Speaker 1: Hello, Welcome back to the No Way Jose podcast. You
Speaker 1: are watching the Weekly Wolfson, our weekly talk with Matt Wolfson.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit of I call him an expert
Speaker 1: in ethno politics.
Speaker 2: I enjoy our little talks.
Speaker 1: Today we'll be talking about what I have coined for
Speaker 1: this episode, the dehumanization of Semites. Feel like I'm being
Speaker 1: a little slick there kind of goes both ways, enabling
Speaker 1: the dehumanization of the victimizers and then also enabling the
Speaker 1: dehumanization of the victims. And we'll go into kind of
Speaker 1: the academic side of this and how this is all
Speaker 1: played out over time, and kind of what the reality
Speaker 1: on the ground is more looking like, all that and more.
Speaker 1: If you like this show, be sure to hit that
Speaker 1: subscribe button hit that bell for notifications. That way you
Speaker 1: can see when we're dropping new videos when I'm going
Speaker 1: live as well. This is a paywalld show, by the way,
Speaker 1: gets dropped a few days later. So if you do
Speaker 1: want to support the show, QR code top left end corner.
Speaker 1: And if you do want to keep track, every every
Speaker 1: week we usually check in and want to whatever piece
Speaker 1: Matt has written in the past week or so.
Speaker 2: Uh And if you do want.
Speaker 1: To keep track of the work he's dropping. You want
Speaker 1: to fall along in this episode, you can go to
Speaker 1: OPO O p p O dash hyphen research dot com
Speaker 1: on Twitter. He's at OPO Underscore Research. This is Matt Wilson,
Speaker 1: will see you in the show.
Speaker 3: Oh Way, Jose.
Speaker 4: The following footage proves beyond any doubt that the tanks
Speaker 4: intentionally set the house on fire. It proves that the
Speaker 4: Branch Davidians were murdered. You can see that this tank
Speaker 4: has a gas jet on the front that shoots fire.
Speaker 4: You can also see the fire quite plainly. The tank
Speaker 4: goes into the house twice, and each time as it
Speaker 4: backs out, the fire at the gas jets is plainly visible.
Speaker 4: We must all do more to recognize and look for
Speaker 4: the early warning signals that deeply troubled young people send.
Speaker 1: Hello Matt, welcome back to the show. Pleasure to have
Speaker 1: you here today. The piece we're going to be covering
Speaker 1: is your most recent and Alma Yadin colonization in print,
Speaker 1: how Western liberal journalists distort Lebanon and Palestine. Looking forward
Speaker 1: to covering this topic. This has been a kind of
Speaker 1: a common theme in my coverage, particularly a foreign policy
Speaker 1: These days, the constant ratcheting effect of the Israel of
Speaker 1: Israel and its cohorts essentially. You know, sometimes they may
Speaker 1: may try to give the impression that they're dialing back somewhere,
Speaker 1: but they're going to up it somewhere else, and sometimes
Speaker 1: that plays out when the world of journalism, that's what
Speaker 1: enables them to do such a thing. You've had a
Speaker 1: little bit of an inside view of this coming from
Speaker 1: some of the Zionist media networks. You were, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of a tailing around, so you have a little
Speaker 1: bit of an inside scoop here. So I'm looking forward
Speaker 1: to going over all this with you. So, Matt, what
Speaker 1: kind of got your head of turning to cover this recently,
Speaker 1: because I mean that I do think it's a pretty
Speaker 1: oppression theme to touch on in these in these current days.
Speaker 3: Thanks SoSE, it's great to be him to be here.
Speaker 3: As always, it's great to see you. I what really
Speaker 3: got me was reading a piece that the article actually
Speaker 3: opens with by a guy named Charles Glass in a
Speaker 3: publication called The London Review of Books, which is a
Speaker 3: kind of probably the most left wing of the mainstream
Speaker 3: publications in Britain. It's an intellectual journalistic publication, and Glass
Speaker 3: has been a correspondent for fifty years. He's British American.
Speaker 3: He was for a period of time chief foreign correspondent
Speaker 3: for the Middle East for ABC News. This was in
Speaker 3: the eighties and nineties when it was you know, actually
Speaker 3: you know, the big three networks were really the big
Speaker 3: three ABC, CBS and NBC. And so, you know, he's
Speaker 3: a veteran, and he he writes for the l occasionally.
Speaker 3: And I saw that he had this piece Beroot then
Speaker 3: and now, and I thought, well, this is going to
Speaker 3: be very interesting. It's a veteran talking about his experiences,
Speaker 3: putting in a perspective. And Glass is in beir Root
Speaker 3: right now. He's not writing full time. He's teaching at
Speaker 3: the American University there. And I started reading this, and
Speaker 3: I kept reading this, and I kept reading this, and
Speaker 3: by the end I was just shocked because he didn't
Speaker 3: mention a single Lebanese. I mean, this is a veteran correspondent.
Speaker 3: This is somebody who shaped the news for a full
Speaker 3: decade of one of the major you know, American informational channels.
Speaker 3: He before that was writing for Time. I mean, after that,
Speaker 3: he's written a number of really well regarded books. He
Speaker 3: has decent friends on sort of what used to be
Speaker 3: the right wing. I mean PJ. O'Rourke wrote an introduction
Speaker 3: to one of his books. I mean, you know, he
Speaker 3: he knows people, he's been an influential guy. And he
Speaker 3: didn't mention a single Lebanese by name. He talked a
Speaker 3: lot about, you know, drinking in Beirut. He talked a
Speaker 3: lot about the various correspondents he's known over the years.
Speaker 3: He talked a lot about how the Lebanese, in various senses,
Speaker 3: the Christians and the Muslims engaged in savagery or else
Speaker 3: we're victims who were starving. But I mean, none of
Speaker 3: them except Barman at one of the hotels, made it
Speaker 3: into the piece by name, and that was pretty surprising
Speaker 3: to me. And on one hand, I mean this piece,
Speaker 3: he wasn't reporting on the war. He was reporting on
Speaker 3: his experiences for fifty years in Beru as a correspondent
Speaker 3: and now someone who lives there. But what struck me
Speaker 3: so much about it it is at a kind of
Speaker 3: higher register he was articulating, and by that I mean
Speaker 3: more explicitly because he was writing casually. He was articulating
Speaker 3: a lot of the assumptions that I see when I
Speaker 3: read the New York Times, the New Yorker, and the
Speaker 3: Washington Post, you know, and listen to CNND to the
Speaker 3: extent I do, and those assumptions are very much that.
Speaker 3: You know, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Speaker 3: you know, all of these places are essentially, though they
Speaker 3: don't use this word, hell holes where a bunch of
Speaker 3: different groups are fighting each other, you know, in a couple,
Speaker 3: you know, when the Israel is generally doing not very
Speaker 3: smart things. But overall, no effort is made in these
Speaker 3: pieces to give what I take to be a clear
Speaker 3: read of the situation, which is that for forty years
Speaker 3: Israel has been primarily responsible and now with players like
Speaker 3: the UAE and the United States for destabilizing these places,
Speaker 3: and that a lot of the resistance that's sprung up,
Speaker 3: you know, has blahamas, you know, various groups in the
Speaker 3: Civil Wars and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
Speaker 3: Sudan have done this in response. Now, you don't have
Speaker 3: to agree with these groups. I mean, there are Quakers
Speaker 3: who are completely against Israel, who think violence is wrong
Speaker 3: in every circumstance. I have every respect for them, but
Speaker 3: you do need to be able to make a judgment,
Speaker 3: and most American readers aren't able to do that simply
Speaker 3: because of the distortions and these pieces. And the distortion
Speaker 3: isn't just that they don't talk about, you know, the
Speaker 3: obvious and I think pretty much factually obvious bad actor here,
Speaker 3: which is Israel and Israel's networks in the West, and
Speaker 3: Israel's allies like the UAE. It's also that they make
Speaker 3: really no attempt to morally or factually distinguish between groups.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's the Christian militias in Lebanon and the
Speaker 3: and the Schiai militias and Lebanon, and there's the Sunnis
Speaker 3: in Palestine, and then there's Amas and Fatah, and you know,
Speaker 3: they're all just there and it's this hell hole and
Speaker 3: it's savagery, and it's one group of savages against the other.
Speaker 3: And you know, to me, that's very troubling because it's not,
Speaker 3: for lack of a better wording, afterpeological, nobody in America
Speaker 3: is getting to hear the actual perspectives unmediated of these
Speaker 3: different groups. On the ground. It just looks like a
Speaker 3: hell hole with no context and no actual testimonies in
Speaker 3: any real, non highly curated way that matches this basic view. Well,
Speaker 3: there's disorder, and it's terrible and their savagery, you know.
Speaker 3: And what it alides is the fact that the United
Speaker 3: States is behind a lot of this via Israel. And
Speaker 3: one of the reasons it allies it is that most
Speaker 3: of the networks that these people work for and have
Speaker 3: for eighty years. I mean Glass started in the seventies,
Speaker 3: but I mean he was one of a succession of
Speaker 3: journalists who've done this kind of thing since at least
Speaker 3: the forties. One of the reasons they don't do this
Speaker 3: is because all of their bosses, all of their editors,
Speaker 3: all of the people their editors talk to in government
Speaker 3: and have dinner with, all of them are in some
Speaker 3: ways committed to American you know, a more beneficent version
Speaker 3: via you know, USAID or a more hardline version via bombing,
Speaker 3: but either way, they're committed to American empire. And in
Speaker 3: the last forty years, a lot of those editors are Zionists,
Speaker 3: so they're very very A lot of those editors and
Speaker 3: politicians those editors talk to, and owners I mean not
Speaker 3: just Larry Ellison, a lot of people for a long
Speaker 3: time are Zionists, you know, and so there's a reason
Speaker 3: we're not getting the reality on the ground, because these
Speaker 3: correspondents are shaping, knowingly or not their reports in a
Speaker 3: way that will be palatable to their editors and get published.
Speaker 3: You know. The other reason that I reading this piece
Speaker 3: and then sort of connecting it to what I was reading,
Speaker 3: really motivated me to write this piece is that I
Speaker 3: have some, you know, as you said, firsthand experience with this.
Speaker 3: You know, I lived for almost a decade in New
Speaker 3: York before twenty twenty one. I lived there for eight years,
Speaker 3: and I worked with Jewish Zionists, but I also knew
Speaker 3: a lot of people sort of separately from that, just
Speaker 3: as someone who went to different events and met people,
Speaker 3: and you know, it was a writer in my own
Speaker 3: name for a period. You know, I knew a lot
Speaker 3: of journalists. I knew a lot of people who worked
Speaker 3: for the New Yorker and the Economists and the New
Speaker 3: York Times, some of them fairly well. And you know,
Speaker 3: you talk about your time in the military sometimes and
Speaker 3: you know, watching certain people play to the higher ups
Speaker 3: and choosing not to do that, And in a way
Speaker 3: I had a similar experience by the end of my
Speaker 3: time in New York, I realized that the sacrifices these
Speaker 3: people were making about being truthful or in my view,
Speaker 3: truthful about what was going on were far too great
Speaker 3: for me to want to follow their lead. I mean,
Speaker 3: many of the people I knew were slightly older or
Speaker 3: older than me, liked me, a lot would to help me,
Speaker 3: and you know, to their credit in some cases we're
Speaker 3: trying to but the limits they put on themselves to
Speaker 3: appeal to the people who were in power, the editors,
Speaker 3: the owners of these publications, the funders were just not
Speaker 3: constraints I was willing to live under. And so when
Speaker 3: I was connecting all of this, I was also thinking
Speaker 3: of individual people and thinking of examples from my own
Speaker 3: life that i'd sort of seen then and that it
Speaker 3: made more sense to me after that. A lot of
Speaker 3: people who I initially thought were truly objective journalists were
Speaker 3: not objective journalists. They were shaping stories in a way
Speaker 3: that would maximally help their careers, which again is dependent
Speaker 3: on the editors, the funders of the magazines and newspapers,
Speaker 3: and the sources and government that those people talk to
Speaker 3: and have dinner with. So this was sort of a
Speaker 3: fun piece for me, and that it was kind of
Speaker 3: personal to sort of delve into a lot of the
Speaker 3: distortions were seeing every day right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, One thing I did find it interesting is kind
Speaker 1: of you lay out in this piece kind of the
Speaker 1: the academic history of all this, and you seem to
Speaker 1: frame it almost as the sentiments around this topic when
Speaker 1: it comes to how people treat the Lebanese, the Palestinians
Speaker 1: in that area is it's almost a I guess one
Speaker 1: could say, almost like a centrism of sorts. And in
Speaker 1: the sense when you hear establishment types say they're a centrist,
Speaker 1: it just means, you know, kind of the in between state,
Speaker 1: you know, essentially deferring to the status glow. We call
Speaker 1: it balance, but really all that means is it's somewhere
Speaker 1: smack dab in the middle of the overton window, and
Speaker 1: you know the window has usually been shifted one way
Speaker 1: or the other. So if if you don't mind, I
Speaker 1: just kind of like to get your thoughts on where
Speaker 1: that kind of originated from. That that this sentimentality, this
Speaker 1: deferring with this almost faux faue appeal to objectivity, as
Speaker 1: if this is like if you're one saying things along
Speaker 1: the lines of, like, I don't know, maybe.
Speaker 2: Let's have a little bit more of a.
Speaker 1: Instead of saying HESBLA is filthy terrorists, perhaps we could
Speaker 1: look at it in a more constructive way.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it's no, that's the extreme position. Uh, these are
Speaker 1: filthy terrorists. So I don't know where where do you
Speaker 1: think this? Uh, this this came from? I mean, is
Speaker 1: this just a kind of a moving of the guard
Speaker 1: into certain areas and media or is this a I mean,
Speaker 1: there might even be a larger, larger, you know, discussion
Speaker 1: to be had because this kind of is a not
Speaker 1: specifically the Zionist thing, but this a general establishment deferment
Speaker 1: is just kind of common in a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of places, especially jobs that are infiltrated by the
Speaker 1: establishment to some degree or an other.
Speaker 2: So, like you mentioned me.
Speaker 1: Being military saying that this is kind of somewhat you know,
Speaker 1: when you're with people. I mean, yeah, some people may
Speaker 1: question it, but generally speaking, people kind of fall into
Speaker 1: the status qui, which I mean, that's what a status
Speaker 1: quo is.
Speaker 2: So that makes sense.
Speaker 1: But I guess you would think you would almost want
Speaker 1: to ask for something more. I mean, maybe it's more
Speaker 1: significant of a point to be made when we were
Speaker 1: speaking of journalism, when this is you know, essentially held
Speaker 1: a high as the profession of truth sayers speaking truth
Speaker 1: to power. Yet if anything, they're probably some of the
Speaker 1: worst culprits when it comes to deferring to the establishment.
Speaker 3: Well that's it. I mean, first of all, I wish
Speaker 3: I got I hope everybody reads my pieces like you
Speaker 3: read my pieces. It would be too much to ask
Speaker 3: because you right there, to really hone in on the
Speaker 3: essence of what I'm saying, which is journalists who act objective,
Speaker 3: who work for the major publications, are professionally and socially
Speaker 3: connected to empire. I mean they go to the same meals,
Speaker 3: they use as sources. You know, they are owned by
Speaker 3: the same people who know and depend on all of
Speaker 3: the people in Washington, d c. And this has been
Speaker 3: the case since you know, nineteen forty five, at least
Speaker 3: actually the late thirties, and I mean a lot of
Speaker 3: journalists as Washington became more central and World War two
Speaker 3: and the Cold War moved to Washington. They you know,
Speaker 3: the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 3: the Washington Post, and they came from the la times.
Speaker 3: They came from different places. I mean, the Chicago Tribune
Speaker 3: at the time was very isolationist, but all of their
Speaker 3: writers and editors were very deferential to the CIA, to
Speaker 3: Alan and John Foster Dolls, the Secretary of State, to Eisenhower,
Speaker 3: to Kennedy, not reporting everything that they knew about stuff
Speaker 3: like the Bay of Pigs, not supporting everything they knew
Speaker 3: about our involvements abroad in different ways. And they were
Speaker 3: doing this because, you know, they'd have off the record
Speaker 3: conversations with people, and those people would say, well, we're
Speaker 3: telling you this, but if you tell this to the public,
Speaker 3: you will hurt our national security and give the communists
Speaker 3: more grist, etc. And so and then more and more.
Speaker 3: They were doing this because the people who own them,
Speaker 3: you know, were originally sort of wasps who were well connected,
Speaker 3: you know, Northeastern Protestants who were well connected, and then
Speaker 3: Zionists who are well connected, you know, And so if
Speaker 3: they would have reported on anything, and some of them tried,
Speaker 3: you know, they would be fired or backbenched or or
Speaker 3: you know, their stories would be relegated to the back pages.
Speaker 3: They wouldn't have you know, advancement. I mean, during the
Speaker 3: Iraq war. Somebody who's who was in the lead up,
Speaker 3: somebody who's writing very critical pieces for the New York Times,
Speaker 3: which is owned by the Salzburgers, who were formerly non
Speaker 3: Zionist and now are much more Zionist. But somebody who
Speaker 3: was writing very critical pieces. He was essentially backbenched. I
Speaker 3: mean all of his pieces saying you know, they might
Speaker 3: not have WMD were put on the back pages. And
Speaker 3: he later said, and I thought this was a stunning comment.
Speaker 3: It's like any corporate culture. You know, what you're expected
Speaker 3: to write and not to write. They don't even need
Speaker 3: to have to tell you. And I was writing what
Speaker 3: they didn't want me to write. And that's been the
Speaker 3: case for a long time. And what they don't want
Speaker 3: you to write is anything that goes against what's essentially
Speaker 3: a colonialist angle on things. And by colonialist angle, I
Speaker 3: mean since the British Empire in the eighteenth century, you know,
Speaker 3: and their major newspapers were calling Americans who wanted to revolt.
Speaker 3: I mean they would say, where some of the earth
Speaker 3: were lower than low, we're not the same breed as
Speaker 3: the Englishman. Anybody who opposes what the empire wants, what
Speaker 3: concentrated capital and administration in the military once is deemed
Speaker 3: by the press and by politicians some version of savages.
Speaker 3: I mean, whether they're the people storming the capital, some
Speaker 3: of them on January sixth, which I reported on a
Speaker 3: year ago, and a lot of the language that they
Speaker 3: use about the major establishment newspapers use about those people
Speaker 3: is similar in type to what they use about people
Speaker 3: in Lebanon, you know, and in Palestine. There's this notion
Speaker 3: of well, either their savagery is completely First of all,
Speaker 3: they're savage, they're out of control, and they're irrational. And
Speaker 3: even if they're not irrational, and they have some right
Speaker 3: to be angry because of what they've done, they're so
Speaker 3: angry that if we let them do anything, they will
Speaker 3: kill us because their anger has turned them into barbarians. Well,
Speaker 3: I mean, if you look at the stuff we're doing,
Speaker 3: or rather Israel is doing. I mean, I won't give
Speaker 3: examples because I think your readers are well aware and
Speaker 3: they can your listeners and they can read any of
Speaker 3: my things, but on it. But they're doing they are
Speaker 3: doing barbarism at the hands of modern technology that outstrips,
Speaker 3: in my view, anything we're so. On the other end,
Speaker 3: I mean, so that's first of all. But secondly, if
Speaker 3: all you're doing is saying, oh, these other people are savages,
Speaker 3: then you're not actually explaining what's going on. I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't think. I mean there may be listeners or
Speaker 3: viewers or readers who disagree with my read of hesblon Hamas,
Speaker 3: which is essentially that they're defending I mean, you can
Speaker 3: agree or disagree with them, but they're defending sovereignty. I mean,
Speaker 3: they're defending the sovereignty of Lebanon and Palestine because they're leaders,
Speaker 3: the alternative leaders of the Lebanese government. You know, the
Speaker 3: Palestinian authority has been bought off by Israel and Washington
Speaker 3: operators in many cases very obviously so. And a lot
Speaker 3: of honest journalists, I mean leilahtomb who used to work
Speaker 3: for Newsweek in dow Jones and now is in Lebanon.
Speaker 3: She's Lebanese. Know they'll talk about this very very clearly,
Speaker 3: and they'll give you the facts. But you don't have
Speaker 3: to agree with what Hesblone Commas are doing. And some Lebanese,
Speaker 3: you know, have mixed feelings. But what most Lebanese do
Speaker 3: think that I read and I think many Lebanese think
Speaker 3: this is that they're in Palestinians. Is that whether you
Speaker 3: agree with specific actions or not, these people are filling
Speaker 3: a vacuum where nobody is actually standing up for the
Speaker 3: Lebanese people. Because in the Palestinian people, because of what
Speaker 3: Israel is doing and what Washington is doing, and whether
Speaker 3: or not you agree with what they're doing, Americans need
Speaker 3: to have that perspective in front of us to make
Speaker 3: an honest assessment. I mean, if somebody says, at the
Speaker 3: end of all this, oh, these are terrorists, gum, I'm
Speaker 3: going to disagree with them, but at least they saw
Speaker 3: the full story. We're not getting the full story, you know.
Speaker 3: And it's because these networks are committed to the basic
Speaker 3: view of empire, which, as you say, I mean the
Speaker 3: extreme people you know on the freepest press or CBS. Now,
Speaker 3: these are savage terrorists. The moderate people in the New
Speaker 3: York Times, in the New Yorker, well, hurt people, hurt people.
Speaker 3: In the great phrase, they do savage things because they
Speaker 3: were acted savagely upon. But in the end they are savages,
Speaker 3: you know, when in reality, I mean, whatever you think
Speaker 3: of Yah Sineoar or Nazraala, the former heads before they
Speaker 3: were killed by Israel of Hamas and Hesbla. They were
Speaker 3: very rational. I mean, the things they were doing were rational.
Speaker 3: Most Palestinians, I mean David Remnick, the Jewish Zionist editor
Speaker 3: of The New Yorker, who I talk about in the
Speaker 3: piece he went to interview Palestinians, and the Palestinians he
Speaker 3: talked to in Washington d C I mean former Palestinian
Speaker 3: authority advisors. You know, the Palatine authority was heavily you know,
Speaker 3: connected to Israel. They all said what Remnick thought, which
Speaker 3: you know, Yaha Sinwaar is a Barbarian, He's a savage.
Speaker 3: He exposed his people to these bombings. He should never
Speaker 3: have done this. He doesn't care about them. Why would
Speaker 3: you attack Israel? Noah was knowing what was coming. But
Speaker 3: even Remnick was forced to admit in the peace and
Speaker 3: then he sort of offset it by saying, basically, while
Speaker 3: these people are really angry, so you don't have to
Speaker 3: listen to what they say. But even Remnick admitted in
Speaker 3: the piece, most Palestinians I talked to, whether they like
Speaker 3: cinemoare or not, thought that the October seventh attacks put
Speaker 3: the Palestinian cause back on the table and that they
Speaker 3: were worth it. Now, that's the kind of perspective Americans
Speaker 3: aren't hearing what we're hearing from our government, whether it's
Speaker 3: you know, the Democrats or the Republicans, whether it's Chuck
Speaker 3: Schumer and Alyssa Slopkin or Pete Hegzeth and Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: You're hearing terrorists, terrorists, barbarian, lack of tolerance, savage religious fundamentalist,
Speaker 3: you know. And that is a failure of establishment media.
Speaker 3: And it's a failure of establishment media that's been going
Speaker 3: on for eighty years. I mean, I'm writing this last
Speaker 3: thing I'll say, but I'm writing another piece right now
Speaker 3: about the use of terrorism and the misuse of the word.
Speaker 3: And I draw heavily on what we did in El
Speaker 3: Salvador in the nineteen eighties and the logic there was
Speaker 3: we supported a right wing government to combat communism, and
Speaker 3: you know, in nineteen eighty five, and whether or not
Speaker 3: there was actually communism there and how much it was
Speaker 3: there and how much of it was left wing is
Speaker 3: per usual a highly debated point. I mean, most people
Speaker 3: on the ground don't think there was. The threat was
Speaker 3: what we thought it was, and that even if it
Speaker 3: was we should have acted on it. But that was
Speaker 3: the logic from Washington. A bunch of people were there,
Speaker 3: are a bunch of American advisors, We trained their military,
Speaker 3: We backed the right wing government. That right wing government
Speaker 3: to keep control was killing up to eight thousand Salvadorans
Speaker 3: per year. I mean, one massacre of seven hundred and
Speaker 3: eighty seven people in a small village in nineteen eighty one,
Speaker 3: killed a majority women and children. The children, the majority
Speaker 3: were under the age of thirteen. But all you heard
Speaker 3: in America in any serious way from Washington was, oh,
Speaker 3: these Marxist groups killed five people, including Americans. Well, yeah,
Speaker 3: and that's a terrible thing. But why did they do that?
Speaker 3: What's the context? And then what you got from publications
Speaker 3: like the New York Times that was reporting on this
Speaker 3: was well, it's a terrible thing. Hurt people, hurt people.
Speaker 5: You know, you weren't getting absolutely, even from anti people
Speaker 5: who were against our intervention, even from people who were
Speaker 5: against our intervention in Vietnam before that. You weren't getting
Speaker 5: dead on criticisms of what America.
Speaker 3: Was doing and an explanation of the resistance. You were
Speaker 3: getting well, we've done bad and they did bad. There's
Speaker 3: both sides to every story, and in a number of
Speaker 3: these situations that just wasn't accurate, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: One example of kind of what you're talking about how
Speaker 1: this pervades the you know, the mainstream media, that I
Speaker 1: thought was a great example you use the example of
Speaker 1: Ismael Ibrahim was work for the New Yorker and a fun,
Speaker 1: little little little thing you mentioned in your article about
Speaker 1: the New Yorker that I just was kind of flabbergasted
Speaker 1: about it. Apparently in a recent article of THEIRS, they
Speaker 1: mentioned modern terrorism, which I'm assuming there's some sort of
Speaker 1: qualifier to the modern there or something to make this
Speaker 1: make sense that they're saying this literally started with the
Speaker 1: Palestinians in the nineteen seventies, with some sort of alliance
Speaker 1: with the Western Marxists, where I think me and you
Speaker 1: both know pretty goddamn well that if you really wanted
Speaker 1: to pick a substantive point to begin, I know, the
Speaker 1: early versions of modern terrorism, you'd probably pick the Zionists in.
Speaker 2: The old nineteen forties.
Speaker 1: There's quite a few examples of what resembles very much
Speaker 1: what we think of when we think of modern terrorism.
Speaker 1: In the creation of the State of Israel, in just
Speaker 1: about any way you can think of, and in some
Speaker 1: of the worst ways you can possibly think of. So
Speaker 1: it's a it really is just like kind of gobsmacking
Speaker 1: to season see such a crazy example of bias. But anyways,
Speaker 1: Ismael Abrahem one of the few few, you know, actual
Speaker 1: Semitic people over at the New Yorker and tried to
Speaker 1: bring his own, you know a little bit more. I
Speaker 1: guess you could say nuanced or I'd say maybe even
Speaker 1: ironically actually the objective take at some points with how
Speaker 1: Hamas seats itself over there. But anyways, just if you could,
Speaker 1: I guess, fill in a little bit of blanks. Let
Speaker 1: us know, out Ismail Ibrahim, any other thoughts you have
Speaker 1: on all this that I may have sparked up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, what stunned you again? You told me and
Speaker 3: went right out of my mind.
Speaker 1: Oh the modern that how in the New Yorkers who
Speaker 1: is mail worked for the modern terrorism?
Speaker 2: The thing that they blamed on Palesidians.
Speaker 3: This article that I that I that I cited was
Speaker 3: great because it was the perfect The title of the
Speaker 3: article was how modern Terrorism Began, and it was about
Speaker 3: the Marxist and the Palestinians and the conclusion of the
Speaker 3: writer was, well, things were so bad in Palestine that
Speaker 3: these Palestinian terrorists didn't feel that they could be silent
Speaker 3: any longer. So if you're a reader of The New Yorker,
Speaker 3: I mean, if you're I mean and Ismail Ibrahim basically
Speaker 3: says that upper middle class people read The New Yorker
Speaker 3: while they're sitting in the bathroom, you know. And that's
Speaker 3: I think a little bit of the stretch. But I
Speaker 3: think most people who read The New Yorker, many people
Speaker 3: are often sort of moderately brual Clinton Obama voters, kind
Speaker 3: of people who work at a major law firm as
Speaker 3: an associate or something. I mean that's kind of their client.
Speaker 3: Tele urban makes a good income, thinks of yourself as sophisticated,
Speaker 3: or wants to by reading this thing. And if he
Speaker 3: likes to think of oneself as broad minded, you know,
Speaker 3: And if you're reading this and you're one of these people,
Speaker 3: well they did have a reason for doing this, these Palestinians.
Speaker 3: That makes sense, but in the end it was terrorism,
Speaker 3: and terrorism started with them. So you can delude yourself
Speaker 3: based on the article that you're being broad minded. You're
Speaker 3: seeing both sides when in actuality, terrorism is being reconfigured,
Speaker 3: as you say, to have begun in the seventies, and
Speaker 3: it's being reconfigured at a magazine that it's edited by
Speaker 3: a liberal Jewish scientist, David Remnick. You know that's owned
Speaker 3: by the new House family of Conde Nast, which is Zionist.
Speaker 3: You know that has many many Jewish Zionists on their
Speaker 3: staff and his writers, and so there is very much
Speaker 3: of a kind of ethos over there where you can
Speaker 3: criticize Israel, but the critique should come from a Jewish person,
Speaker 3: from a person who doesn't sympathize with Hamas, from a
Speaker 3: Muslim person who's talking about how peace is good and
Speaker 3: violence on all sides are bad. And look, that's a
Speaker 3: view you can take. It's a very liberal view. But
Speaker 3: they don't even put in representatives or comments from the
Speaker 3: other group, which is the majority of Palistinians who think
Speaker 3: that a mass was justified. And when Ismael Ibrahim, who
Speaker 3: was the one Arab on staff, he's Egyptian, tried to
Speaker 3: he was a fact checker, he would try to put
Speaker 3: in suggestions like, well, don't call them mos terrorists, call
Speaker 3: them militants, because most Palestinians see them as militants. Well,
Speaker 3: when you talk about Israel's independence in nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 3: please add that most Palestinians see this through the lens
Speaker 3: of dispossession and genocide. Remnic wouldn't do that. And if
Speaker 3: you look in establishment media, Remnic, who is one of
Speaker 3: the most powerful editors in America, is seen by everyone. Oh,
Speaker 3: he's a liberal guy, he's a kind guy. Well, sure,
Speaker 3: but he's not. His very act of seeming tolerant of
Speaker 3: abhorring violence on all sides isn't factual. It's not taking
Speaker 3: into account the points of views of a lot of
Speaker 3: the people he's writing about, and it's obscuring those points
Speaker 3: of views from the public. And it's obscuring logical causes
Speaker 3: and effects, which is that what the Palestinians have done,
Speaker 3: what Hamas has done, is a direct response to what
Speaker 3: Israel has done, particularly since nineteen ninety three. I mean,
Speaker 3: the Oslo Accords turned into an excuse for Israel, for
Speaker 3: liberal Zionists Ehud Barack, Shimon Perez to quietly, you know,
Speaker 3: buy trifurgate the Palestinian territories, you know, to tighten their
Speaker 3: grip on Palestinians, to buy off the Palestinian authority. I
Speaker 3: mean a lot of people have written about this. Raschi
Speaker 3: Khaldi has written about this. Norman Finkelstein has written about this.
Speaker 3: You will not see it in the New Yorker. You
Speaker 3: will not see it in the New York Times, and
Speaker 3: in those rare places, you know, slightly more intellectual publications
Speaker 3: like the New York Review of Books. When you do
Speaker 3: see it, even a hint of it, it comes from
Speaker 3: Jewish writers. So Palestinians and Arabs and Muslim voices are
Speaker 3: essentially being deplatformed, and nobody's talking about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do think one thing's worth mentioning. It comes
Speaker 1: to the Hama side of all of this, And you know,
Speaker 1: the question of whether it's justified. And obviously I'm an
Speaker 1: anaco capitalist, I'm a libertarian, all these different things. I
Speaker 1: don't find this justified any any of it. But if
Speaker 1: you look at it from a frame of you know countries,
Speaker 1: and you know these rules they construct among warfare, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know, if you look at October seventh itself,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at how Israel is structured,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a it's funny. Pallanteer recently put out
Speaker 1: a thing wanting you know, advocating for you know, you know,
Speaker 1: civil or everyone doing some sort of military service short
Speaker 1: period of time. Well that is the case in Israel.
Speaker 1: If you live in Israel, that is something you have
Speaker 1: to do. You have to I don't know exactly how long.
Speaker 1: I think it's like a couple of years or something.
Speaker 1: You have to do a military service. And even then
Speaker 1: I think you're like in the reserves after that or something.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a war nation. So you got
Speaker 1: to count and take that into account, like obviously any
Speaker 1: you know, children, any any non combatants.
Speaker 2: That's all wrong.
Speaker 1: And I'm not even saying it's necessarily right of the
Speaker 1: ones who were combatants, but from the frame of nations,
Speaker 1: and especially one that's a that is, what's the word
Speaker 1: we're gonna colonize and what's the word of the occupied
Speaker 1: for an occupied nation? That even complicates it even further.
Speaker 1: So it's it's a little bit murky. It's not as simple,
Speaker 1: I mean. And even on top of that, what I mean,
Speaker 1: you may know the figure better off top of your
Speaker 1: head than I do, but it's an insane amount of
Speaker 1: these people are dual citizens, and they they're not even
Speaker 1: like they don't. They don't even like from it. So
Speaker 1: to some extent, it's also like you chose to be
Speaker 1: in this area. You you're also to some degree there's
Speaker 1: a limited amount of a buying and understanding. A lot
Speaker 1: of these people come in through these programs knowing they're
Speaker 1: going to be taking a Palestinian's you know, house or
Speaker 1: land or something like that. So it's kind of murky
Speaker 1: even to some degree on the moral side of things.
Speaker 1: So I'm just saying it's not say I was just
Speaker 1: gonna say, it's not quite as simple as everyone wants
Speaker 1: to make it out to be. It's funny, I uh
Speaker 1: Hassan Piker has been getting some crap recently.
Speaker 2: He had a quote.
Speaker 1: One of the the quotes they attacked him for was
Speaker 1: He's like, essentially he was getting at the some of
Speaker 1: the rape claims, and I can't remember how he said it,
Speaker 1: but it was something along the lines of like I
Speaker 1: don't I really, I just don't care if you know,
Speaker 1: if you know whether any of those are true, and
Speaker 1: you know, nothing justifies you know, what's happened or something
Speaker 1: along those lines, which is one hundred percent true. It
Speaker 1: doesn't justify the reaction that Israel has you know done here?
Speaker 2: So and what were you gonna say?
Speaker 1: Though, I was just kinda before I was gonna, I
Speaker 1: guess then get into Lebedon. So, but I kind of
Speaker 1: wanted to point out beforehand, before we moved on that
Speaker 1: it's not quite as simple as just oh they're savages
Speaker 1: and the end, especially even when you get into the
Speaker 1: nitty gritty.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing, they're not savages at all. I mean,
Speaker 3: whether you agree with the Aha sin War or you don't,
Speaker 3: whether you think that what he did was pure unjustified barbarism,
Speaker 3: or you think it was as strategic something or you
Speaker 3: think something else. This was a rational calculation. I mean,
Speaker 3: he made a rational calculation that the way to get
Speaker 3: the Palestinian issue back center stage was to make a
Speaker 3: move like this. Now you can say, you know, well,
Speaker 3: twelve hundred Israelis died and now seventy thousand Palestinians died,
Speaker 3: and this is at Sinewar speed. I mean you can
Speaker 3: say that, but he isn't. It wasn't in a rational move.
Speaker 3: This was a strategic move that he made for specific reasons.
Speaker 3: So that's number one. Number two, if you look at
Speaker 3: the numbers killed, I mean twelve hundred Israelis were killed
Speaker 3: in this attack. At least this is a conservative estimate.
Speaker 3: Seventy thousand Palestinians have been killed, sixty to seventy to
Speaker 3: eighty percent women and children. So make whatever moral calculus
Speaker 3: you want to, but do it with all the facts.
Speaker 3: And what we're seeing is that you're not being given
Speaker 3: all of the facts. Nobody in the West is given
Speaker 3: is being given all of the facts. And if if
Speaker 3: like Hassan Piker or you know different, you know, candidates
Speaker 3: this cycle who are Muslim, you know, are taking a
Speaker 3: different line, they are sure to be attacked from places
Speaker 3: like the New Yorker or places like the Atlantic. You
Speaker 3: know whose editor is a Jewish scientist who has an
Speaker 3: IDF guard during the Second Intivada, you know, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Speaker 3: I mean they are being attacked as unrealistic, you know,
Speaker 3: blaming the victims, et cetera, et cetera. I mean I
Speaker 3: read the New York Times most days, which is to say,
Speaker 3: I skim it the number the amount of coverage that
Speaker 3: has been given to Jewish feelings, Jewish suffering, Jewish et cetera.
Speaker 3: Because of October seventh, Whether a book by a hostage,
Speaker 3: a mother of one of the hostages, that's excerpt in
Speaker 3: the Wall Street Journal and then reviewed in the New
Speaker 3: York Times, or a piece in New York Magazine about
Speaker 3: how will Jews write after Gaza? How will this affect
Speaker 3: Jewish writers or Jews are living in fear in America?
Speaker 3: I mean, it's constant. And the problem with that is,
Speaker 3: you know, by all means show different people's perspectives, Palestinians perspectives, Muslims,
Speaker 3: Americans perspectives Muslim writers are not being shown, and so
Speaker 3: you're getting and that's not a coincidence. I mean, the
Speaker 3: power networks, these these they are owned by people who
Speaker 3: either do business with Israel, are in fact Jewish Scionists,
Speaker 3: are sympathetic to Israel, and so they're silencing one part
Speaker 3: of these of this factual framework, of this factual makeup
Speaker 3: by only or by disproportionally featuring Israel Jewish people and writers,
Speaker 3: and even when they write about the Palestinians. I mean,
Speaker 3: the London Review of Books did what I think was
Speaker 3: a very I mean, actually I didn't read it. People
Speaker 3: I trust think it's a good book. The piece on
Speaker 3: the devastation in Gaza. He's Jewish. I mean, is that
Speaker 3: the only person you could find right, Like, I don't
Speaker 3: think that you need to. I mean I'm not I'm
Speaker 3: not somebody who thinks that, Oh, the only person who
Speaker 3: can write about a situation is somebody who's experiencing it.
Speaker 3: I mean that's a denial of the notion of I
Speaker 3: don't want to say truth, but it's a denial of
Speaker 3: the notion that truth is accessible to more than one
Speaker 3: group of people. I mean that becomes you know, only
Speaker 3: one person as control of the narrative. But that's not
Speaker 3: the situation we're in. We're in the opposite situation where
Speaker 3: the only people in control of the narrative are people
Speaker 3: with ties to Israel or to a Jewish community. The
Speaker 3: majority of who's the lead and upper middle class are
Speaker 3: deeply for Israel. So, I mean, this is just a
Speaker 3: completely unbalanced situation that denies Americans the information they need
Speaker 3: to make their own judgment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and to kind of take a look over at
Speaker 1: the Lebanon's side of things. I think Lebanon's kind of uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, most Americans don't really aren't really as
Speaker 1: informed me. Most Americans aren't really informed about Gaza or
Speaker 1: any of those issues, but they're even less so about Lebanon,
Speaker 1: so it's more foreign. I mean, even myself included. I've
Speaker 1: gotten more familiarized with it in the past like year
Speaker 1: or so since it's been a common common thing coming
Speaker 1: up in this greater Israel project. But I think it's
Speaker 1: particularly in particularly interesting, as we've kind of mentioned, you know,
Speaker 1: more honing in on a moss but generally speaking as well,
Speaker 1: but the dehumanization of these groups, you know, Hezebela, particularly Hesbela,
Speaker 1: gets you know, constantly framed as a terrorist group. And
Speaker 1: i'd be interested in your thoughts. I mean maybe if
Speaker 1: you you think that's an apt apt description of it,
Speaker 1: but I mean it's my understanding that Hesbelah, I don't
Speaker 1: remember it was from the forty from the Nakba, the
Speaker 1: late forties, or it was the mid sixties. I think
Speaker 1: it was the mid sixties if I recall correctly, but
Speaker 1: I believe Hesbla was formed, you know, you know, just
Speaker 1: much like a moss as literally a response to to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Israeli hostility is all the same, and you
Speaker 1: know it's it's funny. I mean, with is Iran war,
Speaker 1: one common thing that gets pointed to as a reasoning
Speaker 1: for why we're in it is the nineteen eighty three
Speaker 1: attack that gets associated with them as a kind of
Speaker 1: this most common uh, you know, notch on the belt
Speaker 1: when it comes to propaganda for why we need to
Speaker 1: be at war with Iran because Hesbela did something or something.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: But even then that was you know, almost two hundred
Speaker 1: and forty military members killed in in their uh, in
Speaker 1: their but in as a but as James Bouvard said,
Speaker 1: surprised attack on a troop concentration in the combat zone
Speaker 1: does not fit most definitions of terrorism. So this is
Speaker 1: what most people point to as reasons why, uh, these
Speaker 1: guys are terrorists. Also why we should be at war
Speaker 1: with Iran because Iran somehow controls Hesbela. And while I
Speaker 1: wish none of those marines were killed in the bear
Speaker 1: in those barracks, I mean it's it's kind of you know,
Speaker 1: kind of you know, as we were talking about with
Speaker 1: October seven stuff, this one's obviously way more clear and obvious.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are combatants and you are engaged in
Speaker 1: you you were in a foreign territory that you really
Speaker 1: have no business being. I mean, I don't really remember
Speaker 1: enough about that that that that whole ordeal. But that's
Speaker 1: my understanding of it. But I also I just find
Speaker 1: it interesting that the way about which Hesbela has gone
Speaker 1: about being created and how it's been kind of perceived.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's my understanding HESBLO is actually pretty damn
Speaker 1: ubiquitous in Lebanon to where it's almost more, even even
Speaker 1: more than just like a simple militia. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: my understanding. If they're essentially the way I typically kind
Speaker 1: of look at it is basically Lebanon's military, although I
Speaker 1: think they kind of have their own if but so
Speaker 1: but has blood, it has its own military.
Speaker 3: But too many Lebanese including people who who I mean,
Speaker 3: no people in the military and journalists who are very
Speaker 3: very well informed on this. And I don't want to
Speaker 3: misstate her work, but I'd urge anybody actually interested in
Speaker 3: this to follow Leila Hatoum l E I L A
Speaker 3: h A t O U M on Twitter. She's a
Speaker 3: Lebanese journalist. She used to work at Dow Jones and Newsweek.
Speaker 3: Now she's in Lebanon. She runs something called MINA Uncensored,
Speaker 3: Middle East North Africa Uncensored and she gives I mean,
Speaker 3: she's a practicing journalist. She's incredible at what she does.
Speaker 3: Highly factual. I've never heard somebody who can who.
Speaker 6: Can spill out so many actual facts but keep them
Speaker 6: all coherent, isolate, can't in conversation. And I mean, if
Speaker 6: you listen to Laila, and I don't want to misspeak
Speaker 6: or mistake what she says, but it's very clear. And
Speaker 6: if you and if you read other people, if you
Speaker 6: read Almeadin, you know, if you read the public source,
Speaker 6: if you read academics and scholars who have done you
Speaker 6: actual work on this. The Lebanese state, much as the
Speaker 6: Palestinian authority was, has been systematically bought off by Israel
Speaker 6: for the last forty years.
Speaker 3: And so to many Lebanese HEZBLA is a really good
Speaker 3: alternative because they're filling the vacuum of sovereignty, because the
Speaker 3: Lebanese state will not represent its people because it's too
Speaker 3: bought off to Israel and to some extent America. You know,
Speaker 3: but that's not what you read in the New York Times.
Speaker 3: I mean, when when I cite some pieces in there,
Speaker 3: in this piece, you know in twenty eight they talk
Speaker 3: about how you know the leader of HESBLA is pulling
Speaker 3: the wool over the eyes of the Lebanese. They talk
Speaker 3: about Lebanese parent you know, well, the Lebanese aren't paranoid.
Speaker 3: They don't have the bull pulled over their eyes. There's
Speaker 3: nobody offering a defense of their own. There's no sovereignty,
Speaker 3: you know, and so obviously they see HEZBLA is a
Speaker 3: very viable alternative, you know. And that's the kind of
Speaker 3: thing that you don't see. I mean, not to mention
Speaker 3: the nineteen eighty three bombing. I mean, if you read
Speaker 3: James Bouvart's piece, which is linked in my piece in
Speaker 3: the Libertarian Institute, I'm so glad you brought that up,
Speaker 3: because you know, it's pretty clear if you read the facts,
Speaker 3: and he uses people like Colon Powell, for Christ's sakes,
Speaker 3: you know, and and Casper Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 3: it's pretty clear that the Reagan administration put Marines in
Speaker 3: harm's way by shelling Muslims relentlessly, and then Muslims responded
Speaker 3: by attacking the troops, and people knew this could happen.
Speaker 3: The fault here, I mean, the fault here was the
Speaker 3: Reagan administrations in Israel. The people behind the deaths of
Speaker 3: American soldiers that caused it in terms of by putting
Speaker 3: them in this position was Israel by invading Lebanon in
Speaker 3: eighty two and the United States by backing them up.
Speaker 3: And so that's the story that beat Hegxeth isn't saying.
Speaker 3: That's the story that largely the New York Times isn't saying.
Speaker 3: Or else, Well, these people have done bad things, but
Speaker 3: also these people and violence is always wrong. Blah blah
Speaker 3: blah blah blah. You know or you know, Oh, state
Speaker 3: sponsored violence is okay. But violence by a group like
Speaker 3: HEZBLA outside of the state, well okay. But what happens
Speaker 3: when the state, like Lebanon and like the Palestinian authority,
Speaker 3: has sacrificed all of its legitimacy by selling out? I mean,
Speaker 3: if the state is no longer protecting the people but
Speaker 3: still calling itself the state. I mean, you get into
Speaker 3: a situation like the American colonists with the British. Did
Speaker 3: we owe loyalty to the British when they were impounding
Speaker 3: our goods and attacking us? I mean, you don't have
Speaker 3: to take that point of view, by the way, but
Speaker 3: you do at least have to understand. I mean, what
Speaker 3: I'll cite here is a guy I really like that
Speaker 3: I'm using for the piece I'm currently writing on terrorism,
Speaker 3: a guy named Richard English who wrote a great book
Speaker 3: or a well regarded book about the IRA in Ireland,
Speaker 3: and English himself condemns the IRA's violence. He thinks none
Speaker 3: of it is justified. Other people disagree with him, but
Speaker 3: English's big point is, no matter what you think, there
Speaker 3: is an explicable dynamic. There are reasons people did this,
Speaker 3: and there are reasons people supported them, and it wasn't irrational,
Speaker 3: and it can lead to laying fault with people like
Speaker 3: the British State that we wouldn't think of it as
Speaker 3: at fault. But looking at these explicable dynamics is the
Speaker 3: only only way to explain what's going on. And again
Speaker 3: that's where the media is falling so short, the establishment media,
Speaker 3: you know, because they won't give those facts that could
Speaker 3: lead people to have an explicable dynamic for this, no
Speaker 3: matter what their opinions might be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think to finish this discussion off, it'd probably
Speaker 1: be good to kind of come back full circle and
Speaker 1: kind of display the ludicrousness of essentially framing these people
Speaker 1: as irrational savages. I mean, if we take October seventh
Speaker 1: as a starting point, we apply no nuance whatsoever. It
Speaker 1: was the worst thing ever. We buy every little drop
Speaker 1: of atrocity porn associated with it, you know, so we
Speaker 1: happen in a vacuum. These are people who are being
Speaker 1: treated nicely by Israelis and this magical hypothetical, and we
Speaker 1: even furthermore buy into the Iran connection that somehow they
Speaker 1: perfectly orchestrate hesbelah and therefore they are you know, direct proxies.
Speaker 1: Except all of these things we're still looking at, you know,
Speaker 1: something like over seventy thousand people dead in Gaza since
Speaker 1: October seventh, multiple cease fires. I believe we were over
Speaker 1: eight hundred people that have been killed after the current
Speaker 1: iteration of this ceasefire. In Lebanon, I think we're on
Speaker 1: the second cease fires since October seventh.
Speaker 2: The first seas.
Speaker 1: Fire, you know, broke out a while, you know, shortly
Speaker 1: after this Iran stuff. They were currently a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't realize they were in a ceasefire at that point,
Speaker 1: but they were even back then consistently killing Lebanese on
Speaker 1: a daily basis, and even since the most recent iteration
Speaker 1: because we're supposedly in a ceasefire. Now I believe it's
Speaker 1: just short, you know, just short of nine nines below
Speaker 1: nine hundred above eight hundred dead over in Lebanon, after
Speaker 1: the current iteration the ceasefire. Also, it adds to the
Speaker 1: ludicrous nature at all that one of the person that
Speaker 1: was working but you know, arranging the you know, essentially
Speaker 1: the third party representing the United States. The ambassador over
Speaker 1: there was Tom Barrock, which is actually one of Epstein's homies.
Speaker 1: He was frequently featured. I believe he was in the
Speaker 1: birthday book. He was in multiple Epstein files. There was
Speaker 1: one where he was asking h I can't remember was
Speaker 1: Epstein asking him or him asking Epstein asking him, I believe,
Speaker 1: for a picture of a kid. You know, obviously it
Speaker 1: doesn't give us any specifics, but I mean there's loads
Speaker 1: of connections there. So we have Epstein's buddy setting this
Speaker 1: all up and you know, supposed to be the third party,
Speaker 1: despite them never and even then and throughout all of this,
Speaker 1: it's always framed both you know, it's Israel that the
Speaker 1: other party hamas Lebanon, and they're the ones that you know,
Speaker 1: are being unreasonable they're not working with us. Meanwhile, every
Speaker 1: single time they create some sort of convoluted multi phase plan,
Speaker 1: and they never get past the first phase.
Speaker 2: They get to a initial phase.
Speaker 1: And then they'll press for more bullshit from their from
Speaker 1: the other side, and between Hamas and hesblah. Both times,
Speaker 1: I go, well, I mean, sure, we're open to possibly
Speaker 1: doing whatever given thing you might have, but if you
Speaker 1: could just maybe honor the first fucking thing we could
Speaker 1: and they never do, and so we have it's just
Speaker 1: an absolutely absurd situation that we find ourselves in that
Speaker 1: I mean, the most duplicitous, most barbaric, I mean, most
Speaker 1: irrational actor in all of this is the Israelites. And
Speaker 1: I think there really is something too the dehumanization of
Speaker 1: both sides occurring here. I mean, this creates an improper
Speaker 1: incentive structure for the Israeli Israelites, and unfortunately, I think
Speaker 1: they themselves are losing their humanity just as they are
Speaker 1: trying to create the perception that these people lack humanity.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if any thoughts and all of that,
Speaker 1: I just felt like that kind of brings it full circle,
Speaker 1: laying out the ludicrous nature of it all, and that's
Speaker 1: what out even going into the history of all of it,
Speaker 1: that's just starting October seventh with the painting with the
Speaker 1: most positive brushes you possibly could to Israel. So I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's just an absolute absurd situation we find ourselves in.
Speaker 3: Well, what I durge Americans to do, I mean, just
Speaker 3: to broaden this out for a second. I mean, I
Speaker 3: agree with you on your on our views of this
Speaker 3: situation are quite similar. But to broaden this out for
Speaker 3: a second, because I don't think you have to share
Speaker 3: the views that we have, which is that Israel is
Speaker 3: clearly the the the driving actor in this, and then
Speaker 3: various other views that we have about what is and
Speaker 3: isn't you know, called for in those situations. But I
Speaker 3: think I think you can even take a kind of
Speaker 3: neutral view of what's going on. I would urge everybody
Speaker 3: to look at the language that has been used about
Speaker 3: January six ers, about Trump voters, about American blacks, you know,
Speaker 3: about rural whites, about small government, you know, people who
Speaker 3: gather in groups that are then called militias. Because the
Speaker 3: same dehumanizing language that's being used about the Lebanese and
Speaker 3: the Palestinians have been used about these other groups, often
Speaker 3: in very recent years. I Mean, one of the things
Speaker 3: I find mind boggling is that the same conservatives who
Speaker 3: were called savages by the New York Times and Watch
Speaker 3: and the New Yorker are now willing to call to
Speaker 3: believe the New York Times, the New York and Trump,
Speaker 3: the Lebanese and Palestinians are savages, right. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: you don't have to. I mean, I think that Hamas
Speaker 3: and Hezbla were are explicable. I mean, there's an explicable
Speaker 3: dynamic to why they exist. They are filling a need.
Speaker 3: But even if you have a different view, I think
Speaker 3: that your suspicion should be raised that everybody the government
Speaker 3: doesn't like at one point or another, everybody are a
Speaker 3: sprawling imperial apple status of administration and corporations and universities
Speaker 3: and media doesn't like. They're called terrorists. I mean, they're
Speaker 3: called savages. I mean the language. I'm finishing a piece
Speaker 3: on this, so I'm kind of passionate about it. The
Speaker 3: language is the same. I mean in the nineties and
Speaker 3: the two thousands and the twenty tens. I mean, if
Speaker 3: you look at the way they talked about the people
Speaker 3: at Waco and the people they talked about blacks in
Speaker 3: the inner cities, and how they talked about Trump supporters.
Speaker 3: It's just the way they're talking about Lebanese and Palestinian
Speaker 3: resistors today. So whatever you think of that, I really
Speaker 3: urge people to take a close look at the fact
Speaker 3: that all of the language in every situation is the
Speaker 3: same and maybe ask why, you know, can we really
Speaker 3: trust people who are putting the same language to every
Speaker 3: situation and reducing specific causes and effects to the this
Speaker 3: broadbrush narrative of savage versus civilized? You know, I don't
Speaker 3: think we can. Whatever your view is on the situation,
Speaker 3: I don't think we can trust the people telling us
Speaker 3: about the situation. And what I think that means is
Speaker 3: we need to look for information elsewhere. I mean, I
Speaker 3: love I I of course write for them, but you
Speaker 3: can learn more accurate information that's balanced looking at alme
Speaker 3: Dean and the Libertarian Institute that you can from the
Speaker 3: New York Times, the New York or Fox News or CNN.
Speaker 3: You know, So I would, you know, I would really
Speaker 3: urge people to keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. With that, Matt, I look forward to
Speaker 1: having you on again next week. Let people know where
Speaker 1: they can find you at and and yeah, we'll do
Speaker 1: this again next week, looking forward to whatever the topic
Speaker 1: ends up being. I mean, if you want, you can
Speaker 1: give a little bit of a hint to the audience.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the proper decorum is there, but
Speaker 1: let them know where they can find you, and we'll
Speaker 1: do this again next time.
Speaker 3: Well, one of the things I mentioned I'm working on
Speaker 3: is a piece that and I don't you know, you
Speaker 3: can never know about these things, but I hope it's
Speaker 3: out soon. Is a piece on the history of terrorism,
Speaker 3: the use of the word in the way it's been distorted,
Speaker 3: you know what. It very much tells a different story
Speaker 3: than the New Yorker does about that. You can find
Speaker 3: my stuff at opodshresearch dot com. You can follow me
Speaker 3: at Oppo Underscore Underscore Research on Twitter. And one benefit
Speaker 3: of following me on Twitter is you you can't look
Speaker 3: at some of the people I repost, and some of
Speaker 3: them are really extraordinary journalists in the Middle East who
Speaker 3: are who are giving information that is not in our
Speaker 3: mainstream or even some of our non mainstream media. So
Speaker 3: thank you.
Speaker 2: This was great, Like always, hell yeah, I appreciate.
Speaker 1: Just want to support what I'm doing, leave a like, share, subscribe, comment,
Speaker 1: leave a five star of you and iTunes or Spotify.
Speaker 1: You can find the show on YouTube, Rumble, all the
Speaker 1: major audio podcatchers on Twitter as well. On Twitter that's
Speaker 1: at Targeting Jose. Everywhere else it's the No Way Jose podcast.
Speaker 1: And if you want to support the show and the
Speaker 1: best way you can even do that with money over
Speaker 1: at patroon dot com slash No Way Jose twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: We also got a qrco in the top left hand
Speaker 1: corner if you'd rather use that brings you to the
Speaker 1: same exact.
Speaker 2: Place, gives you a whole host of perks there.
Speaker 1: Try to give you guys access to or try to
Speaker 1: do one to two paywalled episodes per week.
Speaker 2: This is one of them right here.
Speaker 1: I usually drop these a couple days later, whereas my
Speaker 1: other my other ones, I usually will sometimes leave for
Speaker 1: weeks or two weeks before we drop them public, so
Speaker 1: you do get it early if you get it in
Speaker 1: on the two dollars level. I try to keep about
Speaker 1: three to four behind the paywall on any given time.
Speaker 2: Try to do but one to two per week.
Speaker 1: Also give you guys access to add free rss feed
Speaker 1: give you, guys access to the telegram, give you access
Speaker 1: to the pre show, post show and video calls, and
Speaker 1: me and Austin's weekly live calling show Already Dead, which
Speaker 1: is on Tuesdays at nine thirty pm Eastern. Also give
Speaker 1: a big shout to the highest level of my Patreon,
Speaker 1: which is my sponsors. Is a big thank you for
Speaker 1: their support and my previous coast and tagging Learner Toad.
Speaker 1: Also at Brigade D's at zo your Ck at Underscore
Speaker 1: in zeal tim Title at Jolly Cleebow Big Famous Show
Speaker 1: Tour May at Wayne Tech is Wonner Goverkius No Free Launch,
Speaker 1: Jack Mark Vestpul and Jacob Windergrad the Biblican Arante podcast.
Speaker 1: With that, guys, well we'll see you on the next one.
Speaker 1: Pop in for this next one. Probably it'll be on
Speaker 1: a Wednesday, as these usually are, to keep with the
Speaker 1: proper alliteration, uh and uh. If you're not a patron,
Speaker 1: we'll probably drop.
Speaker 2: It on Sunday. So we'll see you on the next one.
Speaker 2: Bye bye.
Speaker 5: That was