Speaker 1: You look great everything, all Rice?
Speaker 2: Just about corporation, tax to vat this week, payroll Friday,
and I'm still waiting on the account to come back
to me about the year und accounts.
Speaker 3: Ah, So not exactly, all Rice.
Speaker 2: If you run a limited company, you don't have to
do it alone. Tax Aesist accountants can take care of
your accounts, corporation, tax, VAT, payroll and more. With offices
across Ireland and over fifteen years supporting Irish business owners,
We're established, trusted and right where you need us. So
next time someone asks how's things, honestly great? Switching accountants
is easier than you think. Visit tax Assist dot I
or call into your local office today and turn just
about into great.
Speaker 4: Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret.
It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out.
You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great.
You love the host, you seek it out and download it.
You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even
going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion.
And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention?
You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising
from libsynads choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements,
or run a pre produced ad like this one across
thousands of shows. To reach your target audience and their
favorite podcasts with libsynads, go to libsynads dot com. That's
l I B s y n ads dot com. Today.
Speaker 1: All right, Carl, you're back.
Speaker 3: I am. Hello everybody.
Speaker 1: It's time for our sometimes weekly defamation of one one
Peter cononez. We'll figure out what we're going to accuse
Pete of later, just you know, as the spear takes
me as it is. But how have you been, Carl?
Speaker 3: Doing? Well? Thanks? Yeah, it's it's been a nice couple
of days. I caused a minor diplomatic well excuse me,
I participated in a minor diplomatic curve fluffle. But everything
is fine and I was vindicated, so that was nice.
Speaker 1: See Carl, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but every
once in a while when I have you on, I'll
get a comment from someone that I'll say like, oh,
you know, did you know Carl is a federal agent?
And you know, I don't reply, but internally I'm like, oh,
that's ridiculous. And then Carl, you say things like, so, yeah, sorry,
I couldn't talk. I was smoothing over the diplomatic issue,
and you're like, all right, okay, so maybe this anonymous
user has something to say that's hilarious.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, it's funny because it was. The diplomatic issue
was with the group that I know are not there.
They're frequently accused of being associated with, let's say, people
who would have diplomatic ties in government. They're not. But yeah,
good times.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the I've done nothing so productive. I just just very,
very busy with kind of normal human things, which is
a suspicious thing for someone on the internet to say.
But in addition to you know, the kind of like
real life the things that make you human. I've also
been reading lots of opinion pieces on the Iran war,
and I actually, I may I may end up writing
a piece on this because some of these are so
completely and totally unhinged. But as you're no doubt aware, Carl,
Joe can't resigned, right. Well, we're not going to relitigate
that here. But he said, you know what I'm done,
And okay, you know I haven't support him. I think
he's a good guy. Every thing I've heard about him
has been you know, very positive, but you know, I
can understand how some people would disapprove. But to be honest, right,
a cabinet minister resigning, dude, it's not the end of
the world, right, it's it's you know, okay, maybe the
reason he did it is notable. But even if you are,
shall we say, you know, an art scientist, you're a
big fan of you know, our geopolitical relationship with Israel.
I mean, really that big of a deal. Even if
you didn't like him, he's gone now. So whatever. However,
that's not been what we've seen in the press. No, no,
the coverage has been absolutely absolutely historyonic. So I made
a discovery relatively recently that Alan Dershowitz as a substack.
He actually has quite a big substack. He's been on
the app for what five or six years, fifteen thousand subscribers,
which is notable. It's you know, many times what I
or you have Carl as a sidebar issue, who is
actually other than me subscribe to someone like Alan Dershowitz
on substack? You just read them in the New York Times.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's kind of insane. If you think about it.
My guess is that it's a there's a certain affiliation,
a correlation of affiliations involved there.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll have you know, if you go into the comments,
I don't know what you're implying. But Charlotte Friedman in
all caps says, thank you Allan for speaking the truth
to fiction, which is not the turn of phrase. I
think she is easy to you way to go, which,
by the way, really a sidebar issue to what is
sub truly insane analysis by by Allan who defended Jeffrey
Epstein allegedly.
Speaker 3: Oh wait, no, it's actually it was this counsel.
Speaker 1: He was a lead, which, okay, to be fair, right
if that were the worst thing Alan Dershowitz has done, Like, okay,
everyone needs a lawyer whatever, but that story, ye yes, uh,
but I just want everyone to bear in mind. Alan
Dershowitz is almost ninety years old. He went to Harvard Law,
which is been reliably informed difficult to do, and he's
written for the paper of record, the New York Times.
And yet this article, man is is completely and absurd.
I was sending it around largely because it was just
completely histrionic. But let me just start off. We're gonna
have to kind of go through this clause by clause
because he makes sweeping statements as sort of premises. Okay,
premises implies an argument. Yeah, in just like parenthetical phrases,
declarations as it were, baseless decoration declarations. Okay. So this
is from March seventeenth, twenty twenty six, the Alan Dershowitz newsletter.
I'll just read the title h neo Nazi Jew hating
Israel basher quits administration of childriddance to bad garbage, So
you know, we kind of know what his opinion is.
I know, I said we weren't going to uh re
litigate the Joe Kent thing, but I'm almost I will
actually just pull it up.
Speaker 3: Just to sex freaking as groper. That's it. That'd be
a great groper user name.
Speaker 1: Yeah would uh so? Okay, Joe Kent who cavorts with
Nazis and blames the Jews for everything. Okay, step one,
I citation needed. Man like Joe kt hangs out with Nazis.
Like I've met some guys who would self described as
that label. Uh, they don't know Joe Kent?
Speaker 3: Yeah again with him?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like Joe Kent's like a like a former Green
Beret intelligence guy, you know, like, Okay, maybe you'd disagree
with him on his take on Israel, but like the
idea that he's hanging out with like like West Texas Peckerwoods,
you know, like you pull a shirt up and he's
got like an Edward Norton tattoo. Is Uh. I don't know,
it stretches credibility a bit.
Speaker 3: He doesn't strike me as the cavorting or frolicking type.
Speaker 1: Well, and I also appreciate that in this uh we
sort of play fast and loose with Remember in the title,
we were sure that he's a neo Nazi, Yes, but
the use of the simple phrase Nazi implies that he's
hanging out in German nursing homes, which you know fair Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well like post nursing home. They're all gone, they're
all long gone.
Speaker 1: Yeah that like Kent took a suspicious trip to Israel
or to sorry not to Israel, although maybe who knows
who's in certain trials to Argentina in the late eighties.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's he's six years old. So there were no
criticisms of this kind until he quits. Oh and the
act of talking to Tucker Carlson is cavorting with neo
Nazis or Nazis or are they neo? Like what makes
them neo? Alan doesn't know. No, So he also blames
the Jews for everything. We'll get back to that with
Ken Sleder Hasbro's in protest. By the way, protest is capitalized,
one of the only words that is capitalized.
Speaker 1: Sort of a bizarre thing. I realize I am not
the person to be making that sort of critique.
Speaker 3: Karl is one who's read my writing. Mister Burden, you don't.
You don't randomly capitalize things though.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, who knows. Maybe Dershowitz has been doing
his research, He's been hanging out with T seven seven
seven and has sort of adopted his his conceit around capitalization.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's the first sentence right in his letter.
He invotes anti Semitic tropes about Israel, the Jews and
the media they control getting us into wars. Okay, so
that sentence. There several things to go over, which is
one Kent did say, Israel goddess into this war. Yes,
that's basically the worst quote unquote thing he said. This
is also what Marco Rubio said the Secretary of State.
This is also what President Donald Trump has said. Yes,
so I don't know, man, Does that mean that Donald
Trump is anti Semitic? I highly doubt it, based off
of his actions, his family tree and everything out. Uh So, okay,
we'll go off with that. Also another one, he has
anti Semitic as two words with no dash. The history
of that word and it's how it is written is
actually relatively controversial. Not going to get into it, but again, Derschwitz,
shall we say, not the best writer. Okay. So as
part of this he includes the Iraq War, which then
Prime Minister of Israel actually opposed. Kent is a liar,
bigot and Nazi lover. Okay, So I really got nothing
on that, right. That is the conclusion. It's basically Joe
Kent bad. Anything else completely indeterminate. It's good that he's gone.
He should be relegated to the waste spin of history
where he joins others of his disgusting ilk. Anyone who
supports this evil man and his bigoted views should join him.
Good riddance. So that's his entire take on it. I
will say the comments to this are kind of funny.
Speaker 3: I'm sure.
Speaker 1: You've got. Of course, someone's mostly just grandparents arguing, but
there are several things there, right, yeah, sean good point there. Effectively,
and this is a point I made an upcoming article, like,
these aren't arguments, right, He's not supporting these claims. He's
basically just saying you don't support me, you're awful, go away, right,
shut up. That's effectively what this means. It's not a
real argument, it's not a real discussion being had. What's
especially interesting is that, for all of his faults, Dershowitz
is actually a very cogent thinker on other subjects, which
is what makes this so interesting. He's sort of a
bizarre figure. He is sort of the archetypal neo con
in the sense that he is sort of out spoken
about his support for socially liberal causes in America while
being a sort of ardent blood and soil nationalist for
the Nation of Israel.
Speaker 3: Right agent consent could say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's one. But point is, you know, he
is extremely typical of the actual neo conservatives.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: That term is used sort of as a slur. I
have used it as simply an insult, right, But what
we're actually talking about is this right is this hyper
focus on aggressive foreign policy mixed with social liberalism. So
it's you know, we need to bomb the world so
that they can have you know, girls in Afghanistan go
to school, or we need to you know, lean on
the Ugandan government so that they can pass gay marriage.
You know, these sort of stuff that has become sort
of typical, very irritating about a previous era of you know,
so called neo conservatives. But the reason that I bring
up that Dershowitz is actually, in other settings remarkably sober.
For instance, he defended President Trump, and when he sat
down with I keep mentioning the New York Times, but
it does it is still relevant, and he basically said, like,
this is clearly political. It is absurd to you know,
charge him in this setting. It's going to create massive
political problems. And he was correct. Not only was he correct,
and I say that as someone who's not like the
maximal Donald Trump fan. You know, I'm not a plan truster,
I'm not some maga guy. But effectively he was able
to look at that in a non emotional way basically
say these are the problems it's going to bring up.
Clearly he's an intelligent guy. You know, he's had a
long career despite his show, we say, significant moral failings
he has alleged to receive or he is alleged, right,
excuse me, and let me say that more clearly. He
has admitted that he wrote around on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane,
but he says I only got massages. Right, So whatever,
Let's take the man in his word. But it is notable,
right that when he is talking about what should be
a huge deal, right, charging the president or former president
rather of the country with crimes, right, impeaching him, claiming
that he is some agent of a foreign power, that
he's able to maintain this very serious, very sort of
buttoned down professional tone. So for our country, right, good
or for ill? There's sort of a you know, a
a very measured tone. But when it comes to something
that's on its face is relatively inconsequential. Right, How many
of you know the name of Joe Kent's predecessor.
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: This is an office, right, it's a cabinet position, but
it's not a huge one. It's not the Secretary of State.
It's not you know, the leader of the Department of War,
previously the Department of defense in that case, this relatively
minor personnel matter. We see history onics, right, he loses
his mind, He's throwing insults around. You know, you can
imagine this, you know, albeit condensed for length, written on
the stall in a bathroom. And that brings up a
really important question. Well, Alan, why do you care so
much about this? Why do you care so much about this,
you know, minor personnel issue. And I mean, the answer
is not hard to the answer is not hard to surmise, right,
The answer is that is his top priority, right, seemingly
cares way more about the foreign policy goals of the
State of Israel than he does things that happened in
our nation, right, the place where he is a lawyer,
the place where he has been one of the most
famous lawyers in the nation. And look when we dig
into it, when we look at what can actually said,
does it smack of you know, Adolf Hitler? Does it
smack of Jew hatred? No, it doesn't. What he basically said,
and many people have read it is effectively Israel and
its lobby in the US pushed us into this war.
Speaker 3: That's je hatred exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, apparently, according to Alan, that all.
Speaker 3: Of his commenters to this, this this one hundred and
one word post that he abuses the sub stack format
to basically throw up a ship post. And you know, Slanders,
a great man who served, who deployed eleven times on
combat operations in service to Alan Dershowitz's people, He's useless
to the moment. He's like, I don't think we should
do this. So this is what they think of the
people that do their dirty work for them, because they
certainly can't do it themselves, thank you.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean yes on that point, right, And
I think this is really an interesting thing to note
with a lot of the coverage of the Iran war
is notice how fast and loose the warhawks play with
terms like anti semitism, right, because obviously the Jewish identity
is sort of smoky in the sense that it's like, well,
the term anti Semitism, I guess implies that it's a race,
that it is in Semitic in nature, that it's the
same as you know, anti black hatred, anti white hatred,
you know, anti Polish sentiment, something like that. But of
course we understand that Israel is not ethnically homogeneous, right.
You have populations from Spain, Italy, you know, Eastern Europe,
but also you know populations from you know, Africa, from
from other places, Ethiopians most prominently, though there's a Somalian
group as well, and so okay, well in that case,
I guess it's not racial. It's like, well, then is
it religious? Is this a form of religious discrimination? Well?
Also clearly not, because there are you know, prominent leaders,
the country is largely secular. And then also we have
another uncomfortable question, which is to what degree is Israel
as a nation synonymous with Jewishness? And look, uh, I'm
not the one bringing these things up, right, Alan Dershowitz
is because in Ken's Peace he says nothing about you know,
world jewelry. You know, he says nothing that you can
imagine from you know, Lewis Ferricon. He makes a claim
about the nation state of Israel, which is a country.
They go to Eurovision, they have national sports teams in
the Olympics. So unless these things are synonymous, right, which
Alan Dershowitz apparently thinks they are, there should be nothing
anti Semitic about opposing the nation of Israel, right if
it's simply a nation state. But at least according to
this guy, and others. You know, we've already mentioned Levin,
We've already mentioned pod Horriz, like they seem to not
only view the existence and the sort of promotion of
that nation as their top priority, but they seem to
do so out of a sense of ethnic solidarity. And
so when you hear people like Levin saying, you know this,
this touches on anti Semitic tropes. When you hear them
saying like, oh, are you saying that we have dual loyalties?
I quote Pat Buchanan, just dual loyalties would be an improvement,
because clearly you are much more emotionally invested in this
other nation than you are in ours. He's far from
alone in that sentiment. And if you know you are,
perhaps you know, worried about that. Don't take it up
with me, right, don't take it up with Joe Kent,
Take it up with Alan Dershowitz. There are several other
things that I want to that I want to address
in this because big picture, one of the notable parts
of this, and this is coming even from the heads
of state, is it it is very very clear that
Iran and Earth that excuse me, obviously, Iran and Israel
have different goals, but the US and Israel have different goals.
You're seeing this currently with the fact that you know,
according to all reliable reporting, Trump is in ties or
is in talks rather with the Iranians and the israel
The Israelis are still bombing, right, They're not acting as
one unit. So that's interesting, right, if that is an
anti Semitic trope, if that is borne out of some
sort of irrational ethnic hatred, you know, if that is
only a sort of dark, shadowy conspiracy, like well, I mean,
if we were on the same page, if we wanted
exactly the same thing, if we did this together because
our it was in our best interest, well, why aren't
we negotiating together?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Why is there a split there?
Speaker 3: Also?
Speaker 1: I think it's important to mention and it's been very,
very difficult throughout this whole war to figure out what
in the world is going on. Tucker recently hosted a
Israeli politician, right, and from what I've heard, it was
briefly interesting and then very frustrating afterwards. But one of
the more interesting tidbits in that is that this source
said information in Israel is even more controlled than it
is here, which I've heard from many sources. He is
a member of their government, so i'd imagine he knows.
And obviously, even setting that aside, even from the sort
of sources on the ground in Israel, it's very difficult
to tell what's actually going on. I'm sure you, Carl
noticed the dramatic censorship right when this war happened.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, absolutely, they are very brazen about the censorship
of everything internally in Israel. You know, shouldn't be shocking
given that the leading advocates or brutal censorship in the
United States are you know, they qualify for dual citizenship
certainly with the nation state of Israel. But yes, they
control not only the information that can be shared regarding
missile strikes, et cetera, but also just like political their
internal political conversations, you must you must bend the knee
to certain political parties, and they ruthlessly suppress protest and
discourse on the topic as well.
Speaker 1: And so even that is obviously true. But we also
have to understand is that, like the Uranians are a
sophisticated nation, they have their own sort of internet operations.
And so the reason that I'm sort of forced to
kind of look for evidence about what's happening in reverse? Right,
what and we see happening? And then what can we
surmise from that is that there are so many people
interested in distorting our view of this conflict on all
sides that it's sort of difficult to tell. But I
think it's important to mention and Carl, you and I
have spoken about this. I've spoken about this in other
venues while speaking about this war, that the US goals
have not been made clear, right, that what our objective
is has not been clearly stated.
Speaker 3: There's no objective, right.
Speaker 1: We've heard things as diverse as regime change, you know,
the abolition of you know, the Iranian government. We've heard
that we need to prevent I Ran from having a
nuclear program, which I was reliably informed we did like.
Speaker 3: A week ago, and they've come back to that where
they said, yes, we successfully did that, and so then
they would be asked us, so what are you doing?
And it's kind of like, uh, you know, it's it's
really that's wait, it's really quite shocking because the the
announcement of you know, the whole scenario that we find
ourselves in by Mike Johnson and Marco Rubio on that
particular date before Trump himself said that we did this
because of Israel. Uh. They they were asked what the
strategy was, and what the you know, what what the
goals were, what what what clear objectives do you have
for this whether what are the victory conditions? And they
literally had none. It was we had to do this.
And it's really obvious they that they thought it would
be something like Operation Midnight Hammer, which always is an
operation name that makes me laugh. But anyway, that they
thought it would be something like that where they hit
some targets and declare victory and leave. But again, you're
dealing with Israel. You declare a cease fire, and of
course Israel continues bombing in provocation.
Speaker 1: But what's interesting recently is that you've seen the focus
shift towards opening the strait of hormones. That seems to
be the goal. Several things there. One ah to be
blunt about it. If your goal in the war is
to set everything back to how it was before the war,
are you winning son? Right?
Speaker 3: Like that?
Speaker 1: That that's not that's not what you would expect from
a resounding success. Right If we were performing as well
as you know you and I could hear on you
know Newsmax or you know, Fox News, that would not
be the stated goal. Right. That indicates to me that
at least is not as not going as well as
you know we are being told.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: But also again we are seeing disparate, like disparate goals,
disparate desires from this, which indicates that the the narrative
promoted by these guys that oh, you know, Israel's doing
us a favor, that we were going to do this
anyway and they're just offering us help, that's not the case, right,
It's clearly not the case. And it's incredibly frustrating when
when we look at this because obviously these aren't real arguments,
you know, obviously these aren't you know, the sort of
well reasoned, genuine, you know, sort of I guess you
could say, conversations about this. It is quite simply flexing power, right,
we are going to do this and you're going to
shut up. And this is something that sort of aligns
with what that and I should look up what the
guy's name on Tucker was. And like I said, you know,
I did not even really enjoy this. I thought it
was particularly annoying. Uh yep, I'm berg I think is
his name. You can find that on Tucker's seat. But
one of the things that he mentioned that I thought
was particularly interesting is that it was his contention at
least that Israel doesn't have a great plan. And when
he said that, he wasn't saying in like a macro sense,
but in like an immediate sense that effectively their default
solution is violence. Their default solution is bombing, and if
they have a problem, it's sort of the first tool
they reach for. And so I think that, again, regardless
of the source, that claim seems to match up with
what we are seeing, that the problems, the very real
problems for both Israel and America that have resulted from
this war, which were easily identifiable with people who were
opposed to this war and the weeks leading up to
it pointed out, which have come true. Well, quite possibly
it might simply be that, well, we don't like Iran,
we have this issue. I don't know, man, throw bombs
at it. To me, that seems at least an approximate sense.
We're not talking about like over years, over decades to
explain a lot of the kind of nonsense we see
before we go on a super chat from Arthur in Cali.
You can find them on substack for twenty dollars. Appreciate it.
Why does it feel like Iran? Like the Iran affair
is planned on the fly, like a random night in Vegas,
the hangover for in Shily. Yeah, exactly, That's what I
think it is. I think that basically, looking at what happened, effectively,
Israel is managing certain variables, and one of those is
that they have had the ability to basically call in
the US like an attack dog, to get a lot
of things done for them. Due to certain functions of
their population pyramid. They're incredibly casualty averse, and so getting
someone else, particularly the most powerful army in the world,
to blow stuff up for you, is a pretty good deal.
So that's obviously a huge asset. But that is a
diminishing asset for a number of reasons. Just the kind
of fortunes of empire is one, but also public sentiment
in the US even before this was turning dramatically against
them on both the political left and the political right,
and Trump was to a certain degree a willing partner
in this right. They figured, well, if we want to
get something done, this might be the last chance, it's
sort of a short bet. And when you combine that
with what we're hearing from sources inside Israel that effectively
they kind of just like blowing stuff up. That's their
default option. Like to me, that explains a lot of this.
And again what I've said repeatedly is just because Israel
gets what they want in an immediate sense, does not
mean this ends up well for them, because and Carl, sorry,
I've been monologuing at you for twenty minutes now, but
to me, the very real problems facing Israel, like those
don't go away regardless of you know, how much you've
ruined Iran either way. And so clearly I think that
we're seeing a lot of short term thinking, and there
is a long term goal, you know, whether you you know,
you can look at kind of the Greater Israel project,
right this desire to destabilize and sort of you know,
turn nations around them, their rivals into sort of you know,
Libya esque failed states. Well, sure, like you can do that,
maybe you can do that, but I don't think that
accomplishes the end goal of creating this sort of you know,
Israeli Laban's realm. So sorry, I'll give you a chance
to reply to that as well.
Speaker 3: Carl, Well, they gave away the game early on when
Bbe immediately said, oh yeah, and after we do this,
we need to take out we need America to take
out Turkey. Also, it's like that people have this, you know,
this this frankly well deserved image in their minds of
the strategist, you know, carefully coordinating in the shadows what
their plan is going to be over some period of time.
But at this point, you know, they are simply Leroy
Jenkins charging in and blowing everything up. You know, you can't,
you can only do this for so long and the
past twenty five years, like the vast majority of the
veterans of you know, the g WATT are explicitly anti
Israel at this point, the vast majority then they understood,
they understand what took place there in who it was for,
and they had personal experience with all those things. There.
There are people among them who are kind of like whatever,
They're not super passionate about it, but in general they know,
they know what this is about. And we have the
documentation going back to the nineties explaining these plans and
in various formats, and the declarations of various people who
are involved behind the scenes in such discussions. You know,
seven countries in seven years and so on, with Iran
being like the last one. Well, at this point, the
jig is up, and the the biggest challenge that net
Yahu has apologies for my stroke out there, the biggest
problem he has is that if his state of emergency
ends in Israel, like he can, they have elections and
he's lost. He lost the previous his coalition lost the
previous several elections that they were able to essentially scramble
because of because of the various crises going on, So
them lashing out and bombing residential neighborhoods in their amongst
their neighbors to try to take out you know, the
head of the snake. Well it's been utterly it's been
utterly and effective. And at this point, you know, they're
just their options are up, and so the moment sustained
ceasefire turns into the end of a war for them,
whether it's you know, kind of a stalemate with the
US having to then negotiate with the Gulf States who
were all at this point basically like look, dog, you
got to get out of here, like it's it's more
dangerous for us to you to have you here to
host you because of one Iranian missiles and two our
people have had it right, like, none of this has
anything to do with us. It's certainly not for our benefit.
You know, Israel is blowing up people in the Gulf
States as well whenever they feel like it, Like they
attacked Doha to stop the negotiations between the US, Israel
and Hamas. And every time the US you know, cultivated
you know, a conversations about peace and discussions and diplomacy,
the Israelis ended it by murdering the people who showed up.
So the US is completely discredited in that neighborhood. And
so the question is are we going to leave because
there's a carrier group at the bottom of the sea
and we literally can't suspane, We have no way of
going in, we have no way of continuing to send forces,
or are we going to negotiate before that happens. Same difference,
Israel's finished and the most importantly is Bebi's coalition is finished.
And yeah, I know people are gonna say the usual things,
but you really have to understand that the people there
one like, like you said, doctor Burden are extremely casualty averse.
So they want victory, they want bombings, but they don't
want it to come back to them. Well, guess what
those days are over. You can be reached, you can
be touched, and you know you're you know, your iron
dome is a joke. It's very expensive and it literally
just can't It doesn't cut it. People think that there's
some magical technology one and there is not. They've been
surpassed by multiple generations, frankly of technical development that we
weren't able to focus on because we're busy doing their
bidding with counterinsurgency in the Middle East for decades. So
good luck. And they didn't successfully They didn't successfully get
Whitey back on board with their plan, which frankly was
the goal of a certain faction of them in throwing
their support behind Donald Trump after October seventh. I'm one
hundred percent positive of this because they need sustained They
need sustained wins for us for decades to get us
back and board on board with the overall project. You
can't be like, well, we got Donald Trump and therefore
let's go to war again, which a lot of people
warned about and it's it's quite pathetic that that they
went for it anyway, because this is completely an Israeli,
completely Israeli timeline at this point. So pretty great, pretty
pretty frustrating. But in the end, I don't want to
say it's a good thing, but it's much more positive
than a lot of people seem to think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean I think that The other the
other sort of open question to me and is effectively,
to what degree will this cause the US to pull
out of the Middle East, Because there's been a lot
of speculation that part of the reason we're sending transport
ships into the Middle East is not for a land invasion,
but it's effectively too extract US personnel and you know, equipment.
I don't know if that's true, that's a rumor I've heard,
but I can imagine the Gulf States are probably not
hot on the idea of the US having bases there,
particularly when we put bases there with the stated goal
of protecting them exactly, and then not only did those
bases get hammered, but the cities that they are you know,
stashed in, also got hammered. The satellite footage of these bases,
which admittedly is coming from the Chinese. So who knows,
it could all be fake, but I doubt it just
from what we're hearing directly. The kind of casualty figures,
other kind of you know, bits of information seems to
indicate that many of these bases have been severely hampered. Right,
they've been bombed, thankfully as of yet, places like barracks
have not been hit. But a lot of the you know,
massively expensive, you know, multi billion dollar radar arrays, the
things that take decades to build and I metse amount
of money have been completely destroyed. So I mean there's
at least a chance, right that effectively this involves a
major US pullback from the Middle East, which would be
great for any number of reasons. I think it's interesting
that there are some on the more conspiratorial and who say,
you know, this is all according to plan, This is
exactly what the Israeli government wanted. I don't believe that
doesn't seem to be accurate. That seems to hamper the
capability of in the US and Israel coalition. Yes, yes, generally,
like I would much prefer to have left the Middle
East on our own terms, but we're leaving, or we
might leave which is, uh, you know, in current times,
better than nothing, I guess, but yeah, it's it's sort
of an interesting thing that so as we kind of,
you know, get to the closing half of the show,
just bite popular rumors. I do not work for free.
If you want to send questions or comments, just send
a super chat. We'll get to them. There's enough going
in the chat that we can't really keep up with it.
But yeah, just a kind of I guess warning bell there,
we're gonna wrap up in an hour. Unfortunately, as much
as I love talking to Carl, I have to record
after this again. But yeah, it's honestly, as we kind
of pivot back to the Iran war, it's been interesting
because so much of the polling you see is sort
of deliberately constructed. Since for instance, Carl, I'm sure you've
seen the North Korea esque approval number floating.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, and that's and that's because that's because to
be maga, you know, to be identified as MAGA in
these polls, which interestingly, and I need to point this out,
this is something that I began seeing after October seventh. Interestingly,
CNN is boosting.
Speaker 1: This and which I thought was very interesting.
Speaker 3: And all it is is to be maga. Is you
agree with everything that Donald Trump does. That that's how
they determine if someone's maga or not for the purpose
of these polls, which is why he has ninety to
one hundred percent approval ratings per these polls. It isn't
people who voted for Donald Trump three times. It's it's
literally like a drooling retard. So the thing to really
understand there is that if CNN is doing this, it
means in boosting this stuff, it's an op. Part of
it is to be like, we're going to blame the right,
you know, for this. But at the same time, this
is also CNN who who prepared the anuses of the
libtards leading up it leading up to the twenty twenty
four elect with very frank conversations about problems with Biden
and the Democraocratic Party, as well as interesting critiques of
Israel from kind of a Ukraine loving Libtard centric angle.
So there's some really interesting stuff taking place in the
cy War battle space.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, and I think that that's a really interesting
element to this. And I think a big part of
the reason I can tell things aren't going well and
you may have noticed in my analysis, Carl, that I
am I really don't know anything about anything. I've never
been in the military, never been to Iran, never been
to Israel. I'm not a high level diplomat, but I
do know enough about human behavior that you can kind
of build out what's happening. Yeah, and to me, the
fact that continually, really since this started, the attitude has
been obviously not from CNN, but from sort of within
the camp has been blame is really interesting to me. Yes,
and I noticed that on the woke right issue, right,
these people who say, oh, you know, MAGA had this
great coalition, but we let too many of these dangerous
radicals in, you know, these people who believe that abortion
is an absolute and total sin. You know, are there
are other issues as well, you know, people who are
you know, too aware of issues of race or you know,
are too aware of you know, the power of the
Israel lobby for example. Well, they're gonna break this up.
They're the reason. Right people are scared off by how
extreme you know that that these people are, and we're
going to lose, right, you people, the woke right are
just as bad as the left, and you're gonna do
the same thing, deliver a historic defeat and sure that
narrative has been around cynically for a very long time, right,
because obviously these people have a vested interest in making
sure the conversation stays in a certain sort of band
of acceptable discourse. And also right and also to me,
I think there was a general assumption that, oh, there's
going to be a backlash and how are we going
to spend this. You see a very similar thing happening
with the Iran war, right blaming whoever we want or
why this isn't going well, so very early with vpg'd
vans right, the desires to blame him. Now, I'm not
the biggest Vance fan, but at the point that you
know certain people are attacking him, it makes me like
him more. And also I think that there's definitely something
to what you're saying about the whole CNN thing right
to turn this into Trump's war, and you know, as
it inevitably becomes more unpopular right outside of that core group,
because as far as I can understand, and there's no
standardized definition of MAGA Republican, but when I looked into it,
it seems to be self described. Right, do you describe
yourself as a massive Donald Trump fan. Yeah, well, if
you describe yourself as a massive Donald Trump fan, a
simple logic would indicate you're probably a pretty big fan
of Donald Trump, you know, just kind of experimenting with this, Carl.
And so I think that that's a very interesting shift,
because one you're further creating the very echo chamber that
Kent mentioned in his resignation when he's you know, directly
wrote to the President and said, you know, I think
you've been placed into an echo chamber where you were
only hearing alongside of this argument, and you were only
hearing effectively, you know, positive pulling from those people. And
so to me, I don't want to be overly conspiratorial,
but like that one hundred percent approval rating, which look, man,
in a country the size of ours, do one hundred
percent of people agree on literally anything?
Speaker 3: No, No, it's it's the people that support this war
vocally online are one bots, which is a huge percentage
of it. And after October seventh, we began to see
the growth of and it mostly really became obvious in
the last year, the growth of accounts that were newly
created using a hasbur a template that's been around for
nine ten years, or they're Jewish partisans or their basically
fossils who are TV addicts, who are like, finally, the
thing that TV's been talking about for the past fifty
years is going to happen. I'm excited for the TV
show that I was promised, Like that's it. No one
thinks that this is geostrategic genius, Like no, nobody actually
believes the copes that are put out there, the explanatory
copes there. No one believes it. It's it's purely it's
purely nonsense, and we can't even do it, like we
can't do the thing that they think that they're selling
us on.
Speaker 1: Certainly. I mean, man, it's in my mind, it's incredibly
incredibly frustrating. You look at this because there was a chance,
whether you view that as positive or negative, for MAGA
to become a multi generational project, right, to become something
that lasted past the lifetime of you know, a current
Sean Hannity viewer, and you could look at the sort
of synthesis of you know, the anti war movement, the
sort of MAHA like you know, anti pharma kind of
like you know, pro I guess you could say, kind
of pro food policy as a way in which kind
of disparate concerns were brought into a platform, clearly an
ellectorally successful platform. And again, right, obviously immigration was at
the forefront. There was a certain amount and this was
kind of a protest vote. But you know, also one
of the biggest demos to go over was young men,
and where young men go, the nation follows, right, we
understand how this works. And so to see this thrown
away so quickly, and to watch the narrative be distorted
so much where it's you know, one hundred percent of
this very specific slice of the population that was going
to agree with it anyway, you know, to see it
all thrown away. And at least if you know, this
was all being traded for some grand strategic goal, right,
if we had you know, marched in, you know, we
had turned Iran into some sort of like Roman Latin fundia,
you know, full of slaves, plundered their treasure, enriched the country,
and gas was a dollar a gallon. It's like, okay, well,
maybe that betrayal was worth it. Maybe you exchanged political
capital for real capital. I'm not saying I agree with
it morally, I'm not saying I would, you know, sign
off on it if I was the man in the chair,
but you could at least understand it right. You could
at least see a decision was made. This yeah, you know,
turned out to be in you know, someone's benefit. But
when it is that sacrifice has been made, the war
seems to be going badly, and the people cheering it
on most do not have the best interest of this
nation at their heart. It don't even seem to particularly
care about this nation insomuch as it affects the fate
of a foreign people, the fate of a foreign nation.
It's it's I have to be careful in this one, Karl.
It is not good.
Speaker 3: No, it's bad.
Speaker 1: So we've got one question that's relevant to this topic
from wild Speaker ninety four. What are your thoughts on
the idea that America serves as a limitter on Israeli
tactics and without American security guarantees, Israel goes nuclear So
a couple things there. If we have the capability to
limit israel I haven't seen it.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: We mentioned earlier that you know, we are at least
apparently in negotiations and we can't get Israel to stop.
It seems to me, again as someone who's never been
a diplomat, it would be way easier to start up
a talks if you could stop bombing them right like, hey,
is a gesture of good faith. But when you are
interested in doing that, you were saying, all right, all right,
let's talk, like we'll stop throwing haymakers, and then your
tag team partner is still hitting them over the back
with a chair. That indicates that you don't have any
ability to control what that guy does. Similarly, as far
as the you know, the nuclear thing, I could be
fully convinced that the guys in the room thought that,
you know, that they were genuinely concerned that Israel would
go nuclear. But what we've seen from you know, the
Iranians is they basically said like, hey, look, if you
don't knock this off, we're going to escalate. We are
going to hit certain targets. And these include desalinization plants
in the Arab States, which you know, you don't have
to be a genius to figure out that's pretty much
how they get their water. Let alone, you know, there
are targets in Israel. They have a desalinization plant, they
have a nuclear plant obviously, you know, there are a
number of religious sites which have almost been hit, but
not you know, thankfully directly. So I mean, in a
situation like that, like if we can imagine and I realized,
the Iranians are not great at keeping their word right.
They tend to make dramatic proclamations and then do nothing.
But escalation is both a rational and a mathematical possibility
in their current situation. Well, okay, if Israel was so
desperate about this that they were right on the edge
of losing nukes, well you know what happens when a
bunch of you know, mansions in the hills get blown up.
What happens when Israel doesn't have a reliable source of
water anymore, what happens when their nuclear power plants are hit? Like, okay,
do we think that they are not going to you know, escalate?
Like to me, that seems to be rational. So I mean,
and it goes back to that kind of proximate versus
larger discussion of what their goals are. So what are
our goals? Well, you know, if you're doing this to
prevent the Israelis from losing nukes, and you know, three
months later, they're in a position where they've decided they're
going to use nukes. It's like, well, you chipping in
didn't really make a difference there, Right, they're crazy apparently,
you know. It's it's the guy at the poker table,
you know, with a gun pointed at you under the table,
and you know, according to internal sources, right, the guy
at mena tucker. And then also my observation, they seem
to be a little trigger happy, to put it mildly, Carl,
I'll give you a chance to response, well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the I agree completely with your framing of that.
The the thing that causes Israel to go nuclear is
them being swarmed and basically extinguished, and that's that's their
whole That's the only time where it makes any kind
of sense whatsoever as a threat, because if they loose
nukes like in a peremptory fashion, it just gets them
wiped out, right. So uh. The the other thing I
want to point out is that this America as a
limiter of Israel is is a cope and it dates
all the way back to Gnome Chompski, who's who's framing
was always because again the idea was you weren't supposed.
Speaker 1: To know, tom Ski. Is it Italian?
Speaker 3: Sure, it's yeah, there's probably a little Italian back there,
if you're familiar with the genomic analysis, it branched from
Italian fourteen hundred years ago perhaps. But anyway, the idea
is that, you know, Israel is a European imperial project
that is a colony of America, and America is bad
because white people bad. That's that's an old and I'm
going to say this carefully. You know, that's an old,
fake third worldist position, like people throw that term around,
like you should look at the history of it. It
means something different, But it's a there're leftist copes in
America during the Cold War that this is that this
rhymes with. So it's a good question. Jay expressed it
pretty well. But I just wanted to explain the origin
of this kind of this kind of strategic strategic lying.
Speaker 1: Okay, you'll you'll never believe this. I'm on uh on
Wikipedia and uh the second paragraph in this says that
Nom Chomsky was born to Amish parents in Philadelphia.
Speaker 3: Mm huh, what.
Speaker 1: Do you know? Anyway? Uh? In all seriousness, that is
that framing is clearly, clearly dishonest. Obviously there are there
are real benefits to our regime to having Israel in
place now. No, I do not say the nation or US, yes,
but it is for the political class of mutually beneficial arrangement.
It's not particularly difficult to figure that out. But to
be honest, I think that ultimately Israel as a doomed
project for a number of reasons. Their situation is completely
and totally untenable. There shall we say diplomatic attitudes to
all of their neighbors are untenable. Again, just the amount
of water, let alone the kind of political situation on
the ground. So I don't view this as sort of
like an eternal issue. But the problem is basically, as
that system falls apart, how much do they drag us
into And at least so far, and apparently Joe Kent agrees,
the answer is they have dragged they have the ability
to drag us into a lot. And that's sort of
my primary, at least immediate concern. So we have another one.
This is more relevant to our other recurring topic from
Eagle Scout, Warlord, Best Bear Defense caliber and pistol with
ten plus rounds Grizzly and or Black Bear, so Black
bears are not super dangerous. You kind of have to
work to get one to attack you, and in most
cases it's sort of like like the the recommended response
to a black bear is like make a lot of
noise and look scary. Now, obviously, you know there's a
situation where you need to shoot a black bear, so
those stipulations and look, I'll be honest, man, I don't
know anything about bears. I don't I live in black
bear country. They're not threatening, Like I've had one run
past me, just unbothered. When I was like eight years old.
Speaker 3: My mother in law got got knocked over by one
one time, but it was literally running away from a
tiny woman.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that's what you were about to say, Carl,
because if you said, like, no, my my mother in
law was eaten to death by a blast there, I'm
very upset. I would have felt horrible, mostly because it
made me look like an idiot on the internet. But
as far as pistol with ten plus rounds into that one,
unless you're going super out there, the answer is basically
ten millimeter, right. You know, obviously the forty four mag
is sort of the default choice, but you're not getting
ten rounds in that there's an interesting discussion to be
had about bullet selection.
Speaker 3: Buffalo Boar has hard less. Yeah, hardcast maybe.
Speaker 1: And honestly, if you're on a budget, the glock twenty
one I believe is twenty twenty. Excuse me, Yeah, the
glock twenty it'll do just great. It's fifteen round capacity.
They're like five hundred some bucks. They're not that expensive.
There are other options, but if you don't want to
spend a lot of money and you want it to
do those things, they're light. You don't really have to
worry about it. I'm not a glock guy, but like
that is the answer. Yeah, obviously there's other like super
specialty and if you know what you already like, get that,
Like if you like, if you're an M and P guy,
they make one do that instead, but knowing nothing about
you at all, no offense. That's what I go for.
It's cheap, they work, they're remarkably pleasant to shoot, actually,
like I think that the big frame glocks handle the
recoil pretty well. But honestly, depending on your situation, Like
if you're just out on your farm, just go for
a twelve gage, dude, that'll work. Like yeah, big magnum slugs,
like that's better. But obviously, like if you're hiking, turns
out people tend to get slightly uneasy if you're carrying
a if you're carrying a you know, a shotgun with you.
Obviously you know there are other things like you know,
forty five super and forty five plus P. But if
you're asking that question to me on the internet, that's
not for you, right. If you've already arrived at that position, great,
you'll be a weird autist out in the woods. Awesome,
But it's just kind of a I don't know what
to get. That's probably your best bet.
Speaker 3: I have to point out a scenario that where this
is something that you literally have to think about, like
I literally have to think about it. So we have
a family upland hunting area that has grouse and dove
and pheasant in various areas, and grizzlies were reintroduced by
the federal government, and you cannot carry a rifle and
you can't even have like slugs in during those seasons
because they over overlap with like elk and the like,
and and it is extremely risky to be because you're
dealing with game wardens, and you can very easily get
raped over at Cole's if you're if you're in violation
of those whether it's carrying slugs or buckshot, which is
a bad idea. You want slugs or a rifle. So
that's where the ten millimeter mania is the answer, unless
you just want a forty four magnum or of four
fifty four castle. I agree. John C. Barsoom pointed out
HK forty five will run the hard cast forty five
plus P forty five super like all those various there's
there's a bunch of variations that are super high pressure
that the hks will run, which are great. But to
your point, mister burn in ten milimeter.
Speaker 1: And it's like, obviously there's a optimization game you can play,
but the general the general thought is like, okay, look like,
are you the kind of guy who wants to get
into that or do you just want to not worry
about getting eaten when you're on like a hike you
go on twice a year with your family. Also, yes, oh,
by the way, well we're talking about often mispronounced phrases.
I heard one the other day that it just absolutely
drove me wild when someone said they were walking on
egg shelves, right, and like, look, I realized correcting someone's
grammar while you're talking to them is like, okay, kind
of poor form. But at the same time I was
just dumbfounded. I was like, what do you think that means? Like,
what is an egg shelf? Why would you walk on them.
Speaker 3: An egg shellf that's delightful.
Speaker 1: No, I will say. The one that has entered my
lexicon is I started saying irregardless as a joke, and
it was first is farce, then it's just actual, Like
how I think? So that's one that George w Really
he got me there.
Speaker 3: That's the discipline.
Speaker 1: Yeah, John C. Barsu is one hundred percent correct. The
real answer is dual wielding six round forty four mag revolvers.
I know Ruger has some relatively affordable options if you
want a revolver, but again, pretty much any forty four
mag revolver is going to be more expensive than the glock. Like,
what is the Ruger forty four mag called?
Speaker 3: Again, there's the Red Hawk and the Super red Hawk
if you want double action, and then they have the
Super black Hawk and forty four Magnum, which is a
single action, which I don't recommend for this purpose. If
you're being reactive, you do not want a single action,
and the Ruger Red like a used Red Hawk, which
is slightly lighter frame is you're still talking eight hundred
plus dollars there. There's they run something like eleven or
twelve hundred minimum new. They're well made, they're over built,
they're incredibly heavy and chunky. You probably want to have
someone who knows what they're doing help you with the
action because they're manufacturing is rather shockingly sloppy, but it's
easy to fix with like washers or what's the term
shims excuse me for the for aligning the hammer in
the in the trigger or so that.
Speaker 1: There's some other options on the market. One for cool
thousand dollars you can get truly the worst of both worlds,
which is a six inch barrel Ruger ten millimeter revolver,
which is just lunacy. Who whoever suggested that in the
boardroom should be definestrated. But if you're looking for a
whimsical option, you have the Henry six mL A forty
four magnum Mare's leg Lever Action Revolver Pistol, which I mean,
I'm not going to say, is a great option, but
if you pulled that out from under a duster to
finish off a grizzly, that'd be pretty cool. Or if
you're going at the opposite end of it, you could
always go for the four thousand dollars or forty two
hundred dollars excuse me, custom Courth mongoose if you're interested
in German revolver autism. But I will say again, if
you have course revolver money, send me more than five bucks,
is all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the that's the Uh, that is the I
really enjoy spending money, and I enjoy having something that
like almost nobody I know will ever own because of
the uh the expenditures involved. They make an m R
seventy three look like, you know, kind of a cheap
gun by comparison.
Speaker 1: Okay, we're just we're just doing this now. Uh So
Corth very high end German company. Uh, I'll just pull
this over. And the kind of crazy thing about Coreth
is that they have exactly two types of products. They
either have the most immaculately hyper autismo very tasteful guns
where it's like you know, you never know this was
worth that much. But the you know, the the lockwork,
it's like a it's like a high end watch, right,
it's just pleasingly made. Or they make Fortnite guns and
nothing in between.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: And so this is not a all we were planning
to talk about, but you know what, it's our live show.
So I'm going to pull up Carl the the Adrenaline
for only seventy three dollars a mirror. Look at that, man,
it's idiots, genuinely idiots.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're like race guns are are ridiculous. The the
the revolvers, like the Coarse Ranger revolver, like with red
and stuff like that makes this thing look tasteful.
Speaker 1: So for those who aren't watching the video version, this
is just a normal three fifty seven revolver. The grip
on it looks like a bowling ball and it is
covered in sort of a red hex pattern with I
assume that some sort of relevant molecule on the barrel.
I don't know. It's probably adrenaline, actually, I think I
could have guessed that.
Speaker 3: But we go back.
Speaker 1: There's some other ones which are kind of more you
know on the on the yeah, like you see the
like super you know, lightweight cuts just like hideous. And
then also you have like this, you know, the Mongoose,
which is again very expensive, but you know, kind of
traditional handsome. I assume it's you know, well made. I
don't know anything about revolvers, to be perfectly honest, I
think they're neat an.
Speaker 3: The action, the actions of a Coreth revolver, it is
the smoothest thing that you'll ever encounter. It feels like
it's just a series of ball bearings that you're just
rolling through. It is seamless and beautiful. You know that
that surprise trigger break that people talk about, that's what
you get with with a Coreth revolver. They're incredible. But
four grand, yes.
Speaker 1: And I mean, look like, if you got the money,
I'm not going to stop you. I do not, Uh,
you know, Carl, honestly, I guess we literally have done
this before. Uh all right, I know I said I
was going to react to chat. But that's a pretty
funny comment for those who wonder Russian Roulette with an
automatic just isn't the same. I agree, But Carl, we
should just do a show where you and I just
go on Gunbroker for an hour.
Speaker 3: Wait, yeah, we must.
Speaker 1: We must, because honestly, it's like, what are you gonna do?
Talk about the war again? It's still not you no good.
Speaker 3: The only Russian rulette with an automatic that would that
would have those kinds of odds would be you use
like thirty year old bottom barrel Russian twenty two l
R cartridges.
Speaker 1: Or just using a regular like seacamp, right, yeah?
Speaker 3: Or what what's that zip gun from us