all the time? Because I want everybody to understand it's so bad. That's why. And then you just have something like this where it's like, David Worms are himself. Like, you couldn't even give me Douglas Feith or one of the other peanut guys or, you know, or Clean Break characters. Like, it has to be Worms or himself, who, you know, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, told me that all the neocons, they were all a bunch of Zionist Israel firsters, of course, anyway, but David Wormser and Douglas Feith, those two were Israeli spies. They were working as direct agents of influence for the Israeli government. He might have thrown in Richard Pearl there, too. Pearl's, you know, twins with Worms or. And all that stuff. And so I'm trying to stay off of Twitter, man. You guys are trying to get me back addicted to this smack. And I'm trying to stay away. But I did look at it for a minute and I saw where I don't even need to show up because there's a hundred comments under just barbecuing the crap out of the guy. And I take some credit that people know this guy's name and they don't just blame Pearl, they blame Worms or because he really was the principal author of that document, the Clean Break. And then the, the companion piece, Coping with Crumbling States. And you know, he and Pearl were twins on it, but he was the principal guy, so I'm glad to play a little role in popularizing his guilt in this. And then I went ahead and gave in and I started posting a bunch of replies. I posted my link to my 30 articles about how the neocons slide us into a Rock War ii, and I went ahead and posted Clean Break and Coping underneath that if people want to look at that, that David Worms retweet. So this guy Nick asked, do you think Worms are thinking he can correct the record on X and that people would trust him without receipts stems from the same delusions that made him think they could sell Iraq. Any thoughts on his post? Yeah, I mean, well, they sure were right about being able to sell Iraq, but boy, were they stupid. And you know, like, if you guys really want some fun from frustration, read the Clean Break and read Coping with Crumbling States. And it is John Luke Picard. Face Bomb Time. Like Face Palm. Just headache inducing idiocy. The thinking of these men in the lead up to that war, it is just crazy.
- [58:53]
B
Dude, I couldn't believe when I saw that tweet. I mentioned this to you on the phone yesterday or the day before whenever we spoke, but I just can't wrap. Like, if somebody accuses me of lying and has a point, it's going to be because I say something with a level of certainty that I probably don't actually have and I shouldn't be saying, or I'm saying something that I heard somewhere but never verified and I probably shouldn't be saying something like that. Right? People like Worms are like, I cannot get inside the head of somebody who just can look you dead in the eye and just flat out lie to you. Like, no, mom, I didn't take the cookie out of the cookie jar. When he, when he knows you have video of him taking the cookie. Like, that's already been established. It's in court and he's still just staring you dead in the eye. Like, I couldn't sleep at night and I just don't. I just don't get It. I mean, it's like he's literally getting on there and basically, he's basically saying, you know, look, everybody, I ran the Israeli influence operation to help get America into Iraq. So trust me when I say there was no influence operation to get America into Iraq. Okay? I mean, I'm the guy. It's just insane, dude. I couldn't believe it. And good for Tucker for drawing that out of him because he just absolutely got roasted and it was glorious.
- [60:15]
A
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Which, by the way, I couldn't remember if it was Tucker or Lex Friedman that said to me, wait, is that really true? That Muammar Gaddafi bankrolled Nicholas Sarkozy and that was why Nicholas Sarkozy wanted the Libya war? And I was like, yeah. And I was like, I'm. I'm really sure. I know that I wrote that in my book and. And I know that I knew it when I wrote it or I wouldn't have written it. I. I know. And then he's going to prison for. For taking that money from Gaddafi and then covering it up. He's got five years. Blam. Told you. I was like, oh, man, it's been a few. It's been a minute since I asserted that. Let me remember how I am. Sure. I know. And then, yeah, no, I'm right about everything. That's.
- [61:00]
B
Dude, we gotta. We got more super chats to get to, but we have. We're not even gonna have time to talk about the Comey stuff. And we're gonna start doing. We're gonna have to start doing two shows a week at some point.
- [61:09]
A
Man, let's do it. We should. Let me say this about Comey. Go watch me on Daniel L. Davis deep dive. Today I went off about Russiagate and all that stuff to him, if you want to see that. But yeah, then what are the prospects of an American political class that gives a shit about the people? None. Except that. That was Robin to Hood asked that. And look, the real answer to that question is regular people getting more political, where the political class changes definition from what that used to mean to what it is now, which much more of a matter of mass opinion. And you do have through all social media. In a way, it's kind of annoying that you have people who normally wouldn't care about politics now gotta have an opinion about everything. And all of that, on the other hand, nah, that's what we want, right? It's better to have the. The power reside in the mass of the people, as wrong as they are, because they're still better than the elites who are also wrong only are much fewer and less accountable.
- [62:11]
B
So, I mean, to rule a country, there almost has to be at least a corner of your heart that you reserve for hating your own people. Because part of the deal is like, I might have to kill some of you at some point. I might have to, like, yoke you up and throw you in a cage. I might do all these terrible things that ruin your lives just because of economic decisions I make, whatever. And so it's almost to rule over a people, like, you almost have to hate them a little bit. And the idea that you're going to have rulers who, I mean, look, the Bible's an object lesson in this, right? Like, you read through the Old Testament, and it's like 1 out of 10 kings were worth the shit at all. Like, most of them were just terrible. And even, you know, Samuel even tells the Israelites when he first. When they first say, look, we need a king, because all the other countries around us have kings. And we need someone to, you know, raise an army, defend us, do all the things that kings do. And he tells them, you guys are not going to like this. You know, you should listen to me. He's gonna take your sons, he's gonna put them in your army. He's gonna take your donkeys and your fields and, you know, use that to feed his army. He's gonna take your daughters for his harem. You're not gonna like it. No, we want a king to take care of us. All right, you can have a king. And like, hey, man, we're doing good.
- [63:31]
A
We got 3, 000 people watching live right now, which is really good. Thanks everybody for tuning in and like it and share it and, you know, this is a pretty new show here. We've just done a dozen episodes here. We're growing all the time with yalls help.
- [63:43]
B
So, yeah, and put in the chat and in the comments on the tweets or wherever you leave your notes. In the future, we're going to start bringing in other people to participate in these discussions with us. So if there's people you want to see on here, let us know.
- [63:59]
A
Yeah, good times. Ralph22. Nope, just Raph22 says. Evening, gents. Mir Shimer says Donald J. Trump has good instincts but it's too erotic Erratic erotic erratic I can't see no more I used to have good vision. I really regret that he's not that erotic. I wouldn't think Donald Trump, unless, you know, the south park version. I. This guy voted for him. I Did not. I. I believe that you did. I. I'm very sympathetic. I would like to like Trump much more than I really do, but it's the Zionism that gets me, man, and I'm not getting over that.
- [64:40]
B
I mean, the way I kind of look at it.
- [64:42]
A
Damn right about that, buddy.
- [64:44]
B
I sort of just look at it as, like, if our choices are between an ultra Zionist who might limit immigration and might, you know, take some action with regard to the bureaucracy, et cetera, that I like, versus somebody who's an ultra Zionist who will. Who hates me and will try to destroy my life and, like, whatever, then I guess we're going to take the first one.
- [65:06]
A
The Democrats were qualitatively worse this time. There's just no question about that.
- [65:11]
B
This was different because of the way Israel's behaving, though. You know, I would have thought, like, 10 years ago if somebody was, like, facing that decision and they were like, no, I just can't, because, you know, he supports Israel. Ten years ago, I might have been like, come on, man. Like, there's other things that matter too, you know? But people who say that now, dude, I got no counter to that. I mean, the way the Israelis are behaving is so over the top and so barbaric that the fact that somebody that we put in charge of this country cannot forget about, like, cutting ties or turning on them or whatever. They can't even. They can't even back away from just total subservience, like in the midst of a genocide, an ethnic cleansing campaign. If somebody considers that a deal breaker, like, I cannot fault them for that, honestly.
- [65:58]
A
Hey, man, did you see the New South Park? Hey, Chris, do you have the clip of the New south park thing? You know about that? All right, so the New South Park, I'm going to ruin it for everybody. The New South Park. The plot is there's a betting app where kids can bet. Anybody can bet on anything. So they're betting whether there's going to be tater tots on the menu, school at lunch. Right. Or betting on anything. And one of the things that the kids are betting on is whether Kyle's mom is going to bomb a Palestinian hospital. And. And anyway, long story short, and I'm spoiling it for you, long story short, Kyle's mom goes to Israel. And the way that they write it, you think, like, oh, maybe she is going to go through with it, you know, at the thing at the end. And then. But the twist at the end is she goes to the prime minister's office. And she just barges in on Netanyahu and starts screaming at him, how dare you kill all these innocent people and destroy these entire neighborhoods and dress yourself up in Judaism and hide behind the Jewish people in the Jewish religion, you dirty snake, you. Rah, rah, rah. And she just screams at him and, you know, like, Kyle's mom is the most obnoxious Jewish lady character on tv and she's like letting them have it. And it could have been worse. Like, I don't know, I might have had him go a little bit harder. They make Netanyahu seem almost innocent. And the way he's surprised sitting at the table there where they could have had him, you know, sitting there eating a baby or whatever, which would have been more accurate, you know, Christian children in his soup, something like that. But anyway, she went in there and just absolutely let him have it. And. Which I thought was, you know, another signpost, you know, culturally speaking about all that, that's not just for hippies. And in fact, one of the things she screamed about him is, you're increasing anti Semitism all over the world. She says you're making life for Jews in America impossible. You know, and that was part of the plot was people were asking her because they were placing bets on whether she was going to bomb a hospital or not. But so they were asking her, so what's your opinion about the Gaza thing? And then so she felt really put upon, like, just because she's an American Jew, why does she have to answer for what Israel is doing and all that? You know what I mean? And they could have addressed the Israel lobby, which they didn't, but whatever, it was good. And it shows that, that the argument, like, what were they going to do? They could have had her stop and yell at Hamas for causing all this, but they didn't do that.
- [68:25]
B
You know, it reminds me of what you say, like, that she feels put upon for having to answer for them. This is totally unrelated to geopolitics or anything, but one of my buddies, a black dude back in the day when I was in the Navy, we go out with them and this had I saw this happen more than one time on the San Diego trolley or on the bus or something where there'd be a black dude, could be just some random homeless dude or whatever, like acting a fool, and people would like, look over at my buddy, like, come on, man, can you do something about this? And he's like, what the. Like, what are you talking about? Like, well, I don't know this guy. That reminded me of that.
- [69:04]
A
That's funny. All right, we better knock these out because we gotta go, man. The Faraday says, unfortunately, US elite want to hold on to the unipolar moment. Hopefully things start to change soon. You got that right. And I think, as Ron Paul said, ultimately we just can't afford it. The fact that our. That interest on the national debt every year is more than the military budget, more than Social Security and Medicare, I mean, that ought to be end of the story right there.
- [69:30]
B
The budget stuff is like. It just seems to me like that ship sailed decades ago and that we're basically where we're at with it right now is we're never going to pay any of this back. Everybody kind of knows that. But the US dollar is so central to the global financial system that when it falls, the whole thing falls. And so we're just going to have to get together and have a G40 and come up with a new Bretton woods replacement economic system for the world. So we're just going to ride this until it all falls down and then we'll figure it out. That's what it seems like.
- [70:01]
A
Completely repudiate. They should just completely repudiate the national debt and start over. All right, this guy says he doesn't want nuclear war. I'm with you, buddy. This guy says, oh, by Scott's books, he's right about that, man. I'm sorry that we don't have time to talk about Russia Gay. And you know, there are more things about Netanyahu's speech that I wanted to talk about. But I guess, you know, I've been doing interviews all day. I got to cover a lot of that on other shows and things, which, by the way, for those not familiar, I have a show of my own. And in fact, today I changed my interview show finally to a video show. So my first video episode of the Scott Horton Show, I interviewed Matthew Ho, the great Afghan war whistleblower. And so that'll be up on my channel Ott Horton show, if people are interested in that. Thomas Massie got the 218 votes to force a vote on the House floor to release the Epstein files, according to Fear the Old Blood. I did not know that. I did see that there was some Epstein news. I did not know that it was that. That's really important. Boy, Massey, he must have got the scent of something that he knows he's really onto something there. He's decided he's going to make this his stand.
- [71:14]
B
Did you see the Project Veritas thing? I did.
- [71:18]
A
But you know, What? I, at first I was all, wow, this is interesting. But then, did you see the very end?
- [71:24]
B
I didn't even watch it. I just read about it, and then I read the guy's response to it, saying that, you know, I was just shooting off my mouth, like, I don't. I wasn't involved. I. I don't know.
- [71:34]
A
It looked really good. At first. They're like, wow, here's a senior investigator who's claiming to know all this stuff. And it sounded pretty credible, right? And the very end, they put up. At the very end, for just an instant, they put up. The Justice Department responds, this guy was some kind of technical engineer guy who worked for us 15 years ago, who wasn't anybody. He was no investigator. He was no nobody. So in other words, he was just some guy, you know, posturing in front of some chick or whatever. And they even, essentially, they admitted it at the end that, okay, we. They never verify that he was an investigator of any kind, dude. And then DOJ absolutely denies that he was. And I hate to say believably, you know what I mean? I don't want to take the DOJ side over James, ok. But it seemed pretty obvious that the guy was full of, you know, at first I was like, oh, wow. And then I was like, nah, it's too good. So this guy, green thumb blonde, asks, or this woman asks, we cannot let Israel benefit from the Holocaust they are conducting. How could they be prevented from benefiting? What will be done with the land? I mean, it would take the American president insisting that they have to stop and that they have to essentially probably allow Saudi or Qatar or Egypt to take control over the Strip and rebuild it and, you know, claim to be the security force of those people and force the Israelis to leave them the hell alone. But that would take some other man than Donald Trump to be the President of the United States, I'm afraid.
- [73:09]
B
I mean, it's going to be an.
- [73:11]
A
Issue in the next election, and they're not going to be able to bury it the way that they usually do. This is going to be a real fight coming, I think.
- [73:18]
B
Yeah, even if it just moves the needle rhetorically, it'll be valuable. But, I mean, that's one of the things people do have to understand. You have to really think, like, I mean, is J.D. vance or Ron DeSantis or whoever the Democrats put up in 2028, are they going to flip a 180 on that issue? No, we might be able to due to the dynamics of the election and the public discourse. Like drag them 10% in the right direction or something. But this is something that's going to take time, you know, and the Palestinians unfortunately do not have time. And so it's a, it's a pretty dark scenario. I mean I don't, I don't. Yeah, I don't, I don't have a. I don't have a lot of hope that things are going to get better anytime soon there, unfortunately.
- [74:03]
A
Yeah, I know. I feel the exact same way about it. Same thing for Ukraine too. And.
- [74:09]
B
But good defeats evil in the end, man. Whoever said that, I can't remember her name. But just keep that in mind. It might not happen on our timeline, but vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. Good will defeat evil in the end. So rest in that.
- [74:26]
A
All right, you guys, and that's provoked for tonight. Thanks very much for listening. Check out all our stuff and we'll see you next week. Thanks, Sam. It.