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