Loading summary
Transcript92 lines
- [00:05]
A
All humans break. The difference between humans and gods is
- [00:09]
B
that gods can break. Humans negotiate. Now end this war. You're watching Provoked with Daryl Cooper and Scott Horton debunking the propaganda lies of the past, present, and future. This is Provoked. Oh, man. Friday night Provoked with Ian. Daryl. Hey, Daryl. How you doing, man?
- [00:42]
A
Doing all right. Doing all right. Trying not to obsess too much over all the crazy stuff going on in the world and focus on my work, but it's been tough the last few days.
- [00:52]
B
Yeah, it's hard to do history and current events at the same time. Had that problem with the Right and Provoked. I'd be deep in Bosnia and then. And then Russia gate and then there'd be all breaking news about actual Ukraine stuff going on. I got to cover all it seem. It's like being a time traveler kind of. Well, it sure looks like we're going to war with Iran, although I couldn't tell you any good reasons why. We got to. So we're going to talk about that tonight. And we're going to talk also about Afghanistan and Pakistan. This time it's not Obama killing them all together. It's them killing each other, man. Afghanistan and Pakistan, you know, some limited strikes, but they're calling it real war. We'll see how far that goes.
- [01:32]
A
And the video looked pretty real.
- [01:35]
B
Yeah. And then Ukraine, too. You sent me some Ukraine news. What for? Analyzing there. So we'll get to some of that. But here. So let's start with dang old president there. Oh, no, that's the wrong one. Where is the right one? Oh, let's start with this one, man. I don't like this one at all. Share this tab instead. Check this out, dude. So, hey, so what happened was I didn't actually click through and read the Politico piece because I'm a busy guy. But what I did was I did read the Jerusalem Post version that has the. The quotes in here. First of all, the headline, Trump advisors. I Israel first Iran strike to boost US Backing for American Assault. And then check out the quote here. There's thinking in and around the administration
- [02:22]
A
that the politics are a lot better
- [02:25]
B
if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us and give us more reason to take action. More Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first. Daryl Cooper. I mean, man. Okay, well, you're the historian. But so a couple of things come to mind immediately when I hear that. And the first thing is the story from 2007 when David Wormser, the principal author of the Clean Break strategy and Dick Cheney's foreign policy advisor, was bragging at the American Enterprise Institute that they had a plan to get the Israelis under Ehud Olmert, then to attack Iran, to force Iran to hit American targets as an excuse really to force an end run around W. Bush, to give him no choice but to go to war with Iran. Then since Cheney wasn't happy with him not wanting to do it, and this is what was behind the EFP hoax in Iraq and all that was trying to force that. And that story was broken by Stephen Clemens at the Washington Note, but then it was double extra verified by Barton Gelman of the Washington Post, and I forget who of the New York Times. And I'm trying to think, because I think there was one more, as Time magazine or somebody else confirmed the same thing, that they were shopping this around. In that case, though, Darrell W. Bush was the end that they were trying to run around. They were trying to figure out how they could force him to do this thing that he was reluctant to do. In this case, we're talking about the White House, presumably with the President in on the whole thing, trying to end run around the American public that don't want to do this, but they're talking about the same plan, how the Israelis attack in a way that will force Iran to hit our guys. And then we'll be able to pretend that it's self defense and we'll be able to rally the American people around the war in the name of the dead guys they just sacrificed. Which sounds to me like they, you know, for various reasons maybe don't realize the implication there, but they're essentially boasting of a plan to commit high treason and get Americans killed in order to force the American people into war. Like it's Franklin Roosevelt at Pearl Harbor. Highest treason against the American people that you could possibly think of. And we have guys at risk in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi, uae, Oman, all up and down the Gulf there, particularly in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Tens of thousands of troops, sailors, airmen, et cetera. So wow, you know, starting war, that's really bad. Pearl harbor style FDR level treason, that's really, really bad. And here they are openly declaring that that's their intent. What do you make of that?
- [05:14]
A
Well, I guess the first two things that come to my mind, you kind of alluded to the first one already is just, you know, just think of the message that that sends out to our guys and men and women that are out there right now. I Mean, you're basically telling them that you are there as bait. That's what you're, that's what you're doing right now. In fact, there are people in the establishment, people who are in the planning and decision making infrastructure who actively want you to get killed. That, that's their plan. That's the first thing. The second thing, though, I mean, are they boasting about it or was this a leak? Because it makes me wonder if somebody in there is, you know, not too happy about something like this. If they leaked it and, and put it out there. I mean, it. Because it does take some of the air out of the tires. Obviously, like your normie is not necessarily paying attention to every whatever that was Politico story or whatever that comes out, but the fact that it is out there does, you know, would seem to take some steam off it if they did try it. But who knows? I mean, it hasn't stopped him before. I mean, we're talking about a weird situation here, right, where, where on one hand, Trump is under, like, an enormous amount of pressure, enormous amount of pressure to attack Iran, which is extremely strange to say because this is an 80, 20 issue. Like 80% of Americans are opposed to us striking Iran, and yet he's under tremendous pressure to do it, which is, I mean, it's, it's an indictment of, you know, of, of the, just the representative nature of our system, obviously. You know, and so we're in a very strange place. We're getting, you know, the other thing too is we're getting so many mixed signals and so many. Just forget mix. Just completely contradictory signals. You know, you'll get the Wall Street Journal coming out at 11am saying that, you know, Kushner and Witkoff walked in there and they basically demanded that the Ayatollah send Trump a video of him on his knees begging him not to hurt him or something. And then three hours later at 2pm you know, Axios or whoever will come out quoting the Iranian foreign minister or, you know, one of the Omani mediators saying, no, this was. Things are going great actually, and we're a ton of progress and, you know, we look forward to the next meeting. We've already agreed on principles. And so I, I'm, I mean, obviously there are, you know, a lot of this is just people are trying to manipulate and, and the story in such a way that Trump is backed into a corner where he feels like he has to do something. Otherwise, I mean, because, look, man, like, I'll tell you one thing, like, if by Some miracle we managed to avoid this thing. You know, the Zionist establishment, the neocons, the Lindsey Grant, they are going to go scorched earth on Trump. And part of what they're doing right now is trying to set the table, set the narrative table to let him know that if this doesn't happen, if anything other than you going in there and throwing everything we got at Iran happens, we've already got the stories written. Trump's, you know, a coward. Trump just shows how he's, you know, how his vice president has been cozying up to these anti. They've got them all written already, you know, and they're letting him know that. And so, I mean, we'll see. Man, it's, it's hard for me to predict what happens. I mean, like, like, I don't know if you saw the, the interview with the Omani foreign minister today, who's like the, the lead negotiator, or not the lead negotiator, but the lead mediator for the negotiations. And you could tell watching this guy was a 20 minute interview with Margaret Brennan on Meet the Press. And he's a very thoughtful guy. I mean, he was a very. You listening to him at least? Assuming these negotiations are something, you know, that, that are not just a ruse to buy time to get our assets into place or something, you know, and that they are an actual negotiation. You watch that interview and it's hard to come away with anything other than a good feeling about the fact that he's the one in between the two parties. But his feeling, and this is what he told her anyway, was that in his opinion, like, both sides are very earnest. Both sides are being very creative, very open and earnestly trying to find a compromise. And one of the things he said today, and this was after he met with JD Vance today, which is pretty important too, that's the highest level government official that's met with anybody involved with the negotiations other than Kushner and Wyckoff. After, you know, this was he, he gave this interview right afterwards. And, and what he said was, well, he said a few really interesting things. First of all, that Iran has agreed in principle to give up all, like to, to give up their stockpile of enriched uranium. All that the 440kg of 60% they have agreed to with, you know, oversight, whatever oversight is necessary to have that mixed down, diluted down to the lowest possible point and then converted into fuel after that. Which, you know, according to him, I'm not a nuclear physicist, obviously, but he said the conversion to fuel Makes that process irreversible. They can't take that uranium and then like re. Enrich it or something, and then they agreed to accumulate no more uranium. The second thing he said, which has been a key demand. The second thing that he said is that he believes this isn't something the Iranians have officially put on the table yet, but that he believes the Iranians are open to. And this is something that Obama was never able to accomplish, something Trump could hang his hat on if it goes that way. That the, the Iranians, he believes, are open to even having American inspectors in Iran to oversee these things along with international, you know, IAEA people and whatnot. And so those are massive. I mean, those are huge concessions after years of negotiations, however long it was that it took Obama that he was never able to extract, that they, that they have agreed to. And it seems to me that the Iranians are really bending over backwards to try to at least be, you know, be able to say that they did everything that they could. Could do short of just giving up their, their, you know, the, the core interest of their sovereignty. And so if you're further than that, I mean, I think they said, well,
- [11:45]
B
okay, so I'm sorry, I didn't get the first source on this. I read it from Larry Johnston, I interviewed him actually earlier today about it, that they actually offered also to have a moratorium on all enrichment for three to five years. And then even then only enrich up to 1.5%, which I didn't even realize they could run their light water reactor at Busheiroff.
- [12:05]
A
That.
- [12:06]
B
But still. Fine.
- [12:07]
A
Well, I don't think that's a huge climb, man. Yeah, well, this, I mean, I think this is, goes even further than that because the, you know, he, he also said that after giving up their stockpile and having it diluted down, transformed into fuel, that they would, you know, that they would not accumulate anymore. They would have a place where they could enrich uranium for, at a research university, like for research purposes, but that all of their fuel generation, all the enrichment that's intended to use uranium as fuel would be done outside the country. I mean, these are, that's how it
- [12:42]
B
was under the jcpoa that they would, they would ship their fuel out and the Russians would turn into fuel rods and send it back, and they would keep their actual stockpile of enriched uranium very low. But, and also, of course, there are big sticking points on the sunsets here, but Donald Trump didn't have to tear up the Dang deal in 2018. He could have Said, hey, listen, we have an imperfect deal. I want to lift these sunsets, I want to improve the deal. He didn't have to tear it up and do this whole maximum pressure campaign or any of this. Now looks like he's trying to get back in the same deal and call it better.
- [13:14]
A
But whatever the Omani foreign minister's belief that. And I feel like he wouldn't go out and say something like this unless he had some confidence in it. His belief that the Iranians are open to having American inspectors on the ground in Iran, I mean, that's really something that, you know, Trump could boast about that would legitimately be significant. And, you know, it's, it's very interesting too, because after that interview, man, I don't know if you've looked at. The neocons are freaking out. I mean, you've got people saying that this is just blatant, unacceptable foreign interference in our political process. How dare he go on TV and say these things. That's like Richard Goldberg. You got Lindsey Graham going out there and saying, if any deal is being considered, just know that it's going to have to go through the Senate first. Of course, if Trump wants to go to war, they're actively trying to block the law that Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie are trying to push through to make the Senate have a say in it. That's one of the craziest things about this whole scenario, is that we literally have a situation where Congress, especially the establishment of both parties, is fighting tooth and nail for them not to have the power of having a say in whether or not we go to war. I mean, I don't know if that's ever happened before.
- [14:36]
B
Yeah. While demanding that Trump, while demanding that Trump, the president take us to war and declare war himself and take the responsibility. And like you're saying, vowing to fight to preclude any deal that would, you know, tend to.
- [14:49]
A
It's because they don't want to put their name on this, like to, you know, to, to the people in the, in the establishment in Congress. Like, it's a win, win scenario to them. If Trump attacks Iran, A, you know, their paymasters at AIPAC and everywhere else get what they want and everybody's happy on that front. And B, if it all goes to hell and it ruins Trump's presidency and makes damn sure that JD Vance or whoever else, Marco Rubio, has no chance in 2028, as far as they're concerned, that's great, too. All of these people who are cheering this on, they all hated Trump until like yesterday. They still hate his guts. You know, doesn't change. They all hate him. It's all transactional. You know, Lindsey Graham, the Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin. These people were swearing they'd never vote for Trump. They, they don't. They hate Trump's guts. And if he ruins himself by doing this thing that they want him to do anyway, that's just win, win for them, you know. But the thing is, you got a lot of people, especially in the Democratic Party, who are under a huge amount of pressure from their donors to support this, who do not want to put their name on it, though, you know, and so I, part of me wonders like, and, and, or rather worries that that whatever date they said, I think it is scheduled for next week. Now, a vote on Massie and Khana's bill, that that's almost a, like a deadline for this war to start because Congress does not want to put their name on this thing. You know, it just, it's the same. I mean, they even tried this with the authorization use of force before Iraq. You know, you still, even then, when it was basically like, yeah, it wasn't a, a constitutional declaration of war, like in accordance with, but it was a, you know, Congress approving us going to war. Right. It's what it was. And so they did that. They had that vote. But even then they tried to be like, oh, I didn't vote for us to go to war. All I did was vote to authorize the president to have the authority to make this decision. It's ridiculous. They tried it then. They sure as hell don't want to put their names on it now. And, and we'll see. I mean, it's very interesting.
- [16:52]
B
They learned the lesson with Libya, right, where they tried to pass an authorization to authorize the Libya war, and they couldn't get it passed. They tried to pass a thing, you know, citous thing to stop it. They couldn't pass that either, but they couldn't pass the authorization. I think that was the last time they tried.
- [17:07]
A
You know, I mean, if want to
- [17:10]
B
do authorization at all anymore.
- [17:12]
A
If you listen to people like Tucker, who, I've spoken to him about this privately, and he's been, you know, he's on Megyn Kelly last night and then his own show recently. I mean, he's, he spent a couple hours with Trump last week, one on one, talking to him about this very issue, and he says, absolutely, Trump does not want this war. He knows it's a potential disaster, and he doesn't want it if that's really the case, like, if that is genuinely the case, to me, the move is obvious. Just say, look, I want to vote on this Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie's bill. Republicans pass it. I want you to weigh in. I want Congress to exercise your constitutional authority and let me know here, that at least gives him political cover if they do vote for him to do it. And if they don't, it gives them, it gives him the.
- [18:05]
B
Yeah, that's how Obama bail out of Syria.
- [18:07]
A
Syria. Yeah, exactly. And so it gives him an outcome.
- [18:10]
B
Yeah, that's how he bail out or
- [18:13]
A
it gives him political cover. And to me, like, if he, you know, whether or not he, he does push for that to, to go through before he takes action is really going to tell us a lot about whether he's actually serious about wanting to avoid it or not, you know, because he has an out right there on the table.
- [18:32]
B
Well, so that's my next question for you, is, and this is just like with Iraq War two. On one hand, you have to debunk the lies about the weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, you have to debunk the lie that this is about weapons of mass destruction. Right. That's a pretext for war. We all know they're not making nukes, and we all know they don't intend to. We all know that they know that any president, including Obama, would start an aggressive war and bomb the crap out of them if they broke out towards a nuclear weapon. It'd take them at least months, maybe a year to make one. And the assumption is, I think it's a safe one, that the satellite offices of the Pentagon would know if they were breaking out toward a nuke, if they were really trying to make a nuke. Any president, they've already, they've all vowed would stop them, and the Iranians know that. They just don't have the time to do it. So that's not what this is about. The question is whether Trump is going to try hard enough to cut a reasonable deal on the nuclear program to take that fake casus belli off the table so that then he doesn't have an excuse for war. That was what Obama was doing with the jcpoa. Netanyahu back then was beating the drum for war so hard. Obama's like, man, we need extra, better inspections and a restricted program and all this to dial the tension down, to take the excuse for war off the table. And so that's the choice. That's before Trump here. He clearly does not have to do this at all. But if he wants a way out of it, he's got to be able to cut a deal that says, I'm satisfied with this very low level of enrichment and expanded inspections and whatever, and satisfied enough that now I don't have to do it.
- [20:16]
A
But the.
- [20:17]
B
No one should believe that our government believes that. That Iran is going to make an atom bomb and then use it on New York City. Like Mark Levin was saying the other
- [20:27]
A
day, some of the speeches I've been seeing from senators and congressmen about this issue, I don't know. I know you've been a busy man moving this week, so I don't know if you've had time, but, bro, they're like, it's almost. It's not almost. It's insulting. How. How. Just effort, like how. How low effort the propaganda is on this. It's just insane. I mean, you literally have people marching out there. And first of all, you had Mark Levin the other day saying that Iran has nuclear missiles aimed at American cities right now, that they're. That their goal, that. That if we don't stop them right now, they will destroy Western civilization and kill hundreds of millions of people. That came out of his mouth. And you've got senators saying, I mean, just the most ridiculous things. President Trump's not trying to start. Not starting a war in Iran. He's trying to end the war in Iran. It's like just. Just incredibly stupid stuff that shows that they have, you know, just other things where they're talking about what Iran is actually doing, that Iran is pushing hard to build a nuclear weapon right now, when nobody says that. I mean, I don't think even, like, Israeli intelligence would, like, put that out. Just like, nobody tried that.
- [21:40]
B
Wesley Clark pulled that on, on Dave Smith on the Pierce Morgan show the other day that, like, oh, they fooled the CIA into concluding that they weren't seeking a nuclear bomb back in 2007. But I believe they are really. And they didn't have a chance to say then how come they don't have a giant pile of them? You know who's been making bombs since 2007 and a little bit before that, Kim and his father before him. And they've got, like, upwards of 100 atom bombs now. You see how that works. If you make atom bombs and you keep making them and making them and making them, then you acquire them here. Iran has been making atom bombs for 35 years, and they still don't have a single one. But, yeah, and Wesley Clark, you know, if he says that he's a Democrat. So that means that you can really trust him since he's the opposite of these Republican militarists. Man, that's consensus there, Darrell. You see how that works?
- [22:31]
A
Yeah, and it's, you know, this is a. The Iraq war was obviously just a war of raw aggression, a total war of choice on our part. I can, at least in that situation, say that like, well, yeah, that's all true, but, you know, we were crazy back then. You know, a year and a half after 9, 11, the country was nuts, and we were just looking for somebody's ass to kick. That doesn't justify it, but it allows you to sort of understand the headspace that, like, somebody like George W. Bush was in at the time. This is, like, out of nowhere. I mean, there's nothing. There was no pretext. There was nothing that happened that, like, suddenly, we have to address this right now. There's nothing going on. They're not enriching. Nobody says they're even enriching right now because, you know, the. The facilities are damaged and they haven't, like, got them up and running again. So, like, this is completely out of nowhere. And Tucker nailed it the other day on his show. Tucker pointed. I mean, he. He said it perfectly. He said that it's not urgent for us. It's not urgent for anybody in the region, any. The Arabs or anybody in. Else in the region. It's not urgent. Urgent for anybody except for Israel, because they. They're looking at the polls. They understand that they have alienated Americans irreparably. You know, that their support, the only cohort that they have support with is, like, Republicans over 50, and even then it's like 56% or something. I mean, you talk about, like, anybody under 50, and they are so underwater, it's ridiculous. And they're, you know, the fact that they've, like, the way they've responded to that, the way they've tried to deal with that through censorship and attacks and cancellation and, you know, all of these things, it's made it so that that alienation is permanent. It doesn't matter what they do. Zoomers who don't like Israel right now are going to dislike Israel the day they die, you know, 70 years from now, or whatever that is baked in. And they know that. And so they know this is their last chance to use America's military to go knock off their number one enemy. It's their last chance. They have to do it now. And if it doesn't happen now, and I would even go so far as to say if it doesn't happen this week, they're probably not going to get it done. And they know that. And so, you know, given, given Netanyahu's messianic mindset, I mean, I, I think I wouldn't put desperate measures pass them right now. I mean, right up to, you know, right up to attacking Iran while they're on the phone with Trump and Trump's telling them not to do it. I mean, I think that they would, they would, you know, be that desperate. And so, yeah, I mean, you're right,
- [25:15]
B
you're right about those polls. I had a great tab here to show, but having trouble with my, my junk here, man. I was going to show you this poll result. I was reading, for some reason, the horrible Michelle Goldberg in the New York, New York Times. Oh, I know, because it was, the headline was How Israel Lost America Forever or something. And she has this poll where it just shows that they flip with America's sympathies with the Israelis and Palestinians have flipped and I'm sorry, I forget the numbers off the top of my head, but more Americans sympathize now with the Palestinians than the Israelis and by quite a bit. And the line graph was pretty severe, too. And it's just the violence in the pictures on social media can't get over. And it's still, every day, they're still killing kids every day over there. Anybody on X can see it, you know, so you're right about that, that time crunch. They know that there's really nothing to do with.
- [26:07]
A
Rumors start to pass from the scene. That trend is just going to accelerate and accelerate. I mean, Israel is going, by the way. Yeah, I was going to say Israel. Israel is on its way to being a, you know, 1970s, 1980s, South Africa, in terms of just polling and how people feel about them. That's where they're headed in the United States, which is like, you know, their eggs are all in this basket. People talk about, oh, they're cozying up to India or whatever. It's like, good luck with that. Yeah, have fun. Like, they need the United States. This is an absolutely unique relationship that they cannot replicate with anyone else. You know, this period of time where they had this, you know, this mass population probably, I mean, tens, tens, maybe 100 million people in this country who are evangelical Christian types who just bought in to the, you know, idea that, that the 1948 founding of Israel was some kind of a founding, a biblical prophecy fulfillment. And so that's going away. Their support has melted away already. And this is before the boomers have even really, you know, really kicked off the scene in massive numbers. And so they're going to be, you know, themselves, you know, not a. Not a 51 to 49, not a 6040 support for Israel is going to be a 30, 70 or 2080 position, you know, issue in the United States very soon. And so the clock's ticking, you know, and they want to turn the Middle east to dust before that happens. And, you know, we talked about this a little bit last week. Their goals in Iran, to the extent that, you know, there are any honest hawks in the American establishment, you know, just people who aren't just in the tank for Israel taking their money and blackmailed by them or whatever, like honest talks, who really think that this is something we got to deal with for whatever reason. You know, their goal is not to have Iran turn into Syria and spill out all over the region and destroy all of our other allied Arab countries and Turkey and everything else. But that is 100 Israel's goal, because it's a, you know, for them, it's a double win. Iran gets taken off the board, and all the rest of the Muslim countries in the region have to deal with the fallout for the next, who knows, decades maybe. You know, and so they're. They really want to get that done, and they really want us to do it because, A, they can't do it themselves. And, and, and B, you know, it. It gives them a sort of, you know, it gives them this diplomatic umbrella as if. I mean, it's the thing. This is the joke about this entire situation is the idea that, you know, this is somehow at all between America and Iran. Like, we have a problem with Iran and we're trying to deal with that. And then there's also Israel. That. That is just complete and total nonsense. I mean, this is. Again, the polls show 20% of Americans think we should strike Iran. This is not even remotely a controversial issue in the United States.
- [29:06]
B
Well, you know, it's funny because.
- [29:07]
A
Because it's owned by the Israelis and that is it.
- [29:12]
B
They always say that, you know, they're our greatest ally and they're our unsinkable aircraft carrier over there. And then I always like to joke that, like, yeah, but we don't have any Air Force bases in Israel. Right? They're not a strategic asset to us. We have advanced weapon stores over there, but they always just raid them and take those weapons and kill Palestinians with them. And now for the first time, They've actually stationed F22s in Israel to fight in service of Israel. Nobody in the world thinks that. Yeah, the empire is now putting its client state to use and it's going to have its client state go fight its war. Nope, it's the other way around, as
- [29:51]
A
it has been for one purpose only. Those F22s are amazing airplanes, but they are, you know, they're, they're interceptor aircraft and they have one purpose being, or rather two purposes being there in Israel. One is that they can go up into the air and help intercept incoming cruise missiles and drones and things like that. But then most likely they're there to help clear a corridor, an air defense corridor, if they can, for incoming bombing runs. And so, you know, it's, there's only 11 of them, but they are amazing planes. And, and the fact that they are there, I mean, what do you think about what China's doing? That's very interesting to me, man. Like for them to be going and taking pictures of our deployment deployed aircraft and ships and putting them out open source on the Internet, that's, that's, that's a pretty direct, you know, confrontational act on their part. And it does show that they've got some level of serious investment. This, because there, it's going to be a long time before certain people in the American government get over the fact that they're doing that and whatever else they're doing behind the scenes.
- [31:02]
B
Yeah. So I talked with Larry Johnson today, again, for people not familiar, former CIA officer Sonar21 is his website where he writes and he does interviews and stuff all the time. You find him on the youtubes there. And where Scott Wharton show is my other show. It'll be on there soon. But so one of the things that he emphasized was that there was a new tripartite pact that was signed last month or maybe earlier this month between Russia, China and Iran, where it's not like an Article 5 war guarantee, but they pledged, you know, material support for each other. So this is, you know, pretty big deal. So you had the Chinese not just, you know, posting those pictures, but passing them these sophisticated radars that are supposed to be able, you know, long wave radars, they're supposed to be able to detect stealth. We talked about that last week. But also the Russians, and I think you mentioned this last week too. The, the Russians have sent them the SM4 S400.
- [32:03]
A
Yeah.
- [32:04]
B
Oh, S400. I used to know the name of that, like a couple.
- [32:07]
A
I don't know how many of those units they've sent, though. I believe it's confirmed that they've sent some. I don't know how many though. But that's, that is important. I mean those are.
- [32:15]
B
And he was saying too that he said that Alistair Crook and I had missed this, that Alistair Crook had, you know, shown. I don't know, but I like that guy. He's a very good guy. He was one of the very first people to talk about CIA support for the terrorists in Syria in 2011, early 2011. So very reliable, dude. And Johnson said that Alistair Crook had, had figured that all of the taking out of Iranian anti aircraft in The June war, June 25th war, that was all done by sabotage from people inside the lines or you know, close quarters, you know, attacks on them rather than airstrikes. And that Israeli planes, he said, didn't even enter Iranian airspace, that they took out, you know, everything they did from standoff ranges, which I didn't know about that, you know, that could be true. You know, it wasn't what was reported at the time, but I don't know. I really don't. But so it leaves open the question. And look, the, the nature of the way that the war played out last June obviously leaves open the question of how hard the Ayatollah would fight back in the event that that Trump does start bombing him. You know, if you go back to the W. Bush days, the Pentagon told W. Bush, man, we don't want to do this for one main reason. Then we had a hundred thousand troops embedded with the Shiites fighting in Iraq who were all going to get stabbed in the back like Order 66 in Revenge of the Sith if we started bombing Iran. And the leaders of the Mahdi army and of the Bata Brigade had all sworn that they would, you know, fight for the Ayatollah. So that was a big one. But it was also all those bases in the region, everything else they said, we don't have escalation dominance here. They have too much power to fight. On the other hand, you look at it from the Ayatollah's point of view, actually America has an extremely powerful navy and air force and can, you know, put firepower on stationary targets, at least with to devastating effect and including civilian military, or pardon me, civilian government targets as well as military targets. So if they want to like really beat the living crap out of Iran, they can. And the Iranians know that Nayatolan knows that there's only so much they can do. And last June they just fired a symbolic level of missiles the same as they did after the assassination of Soleimani that like, here's just a little bit of a open hand slap so that you can't say we did nothing, we're not pacifists, got to save a little face. But all the predictions that they're going to launch every last missile they have, then again, you know, that could all be right. Because if the, the very state itself is threatened, that is I guess what the textbook would say that you would expect a regime to do, especially a supposedly religiously inspired revolutionary regime, they're going to absolutely fight tooth and nail to the very end. And, and after all our troops are right there within missile range, right? So why not hit them?
- [35:23]
A
If it has nuclear weapons, including the United States would. It's considered, it's doctrine that if you were about to get, your government is about to get overrun and wiped out by an enemy, you unleash the nukes. I mean, that's like, that's considered a legitimate response to something like, you know, that kind of a threat. If Russia ever feels like, you know, the, the NATO tanks are coming through and Moscow's like going to be taken down, everybody would expect them to unleash their nuclear weapons. That's what anybody would do who has them. And so, you know, if Iran really does feel that way, that, you know, it's either, you know, the pro. One of the problems is like Trump can come out and say, you know, I, I want to do limited strikes or I want to do X, Y and Z. That, you know, that'll, that'll keep this thing contained. But you know, if you're on, Iran doesn't know if it's on day two of a three day limited strike package or if it's on day two of a three week devastating strike package that's gonna wipe them out. You know, they don't know. And so you run into that same, the same problem that nuclear power is always game out, which is you, you get into a use it or lose it scenario. You know, are they just supposed to sit there and like wait until their missiles get blown up in their bunkers and just that's it, or do we just use them, you know, and try to. Because I mean, the other thing is too is, you know, the, if you listen like J.D. vance, for example, I thought this was very hard to understand. I mean, I understand that he, I get that he's trying to allay domestic concerns about this, but you know, he went out and said that there is zero possibility that this will become some kind of a protracted conflict. There's no possibility that that's going to happen. And I get it, he wants to, again, allay concerns. But you're also sending a message to the Iranians that, that, you know, we understand the political situation here in our own country. It's not in favor of this going on. And so the Iranians, like, they have no reason, you know, to, to, to buckle once the shooting starts. Like, they have every reason to believe that as long as they hit back and you know, maybe avoid doing something like sinking a carrier that that really might just sort of, you know, put Trump into a corner where he feels like he has to go all in or something like that. Because I don't think there's a lot of people who think that, you know, if they sink a carrier or something that we're going to limp away and call it quits. That is not going to happen. Yeah. And so good news is those things
- [37:54]
B
are really hard to sink.
- [37:56]
A
I saw them, dude.
- [37:58]
B
They were throwing away an old one.
- [38:00]
A
Yeah, impossible to freaking sink, bro. Like, that's one thing a lot. In fact, all of our modern ships, like, they're incredibly difficult to sink. We had this like, older, not even One of the DDGs, one of the DD's, the old spruance class ones that we were testing out, we decommissioned it and so we were testing out a bunch of our weapons on it. We hit it with the 5 inch guns, we hit it with a couple harpoon missiles. We finally had to, we hit it with a couple torpedoes, still wouldn't go down. We literally had to send us EOD squad onto the ship to plant explosives, like they were blowing up a building to sink that thing. And so these things are well engineered, they're very hard to sink, and carriers are the hardest thing to sink of all. Incredibly difficult. Well, with that said, we've never had anything, any ship hit with a hypersonic missile before, which has a completely different, you know, sort of means of sort of dealing damage. You know, like a lot of hypersonics don't even have explosives in the warhead. It's just the pure speed of the thing coming in. It's like a comet hitting you. And that's where all the force comes from. And so we don't exactly know what would happen there, but, but they're very hard to sink. And you know, I, yeah, it would be, it would be very surprising to me and probably to, to everybody if the Iranians just took a, you know, took some shots and didn't and didn't escalate just for all the reasons that we just laid out. Yeah, and it's interesting because, you know, again, if you listen after. After we get off this, you got to watch the. The interview with the Omani foreign Minister. It's only 20 minutes. And he is almost begging Trump, give us a couple more days, like we are. We have a deal in hand right now that he believes both sides are. Essentially, they need, like, another couple days that. And this thing can be done. And, you know, to not, like, to not give him those couple days, like, we. We agreed to have this guy mediate this dispute, you know, and when you do something like that, like, there's certain obligations that come with that. You know, like, everybody's seen, like, a movie or a show where there's, like, two gangs that are at war with each other, and they both go to a third gang, and they, you know, he agrees to sort of, you know, pick a neutral territory and mediate, you know, a parlay. And if one side shows up and ambushes the other side and starts shooting, everybody knows that's the bad guy, you know, because not only have you. Have you done something just dishonorable to the. To the enemy, but you've disrespected this third party who agreed to, like, put his name on the line for you, you know, and so when he's there basically begging you for just a couple more days, if you don't give it to him, after watching that interview, him outlining what the Iranians are prepared to give up, and him essentially just begging for another couple days to hammer out the last bit of detail, to me, it just shows there that this whole thing was just a ruse, again, to get our. Buy us time to get our assets in place. I mean, that's it. And. And, you know, look, this is. This. This potential conflict is so much a war of just sort of whim. It's not even like a war of choice. Makes it sound like that's not strong enough. It's like a war of whim. You know, this is just something that somebody woke up one day and decided to do. There was absolutely no event that served as a pretext for it, that if we do attack Iran, any American that gets killed on a ship, in an aircraft, at a base, any American that gets killed will have been murdered by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, period. On the other hand, if Trump manages to avoid this somehow, if, again, that is his actual desire, if that happens, then I know a lot of people out there, including myself, who have been extremely critical of him. We've got to give him credit for that and back him up when the backlash comes because the neocons are going to go scorched earth on him. And you know, this is one of the, one of the, one of the things that I was, I was talking to somebody who's a right wing, hardcore critic of Trump and I was, I was making this case to him and I was saying, like, look, man, like, Trump's a transactional guy. He probably is not under any illusion about the fact that people like Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro hate his guts. But the way he looks at it is if I do what they want, they'll support me. If I don't do what they want, they won't support me. If your position is if Trump does what you want, you won't support him anyway, screw him. Why, why should he listen to you? Why should he care? I mean, you'd be like, oh, you should just do the right thing.
- [42:38]
B
But it's like, yeah, above everything else. So that's, yeah, man. And look, he ran and won on this twice. And you know, he clearly desperately wants a Nobel Peace Prize and all these things. He wants to be known as a great peacemaker. Now, it's a lot easier, like we were talking about with the Congress, you know, the way they push and pull. It's a lot easier to be a great warlord and come to rule Washington, D.C. take the country to war. They'll love you. You know, that was what the Democrats stood up and clapped for at the State of the Union was when he threatened Iran. You know, just look at, just look
- [43:17]
A
at Bush and Cheney.
- [43:18]
B
People want, the people want peace.
- [43:20]
A
You know, I mean, Bush and Cheney, those wars are universally agreed to have been complete and total disasters. Total waste of money, waste of life, waste of time, everything. Total disasters that, where everybody agrees were sold to us on lies. Everybody knows that now, right, left and center. And yet Bush is still, you know, they, he's back. He's one of the boys. Like, he's cool, you know, he's hanging out with the Obamas and Nancy, whatever, you know. And so like, it really does just go to show you. And so, you know, I've heard from people who have not steered me wrong in the past, who are very connected, that this thing is all but decided. And it's just a matter of timing at this point when we go. But I don't know, man, I have to, like, at least I'm, I'm, I, I, I have to retain just like a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of optimism just because, well, you know, yeah, there's
- [44:17]
B
no question that he told the military, get ready. If I tell you to go, be ready to go. That is a fact. You know, no question about that. But I think that Tucker is right that he's not decided yet. He probably won't decide until it's actually the order to go. I don't think he's going to decide and then give the order to go in a few days. I think he could change his mind up to the last minute. And I think public pressure matters a lot. You know, his legacy and all of that stuff. And I don't think it's too late. You know, there were people who said in, In August of 13, while we're going to invade Syria for Al Qaeda now, and there's no way to stop it. But people rallied against it. And I mean, all credit to Breitbart at that time. They were like the headquarters of all things, like right wing media at that time, and they railed against that thing. And all the Republicans called their congressmen and said, I'm not following Barack Obama into battle for al Qaeda in Syria. I'm just not. And if you vote for this, we'll never forgive you. And that was it. The entire Republican right refused to support that war and Israel wanted it bad. It just wasn't enough compared to the phone absolutely ringing off the hook with people saying, absolutely not. And, you know, especially, you know, the, the Tucker tactic of saying, look, you know, I support you, but don't do this. That's the right way to do it. You know that your base are the ones who are opposed to this. As you said, the people like Lindsey Graham and, and Mark Levin, who always hated him because they saw him as unreliable on this issue, they're the ones who are fair weather friends and all of that, think that they can use him and exploit him this way. You know, so I don't know what Tucker told him, but I'm sure he, I know he tried. I mean, man, I saw his monologue. He did that great monologue and an interview on Wednesday all about this. And so he must have, have really, you know, told him everything he needed to hear there. But I would say, like, people should call that White House comment line. It's, you know, I don't know if they, they don't take calls on the weekends and all, but certainly on Monday, if it hasn't started by then, people should just call and say in a positive way, we support Jared Kushner's negotiations here. You know, that's, you're doing the brave thing by negotiating a peaceful resolution. That's the Trump we want. Trump, the peace prize winner.
- [46:48]
A
You know, I can tell you, Tucker and I were texting back and forth with each other when he was in his car, in the car leaving the White House, like, oh, yeah, that fresh. And we were texting back and forth for a lot of the rest of the day. He left that meeting convinced that Trump does not want this, that he wants a way out of this, but that he is under extraordinary pressure even more than, you know, having Lindsey Graham give a mean speech about you on the floor of Congress kind of thing, that, that, that, you know, he's, he's trying to figure out. I mean, look, you know, and part of the, part of the thing is too, you know, all the big buildup of forces. I mean, I think the, the leaks that we've heard are probably true, that Trump really did think that this would just get the Iranians to buckle and that that was the hope and the plan was to, to do that. But once they didn't, it's like, okay, well, now you kind of made your bet a little bit, because now unless you can come away with a deal that is significantly better than, you know, it has something in it that you can point to a significantly better than the jcpoa, then, you know, I mean, Mark Levin's going to call you a coward and say you're slinking away terrorists anyway. But, and so, you know, but there's another meeting scheduled on Monday, which, you know, after last June, it's hard to put any stock in this kind of stuff after the way we handled the outbreak of that war. But there is another meeting scheduled on Monday, and as of now, Rubio is still scheduled to go to Israel 2nd and 3rd of March, which is Monday, Tuesday. And I kind of doubt they're going to start shooting missiles at Iran and inviting retaliation when the Secretary of State's in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. So who knows, Maybe that's a, you know, maybe that gets canceled the, you know, the moment, the days he's supposed to leave or whatever. I will say this, like, the, the inner schizo in me comes out a little bit on this. I, you know, I, I was, I was poking around in like, some of the dark corners in the Internet. And like, all of this stuff is true. This is, doesn't necessarily matter to anybody in the American system. But I, it does matter to some people. You know, Rubio's going there on the 2nd 3rd of March, which coincides with Purim, which is the Jewish holiday celebrating the massacre of 75,000 Persians in. In the book of Esther. It just happens to be a blood moon that night, you know, and you have, like, your book of Revelation, Revelation 6:12, saying that the moon shall become his blood, you know, in the final days. And then. This is even crazy.
- [49:28]
B
Call your office, please.
- [49:29]
A
Yeah, yeah. Oh, I got an even better one for him. It. The blood moon. This is on March 3rd, three. Three peaks at 3.33am and yeah. And three is an incredibly significant number in Kabbalah. And it. This is. This is like the icing on the cake. And everybody can look all this up. This is all true. The number three in Kabbalah represents. It's a highly significant number that represents a third party or third element coming in and ending a conflict between one and two.
- [50:03]
B
Prophesied that Marco Rubio, see the Lamb of God in the great book is Marco Rubio, not David Koresh.
- [50:12]
A
It's a little on the nose, man. It's a great problem with the.
- [50:16]
B
You know what? That's as plausible a theory I've ever heard about Marco Rubio is as any. All right, let's change the subject to a different war. Pakistan going to war with Afghanistan. Now, I know what you're saying that wasn't it the ISI that put Taliban in power in the first place with Bill Clinton's authorization back in 1996. And the answer is yes, of course. But. And then you're saying. But that whole time, from, like, at least 2005 through the end of the war, Pakistan was back in the Afghan Taliban against the United States there. Right. As a hedge against Indian support for the Tajiks and the Uzbeks and the Hazaras and the regime that America built in Kabul. And you'd be right about that, too. But now the Pakistanis say that the Afghan Taliban are one giving safe haven to the Pakistani Tariqi Taliban inside Afghanistan who are still attacking Pakistani government targets. And they're in league with the Indians who are maintaining their influence that America, you know, bought for them back when. And it seems like it's mostly small skirmishes, but there's been some airstrikes now on Afghan Taliban targets down in Kadar and in. And in Kabul, they showed in the New York Times here they had some pictures of some destroyed buildings. Let's see. Yeah. Where'd it go? Well, maybe it was something else I was looking at that had. Where there had been some airstrikes that had taken out some. Some arms depots and things like this. So you know, one side has nukes. I doubt they'll use them. But I wonder if the. The Pakistanis are regretting all that time that they spent stabbing America in the back, back in the Afghan Taliban against our guys there, and now they don't like them and are dealing with this. So that's another potential very tough war. You know, hopefully they'll. Someone will pick up the phone and help to negotiate something there. You got anything for us?
- [52:13]
A
I saw that the Saudis, who have a mutual defense pact with the Pakistanis now said that they're ready and willing to send aircraft to support Pakistan if needed. And I listened to. I listened to an interview with the Pakistani. I want to say it was the foreign minister today on Al Jazeera. And, man, it's so crazy. Like, when you listen to. Like when you listen to world leaders that really, really hate each other, it's kind of jarring, you know, because everybody always kind of, like, couches their terms. Like, you know, at least, like, when they're, like, not on Fox News or something like that. Like, if they're on an international, like, stage, they couch it in some kind of. You know, I mean, he was just. He. He was just like, the talking about, there's not an honest Indian in the world that we can talk to, and they're in Afghanistan directing all of this. And, you know, it's no coincidence that this all kicked off right after Modi visited Israel, because it's all part of one larger plan to distract and harm Pakistan. Like, while all this is going on. I mean, it was. It was pretty wild and kind of refreshing, I guess, to hear somebody who actually says what he thinks on, you know, with that level of directness. But, I mean, it doesn't seem like this could really turn into anything particularly. Particularly destructive, like, at the scale of, you know, like, say, a war with Iran or something, just because the Taliban doesn't have the kind of combat power, as far as I know. I mean, I did see some videos. They were. They clearly learned to use some of the equipment we left them. But, you know, a lot of that equipment is once you start using it, it starts to break down. And once it starts to break down, you need repair parts that they don't have and they can't make. So, I mean. Yeah, I don't know. It was. It was surprising, though, to me. I didn't see it coming. I didn't realize that. I mean, look, the. The. The Pakistani Taliban, that's a nasty, nasty bunch.
- [54:12]
B
And I mean, they've had these Skirmishes
- [54:14]
A
going on for months.
- [54:14]
B
I interviewed a guy about it, an Afghan living in the Netherlands or something, had me on his show, and then I interviewed him and he was explaining all this a couple of months back. I'm sorry, I forget the guy's name.
- [54:24]
A
But, dude, what about that article I sent you about Ukraine in the Daily Mail?
- [54:28]
B
Yeah, so we have that here now. And I have another one on Ukraine to talk about too. And we're almost at the top of the hour. And then we need to at least take a couple of super chats for our friends here. Thank you everybody for tuning in. By the way, good to have you like, and subscribe and all of that stuff. You want to tell us about this piece in the Daily Mail? Daily Mail here. Richard Pendleberry. After four years of covering this horror, I bad dream so I can go back home. And I fear we're on the brink of a greater disaster which we are wholly unprepared.
- [54:57]
A
Yeah, dude.
- [54:57]
B
I mean, talking about the war between Russia and Ukraine.
- [55:01]
A
Yeah. So when I sent this in a text message in a group chat to you and Dave Smith, Dave responded that he's gonna go listen to a martyr made podcast now to have something like, light and refreshing to, like, clear his mind. It is so dark, man. Like, there, you know that he's talking about in there how Ukrainian soldiers are like, that. He. He's either witnessed or gotten direct stories from people that they're cutting off body parts of their dead comrades in order to provide proof that this person was killed so that that guy's family can get compensation from the Ukrainian government. That one guy cut off his friend's head because he was trapped under a bunch of rubble and he couldn't get the body out, so he cut the guy's head off so that his mother could give her son a Christian burial. That's where we're at with this, this, this damn war, man. Like, and, and I don't want to. Like, I, I know my grandma occasionally peeks into this, so I don't want to swear, but, man, just. Anybody remotely associated with this catastrophe, they're gonna have a lot to answer for one day. Even if they, even if it's not while they're here on Earth, because what a freaking nightmare. I mean, just a total desert. They just had another exchange of bodies. You know, it's so, so ridiculous. Like, you always hear all this. There was somebody the other day. It was, it was, it was an actual, like, I don't know. I can't remember if it was a foreign policy analyst or a government official, but somebody who is a well known person was talking about how the Russians are losing 40,000 people a month and they just can't sustain this much longer. This was like this week they were saying this. Well, they just had an exchange of bodies, exchange remains so people could get their, you know, their, their sons back and bury them. And the ratio is just insane. Like over the last year, the Russians have given The Ukrainians like 17,000 bodies and the Ukrainians have given the Russians like literally like 500, 600 or something like that. And so the casualty ratios are clearly insanely against the Ukrainians. You know, just every day more and more of these videos come out of wives trying to defend their husbands who were getting yoked up on the street to be sent to the front line of people trying to fight these guys. I mean, this is, this is a slave war essentially. I mean, this is like a, you know, not to say it's not still motivated. Like, you know, Ukrainian nationalists who are out there fighting and obviously the ones who are going around rounding people up must be, you know, into it somehow. But you, you know, when you're, when you're reduced to that level, when you're going out and having to physically subdue people and throw them into the back of a van so that you can go give them three days of basic rifle training and send them to the front line, that's a slave war. You know, that's like an old school, like, slave army. And it's so disgusting. And now we've got, I mean, we've got the, the word now that, you know, the Russians came out and said that they've got intelligence that the French and British are, you know, talking about providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, which, I mean, you know, on one level it's like, I guess you can't be surprised about anything anymore these days, but man, like, are they that crazy? Are they really that insane? I don't know. I really don't anymore.
- [58:20]
B
I don't think so, man. That would be absolutely the end of the non Proliferation Treaty. And just, I don't know, man. I mean, I hate to argue that cooler heads will prevail, but that's the kind of thing that's just so completely stupid. Look, there's one more on, on Ukraine here real quick. I want to share with you. Share this tab instead. This is Andrew Belitzky, who is, you know, I'm always picking on him because he's a Hitler loving Nazi.
- [58:48]
A
He's a nice Vermont liberal, right? Very anti War, kind of calm cool headed guy.
- [58:54]
B
So he's the leader of was the Patriot of Ukraine gang, part of the Social national assembly, directly descended from the Oun UPA that served the Nazis in the Second World War. And anyway, so he's the founder of the Azov Battalion, later the Azov Brigade and then now it became then the 3rd separate infantry division and then also split the 12th special operations division of the National Guard. But he leads the 3rd separate infantry division which has now been christened the 3rd army corps. He's one of the most important army generals in the war and is probably, you know, fourth or fifth place for vying for power to be the chief executive in the future here. An extremely dangerous guy. And he's author you can read on antiwar.com I reprinted his whole speech on the blog there. Racial, social, nationalism, which is some pretty lunatic Nazi claptrap type stuff. Anyway, so point being, he's an extremely important general in this war now promoted to general. And he says, listen, what we have to do is we have to whoop up on the Russians real good and get this to a stalemate. Right now the Russians are winning. If we can get them to a stalemate, then we can negotiate not from a position of strength, but from a position of stalemate, at least from a position of having halted their advances, then negotiate. So this is as far to the nationalist right as you get there. And he's essentially saying, yeah, we lost and we're losing this much of all of Luhansk and at least virtually all of Donetsk, you know, four fifths of it or so, plus the third or so of Zaprozha and Kherson. They've already lost. And who knows exactly what he has in mind there? They don't really say in this article I saw it's worth pointing out here. I finally just. And here's some news. I finally finished recording the audiobook. I still have a lot of editing to do. I finally finished recording the audiobook of provoked and there's a lot of it in the coverage of the war in that book where I talk about, you know, Biden and Zelensky, government officials admitting all along that they're never going to get Crimea back and that they're never going to get the Donbass back and it's going to be a matter of negotiations. He only is only question is when and can we get in position of strength before we deal and all of these things. And so here it is four years later of just steadily losing more and more and more territory. And here he's still saying we shouldn't deal. Now he's saying that they gotta somehow, you know, halt the Russian advances before they can deal. But anyway, my point is just to me, it's a major concession from even the furthest right military leadership in that country that, like, look, daydreams are fun and everything, but we lost the war. We can lie about casualty numbers all we want. Doesn't make them true. Doesn't change the reality on the ground, so might help with American weapons flows, but doesn't change the reality of their manpower. So I just thought it's worth pointing out that and call it confirmation bias if you want. Scott Horton cites the Nazi he hates when he agrees with the same assessment. But fine, there, there you have it. Even Andrey Beletsky admits that all romantic visions of Ukraine aside, the reality is the Russians have taken back Nova Russia. That's it. And the Donbass. And so that sucks for you, but it is what it is and I don't like dishonesty and especially on things like this. So there's that. Now let's take a break real quick here and just let me tell you about Matt Sersley. He's a lawyer, not an accountant. He's a lawyer. And his thing is he knows you're trying to run a business and that you're trying to not give all your money to the government. And so what you should do is you should hire him so he can help you pay them as absolutely little as possible because they are the state and they are the enemy. They should be starved of all revenue and you should spend that money on your own family instead or, you know, reinvesting it in your own business to make it better. So you call Matt Sersley. He's not here to help you cheat. He's here to help you stay exactly within the letter of the law and protect your assets. So do that. And then also check out this man. This is my gigantic project. It's a huge success at Scott Horton Academy. I get positive feedback from it all the time. I have spent a lot of years studying Middle east and Eastern Europe and I wrote some books about it and stuff. And here's me giving courses so that you guys can catch up with all of my anti war stuff that I learned and, and how it all works and including a lot of stuff. So check that out@scothortonacademy.com and then now, Mr. Darrell, let's look at the comments, see if we can do some super chats before we get out of Here. And I do have to get out of here. I got some.
- [63:45]
A
Can I make one quick request?
- [63:47]
B
You do whatever you want.
- [63:49]
A
Yeah. So I think we're at the point now where when we're talking about somebody like Andre Beletsky and his, like, racial, social, national party and things like that, instead of calling it Nazi claptrap, I think we're at the point now we can start referring it to Zionist claptrap. How about that?
- [64:03]
B
Oh, there you go. Thank you. I like that. They have a lot of things in common, those guys. Hardcover for provoked? Yes, good question. So here's the answer to that. As I'm going through the audiobook. Oh, my God, I found 10,000 errors in there. I mean, I call Zelensky Putin or whatever. I mean, I just. Absolute misstatements and typos and just.
- [64:27]
A
Idiot.
- [64:28]
B
Oh, my God. If I hang myself. Don't think, oh, it was a CIA conspiracy. It was just the pros. I'm not a writer. I'm a radio guy. Anyway. Yes, I have made 10,000 corrections. Now I'm going to read it through one last time and then I am going to put out a hardback version. I'm also working on that is I got a buddy working on a hardback version of Enough Already with all the footnotes put in it, which I left out the first time because I was in such a dang hurry. So we're gonna have the hardback version that, and then I'm gonna fix all typos and update a little bit and put out a hardback version of Fool's Errand too, if I can, sometime this year for those things. And. Oh, sorry, I should have put that on the screen. Someone actually asked that. Yes, I'm working on that. Fear and Loathing as a book. You know, Daryl, we had talked about writing a book about Palestine at one point, and I do have an outline for it. Huh.
- [65:23]
A
Yeah. I like your idea for how it might be structured almost as like a Q and A type thing, but Fear and Loathing is like. If I. If I were to try to just transform that podcast in the book. The difficult part is, I mean, it's so derivative of existing, you know, existing works that I would just. I would feel very self conscious about putting it out there as a book, doing it as a podcast, a little bit different because I think people think of them differently. And just for my part, you know, I. I look at it as something that I'm very openly sharing other people's work with you. But, yeah, I don't know I, I, I've had, I've had some offers from various publishers about that and stuff and I just, I've always been just a little too self conscious about it, I guess. Yeah.
- [66:05]
B
So what we had talked about was we would take like all the, all the bogus cliches that the Zionists use. We have no partner for peace. They love it when we kill their children more than we don't love killing their children or whatever Goldemeyer crap, you know that they come up with all this hasbara slogan and then we go through and explain why those slogans are a bunch of crap, why none of them are true. And that's why they rely on these catchy and kitschy little things to get people to repeat, you know, to basically shut people's minds off so you stop arguing and you just repeat the little cliche. So I thought we could do some, some damage with that.
- [66:46]
A
I just hate writing like a remark almost.
- [66:50]
B
Yeah, yeah, exactly. I just, I hate writing books, man. And I always just overdo it and I just, and I hate Israel. I don't want to write a book about Israel. And in fact I think we had even decided then, you know, we could do, we could still just hate Israel in front of people in, through other mediums and not write a book, man. Writing books sucks, dude. Maybe someday, I don't know. I'm changing the subject now. I don't want to think about writing a book anymore. It's the worst part of my life. Libertarian Overwatch I forget this guy's name. It was a unique name but we got to make friends. This guy, you gotta subscribe to his substack. Everybody's really great. He has been putting out serial type deal there like every Wednesday on the color coded revolutions. And you know how I was really thorough thorough on all of them in provoked. Well he's even more thorough. He goes all the way back. He does Slovakia and Albania and Croatia and of course Serbia. And then now he's getting into. He did the Rose Revolution, now he's doing the Orange Revolution part one and two. And it's just fantastic, absolutely fantastic stuff on the foundation for Defense of Democracies, usaid, George Soros and the not Iraq War, but all the rest of the regime change industry going on in Europe, you know, in the Clinton and W. Bush years there. So far I move forward is really, really great stuff. Libertarian Overwatch he's called on substack and so very good stuff there. Happy to recommend. And those are just fascinating, the color coded revolutions and how they Got away with it all and everything. So much great stuff. All right, thank you, guys. Want me to read your comment out loud? You gotta give us a dollar here. This guy says, oh, it's Derek Wheeler. We're publishing Derek Wheeler's book. Did you know that? Oh, it's so good. He was like, man, you think you could maybe publish the book? And I said, I'll tell you what, don't give me a rough draft. Get that thing all the way cooked for being and send it on. Let's take a look. Oh, my God, it's so good. It's better than my book. He knows all this stuff that I don't even know, and it's all in there and it's all really good, and it makes me. It's one of those books that. Where I go, oh, man, I didn't know that. That should be in my book. And now it's too late. Oh, no. Brilliant genius, Brilliant book. And it's coming out very soon, like before the summer sometime. It takes a little while to get these things in process here at the Institute, but we publish books at the Institute, and Derek Wheeler's this great. Now. He says here, oh, Senator Kennedy says, I told. Is going to drink American blood from a boot. I'm not sure if that's hyperbole or not. I really like that guy some of the time. That Senator John Kennedy. He makes me laugh when he picks on these liberal judges and stuff, but I hate to hear that. He's such a tool. Hey, get this. So my congressman is. Oh, it's on the tip of my tongue.
- [69:38]
A
Whatever.
- [69:39]
B
Plain old Texan Waspy guy. But guess who's running against him is. I want to say it's John Connolly, but that's the governor. Almost got shot. No, but guess who's running against him. It's the ShamWow guy.
- [69:51]
A
Oh, yeah, that's your. That's your Congressman.
- [69:53]
B
Nice that he's running in the primary. And his name is. His name. His first name is. His name is Offer Shlomy, and he's from Israel. And I'm like, oh, it's John Carter. I want to see Connolly for something. John Carter is my congressman. Cookie cutter Republican, you know, probably Baptist type, you know, whatever. Plenty. Zionist, plenty. He's on the Defense Appropriations Committee and he doesn't cause trouble. Daryl.
- [70:21]
A
He's.
- [70:22]
B
He's one of the guys, but nope, not good enough, man. They're. They're bringing in Offer Slow. Me who beat up a hooker.
- [70:34]
A
Is the Ronco guy still around? Maybe we can get him to, to jump into the race.
- [70:39]
B
Seriously, man. All right, so this guy, get this. Did you know this Wesley Clark in the files, sucking up to Jeffrey Epstein, asking for money? Is that right? Is that true? Well, I believe you because you gave us five bucks.
- [70:56]
A
At this point, if you're over 50 and involved in politics and even a tangential way, I'm surprised if you're not in there. It seems like, it just seems like that guy was so connected that, I mean, he had his hands on everybody.
- [71:09]
B
Yeah. Did I tell you I had a dream that the other Scott Horton was in there and everybody was mad at me and I was trying to convince them that like, no, it's not me. And then in the morning and they didn't believe me in the morning I went and checked, but neither of us are in there, so it's good. Obviously I'm not nobody, but he's, you know, a law professor and things. He's a New York City guy. He could have, you know, but he's not in there. Was Israel's long term plan, do they think they can hold all their neighbors in chaos permanently even if they lose American support? I mean, I guess, you know, worms are in a clean break. Or maybe it's in coping. He doesn't exactly say we should smash all these countries into their smallest tribal warring factions, but he does say, you know, these states are all very artificial and they really are made up of these smaller warring tribal factions. You know, he's kinda. And so yeah, that's the deal. What is the clean break? The clean break is the clean break from Oslo. The clean break is since the Netanyahu fan murdered Yitzchak Rabin, we don't have to do his two state solution deal. Forget it. Which it was always a half ass two state solution deal. But they said we're not even doing that. He said we don't have to anymore. And what we'll do is we'll just have peace through total dominance over our neighbors. And so that was the doctrine. So. And then as we've talked about before, you know, it's part and parcel of Zionism. On one hand it's very contradictory, right, is they need American support. On the other hand, they need the narrative that everyone in the whole world hates you just for being Jewish and it's a good thing we're here to protect you. And that, of course, that's what all states tell their people. But the Israeli state is, you know, they pushed that stuff. Really are that kind of paranoia. They like saying the whole world is against us, and that's what's good about us. That's what proves how right we are, is that everybody disapproves. They're just jealous of how awesome we're. Like that Louis CK bit where he's like, the girls. Oh, he's just upset because he can't deal with how awesome you are, dude. Like, yeah. Are you sure that's what it is? It just can't deal with how awesome you. All right. Anyway, man, we might have run out of super chats here. Mr. Coop, you want to wrap up for us here?
- [73:36]
A
Oh, putting me on the spot. Yeah. Thanks. Everybody buy coffee with Scott Horton's name on it. Go visit the MARTA maid substack and have a great week. Hopefully when we talk to you next time, there will not be smoldering ruins on all sides of the Middle East.
- [73:53]
B
This has been provoked with Daryl Cooper and Scott Horton. Be sure to like and subscribe to help us beat the propaganda algorithm. Go follow at ProvokedShow on X and YouTube and tune in next time for more provoked.