Kind: captions
Language: en
All the people who sold the war in Iraq,
they lied us into war after a war.
They've bankrupted the country, damn
near destroyed the dollar, and like no
one loses their job. No one even gets in
trouble over any of this. If you make
everybody monsters and they're not human
beings, well, you can't do diplomacy
with monsters. You can't make a deal.
You can't negotiate with monsters, but
you can with humans. Maybe there are
times where you're not. You shouldn't
negotiate or you can't negotiate with
humans, but it's better if you can. and
and we could use a lot more of that
thinking. Donald Trump has put a lot of
political capital chips into the middle
of the table that I can end this war,
you know, and he's going to look very,
very bad if he can't. So, he's very
highly incentivized to get this thing
done as quick as possible. You're
fighting in a way that produces more of
the thing that you're fighting. And so,
the first step is to stop doing that.
like your your cure is making the
patient more sick. So, stop doing that
and then let's see if maybe we could
heal. Where are the tapes? Why is
everyone talking about the flight logs
and the files? Where are the tapes? This
guy was clearly taping people to
blackmail them. Like, why does anything
need to be redacted for national
security? Like, I'm sorry. You're
telling me there's a pedophile ring and
we can't tell you everything about it
for national security? Why would that be
related to national security?
The following is a conversation with
Dave Smith, an outspoken and at times
controversial anti-war libertarian,
comedian, and podcast host. This is the
Lex Freedman podcast. To support it,
please check out our sponsors in the
description. And now, dear friends,
here's Dave
Smith. You are a longtime libertarian,
uh perhaps an anarco capitalist. We can
talk about that. Can you uh explain the
different variants, flavors of uh
libertarianism and where you stand among
those variants? Yeah, so there's almost
like anything like with left-wing
schools of thought or right-wing schools
of thought, there's many different camps
and different thinkers and so within the
kind of broader theme of libertarianism,
there was a lot of influence from uh
people like Rand, Milton Freriedman,
Thomas Soul. Those were, I think, some
of the more mainstream figures. And then
there's kind of like the Ron Paul brand
of libertarianism, which is kind of
distinct from that other camp where
they're much more of an emphasis on
foreign policy. All of them kind of fall
into the um radical minarchist points of
view. And then there's
Rothbartian anarcho capitalist. Then
there's also like uh David Freriedman
who's an anarcho capitalist but from a
completely different perspective than
Murray Rothbart. I would probably be
most I'm most closely like with the
Rothbart school which very similar to
Ron Paul um but even maybe a little bit
further in that you know the very little
bit of government that Ron Paul might
support. You've been a big fan of Ron
Paul. Can you explain what you admire
about him? A big fan is an
understatement. I think Ron Paul is like
the greatest living American hero. Um, I
I I revere him on the level of of the
founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson or
George Washington. Number one, I mean,
all of the major issues that he w he was
correct in his understanding of them,
his diagnosis of what caused these
problems and his solutions. And in
hindsight, there's just like a million
different examples of where almost
everybody today would agree, even though
his ideas were very controversial at the
time, be like, "Oh my god, if we had
just listened to Ron Paul about that,
we'd be so much better off." But I think
there's something almost deeper than
that about why so why Ron Paul inspires
so much love from so many people is
okay. So number one, the guy he was a
champion of these views for decades when
there was no payoff for it at all where
he was just kind of alone in the woods
being you know they used to call him Dr.
No, because well, he was a medical
doctor and then he was he would be the
lone no vote in Congress like all the
time like on on the bills that the
entire Congress bipartisan agreement
everything is and there's one vote
against it, you know, um and that he
would be that guy. He clearly kept doing
what he was doing simply because he
believed it was right, not because there
was any benefit for him. In fact, he
dealt with a lot of headaches for the
views that he had. And then he was just
a genuine person of integrity. you know,
he's the only uh congressman who I've
ever heard this about and and like DC
insiders, people on the hill will say
this. He was the only congressman of my
lifetime who the lobbyists simply
stopped visiting. He was the only one
who they just stopped going to his
office cuz they were just like, there's
just no getting through to this guy. He
was just not playing politics like that.
And he was, you know, you imagine what
it must have been like from like the
lobbyist perspective when they first
tried to go there, you know, and they'd
be like, "All right, listen. we really
need you to, you know, vote yes on this
or that. And he was like, the
Constitution doesn't authorize us to do
that. And they're like, what? Like, who
who in this town even talks like that,
you know? And so there was just he's
also just I've I've met him uh many
times at this point. And he is just
genuinely he's like one of those guys
who's just from like an older, better
generation. Just he's the sweetest guy,
but he's like uh but he's not a
pushover. like he was a tough guy in in
his day and he was an athlete and he was
in the Air Force and is married to the
same woman for I think over 60 years at
this point has like a big beautiful
family. He was a country doctor. He was
a baby doctor who delivered thousands of
babies. like he's just it is he's like
this kind of classic American figure and
um you know I just think uh you know at
the risk of of falling into like hero
worship or something like that. I do
think he's a I think he's a genuinely
great man and I think great men are to
be revered. Yeah, as you said there's
integrity there. Can you speak to the
ideas that Ron Paul represents? Like he
says some of the things he's been right
about. Maybe can you speak about the
economics, the Fed and maybe war and
being anti-military intervention? Well,
I think it comes it all came from kind
of the same central thesis which is that
the highest political value ought to be
liberty. Um and and that you know the
government by its very nature is an
instrument of force and tyranny and that
therefore the more government you have
the less liberty you have. Um, I think
he also was he was way ahead of his time
in in like really calling out the
corruption in DC. And I think that's one
of the things that's kind of that's that
it's a common through line between the
Federal Reserve and um government
spending and of course this crazy war
industry that our country has. Um there
so there there's a a lot of components
to that, but essentially Ron Paul was
talking about draining the swamp way
before it was like this dominant mass
message. And I think Ron Paul in many
ways laid
down he laid the groundwork in his 2008
and 2012 presidential campaigns for not
not saying that he leads to Donald
Trump, but he laid the groundwork for
Donald Trump to be able to get up at the
South Carolina Republican primary debate
and look at Jeb Bush and say, "Your
brother lied us into war." And you know
what I mean? And and and to have the
Republicans agree with him. you know,
the same these were a lot of the same
people who had voted for George W. Bush
twice and supported the war and even
mocked their liberal, you know, fellow
countrymen for not being on board with
it. And and a lot of that was the work
that Ron Paul did and people waking up
to um the how how messed up all these
wars were. And I think that at least
from there there were a couple major
things for me, okay, at the time. So I
was like a I was a young man when I
first found Ron Paul. I was I was in uh
2007 was when I first saw him and then
started obsessively reading all of his
books. And so I I was young. I'm I'm
born in ' 83. So what that mean? 23 24
uh when I first met him. So I was a
young guy. And at least for me at the
time, there were like kind of two
categories in my, you know, naive mind
where, okay, there were like the
liberals who supported big government at
home but were skeptical about, you know,
big government abroad or skeptical about
wars. And then there were the
conservatives who said that they
supported small government, limited
government at home, but were always on
the side of whatever the next war is.
And at least for me, and I think for a
lot of people of my generation, Ron Paul
was the first guy who came along and
said like, "No, I'm for limited
government here and abroad." And it was
kind of like a portal where you could
like access a different perspective on
the world. And then once you saw that,
you were like, "Wait, that's actually
what makes sense. It makes it it doesn't
make sense to like what are what is it
exactly that like um all the Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush and and even
like Milton Friedman and guys like that
and Thomas Soul and the it's like you
want a constitutionally limited world
empire like that's what you guys stand
for cuz that doesn't that doesn't fit
together at all. And so why is it that
we took we we were taking this as a
given. And then of course the more you
you look into it you realize that like
okay
there those two things do make sense
together. And then also that kind of
like in the initial wave of like the
original progressives you know look
people like Woodra Wilson or FDR these
were people who were pushing big
government at home and big government
abroad and that actually made much more
sense as a cohesive worldview. And to
oppose that would be the Ron Paul
worldview. And then the other thing for
me and this was actually this was my
introduction to Ron Paul. And this too
to me was like kind of a portal in a
way. It was it was a way at least in my
naive not fully functioned brain or
fully developed brain at 24 years old or
whatever. Um it was a way for me to kind
of get like like I tapped into something
that was outside the empire. And I had
um I had heard a lot, you know, I was
already against George W. Bush and I
didn't like the war. I could I I had
already figured out, you know, I think
this I think this war in Iraq is
bullshit and I think that we were lied
into it. And so I kind of got that. And
then there were there were liberals and
and left-wingers who I knew. I grew up
in New York City, so I was very familiar
with the left-wing perspective and who
were critical of of George W. Bush and
and for fighting the war and and you
know signing the Patriot Act into law
and things like that. But I had never
really heard anybody break it down the
way Ron Paul did when he was when he
basically was like look there's a reason
why these terrorists hate us and it's
not what they're telling you. They don't
hate us for our freedom. It's not as if
I remember the way Pat Buchanan put it
which I always loved was he goes he said
Dick Cheney makes it sound like Osama
bin Laden stumbled on like in the
deserts of Afghanistan he stumbled onto
a copy of our bill of rights somewhere
and he was like oh my god they're free
to look at this speedy trial are you
kidding me like this is like what is
going on here they can own guns and
their women can wear miniskirts and that
and that just made people so angry that
they were ready to you know like suicide
bomb themselves are like that makes no
sense at all. And then Ron Paul was just
like, "No, look, here's the thing. If we
think we can just go around the world
killing people, propping up
dictatorships, putting our military
bases in the the Muslims holy land and
not engender hatred from that, then we
do that at our own peril." And I thought
that was it was such an interesting kind
of you know it had always been I I'm an
80s and 90s kid and to me it was always
kind of a given that like America's
number one we're the force for good in
the world and we're and it was like an
interesting
introduction to the idea that there are
people outside of that who are dominated
by that who don't care for it very much
and like that that's what 911 was
actually about and for me you I was
living in New York City I was 18 I think
when 9/11 happened and that was like the
moment of my childhood. It was a huge
thing to live through. I mean, we were
attacked. This seemed like something
that could only happen in a history
book. That didn't happen to America in
the '9s. 2001 was basically the '9s. Um
and uh and it was just like, oh, finally
it clicked. It was like, that makes
sense. is the first time I had ever
heard like an explanation and an
understanding of this whole thing that
we're involved in now from 9/11 to the
terror wars that actually just made
perfect sense. Yeah. We should also say
that there's some degree of truth that
the battle is not just militaristic,
it's also cultural. And then many of
those parts of the world don't want
other people's
values forced onto them. Right? But the
way that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
and every right-wing host in America and
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and like
everybody. What they were saying is that
they hate that we're free. Whereas it
was much closer to saying like they
don't like us imposing on them. Even
like all the hardcore neocons, Brett
Stevens, the New York Times, he wrote
this piece on the 20th anniversary of
the invasion of Iraq, so uh 2023 to
cheerlead the war in Iraq. And he goes
through the whole piece and there's not
one mention of the million people who
died in the war. You know, he literally
just goes the piece is just measure life
under Saddam Hussein verse life under
the Shiite parliamentary system that
they have now. Which one's better? And I
he's arguing this one's better.
Therefore, it was worth it. But there's
like no mention. It's like, okay, but
what about the 20 plus million people
who were displaced? What about the
million people who were killed? What
about all the millions of people who
were injured? What about the tens of
thousands of our soldiers who have blown
their brains out in the aftermath of the
thing? Like it's like so so many times
this true in with government policy in
general. People talk about like the end
result that they want, but you're like,
"Yeah, but what about the process by
which you get there and how much hatred,
you know, could you I mean, like I you
know, it's it's not that hard for me to
like put myself in in other people's
shoes." And like I have two little kids
and a wife and if anybody were to ever
try to argue to me that they have to be
the eggs that get broken to make some
bigger omelette. Like it's it's okay.
Like you know we're ultimately going to
impose something on your society that's
better than what you have right there.
It sure does suck that your wife and
kids got to be the one who get taken
out. I mean I'm as I'm just saying this
to myself and this is not real. This is
just a thought experiment I'm making up.
I'm already pretty close to being a
terrorist. Like my next thought is kind
of like, well, okay. Well, I hope you're
gonna like it when you watch your family
die in front of you, you know? Now, I'm
not hopefully even if that happened to
me. I wouldn't go kill that guy's
family. Like, maybe I just go after him
or something. But I could understand and
I think most people have kids could
understand go going to a level of like
the the most evil dark place you could
imagine if something ever anyone ever
threatened or or actually did something
to your kids. Yeah. We have to remember
the thing that's difficult to measure
that you just mentioned which is the
hate that's created by every bomb that's
dropped. It was uh General Mcristel who
you know was the general running af the
war in Afghanistan. He wasn't like he
wasn't Ron Paul, you know what I mean?
Like he was a a sir, yes sir, how do we
fight and win this war general? And he's
the one who coined the term insurgent
math that 10 minus 2 equals 20. you
know, it's like the more you the more
you keep I was just reading I was
rereading about this the other day um
because of the uh you know Trump's been
bombing uh the Houthies in Yemen and you
know it was like when when we first I
think it was in in at least in 2009 is
when Obama really stepped up the drone
campaign with the then secret drone
bombing campaign and the Yemen was one
of the major theaters and even back then
when it really was just a it was a war
on terrorism. Like the main targets were
always al Qaeda and the Arabian
Peninsula and their presence in Yemen.
Even then, like so before the Saudis
invaded, so like from 2009 through 2015,
AQAP just kept growing. It was doing all
these targeted bombing campaigns. They
call them targeted. 96% of the people
are innocent who get killed, but they
call them targeted drone bombings. And
they and and al-Qaeda and the Arabian
Peninsula just kept getting bigger and
bigger because, you know, it's like
Yeah. Every time you go in there, it's
like, okay, you took out one target and
then you took out three little girls
and, you know, a few and every one of
those little girls had brothers and
uncles and fathers and, you know, and
and all of them just signed up to join
the fight now cuz, you know, and I Ron
Paul was the first one who really made
this click for me. But it's in a way,
and I'm not like I'm not a leftist. I'm
not an egalitarian. I'm not a cultural
relativist. I'm not saying that all
cultures are the same or that we all
look at the world the same way. There's
enormous differences between all of us.
And I personally think some are better
than others, but there are things that
unite all of us. And in a weird way,
it's I I remember one time I was arguing
with a Democrat guy on a SE cup show. I
used to be a contributor on on her show.
And we were arguing and it was after it
was after a terrorist attack here in New
York, a fairly minor one. It was like a
guy like I think he hit someone with his
car and then jumped out with a gun and
then the cops lit him up and killed him.
Um, this is like back in 2017 I think.
And he he claimed to be ISIS inspired. I
don't I don't remember if there was like
a direct connection or not, but they
were at the time they were like,
"Doesn't this mean we got to step up the
war in Iraq or in Syria where ISIS's
stronghold is?" And I remember the guy
saying to me, he goes, "Uh, you know, I
went off on how these wars have been
disastrous." and he goes, "Yeah, yeah,
but Dave, what you're saying here is
we're supposed to do nothing. Like, this
just happened and now we're supposed to
do nothing." And so, like, even though
this guy had a suit and tie on and we're
in a cable news studio and we're in a
first world country, we're in the United
States of America and we're having that
the basic thing that he's saying is
like, what do you say? You're saying
we're not going to go kill some
motherfuckers, you know? Like, I mean,
he's he was just putting it as like do
something, but what's something?
something is dropping bombs on human
beings, you know, when like, yeah, some
innocent people are going to die, but
okay, that but it's the same thing. It's
the same after 911 where like we got to
go fucking invade some countries right
now. That's the same impulse. It's like
they killed some of our people. You
think we're not going to show them who
the real killers are? You think there's
a chance that you could come here and
and that is like the most human instinct
ever? It's like some other tribe just
came in here and killed some people in
our tribe. So, what do you want to do
about that? Well, I don't know. It's not
going to take me too long to figure out.
We're gonna go kill a bunch of people in
their tribe. And I do think that like
that is I think that's the major
motivating factor for both sides of the
Israel Palestine conflict. I think
that's the major motivator for both
sides of the war on terror conflict. And
it's like that's it's in a way when you
look at it like that there's something
even though it's so dark and tragic,
there's something almost beautiful about
it where you're like, "Oh, we're all
caught in this same cycle." Yeah. Deeply
human. the the warring between tribes,
but you know, especially in the recent
years, but more and more through human
history, there's almost like a third
party, which is this military-industrial
complex, which is making money from the
two tribes. So, if you just have two
tribes, one I've been reading a lot
about Jangghaskhan. If uh this is why
Jenghaskhan banned this, it was very
common in uh in Mongolia before
Djangghaskhan to steal people's wives
like you're my wife now, right? And he
he realized that that creates a lot of
conflict. Yeah, it sure does. That seems
natural and human that kind of conflict.
But when whenever you a third party
rolls in and starts making money on the
whole thing and then driving that
forward then the escalation of the
conflict comes with this whole machine
that makes deescalation really
difficult. Yeah. The military-industrial
complex in America. It's so big and it's
so sophisticated and it's so so it's not
just that there's you know um you know
there's this there's the intelligence
agencies, there's the weapons
manufacturers, then there's the like
people in the media who are either
directly or indirectly just paring, you
know what I mean, all of their talking
points. And so it's not just that you
can kind of like like you make money
when there's a conflict, but you have
this entire apparatus to like create the
conflict and then create the public
sentiment for that. And then we're and
it's interesting we're we're in in an
interesting place cuz we're kind of in
this like new frontier of now where
shows like this can happen and and
there's a lot of them and a lot of them
are humongous like yours. Um, but for so
long it this just didn't exist. And it
was just like, oh, like for so long it
was the case that like the New York
Times and NBC and CBS and ABC and the
Washington Post and the the Associated
Press, I guess, they could just move the
nation. I mean if they wanted to be like
hey there is the the idea that forget
even like after 911 the idea that in
1990 1991 that there was any organic
movement from the American people going
you know we really got to see about the
Saddam Hussein guy you know uh the uh
dictator in Iraq is having a slant
drilling dispute with the uh Amir of
Kuwait. We really got to do something
about that. Like that is not something
that organically came from any that was
not like a a few soccer moms hanging
out, you know, watching their kids game
being like, I really do think I think in
in a couple years we're going to have to
send these boys over to Iraq to go. Like
that's not they just from the top down
were able to create this feeling that
like, hey, there's a new Adolf Hitler on
the rise over here in Iraq. We got to go
see about this. There are these poor
people in Kuwait. We have to do that.
you know, like there's they were able to
create this desire for war. Um, that was
it's it's really incredible when you
think about it because there's for I
think for the most part in human
history, you would have had to have some
type of plausible threat, some type of
plausible reality to convince people
that we actually have to go to war um in
order to deal with this. whereas like
you know the United the idea that in
1991 the United States of America would
feel threatened by Iraq was just
ridiculous and yet they were able to do
it. Well so to push back a little bit
throughout human history there was also
a thing you look at the Roman Empire
where just the cultural values were
different where military conquest was
seen as a good thing. So like we just
almost assume in the United
States there would war has been framed
in the defensive sense like where
offensive war we're not doing that
anymore. You make a fair point. It's
certainly true that throughout human
history there's been um there's been
like overt
um empire building and wars of conquest
and things like that. But I guess I'm
just saying at least even there you
would have some type of cell of like why
we're going to go take these resources
and why that will be good for us.
Whereas the idea that there like Kuwait
just needed to be defended by the
Americans seems so it seems so hard to
convince anybody and yet they were able
to do it. If you read like Neocon
writing in the 90s, it was very
interesting. Um because they would they
would tell the truth a lot more. Uh and
they were
essentially I think there was the Soviet
Union had just collapsed. It was what
what Charles Crowhammer dubbed the
unipolar moment. There was like a lot of
there was excitement. There was a
feeling of invincibility. Um and also
the neocons weren't in power any after
'92 really. I mean, they had a little
they were in the George HW Bush
administration, but after '92, they
really weren't. So, they're just writing
at these think tanks, and it just didn't
seem as, you know, like they weren't as
guarded. There weren't like these
accusations of you're a war criminal or
something like that. But what he said,
uh, what Jonah Goldberg agreed with was
that every, uh, I think the statement
was every 10 years or so, America's got
to find a puny little country and put
them up against the wall just to let the
rest of the world know that we mean
business. And that was actually their
mentality. I'm sure there's people that
agree with that. I happen to disagree
with that. But the the drums of war are
beating a little bit over Taiwan and
China. More than a little bit. Yeah. But
there I can't even see a justification
for a just war. What is the long-term
benefit to society if you do military
intervention? I well I also think this
and I' I've been saying this for a while
but I do think there is this like um
there there's like this empire mentality
that Americans have got to shake off
like as if it's even a question of
whether we should allow it or not like
are we in a position to allow or not
allow that? Why do we have it's it's
almost like if you were um you know like
I I don't I hope China doesn't invade
Taiwan. I hope Taiwan remains as free as
possible. I hope China becomes free. I
root for freedom and prosperity for
everyone, you know, but I also root for
like everybody to have a healthy
marriage. But if you were like if you
were talking to me and you were like,
hey, the guy down the street is cheating
on his wife. Like I don't think we can
allow this. I'd immediately be like,
that's really not my place. And then on
top of that, I also have no power. I
have no authority over what they do in
their marriage. Like I have to be
concerned with my marriage. And the idea
that like imagine if there were the
political
will to uh invade Mexico like if DC
decided we're taking Mexico City like
that's that's going to be part of
America now and we're taking it by force
and then China was like we're not sure
if we can allow this. I think
immediately most Americans would be like
allow like how the fuck do you think
you're going to stop us from taking
Mexico City? What are you gonna do,
China? You're gonna send your navy ships
over here to fight us off the coast of
Mexico? Good luck with that. And and at
least from my understanding, in almost
all the war games that they've run, if
we did militarily, even if it doesn't
come to nuclear weapons being used, in
which case the whole world gets blown
up. But even if we go to militarily try
to stop China from invading Taiwan and
no one everyone agrees to not use nukes
and we just fight a conventional war, we
lose that war every time. I think what
you said applies to a lot of the wars
we've been involved in. But China and
Taiwan is a little bit different because
because of TSMC, right? Because there's
an economic dependence. If that was the
concern, then the response would be we
need some type of Manhattan project. And
I'm not supporting a government project
here, but there would be we need some
type of Manhattan project to say we're
going to make these things here. We
can't. And look, I I was running that
experiment before saying like what if we
all pinky promise not to use nuclear
weapons or something like that. But
that's not the reality of the situation.
The more reality, look, even in in
Ukraine, everybody the biggest hawks,
the biggest pushers of this policy and
Joe Biden and policy to fund Ukraine, no
one's suggesting we send in the 82nd
airborne. No. which is really the only
thing that could repel the Russians
right now and restore, you know,
Ukrainian the the original sovereignty
of the Ukrainian borders. But no one's
suggesting we send in the 82nd airborne
cuz we all know, well, we can't have a
direct war with Russia. That's the end
of the world. And same thing with China.
So, you know, I'm not saying microchips
or whatever aren't important, but
there's we can find other ways to the
Taiwan is not magical. Like, we can
produce these things in other places.
No. So you have the humility to say that
you don't really know much about the
situation. It sounds ridiculous to say,
but there's something magical about not
Taiwan but DSMC. It's incredibly
difficult to manage the supply chain and
manufacture at such a low cost that they
are. And to add to that, China has been
signaling about the one China policy.
But you're absolutely right that you
shouldn't be doing the the Washington
thing of beating the drums of war.
That's like the completely the
counterproductive thing. There should
you should uh actually try to find
partnerships with China. Build
friendships and cooperation like India
is doing a good job of this like build
friendships. This the 21st century
conflict this cold war thinking is going
to be destructive to the economy,
destructive to humanity, to the
flourishing of the individual nations of
the world. There there's just nothing
positive except making money for the
military industry. Well, yeah. And and
it was totally destructive during the
original Cold War, too. um and almost
led to nuclear war on a couple of
different occasions. But look, I would
just say and I I really I'm no defender
of the Chinese regime. I hate communism
and or fascism, whatever they are. Some
hybrid mix of of the two. They're paying
you, aren't they? Yeah. No, fuck them. I
don't care. By the way, I get a lot of
people speculate online, but I am not
I'm not getting any of these checks,
man. And I'd really like them to start
coming in. Um, but there's like even
when it's like China, you say China's
asserting the one China policy, but the
one China policy is the policy of the
United States of America and has been
for 50 years now, right? So it's not I
think what's happening there a lot of
times is that essentially even though
officially the one China policy is the
policy of the United States of America
all of these American politicians um and
and you know different figureheads
across powerful centers in America are
are saying that China doesn't have the
right to go into Taiwan and then China's
in the position of being like well hey
wait a minute no that's not actually the
policy we maintain this one China policy
but we allow them to kind of do what
they want to do. And you know, the the
most obvious example of this was when
Joe Biden actually said like, "Oh, we
wouldn't allow that and we would
militarily intervene if they went into
China." And then, and this was so
bizarre, then the White House, whoever
that was, came out to correct the
president of the United States and say,
"No, the policy of the White House is
the one China policy." Which, look, I
mean, again, I think the whole point of
this is that the reason why whoever the
hell was able to overrule Joe Biden in
his administration, I I don't know who
that is. Um but the whole point is that
if you say and and this is why there is
some wisdom in America accepting the one
China policy is that if you
tell China that we recognize uh uh
Taiwan's independence and that they're
not a part of China, that might be the
type of thing that would make China
invade and say no, we're not accepting
that. And so at least right now it's
like kind of like okay here's look this
is the reality. It's something that you
kind of run up against with the war in
Ukraine a lot and and with the situation
in China and Taiwan is that there are um
there are constraints placed on us by
reality. It's not all just how would you
like the world to be? How would you like
it to work? Obviously, I think we would
all like that bigger countries don't
invade smaller countries and bigger
countries don't bully smaller countries
around. That is not the way of the
world. We are a big country that is the
biggest bully in the world. So we're in
no position to let but what we're kind
of in the position is just like you're
like hey we'd sure love if you don't do
that. You know you can do it and you can
get away with it but we would sure love
it if you don't. And so the goal would
be to do everything we can to make sure
that doesn't happen. When Vladimir Putin
starts talking about like hey if you
keep pushing the idea of Ukraine joining
your military alliance I'm going to
invade that country. the goal there the
or the move there would be to be like
okay we'll stop talking about that is
there something else that we can agree
on you know like is there is there a way
that we you we you will promise you
won't do anything to them and okay and
we'll promise we won't bring them in our
military like that's the goal you don't
just go like no fuck you we're doing it
anyway over and over and over again
until they do the thing I think we got
to this discussion from the
military-industrial complex and military
intervention and Ron Paul before that if
you could like rewind a little it uh is
there any amount according to you and
according to various flavors of
libertarianism is there any amount of
military
intervention that's justified that's
okay um well I I would say okay so at
least to me in in terms of like pure
libertarian theory or just in in terms
of like what I think is right or wrong
like there is such thing as a just war
um the most obvious
uh example of that would be like you're
invaded by a military and fighting them
off. Um, so in in that sense also like
even if you want to if you want to kind
of isolate from everything else, uh,
from, you know, all of the awful US
policy toward Russia post Soviet Union
to all of the, you know, NATO expansion
and color-coded revolutions and all of
these things. If you want to, you know,
Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine, I do
think the Ukrainians have a right to
fight and and protect their their land.
like there the there's an aggressive
there's an aggressor there and you have
a right to defend yourself. Uh so
certainly in that sense I think um the
American Revolution was a just war. Uh I
think there are you know there there can
be just wars in terms of pure
libertarian theory. I think I would say
that look you you don't you never have a
right to kill innocent people there.
That's never morally okay. Now there
could be a scenario just like this is
true in life in general right like
there's lots of things that you don't
have the right to do but you could come
up with some scenario where you might be
in a position where you have to do it
because there were all of these
extenduating circumstances you know like
for you know you could think of
something where like you remember the uh
the Saw movies where they used to you
know these crazy like horror scenarios
but it's like um okay so there's a
person you know a evil bad guy has
buried a key inside this person and you
have to kill that person in order to get
the key in order to unlock these 20
people to let them out of a cage. Now
look, you still don't have a right to
kill people. It's horrible and wrong and
what you did there was still evil. But
if you were taken to trial over it, you
could probably explain to a judge and a
jury be like, "I know, but the situation
I was in was either these 20 people were
going to die or this one person was
going to die, and under that situation,
I chose to save the 20." So like in
other words, by perfect theory, no, you
never have the right to kill innocent
people. There could be a scenario where
you were like, look, we had to take this
military action and some innocent people
did die and it's so tragic and awful
that we had to do this, but we are
certain that many more people would have
died had we not done this. Now, in that
case, I would look at that as like um
number one, it's much like killing the
one person to save the 20. It's still
wrong. It's still an immoral thing that
you were forced into doing. It's not
justified. I would say that the
overwhelming onus should have to be on
you to demonstrate that you absolutely
needed to do that. And that's how I feel
about all these these wars. you know,
it's not like um you know, I think that
like let's just say like if you could
make World War II like you could reduce
it down to the simplest caricature of
what World War II is and say there's no
Joseph Stalin. We're not even partnering
with him. Like there's a good guy in
Russia who we were partnering with and
there's and and the British Empire had
never done anything wrong. They were
just nothing but good guys. And of
course FDR was nothing but a good guy.
And Hitler was even worse than the real
Hitler. You know what I mean? And in
order to stop them, we had to go on this
bombing campaign. And we only got Nazis.
We only killed the bad guys. And we were
able to take out the Third Reich. But
one 8-year-old girl died. And you did
this thing that stopped the whole world
from falling into subjugation. So I
think almost everybody would
agree, Jesus, man, you have to do that.
Okay. This is um you have to do that
because the whole world's going to be
subjugated. There's nothing but good
guys here. The Nazis are so evil. And
there's one I still would say that every
single time World War II came up, we
should all just be somber and we should
all just think about that little
8-year-old girl who died and what a
horrible thing it is that we had to do
that, you know? And so the like when
there are these campaigns where like,
you know, like where tens of millions of
people are killed, the fact that
anybody's ever like spiking the football
or this kind of like rah rah, we were
the good ones. And then also when you
add in all those other complicated
factors like that this wasn't the
scenario at all. Um but I do so so I
guess essentially I'd say no you don't
ever have a right to kill innocent
people. It's never self-defense to be
killing innocent people. I mean short of
like you know some type of scenario
where like you know if you're holding a
baby and coming at me shooting and I
shoot back at you and okay I was acting
in self-defense and it happened to kill
a baby. I'm I'm talking about like what
the scenarios where you're dropping
bombs on cities. Um it's never justified
and the overwhelming onus should be on
you to demonstrate that you absolutely
have to do it and that that should be
the standard because there's so many
other standards that I see thrown out
that I just think are make no moral
sense at all. you know, people will
argue about like uh in Gaza, they'll
argue about um the civilian to combatant
ratio, which I like that to me doesn't
really that's not what counts. That's
not the measure that's important. Um and
also no one knows what the numbers are.
They all just kind of like pretend to.
Uh and then the other thing will be um
that people as someone just recently
argued with me about they'll say like uh
well Hamas has to go. That's the
starting point. Hamas has to go. And I'm
like, "No, I don't think you get to say
that." Because the the truth is that
look, you can make an argument that
Hamas has to go. Sure. You can make an
argument that the Ludnik have to go. You
can make an argument that Kim Jong-un
has to go or that G has to go or that
Putin has to go or that Zillinsky has to
go. Or certainly, I would make an
argument that Joe Biden had to go. But
just because a government has to go,
that doesn't mean you could just go kill
all their people. Yeah. That should not
be the starting point like the
assumption, the axiom of the discussion.
Yeah. The the question
is, is it is there no other option than
doing it this way? It's like, okay, like
October 7th happened. We can all agree
this was like a a horrific tragedy um
and a you know, an indefensible act of
terrorism. Like, okay, can is it
guaranteed that another one of those is
going to happen tomorrow? Or was this
the biggest security failure in in you
know, Israeli history? Okay. Well, if
it's the biggest security failure, let's
just say, not even going down the inside
job rabbit hole or anything like that,
but just saying it's a giant security
failure. Okay, then put a bunch more men
at that fence first of all. And now you
got to talk about how can you achieve
your goal while inflicting the minimum
amount of devastation on innocent
people. Let's talk about it. You brought
it up. October 7th. So, what exactly do
you think about the October 7th attack
by Hamas on Israel? Um well I mean like
what I just said that it it was uh
horrible and you know uh it's always by
the same logic that I'm giving you now.
It's always it's always evil to target
innocent civilians. I don't believe uh
you know civilians can be held
responsible for the uh the crimes of
their government. Um this was by the way
the Osama bin Laden logic which I think
would also be the logic of like Bill
Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack
Obama. But Osama bin Laden very
explicitly said when he was asked like,
"Well, are you just going to target like
US military sites or are you targeting
US civilians?" It was an interview in
the '9s before 9/11. Um, and he goes,
"No, civilians are fair game, too,
because you guys have regular elections
and you guys vote for your government
and therefore you're responsible for the
crimes that they commit." Now, I think
that's the logic of a fanatic like Osama
bin Laden, and that's not the logic that
any of us should follow. It it doesn't
make any sense, and it's not true that
people are responsible for the crimes of
their government. Um, I think that that
same argument is used quite a bit by
people on the pro-Israeli side when they
say like, oh, they they had an election
in 2005 and Hamas won a plurality,
therefore 20 years later, they have no
rights. I think that's insane. So, okay.
So, Hamas had no right to go after um
civilians. Uh, you know, it's horrible.
And you see, you know, the um these, you
know, teenagers being killed and the
people um you know, you see the images
of people uh who were who are held
hostage for all this time. So, it's like
your heart breaks for those people. It's
truly tragic. Um, I I do
think that it
was in many
ways an indictment of so many different
things. You know, like October 7th
happening was an indictment of um the
entire occupation/ siege of of Gaza and
the West Bank, you know, for that
matter. Um it was I I think
um should have probably forever
destroyed the legacy of Benjamin
Netanyahu. Um who is you know I I mean
this isn't like George W. Bush you know
was I mean he was on the job for almost
a year when 9/11 happened but it was
still kind of new you know like it was
still kind of in his first year of being
president. Benjamin Netanyahu was the
longest serving prime minister in
Israeli history and had explicitly been
like, I'm the tough right-winger who's
going to be tough on these Palestinians
who's going to like move away from the
idea of coming to a two-state solution
because this is what we need to keep us
safe. Like the justification is like I'm
going to be hard on these motherfuckers
cuz that's cuz I know what it takes to
keep us safe. And that culminates in the
the worst massacre in in Israeli
history. Um, and then I mean the other
big one is that I mean and it's not like
a I wouldn't even say an open secret at
this point. It's just out in the open.
He had this strategy of propping up
Hamas for years. And so he had this
strategy of propping up Hamas um for a
myriad of reasons. Um, but a major part
of it was that look man, as long as
there's terrorists in power there,
there's never going to be any pressure
on us to give the Palestinians a state
because look, are you telling me I got
to negotiate with them? He was allowing
Qatar money to float. Insisting that
Qatar money float to them. When the
Qatar money dried up, sent the MSAD in
to insist that it gets back to him.
Hundreds of millions of dollars,
briefcases, and cash. And he said in his
own words that the reason for doing this
was to keep to his words were prop up
Hamas, bolster Hamas, to keep them in
power so that the West Bank and the and
the Gazins were divided and that the
international community as well as the
liberal Jewish community in Israel
wouldn't be able to put pressure on them
to make a deal. But what are the
options? So, if he doesn't allow the
money in, it also looks really bad for
him because if he's not allowing the
money in, that means he's not allowing
the quote unquote aid in to help the
Palestinians. Yeah. But Lex, I mean, the
the dynamic here, right, is from
to today, Israel's had a full blockade
around the country. They won't let
potatoes in. They won't let sugar in.
They won't they the they and the the
justification is because they're dual
use. You know, they they can be used to
make rockets as well as they can be used
to, you know, feed starving children.
So, we can't let that in because it's
dual use. But cash to Hamas, does that
not have dual usage? Like, is there is
there nothing else that they can? So
yeah, it's like yes, when you have a
full blockade around the country, you
take on certain responsibilities. And I
think this is, you know, this is the the
essence of really the the whole struggle
here, which is very tough, I think, for
the pro-Israel side to grapple with. But
the bottom line is that Israel hasn't
occupied Palestine for like a few months
after a war or even a couple of years
after a war while they're figuring out
what we're going to do with them. It's
been over 60 years. is the the we're
talking about a a one week long war or a
day short of a week long war in 1967.
Israel's had control of them ever since.
And much like in the same way that like
if you kidnap someone and you lock them
in your basement and you don't feed
them, you murdered that person. So in
other words uh um stated
differently, you're not allowed to
kidnap people and lock them in your
basement, but once you do, you take on a
responsibility to feed those people. You
know what I mean? Like you can't you're
not allowed to keep someone and not feed
them. That is a worse charge than just
keeping them. And so yeah. Anyway, I
guess my point is the solution to that
if if you go like, well, I'm a bad guy
if I fund Tamas. I'm a bad guy if I
don't let the aid in, was to let the
reputable international aid
organizations bring aid in to the people
of Gaza. Don't have uh don't don't
pressure the Qataris to send in
briefcases full of cash. allow
internationally recognized, reputable
human rights organizations who are
lining up trying to do it, stop turning
them away and let them in. And and and
this is just it's so long past due. I
mean, like it's it's just I'm not like
defending uh Arab terrorism. It's uh I
think it's really it's it's a tragedy
that the Arabs embraced terrorism. Uh I
don't think it's unique to them. And in
fact, you know, I think it was the um
the Zionist militias who introduced
terrorism to that part of the world. But
there was also like there look terrorism
persists because it works. And this is
true with state terrorism and with
non-state terrorism. You know, it's like
there it terrorism has often worked for
people. The I think the thing like early
I think early Yaser Arafat I know was
very influenced by um the
Algerians who you know successfully
kicked the French out embracing
terrorism and it was almost like the
major
miscalculation of the the those
Palestinian Arabs who did embrace
terrorism was that this isn't the French
this isn't the French hanging out in
some colony with their home country back
home where maybe a few acts of violence
could work enough to, you know, your the
liberal population back home is like,
"Oh, I really didn't like the response
to that terrorism. We killed so many
people. Forget it. This is too much of a
headache. Let's get out of here." The
Zionist settlers were there to stay.
They weren't going anywhere. They
weren't going back to Eastern Europe.
You know what I mean? They weren't go
They were just that. And so, it's a
tragedy that this whole thing went the
way it did. But you always whenever
you're talking about like a conflict
like this, the person who has the or the
the party who has the power is the one
who needs to make concessions, you know,
and the there it's just indefensible
that the status quo of the Palestinian
people having no rights, literally no
rights, being ruled by a government that
they do not get to vote uh for or
against. Um, no right to do commerce
with the outside world, no freedom of
travel, no freedom of movement, no basic
property rights. You can be kicked out
of your home at any time, no right to a
fair trial, uh, no right to a lawyer, no
right to a jury of your peers. I mean,
the fact that that has been the status
quo since
1967 is just indefensible. And if and
and then in the context that that has
been the status quo, I guess I'm just
not even though I'm against
it, it's kind of like when you're just
lecturing about the way in which they
resist
this, I I think it's very tough to be on
a strong moral footing, you know. Yeah.
You have to you have to really empathize
with the decades of suffering. Yeah. In
the region. I suppose my question was
grounded in um how can the Israeli
government, how can the world help the
Palestinian people
flourish? So you suggested uh allowing
reputable aid organizations in but you
know
that's kind of almost uh patching. Yeah.
Just helping humans who are suffering
but that's not how you have a nation
flourish. You have to build up the
infrastructure. You have to build up a
culture of the education system, the the
you know democratic processes of
electing and regular elections and so
that the the people are represented and
you have to form partnerships,
friendships, normalization of relations
with the Arab world, with Israel. you
can travel back and forth um and lessen
the
chokeold like the security chokeold you
know that you could say is justified in
a militaristic situation but why is it a
military situation the question is there
like where do we go from from here if we
you know we'll talk about Netanyahu some
more um he is uh you know he's very
criticized inside Israel as well Yeah,
for sure. Maybe less so after October
7th because the you know again in the
same way you can empathize with the
Palestinian people, you can empathize
with
Israelis where October 7th touched just
like it did for Americans with 911. It
touched some kind of primal thing of
fear of like Oh yeah. And like the same
the same thing I said before, like I
could also very easily go if my if one
of my kids was like at that rave or
something like that and just got gunned
down or kidnapped by I could understand
being like level the whole goddamn
place. And I'm sure I would feel that
way if that was one of my kids, you
know. Um, so yeah. No, that's that's
exactly right. I mean, there's lots of
examples in the world of uh you know,
like France and Germany are right next
to each other and Ireland and England
are right next to each other and they're
just totally living in harmony right
now. Like there is just no the thought
of them going to war is like
inconceivable right now. Not saying it
could never happen in the future, but it
seems it seems pretty hard to imagine.
And that being the case would have been
very hard to imagine for a very long
time. you know, like there I mean
there's some serious levels of brutality
between those two societies. And even
more directly, it involved uh you know,
Egypt and Israel went to war four times
in in a couple decades. they went to war
and then in the late 70s they made a
land for peace deal and they haven't
been to war since you know and like I do
at least try to hold out that like that
is you know it's not like Egypt is
you're not going to say they don't have
an issue with radical Islam in Egypt you
know what I mean like there's that's not
the answer it's just that they made a
land for peace deal and once there
wasn't you know once that wasn't the
that was solved it was kind of easier to
avoid the war and I do like to think
that there there could be a solution to
the the Israel Palestine question, but
that it's going to have to it's going to
have to involve Israel taking their boot
off of the Palestinians neck. And I know
that that's scary and I understand that
there are like legitimate concerns about
that. There's um was a the great uh
Thomas Jefferson quote about slavery
which was um we we have the wolf by the
tail and we can neither afford to hold
on to him nor risk letting him go. um
which is like you could see where that
would have been like a real concern of
people like right toward the end of
slavery or or you know whatever in the
early 1800s or the first half of the
19th century where you'd be like okay
okay we recognize this is wrong now but
we've had these millions of people
enslaved for all these years if we let
them go they're going to fucking kill us
and what are you saying they're citizens
now meaning the second amendment applies
to them meaning that the guy who I
enslaved
now can get a gun. You know what? And
and so, okay, there are the But I think
in hindsight, looking back at it, we
would all just
go, "Yeah, but you can't enslave
people." So, like, whatever risks come
with the next phase of this,
unfortunately, you know, like you're
going to have to just deal with that and
and move. You have to start with
abolishing slavery. And it is good to
also remember in the hopeful message you
send like at any day you can make a
deal. That's one of the frustrating
things I had with I hosted a debate on
Israel. It's like it just felt hopeless
and a lot of people I talked to it feels
hopeless. But like I have a lot of I I I
maybe naively see a lot of possibilities
of peace there. I see for example
normalization of relations with Saudi
Arabia and Israel and then Saudi Arabia
taking some ownership over Gaza.
Something like that. some
interesting uh where a big major player
in that region takes ownership and steps
as the middleman. Yeah, I like I I agree
with you and you're 100% right that and
even before October 7th, I think many
steps had been taken away from you know
the peace process and the feeling of
that. I mean really I think since the
second antifada uh is when like the the
appetite for peace I think in Israel was
greatly diminished. um there. But to
your point, I
mean, it's going to take really painful
concessions on all sides in in order to
get there. Um, and I think that the
the personally I think and I don't know
if I say this for the not necessarily
like the Arab world um, but at least the
nation states like the their governments
I think are are pretty much there like
like Saudi Arabia and UAE and Jordan and
Egypt like if the Israelis they're
almost like look these are American sock
puppets you know for the most part right
and So their their thing is that like
okay 100% of my population is completely
opposed to what Israel is doing to
Palestine right now and they just hate
that Israel that the nation was created
at all that all the the Arabs were
kicked out of what is you know very
important land to them religiously and
um and so the governments there are like
look we want to continue to have US tax
dollars flooding in here and we'd love
to make a deal with Israel but like you
got to stop doing this to the
Palestinians so my own people don't you
know rise up against me. So I think as
long as the Israelis were like fine
we'll do a two-state solution or
something like that. I think Saudi
Arabia couldn't wait to broker in fact
they proposed a two-state solution just
a few years ago. I mean they're they
would love to be a part of that and
normalize relations um amongst the
Palestinians like which again I think
this I think this had been accepted
multiple times at least by their
leadership. It's like yeah you're going
to have to accept that like you lost in
48. You know you're going to have to
accept that you lost in 47. You're going
to have to accept that the state of
Israel does exist. And you're going to
have to accept that like the right of
return is not going to literally mean
that everybody can go back to where they
were. And what Israel is going to have
to concede is that it was awfully fucked
up that they kicked a lot of people out
of their land. And that the whole um a
land for people for a people without
land was never true. That was just a
slogan that made that felt good to avoid
what you guys actually did. and the fact
that you it was inexcusable that you
guys occupied these people for 60 years
and that has to end
immediately. I interviewed Douglas
Murray recently. He just wrote a book on
Israel and Hamas called on democracies
and death cults. He makes what I think
is a strong pro-Israel case focusing on
Hamas as a an evil organization, you
know, evil for its corrupt leadership
who's essentially stealing money
uh from the Palestinian people and
allocating the money that is there
towards terrorist militaristic
operations versus like building up um
Gaza. Uh can you steel man the case for
and then against this perspective sort
of centering? We've been talking about
the
people about uh centering around Hamas
which is like this extremist religious
organization. Uh the perspective being
like they need to be as you mentioned
before eliminated before any progress
can be made. Um, okay. So, if I were So,
a steelman Douglas Murray's case, um, I
would say, well, I guess the case is,
right? Look, Hamas is a fanatical death
cult essentially, which I do think is a
fair uh, description of them. There is
no question that they have
pursued they have they have pursued a
path that was just devastating to their
own people and there's no question they
have not spent the resources they have
on their priority has not been uplifting
their own people. Their priority has
been I I think essentially antagonizing
Israel into this overreaction so that
they can turn world opinion against
Israel. I think they've been very
effective at doing that. Um, and and
okay, again, I think the argument would
come back to something like and the
people kind of voted for this in 2005
and the people sure do we sure do see a
lot of people cheering when Hamas is
doing some pretty horrific stuff. And
so, hey, you got that on one side and
you have a kind of a a country that's
much more similar to Western societies
on the other side. If we can just like
linger on that, Steelman, what do you
what do you make of the celebrations in
in uh Gaza after October 7th? I think
it's sickening and incredibly
disturbing. Um I just I guess the way I
look at it, I always and maybe there is
a degree of like naive to this or
perhaps it's just that I just don't want
to allow myself to go down a certain
path because I think it leads to such
dark outcomes. But I just always I I
always try to be kind of like against
the government for the people, against
the powerful, sympathetic to the
powerless. Um I think that look, it's
it's sickening. You see big crowds
cheering on, you know, people who have
been, you know, that with these people
who have been in captivity for for uh I
think some of them for over a year and a
half.
Um, I also thought when Nikki Haley and
other Israeli politicians are signing
the bombs before they're launched into
Gaza, I found that sickening. Um, I
think there's all types I think like
mission accomplished banners and flying
on jet. I mean, I think all of the I
think having Bob Hope specials at the
end of the Persian Gulf War was
sickening. I just think all of it is
like horrific. Um, I just I look at it
and I try to say to myself, okay, we had
one 9/11 in this country and we all like
collectively we lost our minds as a
society, you know. Um, we were ready to
go bomb whoever the hell our politicians
told us to bomb and we didn't care how
many people it killed and we killed a
lot more than than a lot more than
Israel or Hamas has killed doing it. Um,
and try to I try to think to myself,
okay, imagine being trapped in what is
it? You know, people can call it
whatever they want to. I do think Pat
Buchanan and these guys were right to
call it a concentration camp. You're
trapped in a fivemile by 25 mile area
where you cannot leave. You are stuck
there. You don't have an airport cuz the
Israelis bombed it. You don't have a
seapport cuz they won't allow you. You
have no access to trade with the outside
world and you're not suffering through a
911. You're suffering through a thousand
911s. Your whole life has been the
people the the people in Gaza are their
entire life has been being refugees. You
know what I mean? Their entire there's
generations of of people have been in
this status now. And
so, you know, if my society lost its
mind after one 911, I just have a tough
time like judging the people who who
came up in this environment. But there's
no question it is. I mean, it's, you
know, profoundly disturbing. But I
wonder how much of the indoctrination is
really made uh the software of their
mind permanently
anti- peace. Yeah. like extreify them
and that, you know, it doesn't justify
anything, but it's more uh concerning
for the prospects of peace. Well, I'd
say I get your point. I guess it's an
interesting question that I I don't know
if any of us know exactly the answer to,
but I would say that like um you know
even after what was it 80 years of the
Soviet Union, you know, it's like and
there there were real debates back then
about like the new communist man and
whether the minds had been so warped of
people that they would never even want
they would never even care about these
things like liberty or national identity
or independence and and then yet at the
and it was all still there, you know, it
was it was very repressed and it went
underground and people weren't allowed
to talk about it, but they all still had
it. Um, and in fact, I was just
listening the other day to this Murray
Rothbard uh speech from like the early
'9s, and he was talking about how there
was something where there was like a
like a a camera crew interviewed like a
Chinese family under uh um like uh real
deal Chinese communism. Um, I believe it
was before Ma Tong died and they were
like, uh, they were just saying all
these this crazy shit to the camera.
Like they were like, "Would you rather,
you know, your your sons are like
healthy and live good lives or would you
rather they suffer but be loyal
obedience to the state?" And they were
like, "We would rather they be obedient
to the state and blah blah blah and all
these things." And Murray Rothburn was
saying he saw this interview and he uh
he he was talking to his friend. He was,
"Oh my god, this is horrible. Like, it's
hopeless. These people's minds have been
warped." And then he was talking to his
friend who's like a China expert who had
been there a lot and he was like, "No,
they're not." That's what they say when
the cameras are around. Soon as the
cameras go like they're So anyway, I'm
just making the point there that like
there there is like look, even in the
situation with Israel and Gaza,
specifically Gaza, not even the West
Bank. Um when you could look at it, when
the peace talks were going on, support
for Hamas plummeted. When the peace
talks fell apart, support for Hamas went
way back up. you know, every time
there's an aggressive military campaign,
support for Hamas goes back up. So, I
just think that
like I'm more hopeful than not that like
you could get to a place where like but
it it requires like you you have to like
if you do understand the Ron Paul point
about blowback, the General Mcristel
point about insurgent math. You just
realize that it's like you're you're
like you're
you're fighting in a way that produces
more of the thing that you're fighting.
And so the first step is to stop doing
that. Like your your cure is making the
patient more sick. So stop doing that
and then let's see if maybe we could
heal. What about the case against the
the the Douglas Murray case of the death
cults and that a fundamental part of
this process Hamas needs to be
eliminated. Well, I mean, first of all,
I would just say that and I'm not I'm
not saying this as a fan of democracy.
Um I'm not like a big believer in
democracy. I believe in liberty and I
think uh democracy is often
um uh not in line with liberty. The
Chinese government paid you to say that
as well or they that was that's
literally all I had to get out. But I
get to say that what I want the rest of
the podcast but just that I had to No,
I'm Well, I don't Well, no. I mean, my
beef with the Chinese government would
not be that they don't hold regular
elections. My beef with them would be
that they silent speech, that they that
they put people in camps and things like
that, the surveillance, that stuff. Um,
I think
look, when you call Israel a democracy,
which I guess is right in the title of
his book, um, and I, you know, full
disclosure, I haven't read the book, but
I have I have listened to some of of his
thoughts on this stuff. I think you run
up against a real problem, which is that
the creation of the state of Israel,
even though he tried to walk away from
those comments, as Norm Finkelestein
called out Benny Morris uh for writing
in his book 1948, which is a great book,
his words were, "The Zionist Project
always knew it was going to involve
transfer." That was Benny Morris's
words. Now, when when Finkelestein was
grilling him on this on your podcast, he
kind of said like, "Yeah, but that
doesn't mean ethnic cleansing. That
could be voluntary transfer. or that you
know what I mean like but the point is
the Zionist settlers and they all they
spoke about this openly they all knew
they had a major problem which is like
well you can't create a Jewish state if
it's like 50/50 which is and and in all
of Israel it was much less than 50/50
but even in like the the Israeli portion
of the partition recommendation it was
very close to 50/50 now you can't really
have a Jewish state with a 50/50 voter
base because now you're just kind of in
a breeding war for the next generation
and or you know like or like who who
turns out the vote any more than we
could hope it it it would be the
prospect right now of making America an
official Republican state or an official
Democrat state. Well, how are you going
to do that, man? It's like 50/50 between
the two. And so I think what Benny
Morris was saying was that they always
knew some of these Arabs are going to
have to get moved out of here so that we
could have more of something which
ultimately where they got to like an
8020 which is pretty much what Israel's
maintained uh the whole time. Now Benny
Morris could quarrel about whether that
necessarily meant voluntary but when it
happened it wasn't voluntary. Okay. So
like when it actually happened in effect
it involved a massive amount something
somewhere between 700 and 800,000 Arabs
being forcefully evicted out of this
area. Now, that's one thing. You know, a
lot of nations are started on some
things like that. I suppose if you just
did that and then you were left with
your 8020 split and you go, "But we have
elections from here on out." I guess you
could claim it's a democracy. Still
seems like kind of gaming the Democratic
system a little bit. You know what I
mean? Like like if I just if I just
deported 80% of Democrats and then say,
"Look, Republicans win every election."
You might be like, "Yeah, dude, but you
didn't exactly get there Democratically.
You got there through force, but forget
that. I'll let that one go and just say
I'll call you a democracy if you just
kept being a democracy like that moving
forward. The real problem is the
occupation that starts in 1967 because
what look when you've occupied an area
since
1967 you can't even really call it an
occupation anymore. It's an annexation.
You know, you took these lands. You have
control that you are what the definition
of the government is. And you could call
Hamas the government all you want to,
but they're not the sovereigns. They're
not the final decision makers. Israel is
the final decision maker. Hamas does not
meaningfully in any way decide the
biggest questions about Gaza. I'm
talking before this war, not not even,
you know, pre-occtober 7th. And so the
problem Israel has in order to call
themselves a democracy is that there's
somewhere between five and six million
people, less now because they've killed
a lot of them, but there's somewhere
between five and six million people who
live under Israeli control who do not
have voting rights. And I just by any
other like reasonable commonly held
standard of democracy, we would not call
that a democracy. I mean, like, I'm not,
again, I'm not even saying this to try
to be inflammatory or try to pick on the
Israelis. There's things about Israeli
society I like. I don't hate the people
there. I'm Jewish. I love Jewish people.
It's not But the fact is that that's not
a democracy. That's an apartheid state.
Like I And that's just I'm not even
trying to be inflammatory when I say
this. It's just literally describing
what's in front of you. If we in America
right now said black people no longer
get to vote and black people can only
live in these few neighborhoods, we
don't get to call ourselves a democracy
anymore then. You know, and like I'm not
even coming at this from a pro-democracy
point of view. I'm just saying like if
your defense of them is like, well,
we're a democracy, which seems to be the
case so much. Well, no, you're really
not. You're you're really not. As long
as you got millions of people who have
no say in their own government, like
then then you're really not a democracy.
And so again, so you could frame it as
democracy versus death cult was his
language for Hamas. It's like, all
right, you know, it's a little bit
difficult to accuse another group of
being a death cult when the group you're
supporting has killed so many more
people than them. Now, I'm not saying
that's the only metric. Like, there's
other things that are factors, too. But
the fact is that like you have I I mean
I don't know to look over the numbers
that for the whole history of the
conflict but the amount killed by the
Israelis on the Palestinian side versus
the amount killed by the Palestinians is
20 to1 in Israel's fa you know killing
more people maybe more than that I don't
exact you know I'd have to look at the
numbers but Israel's killed far far far
more Palestinians than Palestinians have
ever killed Israelis and so it just it
rings a little hollow to me to just call
them a death cult
like we're the democracy even though
none of you know there's millions of
people who can't vote over you know who
rules them but they're the death cult I
mean look they kill people in a more
primitive barbaric way I guess you could
say you know there's something a little
bit cleaner about like you know when
it's done by a government um and it's
collateral damage and it was done with
sophisticated weaponry you know okay
still innocent people on the end of
those bombs absolutely but there there
I think a powerful ethical difference
when uh you mentioned about the
8-year-old girl, right? If you're in
your stated goals of the war is to do
everything you can to avoid the death of
that girl versus saying, you know, we
love death more than we love life. And
Israelis, democracies are not are
pro-life for for life. There's a little
I mean, okay, I don't I don't 100%
disagree with you, but I think if I
would say like the degree to which that
matters, you know, like at a murder
trial after somebody's been convicted
and before sentencing, sometimes the
judge will allow them to give a
statement and like if their statement is
like, "I'm very sorry for what I did and
I'm so sorry to the family and this or
that or that." Like that might be like
life without parole rather than the
death penalty. You know what I mean?
like it might make that bit of
difference in that. And if you get up
there and you're like, "Hey, I'm happy
for what I did. Screw the family blow
that might make a judge who was going to
give you life without parole give you
the death penalty or something like it's
like that type of margin around the
edge." Let's say like you're a really
bad guy and I want to kill you and
you're at home with a a bunch of women
and children and I know there's women
and children there. Like I know for a
fact that if I blow up this building,
it's going to kill all those babies. You
know what I what I would be charged with
is murder in the first degree. And the
fact that I went in there and said like,
"Well, listen, hold on. It's a shame
that I had to kill those babies. I
really just wanted to kill that one guy.
I I wish the babies weren't there." And
they'll be like, "Yeah, but you knew
they were there and you did it anyway."
You get murder in the first degree.
Maybe it would make some little
difference tinkering around with the
sentencing at the end of it, but it
doesn't like in kind change what the
crime is there. And so I I just think at
a certain point when you're if you're
doing something like, you know, look,
I'll say maybe with a little bit of an
edge, you know, let's say Barack Obama
wants to drone bomb, you know, this
place to kill a terrorist and he thinks
he can do it without killing any
innocent civilians. Does it and then it
ends up killing some innocent civilians.
That's one thing. But once you've done
it over and over and over again and
every single time it kills innocent
civilians and then there's a wedding and
you order a drone bomb strike on a
wedding like no you murdered those
people. That's murder in the first
degree. Like I just don't. And so yes
like you know like whether you say out
loud, "Oh, it sure is a shame that we
got to kill all these kids." When you're
doing it over and over and you know the
action you're taking is going to kill
more kids. I just don't think it like
it's yeah it's a little bit different
but really not that much. It's still
pretty much and then also when you mix
in with that the fact that like you know
I mean if you go and I'm not taking an
opinion on the word genocide. I don't
even like to get into that conversation.
I feel like it just derails it anyway.
What Israel is doing whether you think
it's a genocide or not it's certainly
not what most people envision when they
hear the word genocide. Um, but you
know, if you look at South Africa's case
that they promoted at the International
Court of Justice, the whole thing is
just quotes from Israeli leaders. And
so, and I'm just saying like, by the
way, it's not like they're always
saying, "Oh, it sure is a shame that we
had to kill that 8-year-old girl."
They're like, half the time they say
that when they're talking to the
international community, and then the
other half the time they seem to
basically be saying, "There's no such
thing as an innocent 8-year-old girl."
And so I just I guess I just don't find
that argument to be very compelling,
especially when the thing has been going
on for so long. There is some
disagreement I have with you
there. I think the thing you're implying
is when whenever they state it, it's
not quite genuine to some degree. Not
I'm saying it might be it might be
genuine by some people. I'm not saying
it's necessarily not. I'm saying that
when there's a lot of people who are
saying the opposite, it doesn't seem
like it's um consistently genuine from
from the entire, you know, Israeli
leadership class. And that even if it is
genuine when some people say it, that
that's that's kind of not enough to get
away from the the fact that it's, you
know, when when Tucker was on um Pierce
Morgan, he said the thing he goes, you
know, I don't like my tax dollars being
used to intentionally kill children. And
a lot of people really objected to that
word intentionally because I think so
many of the defenders of Israel fall
behind this like no no that's not
intentional we're just trying to kill
Hamas. But again like I said we would
never accept that standard in like a
domestic murder case. It's like no like
the the thing is that if you know there
are kids there and you know they're
going to die, then that's intent. I I I
think I agree with you
fundamentally because war is hell and
that's why I'm against war, but there is
a difference. So like I think you're
we're like mixing in a lot of
things. I think you're fundamentally
against war and that's why to you it
really doesn't doesn't matter. It is
murder. it it's just murder and we
shouldn't do murder. And there's a lot
of democracies with colorful flags and
that justify
murder because they're trying very hard
not to kill civilians. And then when you
say you look at the reality of the Obama
administration, the entirety of the war
in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're you're
you're murdering civilians. Yes, you're
trying to kill bad guys, but you're
murdering civilians. That said on a on
a ethical consideration on which kind of
ideals ideologies you can build a
society after the war. One that even on
the surface level states that the value
of every
life of every civilian life is equal and
high in value. That's a good society.
That's the concern with extremist
ideology that
uh that basically is very difficult to
build a flourishing society on. But then
the argument against that is the one you
said which is like yeah well Hamas is
really supported now because of the war.
Right. But by the way I don't disagree
with the first part of your statement
there. I just don't think it's in
conflict with what I'm stating. It's
like look, I
understand first of all that like um
there is a difference between the way
you're going to say prosecute crime
domestically within your own country and
the way you can prosecute crime or what
a war between two different countries,
right? Like maybe it's it's not exactly
the same. You don't have cops that you
can just send in. You can't arrest
somebody and put them on trial. It's not
the same. So like fine, you could say,
but the point I'm making is more like
I'm just saying how we would think about
these things in a domestic setting.
We're talking about like morality here.
And morality by its very nature is
something that rises above, you know,
the um it rises above logistics. It
rises above like nationalities or
governments or borders or any of those
things. Like what's right or wrong? Like
if it's if it's wrong to rape somebody
in New Jersey, it's also wrong to rape
somebody in Central Africa. Like it
does. And so I'm just saying you're
committing the same act that we would
consider murder in the first degree
here. And then just to go one step
further, I think
particularly like part of the reasons
why people have different attitudes
about the way two nations fight like
what what we think of as war versus what
we think as as like say like a policing
issue. like we would never accept the
idea that like you know if um if if
whatever the same the logic that's used
in wars used in World War II even used
in Iraq and Afghanistan especially used
in the war in Gaza if if you know if
there was a bad guy even a guy who had
done something like October 7th you know
which we have school shooters and things
like that here you know if there was an
active duty school shooter and he's in a
school shooting people and we know he's
already killed like 25 people blow up
the school he's hey He's using them as
human shields. No, it's not our fault.
You see, listen, those deaths, those
deaths, Lex, while tragic, were the
school shooters fault because he used
all these people as human shield. We
would never for a goddamn second if
those were our kids in there. We'd never
accept that excuse. Like, what? Yeah,
that guy was bad. You still had an
obligation to do something else. That
was never accept. Now that we may look
at things differently in the context of
a war, but also by the way, I'm not
sure. I completely do,
but typically speaking, when people
think of wars, they're thinking of this
government versus this government, this
military versus this military. That's
not the situation here, you know? So,
like while Israel is saying, hey,
they're using human shields, it's also
like, and that is true, I think, to some
degree. I think the Israelis overplay it
a little bit, but there have been, I
think, clear instances where Hamas is
using human shields,
but it's kind of a flip side of a
different point. And and like the other
point is like, oh, well, why aren't they
using their army or their air force or
their navy? Oh, right, cuz they don't
have any of those. Oh, that's right. So,
you're fighting a war against a people
that don't have a government because
you've denied them their right to have
one. And so that's that's the thing
where I do think if you've occupied the
place since 1967, you almost now take on
an obligation that you kind of have to
almost conduct this as a police matter.
you know, you're not allowed to just cuz
otherwise that we just laid out. We're
like, "Oh, there's a school shooter.
Blow up the school." It's difficult to
have a discussion about ethics when
you're talking about war. It's really at
the core of it, all war is immoral.
Yeah. I mean, by its very definition,
it's innocent people dying almost
always, right? Like it's it's difficult
to pick which is the just war. And even
World War II, because of the
complexities that you mentioned is
difficult. Yeah. Because it's Stalin.
Well, as my as my buddy uh Daryl Cooper
demonstrated, I think we can have a
reasonable civil discussion about these
things without anybody blowing their
lid. Um we can all just talk. No, but
look, I mean, look, there's so
many World War II is
just it's the third rail like nothing
else. I I really World War II and the
civil rights movement I think are the
like third rails of American politics
that if you like if if you have any type
of view that is not the the approved
authorized view of how these events
went, you're in a lot of trouble. If you
wanted to compare Hitler to Stalin's
body count at that time, Stalin was
already a genocidal maniac and Hitler
had not gone genocidal yet. So there is
a weird dynamic there. Now in hindsight
it looks a little bit better because you
go yeah yeah but he went so genocidal at
the end there you know but like that's a
weird decision at the time to ally with
with Joseph
Stalin when he had already done the
worst things that Joseph Stalin had done
or at least a lot of the worst things he
had done. I guess there were a lot more
in the war as well. But it's curious
though you didn't mention Mao. It's that
funding again cuz he did even worse than
Stalin.
I'm not sure that's officially known. Do
we actually know that Mao killed
anybody? I mean, all right, I'll come
I'll say it. Here we go. I'm going to
blow my funding. Bad guy that Ma sayong
do not care for him. I think the Chinese
government uh officially says they have
like an actual percentage that he was
70% correct. Is that true? They they
actually broke it down to that 70%. But
the 30% was being the worst mass
murderer in human history. That's such a
communist thing to do. Yeah, we measured
it. and we measured it and perfectly
scientifically figured it out. Since you
mentioned Daryl Cooper, you're friends
with him. Can you tell me about him and
tell me about the whole saga about where
he got attacked after the the talker
interview? Yeah. Yeah. So, well, Daryl,
uh I was just a big fan and still I'm
really just a big fan of him. I uh we've
we chatted like a few times and I
interviewed him on on my podcast and I
consider us friends. Marty Made podcast
is his show and it's just phenomenal. I
found out about him from my guy is uh
Scott Horton who's uh a very close
friend of mine and I think the best um
the best person on war in the country.
He's uh just a genius. Uh he runs the
Libertarian Institute and he's also been
the editor at anti-war.com for many
years now. So, he first uh told me about
Daryl and that I what I knew of Daryl
was just that uh he did a podcast with
Jaco and so like they did their show
together and I listened to a couple
episodes of it and really enjoyed it.
And then it was Scott who was like,
"Dude, you got to check out his podcast,
Martyr Mate. It's like the best history
podcast you got." And I ended up
listening to his uh the first thing I
listened to of his was the Fear and
Loathing in the New Jerusalem. He's done
a few things on Twitter where he's kind
of like shit posting and stuff like
that, but when you listen to his work,
like when he lays down like I'm going to
put together this this thing, I'm going
to take years to put together like a
long presentation on the history of this
conflict or the history of this. He is
has like the utmost responsibility in
the way that he tells the story and the
way he presents it. I cannot understand
how anyone would listen to his work and
come away with the feeling that this guy
is any type of like Jew hater or Nazi
apologist or anything like that. It's
it's just not who he is. What Daryl said
on Tucker's show was that he goes, you
know, I'll say this to be provocative
sometimes to kind of ri my buddy Jaco
who's like Anglo-Saxon, so this kind of
gets to him. He goes, and I'm being a
bit hyperbolic when I say this, but I'll
I'll sometimes say that uh Winston
Churchill was the chief villain of World
War II. Now, he didn't commit the most
atrocities. He wasn't like the worst
person there, but he was a guy who was
hellbent on kind of this thing becoming
what it ultimately became, whereas like
it this might have just been an invasion
of Poland. This may not have been this
whole cascade of like the worst thing
that ever happened in human history.
Now, the retelling of that is always
people go, "He said Churchill was the
chief villain of the war." But it's
like, "No, not exactly." Like he, you
know what I mean? What he he's making a
point, and I think he's he's putting out
right now a a long series on World War
II. He just put the prologue to it out,
which was excellent, by the way. Um, and
I really just have, you know, listen, if
after it's out, maybe I'll come back and
regret saying this, but I don't think I
will. I really have like trust that
Daryl will handle this like responsibly.
And in fact, I think that he might be
and not because he's like involved at
like this is his angle or what he's
attempting to do. I think just that he's
going to tell the truth and the truth
will take you where it takes you. I
think he's actually going to probably
serve a function of bringing a lot of
those types kind of back to reality and
bringing them back to being like like he
if you think he's going to be excusing
the atrocities of the Nazis in this
thing, I just don't I don't think you're
going to be happy with the end product
if that's what you are coming into it
for. Okay. One thing I want to say is I
think calling Daryl Nazi Nazi
sympathizer is just wrong and it it does
a lot of damage. I think he's he has a
lot of value to his podcast. I think
we're like there's several things to
sort of make very clear. I think as a
really interesting guy, I'm sure I'll
talk to him in the future, but I I just
want to lay on the table
that I think what he's saying about
Churchill is just dead wrong. I think
legitimately that
statement, removing the trolling from
it, is a revisionist history statement
that I think is wrong. The invasion of
the Soviet Union would have happened no
matter what. and possibly which I'm
actually learning a lot more Stalin
could have gone the other way as well
that that was going to be a global war
no matter what Churchill the role of
Churchill we can debate and I still
don't think he was a main instigator of
that expansion there there's a lot of
historical documentation of that well
look that's a that's a fair debate to
have and it'd be interesting to see you
two kind of talk about that or may not
even debate it but just like have a
conversation about that I think the
broader point you're making is a lot of
I mean there's just a lot of
trivialization of the World War II that
happens in the West uh in the United
States especially and that's used by
neocons by Oh yeah by wararm mongers to
sort of oh I constantly I mean I've
never I don't think I've done a bunch of
like ill uh Israel Palestine debates. I
don't think I've ever done one where
World War II wasn't invoked and where
that wasn't like the well I mean Dresden
Hiroshima Nagasagi you're gonna tell me
it's not okay and immediately just if
you just look at it like that like let's
say the the official narrative is 100%
true in World War II. Let's let's even
say every aspect of the official
narrative is is really true. Like the
lesson of World War II is that we should
have gone to war sooner, which is
essentially right like the the dominant
mainstream narrative that um Chamberlain
is the failure. That was the problem,
the appeasement. Churchill was the
solution. If only Chamberlain had been
Churchill or if only we had gone to war
with Germany and you know whatever in
1933, we would have just it would have
been better. Okay, let's say all of
that's true. It still doesn't follow
from that that therefore in every
situation appeasement is wrong and
aggression is good. It doesn't follow
from that that that's the only lesson of
history and that now it's just okay to
slaughter civilians. Like it's okay to
go to total war against a civilian
population because this one time it was
necessary. Like it's and and the idea
that Bobby Kennedy said this to me
again, somebody who I I really do love
and uh admire in many ways and I'm glad
he's the health secretary. I remember
him saying this invoking the Nazis and
making a comparison between Hamas and
the Nazis. You're like, "Dude, Hamas
doesn't even control Gaza really. The
Nazis had most of Europe at one point.
This is just not an applesto apples
conversation. This is not you can't even
compare the two in terms of what type of
menace or threat they are to the world."
I mean, like, sure, maybe if Hamas had a
lot of power, they'd use it in a bad
way, but like that's true with like some
homeless guy on the street, too, but he
doesn't have that power. So like what
are we talking about here? And so the
way I do think that the way the World
War II narrative is weaponized has been
even if World War II itself was
necessary and just the way that that's
been weaponized over the years has led
to just like countless catastrophes and
like you know and it's always there
always it's not just like you know I
mean I guess it's just in some ways
there might be something positive about
the fact that everybody's always called
Hitler if they're bad you know what I
But because we we make Hitler the you
know the face of what is evil eternally
or something. He really does play the
role of the devil in our society in a in
a strange way. Um but there is like you
know Saddam was the next Hitler and
Gaddafi was the next Hitler and Bashar
Assad was the next Hitler. Trump Trump
is Hitler. Hamas is Hitler. Except the
problem is that like none of them are
Hitler. None of them are even close.
It's just totally different. Yeah. And
uh the amount of power is really
important. Like it matters how much
destructive power you have within you
with the capabilities, but like every
every major superpower with nuclear
weapons has the potential to be that
destructive. It's it's just
unproductive. And yet the only ones who
ever have dropped them are us. Yeah. I
was arguing with one guy on a podcast uh
and he said that he goes, "You can't
allow dictators to have nuclear weapons
cuz they might use them." And I was
like, "But but we are the only ones who
ever used them." goes, "Ah, come on.
That's naive." or something like, "Wait,
what? Why shouldn't that be pointed
out?" Um, and I don't know. I mean, I
I'd prefer Iran not get nuclear weapons.
Um, I, you
know, I I think we're pushing them to
probably want to pursue that. Um, and I
also think there's been a lot of
propaganda about the nuclear um, program
in in Iran. I know at least since the
90s, according to Netanyahu, they've
been 5 years away. Yeah. I think there's
a a lot of wararm mongering going on
about all parts of the world. Iran
especially. I do I have a lot of friends
in Iran from Iran. It's one of the most
beautiful cultures in the world. Like
this just super superpower of intellect
and culture and it's really sad and
disappointing that the regime is
basically suppressing that culture.
Yeah. You have to always remember like
uh there's parts of the world where the
the people are beautiful and we don't we
don't get to see it because of the
suppression the the lack of freedom, you
know. Yeah. No, absolutely. So, all that
said, there does seem to be a lot of
hatred of Jews on the X. Yeah. Uh, how
much of it do you think is actual hate
of Jews and how much of it is just
trolls and grifters and
uh, conspiracy nerds just, you know,
cosplaying as uh, Nazis? It's really
hard to tell. I mean, I don't know. I
don't know how you even figure it out.
And and I think this is one of the
problems with outrage culture. It's kind
of one of the unintended consequences of
it is that now you just have no way of
knowing who's saying this just to get a
rise out of you or who really sincerely
means it or who's some version of both.
Um then there's also it's like there's
so many weird dynamics because there's
no question like I see it all the time.
I mean I see a level of like Jew hatred
on Twitter that I've never seen before
in my own replies and other people's
things. Like it's and that's
interesting. Like first off you're like
okay so what's going on here?
Interesting sociological phenomena.
Yeah. Right. You know um yeah concerning
and troubling and all of that stuff but
then you also see people who will be
asking like completely legitimate
questions or making completely
legitimate points that are called
anti-semitic. And then that I think does
not help the dynamic at all because now
you're almost like, "Oh, there's number
one, you just kind of you make the word
meaningless. You take away the
disincentive for anybody else to
actually be a Jew hater." Um, I mean, I
think there's a lot going on. You know,
one of the things is that for young
white men in America today, they've
lived through the years of of real
insane progressive wokeism. And so, you
know, which is something like my like
I'm 42. It's just a different thing for
me. like I come from a different culture
and a different time that it just simply
was not the case that when I was a
teenager or when I was in college or
when I was in my early 20s that the
school, the faculty, the politicians,
Hollywood, all of them embraced
racialism. You know, they all said we're
playing identity politics and it is okay
to dice people up along these racial
lines and have that first and foremost
in your mind. You know, and I there is
this re weird feeling over this last
year and now with Trump being reelected
that like we snapped our fingers and
wokeism went away or something like
that, but these guys still came up in
this in this era. And there was it was
always the case that like one of the the
dangerous elements of playing this game
was like, hey, you think you're going to
play this and that like young straight
white men aren't going to start playing
this game too? Why the hell would they
not? Like why why would they just accept
we'll just sit here while everybody else
is allowed to have a racial identity and
a grievance about it and yet we'll be
the one group who yeah you could just
stomp all over us. We're the bad guys.
And that's part of the reason why I
always opposed the woke insanity. I mean
first and foremost just cuz I think it's
wrong. I think it's wrong to like be
shitty to people based on their racial
group and that includes white people
too. Um but then also you're like you
don't see that this is going to result
in something bad. So there's there's
that. Um, but I mean I you know clearly
and and what's weird to me is that I I
guess it's because a lot of the people
who are the most upset about the
anti-semitism also happen to be
supporting Israel. Like there's a big
correlation between that. But clearly
it's a huge factor in this. Like it's
it's not a coincidence that all of this
rose up while Israel is just conducting
this brutal campaign with our weapons
and money. And so I always think with
these things, whether it's with Putin or
with al-Qaeda or with whoever, and I'm
not saying like the guy who posts like
Jew Haiti stuff on Twitter is the same
as them. I'm just saying in all of these
situations, you always kind of got to
separate like what are legitimate
grievances and what are like, okay, that
you're wrong on that and you shouldn't
be doing that, you know? So, it's it's
pretty easy for me to like if I listen
to like the Putin interview with Tucker,
I thought his whole 30 minute opening
thing was like horrible and it's just
like kind of stupid. Especially when
you're talking to Tucker Carlson. You
know, this is like for an American
audience. You know how much that does
not resonate with Americans being like
we have a historic claim over another.
Our entire society is founded on we
think that's bullshit. Like that's the
entire history of our It's like no it
doesn't matter. Sorry. Like literally
read the Declaration of Independence. It
just refutes everything Vladimir Putin
said in the first 30 minutes. Like our
view of the world is that God wants us
to be free and we get to overthrow
governments if they're infringing on our
rights. Like that's So that was stupid.
But then when he's talking about like
NATO enlargement and bringing Ukraine
into the American military alliance,
you're like, okay, he's got a legitimate
point there. we would not allow one of
our neighbors to be brought into China
or Russia's military alliance. And so
likewise when it comes to those guys, I
do think that like you almost look it is
it is just true. It is the case that
America has fought many wars over the
last uh seven years with Israel playing
a very influential role in us fighting
those wars. And you know these were uh
this was like a scheme that was cooked
up by the neoconservatives and the
ludnik in Israel that we would go
through this but this has been confirmed
by fourstar general Wesley Clark. He
literally said it was a study paid for
by the Israelis that we were going to
topple seven countries in 5 years and we
didn't get there in 5 years but we've
been made attempts to topple all of
those countries since then. You know,
you see Trump's bombing the Houthies
because they're pissed off about
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
and so they're trying to shut down their
straits or whatever. And it's like, so
we're just bombing another group on
behalf of Israel. And if you really are
concerned about the rise of Jew hatred,
I I would say like, look, it's much
like, you know, sometimes people would
argue where, you know, the thing I said
in the beginning about the terrorists
don't hate us for our freedom. They hate
us because we're over there. And people
would say that's just what Osama bin
Laden says. He just says he hates us for
our military, but he really just hates
us because he's an Islamist and we're
free people or whatever. And be like,
"Okay, well, even if that's what's in
his heart, that sure is his recruiting
stick. That sure is how he gets other
people to blow themselves up." And so
even if you want to say, which is which
might very well be the case, that some
of these people just hate Jews and it
wouldn't matter if Israel was at war
with Gaza or not. It's like, okay, but
that sure is their recruiting sticktick.
That sure is how they get other people
to go look at what these Jews are doing
in our foreign policy. So, I would I
don't know. There's a lot going on. Um,
I do think I I think racialism of all
different forms is stupid and wrong. It
always just leads to sloppy thinking and
bad results. It's always kind of ugly.
And then, weirdly, it also always ends
up hurting the person. Like, it's not
good for you. It's not good for your
soul. Um, so I don't like seeing that
stuff. But then I also think, you know,
like I was saying before about there's
like this hierarchy of outrages that you
got to have in order to think and act.
You have to kind of put these together.
And you know, I just hear a little bit.
It's something that um you know, despite
being described as a self-hating Jew, I
am really not. I love Jewish people. I
love Jewish culture. I've benefited a
lot from it. It's it's in many ways made
me the person I am. and I think made um
I think it's influenced some of the best
parts of me. But there is like a
whininess and a hysteria about this
stuff that I think is just like not
healthy. I think it's not good. I've
told many Jewish friends and family this
privately. But it's like the way I look
at it is like I'm an American. This has
been a wonderful country to be Jewish.
Jews are doing exceptionally well in
this country. We are 2% of the
population or so and we are thriving by
any metric. And if mean stuff on Twitter
is our great burden to bear, I don't
think we should be talking about it like
we're in the middle of Nazi Germany or
something like that. So I do think
people get hysterical about it. In a way
that's completely not productive. But to
me, I think I think of the Jewhating uh
nerds and trolls on Twitter as just the
other side of the woke. I kind of get
that. Yeah, it's almost like a response
like you were saying. It's just that the
the woke weren't censored and the
response to the woke was censored and
now that on X they're less censored or
not censored.
You just get to see it and they're both
annoying. Yeah, I agree with that. They
they don't really help the discussion on
Israel. They don't help the discussion
on anything. In fact, I
um one of the reasons I stay away from
that discussion of Israel, which I think
is nuanced and really complicated in the
way that we've been discussing, in order
to have an intellectual like exploration
of ideas, you have to be able to misstep
and try ideas for size. And if I'm going
to be punished severely by these, I'm
okay being criticized by but when
they're
like lowbrain takes that are just lying
about me on mass. Like he gets a huge
amount of engagement just because you're
like thinking out loud and reading
history and it's just annoying. And by
the way, I'm really interested about
World War II probably in the way that
Dan Carlin and Daryl Cooper are
interested cuz it's such an
interesting stage on which human nature
was explored in all its forms. the
geopolitics of it. Everybody on that
stage was complicated. There's a lot of
also there's a lot of fascinating
military taxes and strategy, military
technology, plus the nuclear bomb. All
of that that's like a moment in human
history. Listen, I love Jenghis Khan,
Roman Empire, Alexander the Great. Those
are all interesting studies of human
history, of military tactics, of of
brutality, of human nature, all of that.
That's why I want to be able to discuss
that. It's fascinating like that humans
are able to do that kind of thing. What
causes them to do it? What were the
dynamics involved? The propaganda on all
sides could have could been avoided or
not, you know? Plus, Stalin is part of
this picture. Yeah. It's like what the
fuck? What? Like you don't get
characters this you don't get
character like that. You're not going to
get a global war of that kind. It might
be a different one. maybe a cyber war or
maybe a war in space, but we're not
going to get this kind of war ever
again. That was the last the biggest and
the last global war we're going to get.
So, I want to be able to like mouth off
and explore and yeah, argue with Daryl
Cooper, B Churchill, and say stupid shit
in the process. And Daryl says stupid
shit in the process, too. And like
together come to the So, anyway, the the
trolls on the left and the right just
make everything worse and it's annoying.
No, I I agree with that. And I'm sure
like I'm I I'm sure I'm not without my
own bias in this because I like but from
my own like
self-interested perspective.
I'm not saying like this is the main
reason to be annoyed with them or
anything like that, but I what I
personally get is all types of like
self-hating Jew, Nazi apologist, all
this literally just because I criticize
the way Israel's conducting this war. I
think that's like insane. But then I
also feel like, and I'm not, listen, I
want to be clear and disclaim this. I'm
not saying this is the worst thing about
people who are Jew haters on Twitter,
but just from a personal perspective,
I'm like, "Guys, you are not helping me,
man." Like, it's like I'll get people in
my comments who I think are trying to
like catch my back, who just don't know
I'm Jewish. And then like I'll say
something critical of Israel and then
someone will argue with me and they'll
be like, "Oh, look, a Jew came in here
to defend Israel." And I'm like, "Dude,
first of all, do you you're like
literally you might as well be working
for MSAD. You literally make the entire
you make the movement who's criticizing
Israel look terrible, dude. Like the you
are literally the enemy that they would
like to have." And so it's it there's a
very weird dynamic in the Israel
Palestine conflict where all of there's
so many of the loons on both sides who
almost seem like they're secretly
working for the other side. Like if you
when you see the the Palestinian protest
and they're chanting death to America
and all this stuff, you're like what are
you what are you doing? Are you trying
to make people more sympathetic to
Israel? Because that's the if if Rabbi
Schmoolley was working for Adolf Hitler
or something like that, it would all
make perfect sense. You were like, "Oh,
I get it. You sent this guy out to make
everyone hate Jewish people." And then
like it's just there's just a very And
then with the um with the the Jewing
post, too, it's just Yeah. It's it just
feeds right into the the opposition side
of how to caricature, you know? It's
like, oh, so their game is they'll smear
everybody who's a critic of Israel as as
being a Jew hater. So your answer is to
just really be a Jew hater. Like, all
right, I don't think that's helping. Uh,
so maybe this is a good time to ask for
your advice because these folks are the
reason why I'm hesitant. Uh, so I've
interviewed several world leaders
recently. Uh it's looking likely that
I'll interview Vladimir
Putin and several other similar level
major world
leaders. I've previously interviewed
Benjamin Netanyahu for an hour. One of
the biggest regrets I have about that
interview is it was only an hour. I
realized that uh I mean I've learned a
lot but I think he's a really important
historical figure and I think it's
impossible to have an effective
conversation with him that's shorter
than 3 hours. So uh it looks like he's
interested now to do round two with me
for three or more hours. And I've
personally
uh so this is a bit of a therapist
session, but I've personally been
leaning against doing it. And I hate
that I'm leaning against doing it
because the reason I'm leaning against
doing it is because the very people
you're talking about cuz I just don't
want them to on either side, pro-
Israel, pro, it doesn't really matter.
But the chanting sheep of Animal
Farm, Jew hating or otherwise, just make
your life, they follow you around
everywhere on online and make it uh
difficult to think. I I think whenever I
come across these crowds, the woke left
or the whatever you call the Jew haters,
the woke right, let's call them, uh,
they just like decrease the quality of
my thoughts for the rest of the day.
Like I feel dumber. It's like Rogan
talks about when he hears a bad
comedian, he feels like nothing is funny
anymore. This is what I feel like when I
read their thoughts. It's like I can't
I'm gonna go read a book now because I
need to like recover. Well, it's a
dangerous kind of poison to let in your
mind because then you're like it's like
hey I can't be thinking about you when
I'm doing what I want to do. Like I
can't be thinking about what your
reaction to this is going to be. The way
I always thought about it was like when
I'd get like, you know, hate online,
which I'm, you know, always get.
Um it's always just kind of like I look
at it like this. I got um I got a great
family and a great career and I really
love what I do. I make really good money
at what I do and I go I do shows all the
time. I get crowds of people who love
what I do. I get a lot of people who
listen to my podcast who love what I do.
And it's like so if I get all that and
then the price that comes along with it
is there some people who talk shit
online. And it's like that's a very
that's a very good price to pay for all
of this. Like it's just and I just like
I just kind of made a decision at a
certain point that it's like I'm just
going to accept that that's the price of
business here. That's what it costs and
then okay fine. And then sometimes I try
to have fun with it or mock them or
whatever to go back. But to me now again
I I can never tell you what to do
because this is a it's a very personal
price that you have to pay and it's a
very weird psychological dynamic. I mean
it's just not it's almost something like
that we we were not evolved to deal with
and is very artificial and it's very you
know like if you're if there's a group
of like thousands of people who hate
your guts and are furious at you. We're
almost like hardwired to be like well
I'm going to be killed now. like that's
the next thing that happens. You're not
you you're not supposed to get to know
what just someone in Arkansas thinks
about you right now, you know. But so
that's a very personal like decision to
make, but I kind of feel like guys like
me and you have already made the
decision that we're in the arena and
we're going to deal with that that
price. And so I just from my perspective
I'm like, "Yeah, but how could you turn
down getting three hours with
Netanyahu?" Like that would just be so
interesting. And I'm not even saying,
you know, like I hate the guy, but I'm
not saying you should interview him like
you hate the guy or I'm not saying you
even have to like grill it, but just if
you get three hours with somebody,
something interesting is going to be
revealed there. There'll be a benefit to
that. It'll be interesting to just see
him talk that way. There's also
something about, as we kind of saw with
with Trump doing the podcasts and even
with JD Vance doing some of the
podcasts, there is something really
interesting about this format, the long
form podcast where it just gets people
to let down their guard and reveal
themselves a little bit more. Like it is
it's not just the time factor. Like
that's a big one. It's a huge huge one.
But it's like there's something about
like if me and you were just like if you
we were having this conversation right
now, but in back of us was like a cable
news, you know, background of red and
blue and sparks and a ticker at the
bottom of the show and then you just
start interview someone. It's just a
different thing. Whereas this, you just
kind of like fall into conversation
mode. And I'd be interested to see him
fall into that. Putin, too. Like I I
just think the it's great. First of all,
thank you for the
encouragement. Um, but to push back on
the complexity of a little bit, I think
everything you said about your life is
also true about my life except family. I
want to have a family. You son of a
bitch. You
bragging. Uh, on the podcast side, I
could have a lot of incredible
conversations. Some of my favorite is
talking to programmers or uh video game
designers or uh or to you about
Netanyahu versus talking to a world
leader is a very specific thing and
people don't understand that. For
example, you and I can mouth off. We can
be super supportive of Netanyahu is
super critical in a way that you can't
do in front of the guy. Yeah, you can't
you you have there's a if you want to
reveal something about that person,
there's a different skill involved there
in order to reveal how they think, who
they are as a human being. You have to,
just like we said with Daryl Cooper, you
have to humanize the person to a degree
in order to let their mind flourish in
front of you in order for them to break
to let let down the barriers that
they've put up. and Benjamin Netanyahu
has put up a lot of barriers that
internally in Israel he gets attacked
insanely there's there's a game of
thrones constantly going on and this guy
has maintained power for a very long
time so he's very good at putting up
those barriers plus you know globally
gets attacked a lot so the task there is
difficult and so each one is a puzzle
and you have to make a decision do you
want to take this on as a project which
might become a lifelong project because
of the consequences
and you don't need to. It's it's there
there's a calculation there. I'm not
saying it's not so like self-evident
that there is a correct and incorrect
answer. Um, and I do think that we've
probably all had things like certain
type of ventures in life where you're
like, all right, no, I don't want to do
that. But then you have to have a moment
and be like, why is it you don't want
to? Oh, is it just because it's going to
be a lot of work? Is it just because
you're scared of it? Is it just because
this? And those typically are not good
reasons to not do something like you
know what I mean? And then now there
might be there is a reasonable I think
point that you made in there where it's
like when it is a different game to
interview a world leader. That is a very
different thing like talking to some uh
comedian about his thoughts on all this
stuff. It's a very different thing than
talking to a world leader and especially
one who's conducting a brutal war as
you're talking to them. You know like
that's a and I don't know exactly what
the way to navigate that is. I agree
with you. It's not just to be like
hostile and be like, I've got you here
for 3 hours. I'm going to grill the
shit. It's like probably not the the
best way to do it. There's probably to
like have a conversation to talk to the
guy. Probably try to get some important
questions in, but also give him a chance
to breathe and be a person. Um, I just
from my perspective, but again, it's a
very personal thing for me. I just do
think that I like I'm going I hope you
do it because I'd love to see that
podcast. Okay. Well, see this is why
it's part of the reason I asked you is
cuz I get a Dave Smith endorsement on
the on so that when this completely
ruins at least there's another guy who
thought there's a chance there might be
a good idea cuz I don't know I that's
the cool thing about the things we do.
You've been through a lot of battles.
You you've walked into a lot of tough
debates and it's like you don't know
this could be the conversation that like
ends you. I know. I well I'll say that's
I think that's one of the things that I
love about doing debates. Um and there
is something about that where it's I I
do kind of feel this like I'm a little
bit of of like an adrenaline junkie. I
mean not like really you know I don't
like skydive or do stuff like that but
like doing standup is kind of like you
know there's always something about that
that's like you're risking a lot by
doing it. you're like you feel alive,
you know, like not and not like the way
you do when you first start, but there
is something about that. And there's
something about well, first of all, I
just kind of I feel there's kind of two
things like number one, I feel like I'm
obligated, and I wouldn't say this for
you, but I think this is true for me. I
think I'm obligated to do like at least
several debates a year. Um, and I think
that I think that if I'm going to go on
shows like your show and Rogan's show
and and Tucker's show and you know,
Candace or whoever else, you know,
Patrick Bet David and Tim Pool and I go
on these big shows for long form things
and I'm sitting there and I'm being
like, "Okay, it's like this like and
this is and I think it's like this and
that." Then if I'm going to do that, I
kind of have an obligation to like test
myself against someone being like, "No,
it's not like that." and then you know
like showing that I think I can stand up
to these these kind of challenges. So I
feel like I'm kind of obligated, but
then I do like there is a feeling to it
where you're like, "Hey man, like this
is not my career is not a joke. Like I
got little kids. This is how I support
them, you know, and like I am kind of
taking my career in my hands every time
I go do one of these debates. Like if I
just get smoked and this guy just
totally beats me up, it's like I don't
know. I don't know. How are you how is
anyone going to look at me again after
that?" You be like, "Ah, you you acted
like you had such a good point." and
then this guy just totally destroyed
your point. So, but that then kind of
motivates me to be like, "Okay, I got to
really be on point. I got to really make
sure I've done my homework. I got to
make sure my argument's really tight. I
got to think about this thing from all
ends." And then on the other level, it's
like if someone can do that to me, then
kind of that's the way the movie is
supposed to end. You know, like if you
if I if there is some hole in my
argument that I'm just not thinking of
and then someone else can point it out
to me and I got no response to it, then
I kind of deserve to be humiliated
publicly for that. So, all right. I
don't know. That's it's kind of exciting
in a way cuz the movie ends at some
point. Well, that's true. Unless you and
your genius friends can figure out how
to, you know, give us eternal life or
something. I don't think I want to live
I don't think I want to live forever. I
I I think it I think flirting with that
idea too much is dangerous. This kind of
uh transhumanism kind of idea is it's
it's not a good way of thinking. Of
course, I do um want to heal diseases
and extend human life, especially high
quality of human life. But yeah, if we
could live, if we could be in like much
better shape and much healthier and like
extend life by a few decades, I think
that would be great. But I agree with
you. I think there's supposed to be an
expiration date on it. I think we're
supposed to we're supposed to um there's
something about like uh scarcity being a
necessary component in a lot of
different field, you know what I mean?
where it's like uh the life
itself having a finite amount of time on
it I think makes it more precious. Yeah.
At the individual level and then at the
societal level it just does seem like
death is the way you get new ideas. It's
like people kind of solidify their ideas
and are unwilling to change their mind.
And the only way you get new ideas,
right? The next generation has to take
them over. Yeah. You have to keep
turnurning. All right. Speaking of the
trolls and uh Israel, I got to ask you
about this. Let's talk about Jeffrey
Epstein.
I recently got attacked uh because of
conversation a couple conversations I
had with Tim Dylan three and four years
ago. I love Tim Dylan. He's hilarious. I
love Tim, too. I've known Tim for many
years. Love that guy. Yeah. So, we I I
bring up Jeffrey Epste often because uh
there's a fascinating study of evil to
me. uh whichever angle you you take on
it. And I think there partially they
talk shit, but uh I showed some
skepticism that he's connected to
MSAD. Uh so to me there's three and I've
evolved on that since then. U by the
way, I'm not actually sure it's MSAD. It
could be any intelligence agency. It
could be CIA. But I was wondering if you
could educate me. I did a little
research on this last night. I looked
into it a little more and then I saw
that you said he's definitely MSAD.
Well, I don't know if I said I didn't
say he was definitely MSAD. I don't know
my my exact I mean I made one kind of
jokey post as is the case with almost
any um intelligence operation.
it. Look, I don't want to like poo poo
anybody's hopes here because I guess
like the JFK files just got released and
supposedly the rest of the Epstein files
are coming out and there's a lot of um
there's a a major yearning right now to
get to the end of the movie where we
find out everything that happened, you
know, and that I I think it's great that
people have that desire and I hope more
and more does come out. I think the
truth is that with any intelligence
operations, we're probably never going
to know all of the details of exactly
what happened. The funny thing about
intelligence agencies, and I've been
regularly accused of being CIA, FSB or
MSAD depending on the group that's
attacking me. Uh, but I think it's a
fascinating topic and it's very
difficult to know somebody's
intelligence. But if you have any
nuance, I want to discuss the nuances
then the the the init the comment is
going to be that guy for sure is msad if
we're talking about msad or so on. But
yeah, I that's one of the things I
didn't know and I saw the what is it
Alex Aosta said that uh basically
mentioned that Epstein is intelligence.
That to me is like, okay, that's a piece
of evidence. That's a really valuable
piece of evidence that he's
intelligence. And that was very uh not
just intelligence, but MSAD because that
before that I thought it might be CIA
cuz that's I kind of heard and it's I
think it's quite possible that he was
working with elements of both. I mean,
as I think is is often the case. I also
think that's something that people get a
little bit wrong like when they think
like, okay, this guy was CIA or this guy
was MSAD. And then there's also I think
there's the possibility that there are
rogue elements within those
organizations like this is not
necessarily coming from the director or
or what you know I I don't know but you
look at the guy the way his his career
trajectory tracks is like completely
unexplainable outside of being connected
to intelligence. Like it's not just like
the one or two people saying that he's
intelligence. It's like, dude, the idea
that you're just like you you have no
experience and you're a teacher at
Dalton, which is like this incredibly
elite uh New York City private school,
and then all of a sudden you're at Bayer
Sterns and like within two years you've
like made partner and you've made you're
worth hundreds of millions of dollars
and nobody knows where you made your
money from. This just doesn't happen.
And then you're just in you're just
inserted into this world with all of the
most like highest level political
leaders and cultural figures and stuff.
But the thing that's amazing about the
Jeffrey Ebstein story is that it's like
the level of evil and the level of
corruption that it exposes. No matter
what the answer is, like no matter what
the answer is, it's you're going to
you're going to tell me that there was a
pedophile ring in our country that
involved I mean, listen, dude, if you
had said this shit before it came out,
this would have been the wildest
conspiracy theory. but a pedophile ring
that involves the most powerful people
in the United States of America and in
the the world to some degree touching
the royal family, the Clintons, like all
these people and that this was known and
covered up and then allowed to continue.
I mean like the there's a blackmail
operation that relies on raping American
children and and like if this is uh you
know whether it's CIA or MSAD doesn't
make one less you know it's equally
horrible but then there's like these
elements where like you're like okay so
when it when he first got arrested and
then he was given a slap on the wrist
slap on the wrist and then the
prosecutor says, "Well, I was told by
the intelligence community that he's
intelligence and to go easy on him,"
it's like, "Okay, okay." And and you
didn't resign in disgust that day. You
know what I mean? Like, I don't think
that's too much to ask for. You know,
there was the um the ABC reporter who
said that she had the whole story. She
was on the hot mic saying she had the
whole story and then the network told
her to squash it. It's like, and you
stayed working there. Like, that's I'm
sorry. Like I'm not asking for I'm not
saying like we're all imperfect and none
of us are heroes, but like you're in a
news network and you uncovered a child
raping ring that implicated the most
powerful people in our society and your
news network told you we will not run
this story because of our relationship
with the royal family and you did not
resign in disgust that day and take this
story to every single indep independent,
you know, outlet that would maybe
publish it. I'm sorry. It's like the
thing it's so damning to the entire
apparatus that we did not see at the
very least see mass resignations over
this. Forget even like at the very least
expect that it would have been
prosecuted and shut down. And then, you
know, still to this day, you know, even
it's like, and I think Tucker Carlson
just said this recently, but like, and I
guess it's a little bit of a weird area
when you're filming people raping
children, but what where are the tapes?
Why is everyone talking about the flight
logs and the files? Where are the tapes?
This guy was clearly taping people to
blackmail them. Where are those? Is I
don't know what the legal process of
this is, but like cuz I think
technically it's child porn, so like
Yeah. Okay. you can't just like
distribute it out and let everybody
watch it. But isn't there a way that
like somebody has to sit down and watch
it and see who is implicated in this and
see who like I I just don't and there
seems to be there's even I think there's
a lot of laring with this administration
going on right now on this topic. But
does anybody really expect that we're
actually going to get to the bottom of
this? Cuz I don't. And that in itself
just tells you what a sham this whole
goddamn system is. One of the things
that's so amazing about the Jeffrey
Epstein story, right, is I mean you have
all of that and then of course the end
of it which is just like wait a minute,
wait what? Hold on. He's in like the
most secure like prison and then he gets
this the cameras go out and the
correctional officers don't fill out the
log and he's found dead. I mean, it's
the mo like it's just but when you look
at it in totality, there's just like no
getting around the the huge indictment
it is of this entire like everything.
And I I
mean, even the the fact that even the
Trump administration when Pam Bondi
goes, "We're going to release all of
this information. We've only redacted
what needs to be redacted for national
security." Like, why does anything need
to be redacted for national security?
Like, I'm sorry. You're telling me
there's a pedophile ring and we can't
tell you everything about it for
national security. Why would that be
related to national security? I mean,
there's just it's like and and I do
think there's something and it's very
interesting because, you know, like we
talked briefly, was that on air before
we were talking about we talking about
Sam Harris kind of like criticized me a
little bit for not having the
credentials to talk about some of this
stuff, which you know, like I even said,
okay, he's got a point. Um, but it's
like one of the things that like guys
like Sam Harris will talk about a lot is
uh that like look we need trust in
institutions and this this is his big
thing where he goes you know these
people like Joe Rogan and Dave Smith are
just tearing down the institutions and
while I recognize that's an issue I also
think we need trust in these
institutions Sam Harris well it's like
yeah but what yeah well if you talk in
that tone then it means you're not being
emotional and you're only being logical
and rational which is like I actually
don't think is appropriate when you're
talking about a child rapist ring but
whatever. Um, that's my take on it. But
it's like, okay, so where where are
these institutions I'm supposed to
trust, man? You're telling me there's a
pedophile ring that is at least in some
degree associated with national
security. Like what the and how could
you possibly have this story? Like if
you did care about um the trust in
institutions, then you should be even
louder than me talking about like you
got to tell the truth on this story,
otherwise we'll never have trust in
these institutions. I'm the same
actually. I believe in institutions like
I I think they have val so this is where
you and I probably disagree on the
libertarian side I think it's I think
institutions if they're run efficiently
can right who's the utopian now that's
right I mean there is a utopian notion
to it for sure but uh because it's very
possible the bureaucracies always
destroy the productivity and the
effectiveness of institutions it's
possible it's a Lord Atkin kind of power
corrupts type deal and and it's you're
absolutely right if you believe in
institutions you should
you should want to release everything
about Epstein. You should want to be
transparent
uh as much as possible. Yeah. I But the
one thing I'm and it is very suspicious.
So I'm more and more becoming convinced
that there's some intelligence agency
connected to it. But I also want to like
setting that aside just comment on one
thing where again it's super
entertaining but people say about me
that I came out of
nowhere and that's proof that I'm
intelligence. So first of all there is a
track record of where I came from quote
unquote. It's just people are too lazy
and and there is something sexy about
like just saying fucking MSAD. Oh, he's
denying it. fucking MSAD. Yeah. By the
way, the MSAD thing is a new thing. It
used to be uh FSB and CIA.
Uh what do I want to say about that? Oh,
yeah. I've uh been gradually growing in
popularity over the past 10 years. I've
been doing uh interviews, lectures,
podcasts, and they've been just it's
actually very gradual. And I I don't
know what else there's a difference.
There's something I know I've
experienced this too, right? Like
there's such a difference in perspective
because like if somebody like if
somebody just found me and they just
found out who I am and they go this
guy's brand new and he's doing like all
these shows but you're like yeah well I
don't know dude not from my perspective
I'm not brand new like dude I've been
doing I've been doing standup comedy for
19 years and I've been podcasting for
like 15 years and you're like and then
when it like starts taking off
everybody's like this guy just came out
of nowhere and you're like I mean all
right I wish I wish I had been aware
that it was all this quick. But look, a
lot of this stuff with with so much of
this too, it's just laziness and people
searching for confirmation bias and
people searching for a simpler story
because that's easier. So if you're if
they believe that Epstein was MSAD and
there's a clip of you where you're like,
I don't know about that. Then they go,
see, he's MSAD, too. And now that fits
perfectly into my little story. I don't
know. The truth is that there it's quite
possible that people just aren't
convinced. However, given enough time,
Tim Dylan is always right about
everything. So, you got to eventually
you'll have to admit that he got it
right.
Uh, and you know, not to say the cliche
cheesy thing, but it is true that the
comedians sometimes say kind say the
obvious thing that people are a little
resistant to say that ends up being uh
being true. Now, we just landed some
more credibility to Tim Dylan's
insanity. Great. Now I I do want to
comment on the there's the other aspect
of me that came out of nowhere fine but
I do get to talk to world leaders which
I have to really admit I don't
understand why. So the experience I've
had
is you basically gain a
reputation like I talked to a lot of
scientists early on. You get a
reputation like that this is this is a
interesting person to talk to and that
travels and
then over time you just you get fans and
world leaders are humans too like they
listen to the stuff and sometimes it's
their family that listens. Yeah. often
times, right? Like their kids, it seems
to be a big one. And so that's just how
it happens. And so you sent an email,
hey, you want to talk? And then the
their team or them directly in several
cases, they just respond. Yeah. And
that's it. It's as simple as that. And
they're like they're they're human
beings. And I think a lot of them as
human beings are exhausted by
journalists by shitty journalists I
should say that and it's hard for them
to know which is the good journalist by
good there's the cynical view that they
want they want somebody who's just going
to spell out propaganda that aligned
with their propaganda. No, they just
want a good faith person in front of
them. Now like and I should also say
that there no single world leader has
told me which questions to ask. There's
no uh there's this meme about my
conversation with Modi that's like
scripted. Nope. There was zero
oversight. I have full control. Well,
it's also like there's I mean obviously
one of the major dynamics which is just
like one of the um most interesting kind
of themes in the world I think right now
but it's particularly true in in America
um is that like the corporate media is
just shrinking and shrinking and
shrinking and this whatever this is um
which is so weird that we still all call
them podcasts cuz that's just not the
right name for them at all and none of
us have had an iPod in quite a long time
and like I don't it's just such a like
the first thing person came up with it
it's a cast on an iPod it's a podcast
and we all still use that term even
though it's a but whatever these these
shows on the internet have the audience
and so that's a big factor just that
it's like oh this is where you can go to
the audience and then I would say and I
don't know exact like I have no idea I
should say the motivations inside any
individual's heads but I would say like
in the case of Vladimir
Putin He is completely blacked out in
American media and to the point that
even RT has been blocked out. They they
never play any of his speeches. They
never allow you to hear like look this
is what this guy's perspective is. It's
uh it's very interesting in the same way
that they kind of all flipped out when
Osama bin Laden's letter to America went
viral on on Tik Tok and um you know then
all the talks of banning Tik Tok
increased and stuff. So for him, say
like when he did the Tucker interview or
if he does an interview with you, well
that's a way for him to do an endound
and allow his perspective to be heard,
which I personally think is like
obviously a good thing. Like if you're
going to go in a war, and we're kind of
at a war with Russia right now, you
should know what is the other guy's
perspective is. Not that you should take
it as gospel, but and then from
Netanyahu's perspective, I would
imagine, you know, they Israel has a lot
of control in a lot of different areas,
but they have been losing the internet
battle very, very badly, and it's a
major problem for Israel. I mean, I
don't know. I I still think I think in a
very strange way everybody seems to be
underest underestimating how grave the
implications of all of this are. But
Israel the view of Israel from the world
is never going to be the same at what it
was before. the entire and the
generational divide on it is so stark
like everybody, you know, 40 and under
who very quickly, you know, the time
goes by quickly. Pretty soon that's, you
know, the the 40 and over crowd gets
aged out pretty quickly. And this is
just go it's never going to be the
perception of Israel that my parents'
generation had ever again because of
this war. And you know, I'm sure to some
degree at least Netanyahu is like feels
like he has to try to get his
perspective into that internet
conversation area. And so I think a lot
of different people, you know, obviously
it was Donald Trump's it's in a way it's
kind of shocking and and I guess kind of
um Bobby Kennedy when he was running for
president and Vik Rama Swami when he was
running for president they kind of were
doing some of it even before Donald
Trump was. But it is kind of crazy in a
way that it took this long for
politicians to figure out that it's
like, oh well, I guess we got to go
where the audience is. That's the point
of doing shows, right? I mean, like,
would you rather do a show, you know,
like with a million people or with 10
million people? It's like, well, okay,
you guys do CNN all the time. Why
wouldn't you do Joe Rogan's podcast?
It's just a bigger audience and those
people get to vote, too. You reminded me
with Netanyahu that one of the goals I
have with the podcast is to have the
kind of conversation that a historian
would find useful 20 years from now,
which
is tough to do because you're going to
get punished for it cuz it's mostly I
want to reveal as much information as
possible without the signaling, without
the you just want to know who was this
person. Yeah. No, I think I think that's
that's exactly right. And I think this
was kind of what Daryl was saying. I
think that the part of the the awful
thing of always using World War II as
the next example for the next war is
that it's almost like you're never this
is, you know, they hate us for our
freedom or Vladimir Putin's just mad and
he wants to reconstitute the Soviet
Union. It's like you they always insist
that we can never treat our enemies as
people and be like this is a real person
with real grievances. And even they
might be a fanatic also. Like I'm not
saying they're not, but it's just like
that there there are these like human
qualities to it. And it's always like,
you know, whatever. Even when they were
going um before they did the uh Obama
and Hillary Clinton did the regime
change war in Libya, it was like all
this propaganda. They're like, he's
buying up Viagra to rape all the women
and he's going to go genocide. This guy
had been in power for decades. You know
what I mean? Like it hadn't done that.
And it's just like, oh, it's like the
way you're supposed to think about war
is almost like these people have been
possessed by pure evil. They are
monsters and there's no talking to them.
There's no dealing with them. It's just
simply this. But like a good example
just this recent conflict with the
Houthis where you have the Houthis in
Yemen which Saudi Arabia invaded in 2015
with the full backing of the United
States of America. The Houthies
maintained power for eight years through
that. They maintained power until the
until the Saudis finally gave up. And it
was literally like the Saudis were just
killing hundreds of thousands of people.
And then the Houthies would like get
like a drone off at one of their oil
refineries or something like that. And
that eventually they were just doing
enough damage that it was like, ah shit,
all right, this isn't worth it anymore.
And so they end it. And so anyway, you
have this thing. You're like, "Okay, so
if they did if they went through a total
war for eight years, what you think
Trump sending a few tomahawk missiles
over there is gonna stop them from doing
this?" Okay. But then they didn't do
anything, and this is according to all
reporting on it. They didn't do anything
during the ceasefire. It was only once
the ceasefire broke down that they went
back to attacking ships again that were
coming through. So you just see this
thing where you're like, it's not saying
right or wrong or who's good or bad.
It's like, look, sometimes there's a
diplomatic solution and there's not a
military solution. And like in this
case, you're like, it just shows you,
okay, if there was a ceasefire here,
these guys will chill out. What do you
want to do again? Do you want to go to
total war with it? Cuz like, okay, we
could overthrow the Houthis. We if the
US invades Yemen, like that's kind of
what it would take. It's like, does
anyone here really have the appetite for
another catastrophic war in the Middle
East against the poorest country in the
Middle East? you know, or we could
pursue this diplomatic route, which
seemed at le I mean, I'm just saying
based on the evidence that they weren't
attacking ships during the ceasefire,
seems like there could be a diplomatic
solution here. And so there's just like
a lot and and the problem is when you
don't
like if you make everybody monsters and
they're not human beings, well, you
can't do diplomacy with monsters. You
can't make a deal. You can't negotiate
with monsters, but you can with humans.
And like, you know, I'm sure there are,
you know, like to our earlier
discussion, like maybe there are times
where you're not, you shouldn't
negotiate or you can't negotiate with
humans, but it's better if you can and
and we could use a lot more of that
thinking. Can we take that idea and uh
move to the war in Ukraine? Sure. What
do you think is the path for peace
there? Well, I think what Trump is
pursuing is like infinitely preferable
to what Biden was doing. you know what
puts Donald Trump and and I don't think
everything he's done has been perfect um
and I really did not like that mineral
uh deal that he was floating out for a
while there and I I think maybe that
might be the best thing that came out of
that Oval Office thing is that maybe
that you know Donald Trump goes it's
going to be very tough to do business
like this and it's like yeah we
shouldn't be doing this business deal
anyway um but and and by the way I don't
think we should do it on a few re number
one principally I think it is kind of
like bullying Ukraine out of resourc
sources and I don't from what I
understand they don't even have that
many like fine minerals but whatever. Um
but it's also like well look if he's he
was selling it to Zalinski is that's
kind of a security guarantee you know
cuz like hey if we're in business then
if Putin messes with you he's messing
with us. But from my perspective like
that's the whole point is you don't want
to get into the business of giving out
security guarantees. I mean this is a
real this is why George Washington was
against entangling alliances. like you
give out war guarantees to too many
places, you might have to fight a lot
more wars than you otherwise would have
fought. And also like there's simply
we're in this weird position where
America postures like they're so tough,
but really when it comes down to it,
we're not going to war in Ukraine.
There's no political will here. Like I'm
sorry try to convince the American
people we should send our boys to like I
understand you're from the region but
like or you or you have roots from there
but like to the average American the
idea of going to war over whether
Luhansk is ruled by Kiev or Moscow is
just they they don't even know what
Luhansk is and if they met someone from
there would probably just assume they
were Russian. You know what I mean? Like
and they might be but whatever. I think
the first step to a path to peace is
that you have to want to get a path to
peace. So I think Trump's doing a good
job in that. Do you think all three
sides want peace from what you
understand? Obviously Trump legitimately
fully with an urgency wants peace. I
think for sure Trump wants peace. I also
think Putin wants to wrap the conflict
up. And I think that Putin has Putin has
been willing to deal for the entire
leadup to the war and pretty much
throughout the war. And there's been a
lot of solid reporting on this. And I
mean the sources on it are pretty
impeccable. The the head of NATO
Stlenberg, I always mess up his name,
but he literally said that in late 2021
that Vladimir Putin actually sent a
draft agreement to NATO and that his
condition for not invading, he's like, I
will not invade, but you have to put it
in writing. Like he sent a a draft
treaty to them. You have to put in
writing that Ukraine will not join NATO.
And then uh Stlenberg bragged about how
he said no because we we won't let
Vladimir Putin dictate to us whether we
can expand NATO or not. And then he was
bragging. He was like and look what he
got more NATO expansion Finland and this
and that. So look at that. And didn't
even seem to notice like that. Wait a
minute. You're admitting that you could
have just promised not to bring Ukraine
into NATO and saved hundreds of
thousands of lives. Seems like it would
have been a much better deal. It's it's
going to be a much better deal than what
Ukraine will ultimately end up getting.
So, I do think I think uh also the Joe
Biden's CIA director who was a CI CIA
director's whole four years uh uh
William Burns uh when he was ambassador
to Russia, he wrote the net means net
and in the memo and again this was
dumped by Julian Assange. This wasn't
for the public. This was just him
writing to Condisa Rice to tell the
secretary of of state his assessment.
And he said that his exact words were a
decision Russia does not want to have to
make. And this was the decision about
whether to invade Ukraine or not. And he
was like, they say if you keep pushing
for Ukrainian entry into NATO, this
could lead to a civil war and even
worse. And in that situation, Russia
would have to decide whether or not to
intervene. A decision Russia does not
want to have to make. So essentially,
it's like I think it's pretty clear from
all sides that Putin didn't want it to
come to this. And and look, I mean, even
after the coup in 2014, he he took
Crimea, but he didn't invade the
country. I he sent he may have sent
special forces in, but I mean, not the
full-scale 2022 invasion. And even for
the civil war going all that, you know,
he did it seemed like he I'm not
defending the decision. I'm just saying
it seemed like he reluctantly
uh debate, you know, what was it in 2014
or 15 when they had the plebites in
Crimea and in the Donbass region and
they voted to be independent. He didn't
take them then. I mean, he could have
used that as a pretense for like, hey,
they voted to be with us and he didn't.
I think he wants to end the war.
Zalinski from everything he's said
publicly seems like he still feels like
uh I mean I'm just taking him at his
word here that it's like well no look
like we could end the war but we got to
end the war. It seems like he's moved
from his position being like no we have
to recra reclaim all of our territory to
now his position is kind of like all
right maybe we don't reclaim all of it
but we got to be given some type of
security guarantee in the future. I
think the problem with that is just
again
like I don't mean to be cruel about this
because like it sucks that there's
little countries that are next to big
countries that kind of get bullied
around about them, but there also is a
bit of an entitlement to demanding a
security guarantee. Like what exactly do
you
mean from America? What that'll go to
war if you're invaded? Why are why do we
owe that to anybody? Like that's crazy.
I'm sorry. You could just sign up to say
that we'll go to war if anybody invades
anybody. I mean, I hope nobody invades
anybody, but that I don't want us to get
dragged into that. That's a recipe for
always being at war, you know, and I
don't think that's right for our
country. So, essentially, I think Trump
and Putin want peace. And if that's the
case, I think we'll ultimately get to an
end of this war. So, there's a lot of
stuff to say here. Let's actually start
at the at the beginning, at the
foundation of this. I think the thing
that we left unsaid
uh that's important to say is that
Putin invaded
Ukraine in uh February 24th,
2022. And I think he is, at least from
my perspective, the person who started
the war. You could talk about NATO
expansion. You could talk about any
other thing that led to it. You could
start at the collapse of the Soviet
Union. You can go all the way back as he
did a thousand years. The reality is,
and this goes to our like deep
discussion about the morality of war, no
matter the reasons, the guy that like
pulls the trigger first non-AC and keeps
pulling the trigger, that's the guy
who's at fault. Oh, I I agree. I'll say
one standard, like one standard for
everybody. The standard that I laid out
before is the same one I said. It's did
you absolutely have to do that? you
know, once you start killing people by
the hundreds of thousands, it's like,
was there any other option? Are you
telling me like you absolutely had to do
this? Um, and I don't think that's
right. You know, my my friend Scott
Horton, who I was talking to you about,
um, who just totally brilliant guy, even
in his book, there's a whole chapter of
all the other options of what Vladimir
Putin could do. So, you're absolutely
right. And there's a weird thing where
like people say um like if you say that
the west provoked this conflict, that is
a very different thing than saying that
this conflict is that this invasion was
justified. And in in the same way that
like you know if you if if you were at a
a bar and someone goes and spits in
another guy's face and then he pulls out
a gun and murders them right there. Like
he's not justified in doing that. That
is not okay. You don't get to murder
someone because they spit in your face.
Also, if you were talking about like why
did he murder that guy, I'd be like,
"Oh, cuz he walked up and spit in his
face. That's why it happened." And that
that is essentially my contention about
this war. And it is I I think it's just
crystal clear that that's why it
happened. And listen, it may be right or
it may be wrong. Um, but if China or
Russia ever like backed a street push to
overthrow the democratically elected
government in Mexico and then install a
pro-Chinese or a pro-Russian government
and then started pumping arms into that
conflict and then kept floating out the
idea that they were going to bring them
into their military alliance, DC would
simply not allow that. You cannot do
that any more than the Soviet Union
could put nukes in Cuba. Like, sorry.
That should be said that that's really
cold war 20th century in Yokoon
thinking, right? It is the way the world
works. But like that's you should still
punish. I don't think outside of the
neoonservatives I listen whether you're
talking about the neoconservatives or
going way before the neo any other group
that has ever had control of US foreign
policy going back to the um the cold
warriors the Truman administration the
Eisenhower administration I think you
could take this back to Thomas Jefferson
if this happened in 1801 there is simply
no way that they would allow a foreign
great power to come bring our neighbor,
overthrow their government and then
bring our neighbor into their military
alliance. I think there's no great power
that would ever tolerate that. First of
all, we're in a post-nuclear world,
right? So, meaning post there's nuclear
weapons. So, the threat of somebody
being on your border is just not the
same kind of threat when you're a
nuclear power, which is why, you know,
you look at Finland. No, I think in some
ways it's more it's more of a threat in
some ways. Well, he's not there's Putin
is not upset about Finland joining NATO
nearly as much. Look, I'm just saying to
Vladimir Putin in his own words, what
his issue always was was the military
hardware that comes along with NATO
membership. It's not just that you get
into NATO, but then you get all that
military hardware there. And he made a
huge deal about the dual use rocket
launchers in Poland, which George W.
Bush put there after 9/11. So, I think
all of those things are factors. I think
Ukraine, the Crimea being their only
year-long warm water port, I think
there's like several, you know, like
elements to it, but I do think a huge
part of it is that there also the
country's been invaded through Ukraine
uh multiple times. And so there's just
Yeah, it's it's he I think very
reasonably within the grading on a curve
of how reasonable governments are, he
saw that as a security threat. But I we
should make very clear because the way
that comes across the full
responsibility of the invasion of
Ukraine lays at the hands of Vladimir
Putin. Sure. I completely agree with
that. Vladimir Putin is uh Vladimir
Putin launched a war where again I I
don't know exactly what the numbers are.
I've read a whole bunch of estimates,
some that contradict each other, but the
consensus seems to be it's at least in
the hundreds of thousands, possibly well
north of a million if you're talking
about the casualties on both s sides.
And Vladimir Putin launched a war that
led to that and he's responsible for
that. That being said, you can also
point out that the, you know, really
what we're talking about here is the
George HW Bush administration, the
Clintons, Bush again, Obama, and then
Trump. And the people who were in charge
of the foreign policy in that in in
those administrations, the same ones who
gave us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Somalia, Yemen, they were also in charge
of our European foreign policy. and they
had the most reckless foreign they the
most reckless policy of all was their
NATO policy and that they they drove up
to this conflict with Russia with
nothing but off-ramp after off-ramp
after off-ramp and consciously decided
that we're not going to take any of
those. We're going to drive it all the
way up to this point. And Thomas
Freriedman for the New York Times
interviewed George Kennan in 1998. And
this is George Kennan was the the um
like the cold warrior. He was he's he's
credited as founding the containment
strategy in the Cold War and he was
talking about uh the first round of NATO
expansion which he and many other
foreign policy greybeards opposed and he
was talking and he was like this is the
worst thing we could possibly do after
the fall of the Soviet Union to now say
that we had this alliance in NATO that
was an anti-Russian military alliance
and now that the Soviet Union isn't
there anymore and it's Boris Yelton's
Russia that now we're going to expand
NATO because of that. And he literally
said in 1998, he goes, "The people
advocating that we expand NATO are going
to continue advocating it and advocating
it and advocating it, and then there
will be a Russian reaction, and then
they'll say, see, that's why we were
right to expand NATO, but they'll get
this completely wrong." When do you
think a deal is reached? I really have
no idea what the timeline's going to
look like. I'm hoping sooner rather than
later. I think like um I think Donald
Trump would love nothing more than to
have some type of like big spectacle of
ending this war, some type of big press
conference or some type of you know what
I mean? And so I'm sure like if I my
guess would be that's where Trump's mind
is is how to do this in the best way
that sells him the best and and you know
um but I I think
that already we're in a position where
Donald Trump has put a lot of political
capital chips into the middle of the
table that I can end this war you know
and he's going to look very very bad if
he can't. So, he's very highly
incentivized to get this thing done as
quick as possible. And so, hopefully um
that can that can happen soon. It would
be great if it could happen in the next
month. Yeah. People on both sides
outside of Donald Trump were telling me
that it's a it's a process. Yeah.
There's a kind of implication it's going
to is going to take a while, which I
really hate. I really love Donald
Trump's urgency. Well, it's also
terrible. There's something really awful
like, you know, look, when in innocent
people dying in war at any time is is
terrible, but there is something
profoundly awful and I've I'm old enough
now that I've seen this a few times
happen or I've lived through it a few
times. I've read about it happening
earlier, but it's like once you've kind
of already decided the war is over and
people still die, you know what I I
mean, there's something almost like
sadder about that cuz it's always like,
"Come on, you already know." You know,
like when there'd be like a big, you
know, there'd be like a bombing campaign
in in uh in Afghanistan, like when we
already knew we were a few months away
from ending the war. You're like, "Ah,
you got to kill more people like on the
way out. We already know we're leaving.
We already know that because there's
something at least in the beginning they
could kind of hide behind this
justification or they could be like,
listen, we're going to overthrow the
Taliban and we're going to install our
new government. They're going to be a
democracy. It's going really good. We
have to do this in order to do this
bigger project. But then by the end,
you're like, we're not even pretending
anymore that we're doing anything more
positive. It's just someone dying in a
senseless thing we never should have
been in. Well, in the spirit of that,
that's why I traveled to Moscow and
we'll travel to Moscow again in the near
future to likely interview Vladimir
Putin and uh hopefully travel back to
Ukraine, which I did to uh talk again
with uh Vladimir Zilinski or
uh with whoever the future president is.
You'll be the only guy who's interviewed
both of them, I think. Yeah. During this
war, right? And I have to say the border
crossing is getting increasingly more
intense. Like yeah, I went I went to
Canada last week and I didn't care for
that. So I'm sure primarily it's a
nations of war as it was in Ukraine and
it's fucking it's like as dangerous to
do both. It's also like I think
something that
um I think something that's a little bit
foreign, no pun intended, to America is,
you know, like we've fought in a lot of
wars over the last say 25 years, you
know, 50 years, whatever. But all of
them um including in a way the the World
Wars even in the 20th century like but
it's been since 1812 that we fought one
on our shores and none of the other ones
I mean I guess Pearl Harbor but even
Pearl Harbor that was a one-off and it
was only kind you know it was America
technically but it wasn't mainland
America you know and so we're fighting
wars
like halfway across the world but
there's a very different thing for two
neighboring countries to fight. And even
though most of the fighting's been done
on the Ukrainian side, not all of it,
like there have been, you know, there I
think there still are areas in Russia,
like inside Russia's borders where
there's action. And so it's just like
there's something so much more real
about that. That's not just like, you
know, the wars we're used to are we we
send a military that is a h 100,000
times more sophisticated than anything
it'll be meeting on the ground over to a
third world country to go do that. Now,
as we've found out over the years,
there's still a lot of challenges to
that. Even when your side has night
vision goggles and the other one
doesn't, and your side can call in air
strikes and the other one can't, and
your side has all the sophisticated
training and the other side's practicing
on monkey bars, still very hard to
occupy a people and dominate them and
defeat an
insurgency. But that's very different
than like two nation states on right
next to each other on the border. Like
there's just a real feeling of like
survival in that moment. And I I do
think that probably I don't understand
this as well as you do and probably you
don't even understand it as well as
maybe like an older generation um of of
Russians and Ukrainians would. But like
there's also something about like both
Russia and Ukraine in their own ways got
so
absolutely fucked over in the 20th
century multiple times in a way that
Americans just it is just too foreign to
us to even understand anything like
that. Like millions of people starving
to death, being invaded, the entire
nation collapsing. I the the Russian uh
government collapsed twice in a hundred
years, right? That's that's pretty like
that's traumatic and we just simply have
never been through anything like that.
And so if when you have that kind of
like trauma as a society and then
there's a war on your border, I'm sure
there's a whole lot of different kind of
feelings that we just can't relate to.
Plus a history in both nations of super
sophisticated and expansive intelligence
agencies. Right. Right. Right. Yeah,
that's a very good point. Yeah.
You host a podcast called Part of the
Problem. Yes. What have you learned
through that whole process of um
interviewing some interesting people?
And are there topics you cover that make
you sweat still to this day? It feels
like going into the fire. What I what
I've learned just from the podcast is
that there is
um there there's something there there's
an interesting like relationship that
you build with your audience. Um, and
you know, I I travel a lot and I do
shows a lot. So, like I'll I meet people
who listen to the show and I know like
I've had this experience before. I kind
of had this experience with you um where
like me, you know, me and you met once I
think before today. We were me me and
you actually met on a very interesting
night. I don't know if you remember
this, but we were at
um was before the comedy mothership was
built. You came by a Joe Rogan and
Friends show at the Vulture. Yeah. And
it was the It was while Joe was going
through the shit storm of Cancel Vulture
and he was on the phone with Dana White
and stuff in the back. It was it was a
wild night. What a wild night. Yeah. But
then at the same time, right, like even
though we just kind of met that one time
and then we talked on the phone and now
we're doing the show. I kind I know you
already like I already know you and it's
not just that we have friends of friends
but I've just like seen so much of your
stuff that it's like I know who you are
and then and then it's weird cuz people
come up to you and they're like that
it's like they know you and I've had
this experience I had this experience
with with Joe like I I knew him before I
knew him and so that was kind of like
one of the things that I really learned
from doing the podcast over the years
was like how much that's actually a
relationship like you actually have a
relationship with your listeners and and
almost like in the same way in the same
way that
you know, you can't lie to people like
in your life. You also can't lie to your
like they're a relationship too. Like
you can't lie to your your audience. And
that I think that
there's like there's there's often
almost like kind of shortcuts that are
presented before you, but there is a
payoff to not taking the shortcuts and
to like kind of doing it the way you
want to do it. What do you think is the
number of hours it takes to form a
relationship? because I I absolutely
agree with you. First of all, I should
say I'm a huge podcast fan. I've
listened to you as a guest and your own
show a lot. So, yeah, there's I think
with you I've already crossed the
threshold of ours where like I feel like
we're friends one way and I guess
because you listen to me it's the other
way which are like separate parallel.
It's very weird. It's very strange in a
way. It's very interesting and it's also
there's something there which is kind
more your area of expertise than mine,
but there's something there where like
technology is playing this wild role
like we could have two a two-way
friendship without actually having to
meet each other all facilitated by the
machines that we built. It's very
trippy. I think it's probably like I
would say it's like 50 hours maybe 20 20
to 50 hour range is when you're like
okay it's kind of interesting in a way
right because like the the thing before
like the Joe Rogan experience and was
like kind of the thing that made
comedians big. The things before that
used to be like uh Letterman and Leno
and Conan like comedians would get like
a seven minute set on there and even if
you do great like if you're just like
you killed and someone watching is like
I love that comedy that comedian's
amazing first of all unless they were
like on social media and then went and
like shoot you there was no um there was
no way to connect it just be like love
that guy anyway back to my life and then
maybe you'll remember him And maybe when
he's coming to town, you'd see, oh, that
same guy I saw in Conan is going to be
at the local comedy club or something.
Maybe. But but then like Rogan became
the main thing. And now they didn't just
see you do seven minutes of standup.
They sat and listened to you for three
hours. So even let's just say even off
that one, off the one three-hour
podcast, you come away knowing a lot
more about that person. It's it's not
like just a little taste. You know a lot
about it. But there is I probably would
put the threshold at
at 40 to 50 hour. Like if you've
consumed 40 to 50 hours of somebody,
especially when they're doing what we do
on these shows where you're just you're
speaking very
um you're speaking in a very unguarded
manner. Uh even though like this is your
show and and you asked like a lot of
questions, you don't know exactly where
this is going to go. you know, you're
you're then then you're seeing what I
say and then go, "Huh, okay. Well, let
me ask something based off that. Let me
make a point based off that." We're both
kind of like unguarded. And when you
consume somebody like that for for like
40, 50 hours, you do see into their
soul. I think there's almost no way
there's no way to avoid that. And and
also, I would say if they're not letting
you see into your their soul, you'll
notice that and you know that about
them. Like this is a guarded person.
This this was ultimately Camala Harris's
issue, right? And this is why she was
probably, you know, correct not to do
Rogan, even though everyone looks back
at that and says like, "No, no, no. This
is this was the big disaster of her
campaign." It's like, I don't know. You
know, she was so guarded in every single
interview that she ever did. She was
always constantly not trying to let you
see who she really was. And if she was
going to try that on Rogan, that would
have that would have been so apparent to
everybody involved. So, you've had a lot
of intense conversations on JRE. Uh,
what do you appreciate most about Joe as
a human being, as a conversation
partner? I can't overstate how how much
I love Joe and how much uh I admire him.
Not as much as Ron Paul. Just let's be
clear, there's like a hierarchy here as
he's he's close, man. They're they're
both like they're both like, you know,
there's like very few that means a lot
coming. There's Ron Paul like Ron Paul
and Joe Rogan I like are those are like
my generals like and I'm a soldier and
those are my those are my guys like if
if Joe Rogan pointed to some guy and
said you got to go fight that guy right
now be like all right I got to go fight
that guy or what you know Ron Paul too I
just think it's both very personally for
me you know like Ron Paul like
introduced me to like a set of ideas
that like changed my life and um and I'm
just enormously grateful for that. Joe
Rogan was like I was a huge Joe Rogan
fan before the Joe Rogan experience.
Like I'm an old school Joe Rogan head. I
used to go on Joe Rogan.net before that
when websites used to end before Jerry
before like whatever it is. I remember I
was a fan of his before he confronted
Carlos Manscia. And the day he
confronted Carlos Mancia, I watched the
video on his website and was like, "Oh
shit, Joe Rogan called him out, dude.
This is the craziest thing ever." And
then and then when I I was a fan that
like when he started the podcast, I
remember going this is going to be big
cuz he's going to be so good at this cuz
he's got so much interesting shit to
say. And um I didn't realize it was
going to be quite what it became, but I
did think like, oh, this is going to be
an awesome thing. And then so there's
like that. So like I always really
admired him and I was always a huge fan
of his. And then he literally not only
did he like change my life, but he
changed like all of my friends lives.
Like it's like a very weird situation.
Like he's like the he's the Santa Claus
of my world. Like he's literally just
and and there was something like I don't
know man. He's just he's just a very
like genuine person and he's really
loves I think he really um deres a lot
of pleasure out of the fact that he gets
to help the people who he sees as like
the good guys like the guys worth
helping. And I just think that's like
such an unbelievable thing. You know, I
had the first time Rogan had me on his
podcast was I believe in 2016 and I had
like I might have had like 5,000
followers or something like that. Like I
was really completely unknown and and
like it was like I did nothing for him.
It was just the fact that he heard me on
Ari's show and he was like, "Oh, I like
what this guy's got to say. I think this
is cool. Like let's talk about it." And
um yeah, I mean he's just like, you
know, like I again he's just been such a
great guy to me. Um and and and at every
little angle like everything, you know,
you open for him, he takes care of you
better than anybody else does. You work
his club, his club pays better than
anybody else does. He you know, like
just everything is always like it it
he's always great to the people who are
around him.
And you know, again, like this is it's
it's just hard to over like you know,
again, I have a wife. I have two little
kids. Like he's put me in a situation
where I can like provide a great life
for them. And like don't get me wrong, I
mean, you know, like I did something
with the opportunity. It's not like he
just gave me, you know, like it's like
he gave me the opportunity and I did
something with it. But still, I mean, he
didn't have to give me that opportunity.
And I I will always I will go to my
grave being enormously grateful for his
friendship and his um his you know the
platform that he's given me and also
just he is like and I try not to abuse
this but there's been like a few points
like over the years where I was like I
really need advice on this and I've gone
and he's been like the absolute best at
literally every single time. I've
followed it a few times. a few times I
didn't follow his advice and I really
regret not following his advice, but he
was the absolute best like guy to be
like, "All right, let's talk about
this." Um, which and and last thing I'll
say is that it was freaking crazy cuz I
he's like, you know, got more shit going
on than anybody else in the world and is
still very interested to take time out
to like discuss some thing that I'm
asking him about, which is a really
really great quality. Yeah. Always takes
a phone call. Yeah, you're right about
the advice. He's uh he's his advice is
spot on and it's um it's often the ones
for me personally uh what's needed is
like he's been through so many fires.
Yeah. That he's really good at like
making you feel like don't fucking worry
about it. Just just like move on. It's
the don't read the comments thing, but
generally Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Just
like fuck it. And there's he has a whole
that whole vibe which kind of
looks effortless but I think when you
look at it seriously especially in
contrast with journalists there's a
fearlessness there 100%. Like that not
giving a fuck. I mean he says it's like
fuck because of fuck you money or any of
that. I I don't think so. I think it's
it's more than that. I mean I'm sure
that's a component of it but there's
people who have that who still don't
have that fearlessness. Most people who
have money, a lot of money are actually
become more scared cuz they like the
comfort of just like normal life cuz
when you're taking risks, you're going
to pay for it. Even if you have money,
not just financially, just like it's
going to it's going to hurt. It's going
to disturb your life. It's going to
create turbulence. Yeah. The guy is
fearless and follows just his genuine
curiosity. It's like an inspiration to
me, friendships aside, just inspiration
of how great of a conversationalist he
is. And
not he legitimately didn't give a fuck
if like he talks to any of the
presidential candidates or not, if he
he'll just talk to friends like just cuz
he wants to. And there's no like
clickbaitiness to it. There's no like
giving a shit above you or like during I
mean during the co stuff, man. I mean,
he was like interviewing Dr. McCulla and
who's the other one? Malone. Dr. Malone
and had Bobby Kennedy. All these people
like at this time when it was like so
and and he's had it with me before too,
like talking about Ukraine and Israel
like at the times when it's really white
hot, you know what I mean? And like
there's this huge penalty on not going
along with the regime's talking points.
And he's like like it's really hard to
overstate it. I mean, there was there
used to be nothing like this. It used to
be that if if CNN and Fox News agreed,
well, then that was it. That was the
line now. And now we got the biggest
show in the country will actually allow
the other perspective on and allow
people to like challenge the regime. I
think it's been historic. I think also
there are shows there are people that
just are constantly conspiracy theorists
which is fine also but I sometimes feel
that those lack
genuiness they kind of put themselves in
a bin where everything like you question
everything to a point where like I don't
know I feel like you're not getting
closer to the truth when you question
everything. There is something that some
people in the conspiracy world do which
is like they they speak about something
with certainty when they're really not
certain about it. And it's like um it's
it's fine to like ask questions and it's
fine to speculate about things, but you
also have to like um you just it's true
in general in life. You got to be really
careful about like presuming your
conclusion and then working backward
from there. And then sometimes when you
have one or like it's just it's a matter
of being sloppy versus not being sloppy.
And like sometimes people like I
remember for a long time back in the day
in the in the 9/11 truth movement there
was this one of the huge smoking guns
that they would point to was that in the
'9s there was this one document. I'm
blanking on the title of it but it was
from PAC the project for a new American
century. And this was the think tank or
one of the think tanks of the
neoconservatives. um like all the big
neoconservatives were involved in PAC
from Dick Cheney to Rumsfeld to Richard
Pearl, David Worms, all the big neocons.
And there was this one document where
they basically they were like, you know,
the their project for the new American
century was how we're going to have
hegemony for another hundred years now
that we won the 20th century. How are we
going to win the 21st century? And they
were like, okay, well, here's what we
want to do. We want to start multiple
wars in the Middle East and we want to
like go like all the plans that they
had. NATO expansion in Europe was a big
part of it, too. And then there was one
line where they said, um, it's going to
be tough to work up popular uh uh
support for these multiple wars we want
to fight in the Middle East short of
another Pearl Harbor style event. And
the 9/11 truthers would point to this
and go, see, clearly they did it. They
did 9/11. They even say in their own
words here that they want another Pearl
Harbor event so they can do this. And
it's like, well, look, that doesn't
actually prove anything. I mean, it's
it's it might just be the case that they
were like, "Oh, we wouldn't get this
without a Pearl." And then when 911
happened, they went, "Hey, we got our
Pearl Harbor style event." And you know,
and and even if you like that story of
911 was an inside job, you know, cuz
it's kind of sexy and exciting and like,
"Oh my god, what a crazy world we're
living in if that's true." Um, and I'm
not even saying it's not true. I'm just
saying if you're not sloppy and you're
scrupulous, you go, "That's not really
evidence. It's it sounds like evidence.
it's evidence e, you know, but it's not
actually a piece of evidence because
that doesn't in any way demonstrate that
they actually were in on the thing. And
there's just a lot of things like that.
There's a lot of things I even see like
because it's a very popular conspiracy
theory online now that um that Israel
did 9/11. And I'm like, uh, I'm open.
You know, what do you got? What's the
evidence? And they'll be like, well, did
you see that Larry Silverstein took out
a huge insurance policy on the World
Trade Center? How did he know? And
you're like, how did he know that the
number one terrorist target in the world
might need a big insurance policy on it?
You realize that the same guys attempted
to knock those towers down in 1993,
right? And so there's just little things
like that where like if you're being
sloppy and you already really want this
conclusion, I see where you could see
these things as as evidence, but if
you're just being a little if you're
critically thinking about them, it's
actually it's not as strong a case as
you think it is. And I I like to again
I'll speculate every now and again on
things, but I like to take on something
where I feel like I can prove this case.
Like I really have enough evidence that
I think I can prove this. I think I can
prove that the neocons didn't invade
Iraq because they were worried about
weapons of mass destruction and they
actually had this agenda for at least a
decade before the the war broke out. You
know, like there's there's strong
tangible evidence for that. It's just
some sometimes the the constant
conspiracy guys, not always, but
sometimes they just get sloppy when it
comes to actually analyzing how strong
the case is. I mean, there's several
psychological effects. I think there's a
certain drug to the dogmatic certainty
that you were mentioning. It, you know,
it really annoys me that there's
something about human
psychology. Uh because I usually when I
say stuff I usually
uh show doubt and show the humility that
I might not have the right answer and I
sometimes look at multiple
perspectives and that's seen as weakness
and lack of intelligence. Often it just
sounds like when I even like listen back
to people that do that kind of thing.
Yeah. That certainty sounds like
intelligence to people. Like if you say
something with a lot of certainty, it
sounds like this this is a smart
motherfucker. And I hate that about
myself and about human psyche that
that's seems to be the case because then
like the the dumb dogmatists are going
to be like the ones that are driving
agenda. It is true. I've noticed that
for a long time though. It's almost like
in a weird way, it's kind of like a
prerequisite for leadership in a way.
you kind of have to be certain about
things. But then there there's a real
problem with that, which is that a lot
of times you're just bullshitting or
you're just or you're or you're not
right. You're not correct to be this
certain about this. It's at least
debatable. And you know, so you always
try and then the thing like I I feel
like at least for me is which I try to
do. I'm sure I fail at at this a ton,
but you try to at least go like you got
to almost you got to work on training
your brain and you have to be conscious
about it. And so you have to go like,
hey, if there's something here that is
confirming my bias that I get that, you
know, you start getting that little
sense of pleasure of like, oh great,
here's another point that proves the
thing I want to be true. Then you have
to like be ten times as you know like uh
you know uh skeptical about this. You
have to really examine this one and be
like okay am I sure that this one you
know cuz sometimes you'll hear people
even throw out things where it's like oh
I know you liked that cuz it was helping
your case but come on think about this.
This doesn't even make sense. It's like,
okay, I want to make this argument and
then everything that would support that
just gets sucked in like a like a force
of gravity or something and you're like,
yeah, but half of these are bad data
points. I mean, like for me, there's
something definitely about my brain that
is attracted to conspiracy theories. So,
I'm very well
aware that that gravitational pull is
there. Well, it's it's if nothing else,
it's a crazy story. It's like a movie.
So, it's like crazy. Every fucking Yeah.
We don't need to work on Epste. I don't
understand. I don't That's one of the
big mysteries of like our modern era is
like how the fuck did this guy get an
island this
pedophile and got like smart smart like
really smart people to like hang out
with him. Yeah. And what the fuck? And
has anybody I mean obviously uh uh Just
Lane, however you say her name, Gain
Maxwell. Okay. She went she went to
jail. It's like has anybody else has
anybody has
anybody anywhere been forced to resign.
I mean like just even like say like I
don't know like at the FBI or something
just for not like catching the thing
sooner like even if you weren't in on
it. It's like no, there's a real problem
with the American system in and it's
that that like and I think this just
went on for too long before like the
American people just wouldn't put up
with it anymore. And this is why trust
in every institution and the corporate
media and the Congress and all of it has
evaporated is that it's like he's just
saying of all the people who sold the
war in Iraq, no one so much as
like got kicked out of polite society,
you know, like I'm not even saying like,
oh, they went to jail for war crimes for
life, but was just like, "Yeah, you
can't we're not looking to you for
advice on the next war. Thanks. Go
home." Like none of that. It's like all
these like crazy things. Nobody goes
down for it. I mean like they freaking
they lied us into war after a war.
They've bankrupted the country. Damn
near destroyed the dollar. They locked
down the country on the basis of
pseudocience. Then then lied through
their teeth about what this vaccine
would do as they were forcing it on
people. And like no one loses their job.
No one even gets in trouble over any of
this. And look, in any in any area of
life, whether a business or a
relationship or whatever, you can't you
cannot screw up that catastrophically
and face no repercussions for it and
think that your business or relationship
isn't going to fail as a result of that.
I think
ultimately there's been a lot of wakeup
calls and I think we're going to build a
better society from it. The like better
institution. I I believe I hope you're
right. with my, you know, more
transparency, more like authenticity. I
think also the Democratic party has
learned the lesson of like you have to
have candidates that do I I don't give a
shit about podcast, but do podcast like
things, meaning reveal themselves as
human beings. I I think it's one of the
best things that happened in this last
uh election. And I'm not saying like I
did think they were great, but I'm not
saying that like any of the Trump
podcasts were perfect or like maybe
there there'd be a better way that they
could be done. But I will say that I
always I used to say this for a while
um like as of you know like the last few
years. But I' I'd be like, so it's like,
so I'm I'm me, you know, and for me to
do what I do, it's kind of expected that
I'll probably like I don't know, I get
like at least like maybe 15 10 to 15
times a year I'll come do a show like
this, like a a long form show on a big
platform where I'm going to, you know,
like my ideas will be poked and prodded
and tested. And there'll be push back
questions and they'll be there.
Sometimes they're more, you know,
adversarial. Sometimes they're more
friendly. But like you're going to And
then yet our standard for who is the
commanderin-chief was like you show up
to these debates that are like 90
minutes long with these really really
stupid questions and you give a
90-second answer to it or blah. And at
least for the first time now, it does
seem like, oh, the standard is kind of
you're going to have to do a long form
show where people you really have to
have, you know, and and that that I
think is long-term a real positive
development, you know, like you you just
kind of know going forward the
Democrats, right, which I think is kind
of what you were saying, right? You
can't run a Camala Harris if she can't
do a long form interview. You got to run
somebody who's able to sit down and
express themselves and have real genuine
thoughts or at least try to convince
people they have real genuine thoughts
at least, you know, and it's that's very
different in a way than, you know, I
look back at some like the most talented
politicians of my lifetime, which I'd
have to say the two were were Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama just like in
the most talented traditional
politicians. Trump's like the
anti-politician, but like they were like
the traditional and just unbelievably
but they never had to do that. It was
just a different time. Bill Clinton had
to walk up and like, you know, be like,
"Oh, it's a beautiful baby I have here."
They go back and then play the sacks and
then have a couple good answers to a
small I'm from a little town called
Hope, you know, like that. That's not
the game anymore. Now the game is like,
can you sit down and actually, you know,
have some ideas in a long form. And I
think that's so much better because it's
so much more revealing of, you know,
kind of like what we were saying before.
You reveal a little bit. It's not 50
hours, but in those in those three
hours, you reveal a little bit of your
soul. Yeah. And I think that process
makes you actually a better person. I I
ultimately think that Barack Obama was a
fascinating human being. And there was a
choice made early on to be more to do
like less interviews, be more behind the
wall, I think. And that that's that's a
disservice because I think it's a skill
to be an authentic person like that you
build. Yeah. Like to to be able to allow
yourself to be yourself. Like it's very
possible that Kla Harris is a
fascinating person like She's just never
gotten to meet her and I don't know if
she has gotten to meet her by, you know,
it's a practice thing to like reveal
yourself is a tricky thing. I think it's
just good for the candidate. I think she
Well, I think she what she did, you
know, I'm a critic. I don't think she's
a good candidate, but what she did is
pretty freaking incredible. meaning like
in that to raise that much money in that
short amount of time. I think it was a
terrible thing for the Democratic party
to do. I think she's a terrible
candidate. But still, with the tools you
got, like use Tik Tok, use whatever.
I'll say the fact that she came as close
as she did to being president is pretty
goddamn insane if you ask me. But yeah,
the dem the Democrats are a mess.
They're a mess like I've never seen a
political party before. But that in
itself is is I think a very good thing.
And what comes from here is there's a
lot of possibilities now. And you know
there's never been like I don't know who
the person
is. I don't see anyone out there that I
could think of that would fill this
role. But there's never been a more ripe
time for someone to Donald Trump the
Democratic party now. You know like
somebody to what Donald Trump did.
People tend to forget this because now
like it's it's also because the
accusation from the Democrats is that,
you know, the the Republican parties are
all a bunch of Trump cultists or
something like that. But like I'm I'm
old enough to remember 2016. And what
actually happened was that Donald Trump
came in and just really resonated with
the voters and the establishment of the
Republican party hated it. They were
openly talking about changing the rules
at the Republican National Convention to
deny him the nomination in 2016. What
they were saying is that they were going
to raise the number of delegates
required so high that nobody could hit
it and then say, "Hey, since nobody hit
it, we select Mitt Romney again and
we're going to run Mitt Romney again."
Like they were openly openly conspiring
to steal the thing from him and
eventually he just had so much support
on the ground that they couldn't do it.
right now, someone could totally do that
to the Democrats. But the thing is, it
would have to be somebody outside of the
three-letter agency control cuz that's
what everyone's rejecting right now. But
if you were to actually sit there and go
like the and even policies I don't
necessarily agree with, but there are a
lot of policies that if it was actually
like a pro- labor workingass party, you
could you could, you know, Bernie
Sanders showed you a little bit of
what's possible. And this was from like
an 80-year-old socialist who didn't
really have the balls to go through with
it at the end of the day, you know, like
if somebody younger and and a little bit
more um more with the current zeitgeist
were able to do that, that could happen.
I mean, I legitimately think that AOC
can develop into that candidate. Uh she
might not be there yet, but I think she
can develop into that. It could be out
there. It could be I don't know. I don't
see AOC being the one to do it, but I I
could be wrong about that. She's got
some qualities unlike almost all the
other ones you could think of. Um I
just, you know, I don't see I I don't
see anyone right now who I think could
be that person. But I never would have
said I mean if you had asked me in 2014
who's going to come take over the
Republican, I never would have guessed
Donald Trump was going to come do what
he did. So it might be the person we're
seeing who we're not even thinking of or
it might just be some unknown. You know,
same with Obama was an unknown. I mean,
obviously he had he
had very powerful people behind his
presidential run. It's not like he was a
true just like grassroots guy, but he
wasn't anyone we would have been
necessarily thinking. I mean, he gave
that big speech at the 2004 DNC, but
that was it. That was the thing he was
known for is he gave one great speech at
the besides that he was a state senator
and then a junior senator. No one's
thinking he was going to be the next
president. He could be like a John
Stewart type character. Of course, I
don't think he would ever I honestly
don't think a comedian will ever run,
but I never thought Trump would ever
run. So, there is there is something
about John Stewart that is
um he's and obviously I disagree with
him on a lot of stuff too, but he is an
authentic person. Um and there's
something about that that gives you a
huge advantage, particularly in our
current political climate. People are so
sick of the phoniness. It's like it's
it's and and it's and and they're right
to be cuz you could only, you know, you
can lie to some of the people some of
the time like this. You can only lie so
much before eventually nobody wants to
hear you in that phony voice telling the
same phony lies anymore. And at least
John Stewart is I will say I think he's
I think John Stewart is telling the
truth the way he sees it. Like I don't
think he's necessarily right about a lot
of things. He is right about a lot of
things, but I think he's wrong about a
lot of other things. But he I just get
the impression that he believes what
he's saying and there's something
powerful about that. Especially when
he's surrounded by people that disagree
with him. He's still willing to say it.
Yeah. That takes a certain kind of
courage.
Yeah. And be funny doing it. But he's
not going to run. No, I don't think so.
This is annoying. No, nobody
like you have to be fucking crazy to
run. That is one of the real problems,
you know? And then like people like
attack Donald Trump for being like a
narcissist and stuff. Yeah, but who the
hell else is going to ever do this?
Yeah. All right. What gives you hope
about this whole thing we got going on?
Uh America and human civilization. Okay.
So this is not mine, but this is a Jean
Ebstein who's like a is a really
brilliant economist um and a great guy.
and he told me this once and I just
always loved it and he so I call it
Ebstein's Ebstein's case not that Eb
different Ebstein Jean Ebstein no
relation I want to be clear on that okay
this is Jean's let's call it Jean's case
for radical optimism and the way he put
it was he goes uh he goes so imagine you
were sitting around in um
1845 and like you're at the height of
you of the slavery and you were like,
"Hey, in 20 years slavery is going to be
abolished across the West." And like if
you told that to someone, they'd be
like, "Dude, slavery has existed for all
of human history. Slavery is look
around. It's not going anywhere. You'd
have to be out of your mind to think
we're 20 years away from abolishing
slavery." And yet we were. I mean, it's
it's just like the greatest thing in the
history of the world. and not and
unfortunately America had to fight a
bloody civil war to get there but many
other countries didn't and they just
walked away from what had been the
status quo forever, you know, and just
stopped doing it. And now look, you can
argue there's slavery by other names and
things like that and like, you know, to
some degree paying an income taxes, some
degree of slavery, but there is not
cattle slavery in the way that there
used to be. And that is like an
incredible advance for humanity. And
then the other example he would give is
he goes uh he was talking about how at
the beginning of the Reagan
administration like in 1981 that the
neocons because when he was trying to
have daunt with Russia the neocons were
in the press being like he just
guaranteed another hundred years of
Soviet dominance you know and if someone
had just been to you like hey listen
calm down in 10 years there won't be a
Soviet Union. This has just been like
what are you like okay nice idea but
you're out of your fucking mind. And yet
that was true too. And so there is even
when you know and you can see some
dynamics even in our politics today
where like you know 3 years ago I was
really concerned about whether they'd
shut the whole thing down. us. I mean,
you know, like when it was during the
COVID times and during times where it
was like everyone I knew was just
getting strikes on all their channels
and if you just even wanted to like talk
about how like there are people being
vaccine injured, you'd like lose your
YouTube channel, get people getting
kicked off Twitter left and right. And I
just saw it and I was like, dude, the
the grasp is just getting tighter and
tighter and tighter. the regime is not
going to allow these alternative voices,
you know, in here and they're just
getting too big and they're going to
shut this whole thing down and I'm going
to have to figure out what I'm going to
do uh after that. And I was totally
wrong. It just the trend totally went in
the other direction and things are now
at a point where it's like I couldn't
even imagine it. I never would have
envisioned Elon Musk was gonna get 44
billion dollars together and buy Twitter
and then he was you know it's like and
so I just think that if you kind of like
zoom out I think that the the regime has
lost their monopoly on
propaganda and this opens up enormous
possibilities for what you know I I
remember so
vividly
2002 and and
2002 now you know 911 happened in late
200 1. We invaded Iraq in 2003, but all
of 2002 was a massive propaganda
campaign just constantly laying down the
blueprints for this war that we knew was
George W. Bush was about to launch. And
it was, you know, they have weapons of
mass destruction. They were in on 9/11.
They're friends with al-Qaeda. They're
going to hand this weapon that they
don't have off to the terrorists they're
not friends with, and then they're going
to nuke Kansas. and and every
right-winger, by the way, this is also,
sorry for rambling a little here, but
this is also one of the reasons why when
when the Jew haters will say things like
they'll be like, "Oh, look, all of the
Jews support Israel or 70% of the Jews
vote this way or the 70% of the Jews
support this." It's like, listen, I
don't like blaming or even the when the
the Palestine haters will say 70% of
Gazins support Hamas or whatever. It's
like, okay, look, I remember a time in
this country, I know I'm going back 20
years, but every right-winger in this
country was completely convinced that we
have to go invade Iraq because he has
weapons of mass destruction. And you're
some type of leftist homo if you don't
agree with that. That was the entire
culture in this country. And it was the
one thing that the New York Times and
Bill O'Reilly and CNN and the Washington
Post all agreed on. They were all on
board selling this war. You could not do
that today. They could not get away with
that today because if they
did, how do you control this entire pro?
You tell me. How do you control Joe
Rogan and Tucker Carlson? You know, how
do you get these guys to go? They're not
going to go along with it. And in fact,
they're almost definitely going to have
people on their show who are just
tearing it apart. And so I just look at
that and I go like, yo, I mean, we're at
a place now where we have this world of
possibilities that that would have
seemed impossible just so recently. And
so just thinking like all of that
rambling stew, whatever all that was,
that leaves me feeling very very hopeful
for the future. Yeah, there's uh a lot
of social and political progress in that
rambling stew over the over the decades
and the centuries. For me, probably some
of the technological progress is really
exciting. Me personally, it just fills
me with hope whenever I see the the
rockets go up to clarify. Not the ones
going into Gaza, the ones going into
outer space. I assume you had to clarify
the Epstein thing, the Epstein
rule. I have to clarify exactly which
rockets, SpaceX and Blue Origin rockets.
So taking humans out to space and uh
yeah for us to be among the stars like
it makes me feel like we're going to
make
it because uh the bleeaker times
throughout human history you think I
mean there's just a sense you're right
in during co there's a sense of like for
many reasons maybe just a simple
psychological human reason it felt like
bleak like fuck I don't think we as a
civilization are if we can't handle this
pandemic from a policy perspective, from
a human perspective, economic
perspective, like this is like pandemic
light, there's going to be other bigger
troubles coming our way. Yeah. And then
now you have this kind of again the the
rockets are going up. It's like we, you
know, first of all, we'll colonize space
and other planets and we like we're in
inventive motherfuckers. We'll figure it
out. Yeah. And then certainly you know
like for me um just personally because
this is like really touched my life but
um you know like the the innovations in
medical technology are just stunts and
you know my my uh son um had a
congenital heart defect and open heart
surgery when he was 3 days old and um I
mean this is like something that 20
years ago I would have lost my child you
know and he's fine just absolutely fine
cuz it's just amazing. amazing what
these surgeons and cardiologists and,
you know, neonatlogists and all of them
what they do now is like goddamn magic.
as there was always something about that
that would it was almost like that
inoculated me against ever having a
sense of like well I wish it was a
previous time cuz like now sorry in a
previous time I lose my kid so I don't
care whatever other challenges there are
out here like I'll take that tradeoff
where this baby survives and gets a shot
at having a life and there is a lot of
that stuff is is just kind of easy to
take for granted and it's like you know
when it touches your life it's you don't
take it for granted as But it's just
like, no, it really is. It is. There are
miracles going on all over the place now
that like everybody in human history did
not have access to. All right, brother.
It's great to finally meet a friend and
have a conversation. Yeah, I really
enjoyed this and uh I can't wait to talk
to you again, brother. Absolutely.
Thanks for having me. Thanks for
listening to this conversation with Dave
Smith. To support this podcast, please
check out our sponsors in the
description. And now, let me leave you
with some words from Ron Paul. Real
patriotism is a willingness to challenge
the government when it's wrong. Thank
you for listening and hope to see you
next time.