0:01

Joe Rogan podcast, check

0:04

it out. The Joe

0:06

Rogan experience. Train by day,

0:08

Joe Rogan podcast by night, all

0:10

day. All right, we're out. Good

0:13

to see you guys. What's happening?

0:15

Are you going to no headphones?

0:17

Oh. Keep the do? I'm not

0:20

quite sure what they add, but

0:22

yeah. There we go, all right.

0:25

The goal of this is every

0:27

time I see people that disagree.

0:29

with anything that's happening, any gigantic

0:31

world events. It's one of these

0:34

retarded shows where there are screaming,

0:36

there's a word again, we brought

0:38

it. We're just talking about that.

0:40

The word retarded is back and

0:42

it's one of the great culture

0:45

victories that I think is spurred

0:47

on probably by podcast, but these

0:49

things are always like pierced morgany,

0:51

which is fine, you know, where

0:53

everyone's screaming over each other and

0:55

you know, there's five different people

0:57

talking over each other. There's never

0:59

just... rational conversations where you discuss things

1:02

and I respect both of you I

1:04

think both of you brilliant and I

1:06

thought I bet you agree on a

1:08

lot of things I bet you disagree

1:11

on a lot of things and it'd

1:13

be fascinating to see your perspectives on

1:15

these things so that's why you're here

1:17

together okay well can I ask you

1:20

something yes sir since the war in

1:22

Israel began and since the war in

1:24

Ukraine began you've had quite a

1:26

lot of people who are very against

1:28

both in different ways. Yes. Do

1:31

you think you've had enough

1:33

people on who are supportive by

1:35

the war? I don't know that

1:37

word enough if that's a good

1:39

word. Let's say enough people who

1:41

are on the side of Israel.

1:44

Instead of wild critics. Well, I've had

1:46

a few I mean, I believe God's

1:48

sad is is on the side of Israel

1:50

for sure Jordan is on the side

1:52

of Israel You had Mike Baker Colin Hughes.

1:54

Yeah, I've had Coleman did it for

1:56

like 20 minutes. It wasn't why he was

1:59

here. No I mean none of them, and

2:01

none of them is why they're here.

2:03

You know, it's a good question. Do you

2:05

think you've tilted one way? Me

2:07

personally? No, no, no, no, just

2:09

with the guests you've had. The

2:11

guests, yeah, probably more tilted towards

2:13

the idea that perhaps the way

2:15

they've done it is barbaric. But

2:17

why do you think that is

2:19

just out of interest? I'm just

2:21

interested in your selection of guests,

2:23

because you're like the world's number

2:25

of podcast. Yeah, it's not... I

2:27

don't... I don't... I don't... I don't

2:30

think about it that way. I just

2:32

think I'd like to talk to this

2:34

person. But can I just, sorry,

2:36

it's your show, but I mean,

2:38

if you're going to interview historians

2:40

of the conflict or historians in

2:43

general, why would you get somebody

2:45

like Ian Carroll or? Yeah, but

2:47

he and Carol, I didn't bring

2:49

him on for that purpose. I

2:51

brought him on because I want

2:53

to find out, like, how's one

2:55

to get involved in the whole

2:58

conspiracy theory business? Because his whole

3:00

thing is just conspiracies, you know. But

3:02

do you have any, I mean, there's

3:04

been a tilt in the conversation,

3:06

both conversations in the last couple of

3:08

years, and it's largely to do

3:10

with people who have appointed themselves

3:12

experts, who are not experts. You

3:14

mean like Ian? I don't think he

3:17

appoints himself an expert in anything. Who's

3:19

that other dude who thinks he's an

3:21

expert on Churchill? Oh, Darrow Cooper does not

3:23

think he's an expert. In fact, I

3:25

think it's everybody else is always calling

3:27

him an expert and he's like, I'm

3:29

just a history expert. Have you ever

3:31

absorbed any of his material? Have you

3:34

ever consumed any of his podcast or

3:36

anything like that? I tried. Yeah? It's pretty hard

3:38

to listen to listen to somebody who says,

3:40

I don't know what I'm talking about, but now

3:42

I'm going to talk. Or I don't know about

3:44

this or I'm not capable of debating this historian,

3:47

but I'm going to just tell you what I

3:49

think Yeah, but that's not exactly that's not

3:51

exactly what Darryl was saying I mean Darryl's

3:53

point of view however you feel about this

3:55

Darryl what Darryl is saying is he doesn't

3:58

really like doing debates he likes to do

4:00

long format stuff where he can

4:02

really explain his position. But if

4:05

you throw a lot of shit out

4:07

there, there's some point at

4:09

which I'm just raising questions

4:11

is not a valid thing. You're

4:13

not raising questions. You're not

4:15

asking questions. You're telling

4:18

people something. Do you think

4:20

Gerald's doing that? I think Dave

4:22

is doing that. Very obviously.

4:24

Dave's a comedian, but he's

4:26

now mainly talking about Israel.

4:29

I don't know if I'm mainly

4:31

talking about Israel. That's all I

4:33

see on the opinion. Yeah, but

4:35

that's... Well, that might be what

4:38

you've seen, but I don't think

4:40

that's... So that is also your

4:42

stick now, isn't it? Well, what

4:44

do you mean by that's my stick?

4:46

Well, you're not a

4:48

geopologics guy in general, are you?

4:51

I don't even know exactly what you're

4:53

asking. I don't think it's a decision.

4:55

I just think you have long-form conversations,

4:57

multiple of them. It's a huge event

5:00

that's in the news, so it comes

5:02

up. I don't think it's a thing.

5:04

I think if you're on the outside,

5:06

you'd say, oh look, they're trying to

5:09

get attention by talking about this very

5:11

polarizing issue publicly. You do get attention

5:13

from that. If you'd be spent the

5:15

last year speaking about me and Ma, you would

5:17

not be... on my lips. Yeah, but he does

5:20

talk about Yemen constantly. He talks about

5:22

a lot of things and aren't in

5:24

the news. Well, I tend to talk

5:26

about the conflicts that my government is

5:28

directly involved in, which I think is

5:30

reasonable to me. But I don't quite

5:32

get like, what's all the appeal to

5:34

authority stuff? I mean, what you have

5:36

to be an expert? I think authority

5:38

matters. And I think that if you

5:40

just throw a lot of shit out

5:42

there and then say, I'm not interested

5:44

in... the alternative views on this,

5:46

and particularly when it's a counter narrative

5:48

that is wildly off. And when you

5:50

get people, look, I just feel, we

5:52

should get it out straight away, I

5:54

feel you've opened the door to quite

5:56

a lot of people, you've now got

5:58

a big platform. who have

6:00

been throwing out

6:03

counter historical stuff of

6:05

a very dangerous kind.

6:07

You mean Darryl? Are

6:09

you talking about Darryl?

6:11

Darryl, who's the other

6:13

one? I don't think Darryl

6:16

has, uh, Darryl, uh, what's

6:18

the other guy? Derech,

6:20

uh, was named, Cooper, is

6:22

it? No, that's Darryl

6:24

Cooper, he and Carol.

6:26

Look, these guys are not

6:28

historians, they're not knowledgeable about

6:31

anything. No one's calling Ian

6:33

Carroll. But then why listen

6:35

to their views on Churchill?

6:37

Darryl is incredibly knowledgeable. He's

6:39

not. He's not. He's wildly...

6:42

Several reasons. One is, when he

6:44

was offered to debate the current

6:46

greatest living biographer of

6:49

Churchill... He said I can't because

6:51

he knows much more than me and

6:53

I admire his work and I've learned

6:55

from it, but I can't possibly

6:57

debate him. That's Andrew Roberts.

7:00

But you don't have to be able

7:02

to debate people to have opinions

7:04

on things. No, no, no, you

7:06

don't have to debate people to have

7:08

opinions on things. If it's not

7:10

your thing. But if you for

7:13

instance, well, okay, but if you

7:15

say, I've decided that Churchill is

7:17

the bad guy and what he

7:19

said was he... He jokes with

7:22

his friend Jaco, who's an Anglo-Saxon.

7:24

He jokes with them. You know,

7:26

I think that Churchill was the

7:29

secret villain. of World War II

7:31

and what he's saying is by

7:33

Churchill's actions the war escalated. He's

7:35

not he's not he's not saying

7:37

anything. He's not just asking questions

7:39

and is he? No, but the

7:41

claim isn't that he's just asking

7:43

questions. He has a point of

7:46

view. He has a point of

7:48

view. He has a point of

7:50

view. He can explain it better.

7:52

He literally says, he's joking. He

7:54

goes, listen, I'm being hyperbolic and

7:56

then he once again disclaimed. And

7:58

I'm not claimingm... my perbolic provocative

8:00

statement but but Douglas point to that

8:03

well okay but Pep Buchanan wrote an

8:05

entire book on this. Is he not

8:07

allowed? Is he not an expert? Is

8:09

he not allowed to be interviewed? He's

8:11

certainly not an expert. He can be

8:13

interviewed. I've watched Pat Buchanan debate against

8:15

Churchill historians, and he was absolutely leveled,

8:18

when did he? Because he doesn't know

8:20

what he's talking about. When did Pat

8:22

Buchanan debate against Churchill historians? And he

8:24

was absolutely leveled, because he doesn't know

8:26

what he was talking about. He had

8:28

a contrary view, and it was

8:30

interesting and stimulating to hear. But

8:33

if you only get the contrary view,

8:35

which is, isn't it fun if we

8:37

all pretend Churchill was the bad guy

8:39

of the 20th century, at some point

8:41

you're going to lead people down a

8:43

path where they think that's the view.

8:45

And that's horse shit of the most

8:48

profound kind. I don't think that's

8:50

what he's trying to do. I

8:52

think that's exactly what they're doing.

8:54

And the problem is, is that

8:56

because you... I mean your own

8:58

platform has come about because you're

9:01

a very successful comedian and much

9:03

more and you do ask questions

9:05

and you are interested but there are

9:07

a lot of people who have come

9:09

along partly I think because they've

9:11

come on this show who have come

9:13

along and they've decided I can

9:16

play this double game on the one

9:18

hand I'm going to push really

9:20

edgy and frankly sometimes horrific

9:22

opinions and then if you say that's

9:24

wrong They say, I'm a comedian. But wait

9:27

a minute, no, no, no, no. What do

9:29

I, what, how do you, tell me I'm

9:31

just a comedian? I'm just throwing stuff out.

9:33

What horrific opinions that's wrong are you talking

9:35

about specifically? Once guys like this

9:37

get into very obvious stuff, which

9:40

is- Guys like Darryl- The one

9:42

time describing. Very clear- You gotta

9:45

listen to Darryl to really understand

9:47

what he's- If you take his

9:49

Darryl's words out of context, Darryl

9:52

has some of the most nuanced,

9:54

balanced, and charitable views on all

9:56

the figures in history. Well, particularly

9:59

hit loads. No, no, you're wrong.

10:01

You're wrong. He doesn't. What did he

10:03

call him? How did he describe him?

10:05

I think he compared him to a

10:08

meth-out psychopath who was holding an entire

10:10

nation of people hostage. I believe was

10:12

the way he put it. He also

10:15

said on here that he... wasn't anti-Semitic

10:17

until the Holocaust. There were no speeches

10:19

of Hitler's in the 1930s. No, no,

10:22

no, no. He said he was not

10:24

public about it. He said he was

10:26

downplaying it to win. He said there

10:28

was a period where he was downplaying

10:30

it to win over popular support in

10:33

Germany. It was argument. There is no

10:35

historian of World War II. who thinks

10:37

that Hitler was downplaying anti-Semitism in

10:39

the 1930s, that was what he

10:41

was doing. He wrote a book

10:44

about it in the 1920s, he

10:46

got to power on it, and

10:48

he grew his power on the

10:50

back of it. The idea that

10:53

you can argue that in the

10:55

1930s, Adolf Hitler was downplaying the

10:57

anti-Semitism, like... There's no historian who

10:59

would agree with that. So why

11:02

would you throw out the idea

11:04

that in the 1930s, Hitler was

11:06

not being anti-Semitic in public?

11:08

That was what he was

11:10

doing in public. He announces

11:13

to the German Parliament what

11:15

he wants to do. So when

11:17

you're throwing out claims like

11:19

he was keeping it down in

11:21

the 1930s, first of all, what

11:23

are you doing? And secondly, why? kind

11:26

of hard because i don't even

11:28

know exactly what darrel's point on

11:30

that was and so i'm not

11:32

really in a position to argue

11:34

what he was saying there i

11:36

don't think you're giving him the

11:38

most charitable interpretation i don't need

11:40

to give him the most charitable

11:42

interpretation to be able to see okay i

11:44

think you're strong on him i should say

11:47

look anyone can look up what he said

11:49

on this show and others what these

11:51

two guys in particular said on repeated

11:53

podcast with both of you it's an attempt

11:55

to downplay hit to do down church.

11:57

I don't think you downplay... No,

12:00

I said in conversations with you

12:02

and others, this is the stick

12:04

of these guys. They've decided it's

12:07

edgy and funny and I think

12:09

this is very, very interesting and

12:11

also very dangerous because we live

12:13

in an era now that the writers

12:16

got some mojo back in America. We

12:18

saw years of crazy left

12:20

overreach where they tried to

12:22

make us all say the

12:24

craziest things and completely predictably.

12:27

There are now figures on the right

12:29

playing with really dark and ugly stuff

12:31

on their side. And they are

12:33

mainstreaming this. I don't think it's

12:36

partly being mainstreamed by the two

12:38

people I just described. And both

12:40

of you have kept speaking to

12:42

these people. And you don't get

12:44

on the historians who know about

12:46

this. And that's just alarming to me.

12:48

Well, can I just say, because I

12:51

kind of do agree with part of

12:53

what you said there. Like I do

12:55

think it is true that... Almost

12:57

as a reaction to like the woken

12:59

sanity that we've seen on the left

13:01

and I think literally I think nobody's

13:03

been a more effective critic of that

13:06

than you I do think there has

13:08

kind of been a right-wing reaction that

13:10

has embraced racialism and is dangerous and

13:13

not a good path to go down.

13:15

And now they're flirting with Holocaust denial

13:17

and Hitler and absolving Hitler. I think

13:20

you're wrong to include Darryl in that

13:22

group. Now the other thing is, I'm

13:24

sorry because maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're

13:26

saying, people that I've had conversations with

13:29

have downplayed the Holocaust. Well who are

13:31

the two guys? Darryl Cooper and the

13:33

other. I've never podcasted with E

13:35

and Carol. I have podcasted with Darryl

13:38

Cooper once. and he absolutely did not

13:40

downplay any of the Nazi atrocities

13:42

at all. And I would also, I

13:44

think that if we're zooming out here

13:47

a little bit, maybe this is

13:49

kind of part of the disconnect. Broadly

13:51

speaking, in American culture, the idea that

13:53

it has not been driven into

13:55

people enough that the Nazis were bad

13:58

and that Adolf Hitler was a... He

14:00

is literally the modern devil. He

14:02

is much more so than the

14:04

actual devil. Adolf Hitler is what's

14:06

viewed as the most evil thing

14:09

to the point that I mean,

14:11

just my entire life growing up,

14:13

if there was a guy who

14:15

sold soup on Seinfeld, who was

14:17

like authoritarian, he's a soup Nazi,

14:20

everyone was Hitler. The left called

14:22

George Bush Hitler and they called

14:24

Obama Hitler and they called Trump

14:26

Hitler. Every single enemy that we've

14:28

gone to war with is always

14:31

called Hitler. Saddam Hussein's the

14:33

new Hitler. We haven't driven

14:35

into people enough that Adolf

14:37

Hitler was a really bad

14:39

guy. I'm not saying that

14:41

at all. I'm saying just

14:43

as the left likes to

14:45

play with very dark, ugly

14:47

stuff, and they've done it

14:49

for decades. They have played

14:51

down Chairman Mao's murder of

14:53

the Chinese throughout his era

14:55

in power. They played down

14:57

Stalin. They still march on

15:00

occasions with posters of Lenin.

15:02

They've spent decades trying to

15:04

do down evils that were done

15:07

on their side. And I would suggest

15:09

that one of the things that

15:11

is going on at the moment is

15:13

despite, or maybe because of

15:15

what you just described, there

15:17

are movements now on the

15:19

right in America, subcultures including

15:21

people who follow both of

15:24

you, who are very interested

15:26

in playing with this absolute...

15:28

beyond the pale thing. Why

15:30

somebody like Jake Shields wants to

15:32

play around with Holocaust denial? Why?

15:34

I can't answer for Jake Shields, I

15:37

don't know. Why do you think? I have

15:39

no idea. I think a lot of

15:41

people get captured by this, by audience

15:43

capture, by their audience. Yeah, I think

15:45

that's the thing. You get a lot

15:47

of positive reinforcement from a bunch of...

15:49

twisted people. Well, it's also, I mean,

15:51

it's, there's something about, you know, Michael

15:53

malice had that great line. He goes,

15:55

when you take the red pill, you're

15:57

supposed to take one and not swallow.

15:59

the whole bottle and I think there's

16:02

like this dynamic what happens is and

16:04

of course people know the red pill

16:06

is the analogy from the matrix the

16:08

idea that you wake up to realizing

16:11

that so much of the stuff you

16:13

believed was bullshit propaganda and it's all

16:15

lies and this is a real danger

16:18

when the establishment and the institutions are

16:20

all caught with their pants down having

16:22

sold a bunch of very consequential policies

16:24

based on lies and then once people

16:27

realize that they go well what else

16:29

have they been lying to me about

16:31

everything.

16:34

Well

16:36

maybe

16:39

you

16:41

have

16:44

power.

16:46

Maybe

16:48

you have

16:52

power. Both

16:56

of you.

16:58

We live in an era where podcasters

17:00

have a lot of power. If you go

17:03

on a podcast with Jake Shields

17:05

and Jake Shields goes on to

17:07

another podcast and says he doesn't

17:09

think six million Jews were killed

17:11

in the Holocaust, what do

17:13

you think's happening there? That's an

17:15

exercise of power. Okay. Okay. And

17:17

I agree with you about the

17:19

breakdown of trust. Absolutely. We have

17:21

lived through an era where in real

17:24

time we saw something called a conspiracy,

17:26

the lab leak. Which turns out to be...

17:28

True, as you and others

17:30

said it might be from

17:32

the beginning. I find that

17:35

to be very racist. And

17:37

against Joe? Both of you.

17:39

Both of you. It used

17:41

to be racist when we

17:43

were saying that it was

17:45

likely that the COVID variant

17:47

had come out from the

17:49

place making COVID virus. Ask

17:51

yourself this, who has access

17:53

to your medical history? In

17:55

theory, it's just you and

17:57

your doctor, but in reality...

18:00

hundreds of shady companies called

18:02

data brokers are keeping tabs

18:04

on every symptom you Google,

18:07

every treatment you research, and

18:09

every pre-existing condition they think

18:11

you might have. That's valuable Intel

18:13

for advertisers and insurance companies

18:16

who will take any excuse

18:18

to raise your premiums. But

18:20

there's a way to get

18:22

your privacy back and that is

18:24

with Express One hundred percent of

18:27

your online activity is rerouted through

18:29

secure encrypted servers. This makes it

18:31

impossible for third parties to invade

18:34

your privacy. ExpressVpN also hides your

18:36

IP address, which is the number

18:39

used to identify you on the

18:41

internet. Without your IP address, data

18:43

brokers can't use it to track

18:46

and sell your activity. Plus, ExpressVpN

18:48

is easy to use. It just

18:51

takes one click. And it works

18:53

on all your devices, phones. tablets,

18:55

desktops, even TVs. and

18:58

on up to eight devices at

19:00

the same time. This is why

19:02

Express VPN is the number one

19:05

rated VPN by the experts at

19:07

CNet and the verge. And the

19:10

best part, podcast listeners can get

19:12

four extra months of ExpressVPN for

19:14

free at expressvpn.com/Rogan or by tapping

19:17

the banner. And if you're watching

19:19

on YouTube, you can get your

19:21

four free months by scanning the

19:24

QCR code on screen or by

19:26

clicking the link. in the description.

19:29

I was I was referencing

19:31

the New York Times calling

19:33

the Lab League racist which

19:35

is just the funniest thing

19:37

ever that they go it's

19:39

racist to think that there

19:42

was a sophisticated lab where

19:44

they were developing like gain

19:46

of function research and I

19:48

go no what happened is

19:50

these freaks were eating bat

19:52

heads. That's not racist. The

19:55

other one was racist. I've

19:57

said repeat, it's kind of inevitable to

19:59

me. that if you see something

20:01

that is called a racist conspiracy

20:04

theory, fall apart and become also

20:06

what we used to call true in a

20:08

few years, it's likely to blow a

20:10

lot of people's minds. But the

20:12

question then is, do you help those

20:15

minds that have been blown? Blow

20:17

themselves out some more by doing

20:19

a whole load of other conspiracy stuff.

20:21

Do you decide to go? Hey, what

20:23

else have we been lied to? Maybe

20:26

Churchill wasn't a great guy. Maybe Hitler

20:28

wasn't such a bad guy. Maybe the

20:30

Holocaust. No one is saying that. No

20:33

one is saying maybe Hitler wasn't such

20:35

a bad guy. No one's saying that

20:37

in the 1930s. Hitler kept the anti-Semitism

20:39

down. No, no, no, that's not what

20:42

he's saying. What he was saying is

20:44

that he didn't do it as publicly.

20:46

meetings because the support for that

20:49

kind of thinking wasn't as

20:51

ubiquitous as it was. I've

20:53

seen this, I've seen this

20:55

before, I know exactly what

20:57

these guys are drinking. They're

20:59

drinking a couple of very

21:01

very discredited historians like David Irving

21:04

and they are just regurgitating it and

21:06

it was always been the same thing.

21:08

It is always an attempt to minimize

21:11

Hitler's... anti-Semitism actions eventually down the road

21:13

you get to minimizing his actual involvement

21:15

in the Holocaust and then you can

21:17

go on to the next stage. What

21:20

you're what you're guilty of here is

21:22

kind of similar to I think something

21:24

that the woke left has done which

21:27

is this concept creep where you're talking

21:29

about some people online who are doing

21:31

this thing and then you're lumping in

21:34

other people with them. Listen I'll just say

21:36

this right now. Dowl Cooper is currently I

21:38

believe almost finished or he's working on a

21:40

big World War II series. And when this

21:42

comes out, we can see, we can see,

21:44

we can see, we can, yeah, he does long-form

21:46

podcast. When, when this comes out,

21:49

I am quite confident to say

21:51

beforehand that if you're going into

21:53

it, expecting him to be downplaying

21:55

the atrocities of the Nazis or

21:57

downplaying the evil things that ate

21:59

all. You're going to be disappointed. My

22:01

point is, why are we even talking

22:04

about this guy? Because you brought him

22:06

up? Yes, because he comes on podcasts

22:08

like this. My point is, this is

22:10

not a serious historian. He's not a

22:12

historian. He's been, he never claims to

22:14

be. He's been doing these long form

22:17

podcasts on these subjects for over a

22:19

decade. And if you go back to

22:21

2015 and listen to fear and loathing

22:23

in the new Jerusalem, it's an

22:25

incredible piece. And it's how

22:27

many hours long? 30 something.

22:29

And it literally starts from

22:31

the persecution of the Jews,

22:33

where they're being driven out

22:35

of Europe. It's like this

22:37

horrific account of what happens

22:39

to these people. What he's

22:41

trying to do is paint a picture

22:43

of how the world goes mad. and

22:46

how the world goes sideways. And

22:48

he's doing it from the perspective

22:50

initially of these Jewish people

22:52

that are living in Europe

22:54

that all of a sudden

22:56

their neighbors are turning on

22:58

them and they're being attacked.

23:01

It's incredibly charitable. But what

23:03

he's trying to do is show what

23:05

happens to human beings when

23:07

they're confronted with... unbelievable atrocities

23:09

and how things go so

23:12

incredibly side lots of people

23:14

have written and spoken about

23:16

that so why is he not

23:18

allowed to I don't understand so

23:20

he is allowed to I'm saying

23:23

that there is a There's a

23:25

weird way in which figures like

23:27

him whose ideas are not being

23:29

encountered when they are raised are

23:31

given platform after platform to spread

23:33

their views. They are welcome to

23:36

those platforms. I'm not saying they

23:38

shouldn't be platformed and saying these

23:40

are very very fringe figures who

23:42

are pushing ideas that are either

23:44

debunked now have been debunked before

23:47

or they will not stand up against

23:49

somebody who disagrees with them. line on

23:51

Tucker Carlson, this one line where he

23:53

himself said he was being hyperbolic and

23:56

kind of says this to prodded his

23:58

buddy. Got more pushback. than any one

24:00

line I've ever heard on a podcast.

24:03

There were numerous articles written by historians,

24:05

numerous shows that covered it, people went

24:07

through, there were Twitter threads about it,

24:09

so I don't exactly get your point,

24:11

like there was lots of pushbacks. If

24:14

you're saying he should go and debate

24:16

somebody who's giving him pushback on that,

24:18

okay, maybe. I also think it's reasonable

24:20

for him to say I don't really

24:22

do debates. Yeah, I think it's weird

24:24

to mainstream very fringe views, constantly, and

24:27

not give another side. I think that's

24:29

weird. Well, I mean, okay, I think

24:31

there's a little bit of a

24:33

contradiction here. You're saying now that

24:35

these are fringe views, but then

24:37

you're also saying that these are

24:39

enormously powerful views. No, no, no,

24:41

no. There's no contradiction. Let me clear

24:43

it off. You think there is? I

24:46

think there are very fringe views that

24:48

have become mainstreamed on the right. But

24:50

then aren't they not fringe by definition?

24:52

Sure you can play in a epistemological

24:54

game. No, I'm just saying what's

24:56

being what's being what's being. I'm

24:58

still I'm not exactly sure

25:01

so you're saying that what

25:03

Joe shouldn't have Darrell Cooper

25:05

on I'm saying that there

25:07

will have that if you

25:09

mainstream very very fringe views

25:11

which easily able to be

25:13

debunked if you if you if you

25:16

mainstream them at some point that

25:18

view that was so fringe will

25:20

be what eager very disconnected

25:23

unhappy people are going to start playing

25:25

with two and if These people are

25:28

such experts in how you see a

25:30

society go weird, they can look at

25:32

what is happening to a portion of

25:35

the right everywhere on this stuff. There

25:37

is a portion of the right across

25:39

the west that is playing this very

25:41

dark game and they're doing it

25:43

deliberately and you can't not be

25:45

aware of that. I agree with

25:47

that. I don't think Darrell Cooper

25:49

is doing that, but I do

25:51

agree with your characterization. I think

25:53

it's a pretty important distinction there.

25:55

You're just taking this one statement.

25:58

and then this where we trying

26:00

to joke around with his

26:02

buddy, this Churchill statement. And this

26:04

is the basis of this. He and

26:06

these other guys are all doing the

26:09

anti- Churchill stuff now. But he's

26:11

not doing an anti- Churchill stuff. He

26:13

and the other Churchill in the

26:15

orbit. Churchill was the author of this

26:17

whole Operation Unthinkable, right? Where they

26:20

wanted to use the Nazis to

26:22

invade Russia. Wasn't that Churchill? Is

26:24

that not true? We're going to have

26:26

to get the weeds on Churchill. there

26:28

is always going to be a corner

26:30

which you can get me on on a

26:32

bit of Churchill but that's the

26:34

point you'd have to say what your

26:36

point which is to have a comprehensive

26:39

view yeah Churchill was never working with

26:41

the Germans to invade no no no

26:43

this is a plan that was drawn

26:46

up do you do you know about

26:48

operation think about finally pull it

26:50

up Jimmy operation unthinkable was what

26:52

at the end of the war

26:54

I believe Churchill was concerned about

26:56

the rise of Russia in the

26:58

rise of the Soviet Union. And

27:01

the idea was, and we'll find

27:03

out what the historical facts are

27:05

about this, Operation Unthinkable, the name

27:07

given to two related possible future

27:10

war plans developed by the British

27:12

Chiefs of Staff Committee. against

27:14

the Soviet Union during 1945. The plans

27:16

were never implemented. The creation of the

27:18

plans was ordered by the British Prime

27:21

Minister Winston Churchill on May 1945 and

27:23

developed by the British Armed Forces joint

27:25

planning staff in May 1945, the end

27:27

of World War II in Europe. One

27:30

plan assumed a surprise attack on the

27:32

Soviet forces stationed in Germany to oppose...

27:34

the will the United States impose rather

27:36

the will the United States and the

27:39

British Empire upon Russia. The will was

27:41

qualified as a square deal for Poland

27:43

but added that that does not necessarily

27:46

limit the military commitment the assessment signed

27:48

by the chief of army staff on

27:50

9 June 1945 concluded it would be

27:52

beyond our power to win a quick

27:55

but limited success and we would be

27:57

committed to a protracted war against heavy

27:59

odds. the code is yeah this is

28:01

okay first of all and I never

28:04

do Wikipedia okay we have to do

28:06

Wikipedia this okay this is just what

28:08

Jamie pulled up okay but first of

28:10

all yes at the end of the war

28:12

and a plan requested that

28:15

wasn't seen through that suggests that

28:17

after the defeat of Nazism communism

28:19

of the Soviet form is also

28:22

going to be a threat to

28:24

Europe was simply evidence that, I

28:26

mean it's obvious, it's what churchly

28:29

worried about throughout the 40s, worried

28:31

about it in Yolta, he worried about

28:33

it everywhere. I'm sorry, but I have

28:35

to return to this point that this

28:38

man manages to do one of

28:40

the most heroic things in human

28:42

history in standing alone against

28:44

evil in its most concentrate

28:47

form, and he does about as much

28:49

as any human being can do

28:51

to save the civilized world. If

28:55

you just park that and you

28:57

go on to a plan in 1945 to

28:59

try to counter Soviet domination

29:02

of Europe, you see what I'm

29:05

saying? This is not doing something

29:07

in the round. Yeah, it's also,

29:09

look, I mean, look, I'm not

29:11

even like, I'm not at all

29:13

the expert on World War II,

29:15

and I'm not like going to debate

29:18

with you about World War II,

29:20

but I would say that like, that

29:22

is... There's a lot of room for

29:24

nuance and disagreement with what you just

29:27

said. You know, in the 20th

29:29

century, we had two world wars. They're

29:31

the worst thing, objectively speaking, the worst

29:33

thing that's ever happened in the history

29:36

of the world. And the second world

29:38

war is the biggest bloodbath in

29:40

human history, and it ended with handing

29:42

the man who you just mentioned, Joseph

29:44

Stalin, half of Europe. So, listen... If

29:46

you want to argue, I'm Jewish in

29:48

my German descent, so like I'm not

29:50

against the argument that it was the

29:52

Nazis had to be defeated and that

29:54

was the most important thing, but there

29:56

still is just the basic facts that

29:58

it was a, it almost. couldn't have gone

30:01

worse. It was like just a nightmare for

30:03

civilization. And if people want to look back

30:05

at that and go, man, was there any

30:07

other way this could have been handled? Was

30:09

there any other way where there blunders that

30:11

were made here? Now personally, what I feel

30:13

much more comfortable arguing would be that I

30:16

try to blame everything I can on Woodrow

30:18

Wilson as much as I can, because also

30:20

he created the income tax on the Federal

30:22

Reserve and did so much to damage my

30:24

country. But I think American entry into

30:26

World War I. was really a disaster

30:28

and imposing the treaty of Versailles on

30:31

Germany was a disaster. I also think

30:33

that's kind of fairly mainstream history

30:35

like that's not a particularly controversial

30:37

view that like imposing the treaty

30:39

of Versailles on Germany ended up

30:42

in disaster. Well no except as

30:44

Martin Amis said the only way to not.

30:46

get to the treaty of Versailles would be

30:48

for Germany to win World War I but

30:50

yeah. Yeah but we're not talking about the

30:52

Nazis winning the war we're talking about you

30:54

know the Germans. Listen I think that but

30:56

secondly sorry I just have to address that

30:59

fundamental you say the outcome of World

31:01

War II and everything happened and it

31:03

was the worst thing that's ever happened

31:05

and the worst thing imaginable worst possible

31:07

outcome you said. You said worst possible

31:10

outcome let me give you a much worse

31:12

possible outcome. Hitler outcome. Hitler wins.

31:14

Right, okay, sure. So it's not the

31:16

worst possible outcome. That's true. Listen, but

31:19

okay, Hitler, yes, okay. I'm not saying

31:21

you can't dream up a worse outcome.

31:23

I'm saying what you have. Dreaming up,

31:25

that's just what my country and others

31:27

went through. What did end up happening

31:30

was the 60 million people died, including

31:32

the Holocaust, and then Joseph Stalin takes

31:34

half of Europe. So, okay, fine. I should,

31:36

I'll correct that. There is a worse outcome. There

31:38

is a worse outcome. No, nobody

31:40

said it was this is like there's a very

31:43

weird argument that you now hear about this The

31:45

this attempt to revision this and I know why

31:47

it's happening I don't think I don't think there's

31:49

revision I think there is but this this attempt

31:51

to sort of say look you know at the

31:54

end of World War two What have we got

31:56

Stalin has half of Europe? What was the point

31:58

and so on that's that's going on? going on.

32:00

And there are people who are feeding

32:02

it. That argument is very similar, this

32:05

particular school of, as it were,

32:07

history, is doing something that I've

32:09

seen happen with American history

32:11

as well, particularly with

32:13

Lincoln. Lincoln's an interesting

32:16

comparison to make with Churchill on this.

32:18

There are people who will criticize

32:20

Churchill for mistakes made not hard

32:22

to do, quite hard not to

32:24

make mistakes while fighting a war

32:27

of total annihilation against your country.

32:29

People will say, oh, he didn't sort

32:31

this out in 1945. It's

32:33

rather like Lincoln. He didn't

32:36

solve every problem in the world

32:38

for all time, but he solved

32:40

a hell of a big problem for

32:42

his time. And that requires some

32:45

kind of generosity of spirit and

32:47

understanding in hindsight. As opposed to,

32:49

I will find something that he

32:51

did that I wouldn't have done,

32:53

because if I'd have been running

32:56

the British Empire in 1939, I'd

32:58

have known exactly how to do

33:00

it, and I'd have known how

33:02

to hold the whole thing together,

33:05

and I'd have kept Stalin

33:07

back, and he'd have been great

33:09

at Yolta. And this is... But

33:11

I don't think anybody's saying that.

33:13

I agree with it. I think

33:16

there is a tendency of like

33:18

woke left kids to do this,

33:20

but I don't think that's what...

33:22

kind of the bigger picture dynamics

33:24

to all of this is that

33:27

we have at least since 9-11

33:29

been in a state of perpetual

33:31

war and all of these wars

33:33

have been disasters they have been

33:36

so many lies involved in selling

33:38

all of them I mean The whole

33:40

Iraq war in Afghanistan, just lying the

33:42

whole way through. I mean, I remember

33:44

literally having conversations with Green Berets in

33:46

the middle of the war in Afghanistan,

33:48

and they're like, George W. Bush is

33:50

telling you that the army we're building

33:52

up there is really successful. This thing's

33:54

gonna fall in a week without us.

33:56

And then all through the Obama administration,

33:58

it's just like lying. after lie after

34:00

lie with disastrous wars. And so this does

34:03

create a fertile ground for people to

34:05

say, I wonder if they were lying about

34:07

all these wars. Sure. Again, I'm not really

34:09

trying to argue about World War II. I'd

34:11

rather argue about these wars today. I think

34:13

the interesting question is whether you're busy

34:16

watering it. Well, should you not talk

34:18

about mistakes that were made if overall?

34:20

Absolutely. Absolutely. I have all for going back

34:22

and looking at mistakes. So what is

34:24

your argument then? It's a very weird

34:26

thing to go back, zone in on

34:28

a man, say this one thing is

34:30

a mistake and should characterize him,

34:32

and you ignore everything else. You're

34:35

taking him out of context. Why?

34:37

When you're talking about Darrow, who's

34:39

done, what was it, 30 plus hours of

34:41

podcasting? But you take you do that in

34:44

a week. UFC 314 is headed to

34:46

South Beach and it won't be all

34:48

glitz and glamour, but the stars will

34:50

be out. Don't miss any of the

34:53

action at Draft King Sports Book, the

34:55

official sports betting partner of the UFC.

34:57

It promises to be another banger of

35:00

events, especially in the featherweight main event

35:02

between two evenly matched fighters Alexander Volkonovsky

35:04

and Diego Lopez. It should be wild!

35:07

First time just pick something simple like

35:09

a fighter to win and make your

35:11

pick It's that simple and if you're

35:13

new to draft kings listen up new

35:16

customers can bet five bucks to

35:18

get a hundred and fifty dollars

35:20

in bonus bets instantly Step into

35:22

the octagon with draft king sports

35:24

book download the draft king sports

35:26

book app now and use the

35:28

code Rogan that's code Rogan for

35:30

new customers to get a hundred

35:32

and fifty dollars in bonus bets

35:34

when you bet just five bucks

35:36

only on draft kings the crown

35:38

is yours gambling problem Problem call

35:40

1-800-Gambler in New York, call 877-8

35:42

Hopen-Y or text Hopen-Y, 467-Y, 467-Y,

35:44

467-Y, in Connecticut, help is

35:46

available for problem gambling,

35:48

call 888-789-7777-77-7 or visit

35:50

ccpg.org. Please play responsibly

35:52

on behalf of Boothill

35:54

Casino when resorting Kansas.

35:56

21 and over, agent

35:58

eligibility varies. I mean he

36:00

is not the historian of our era.

36:02

He's not doing a podcast like talking

36:04

to people. Okay, nor is he working

36:06

in the very different. He's not

36:09

doing a podcast like talking to people.

36:11

Okay, nor is he doing scholarly work,

36:13

nor is he working in the archives

36:15

clearly? Come on. I mean this is,

36:17

he is not the historian of our

36:19

era. He's not complaining to be. This is

36:22

a thing Joe, this is like punching

36:24

jelly. No, but you don't, you don't,

36:26

you don't consume, but you don't consume

36:28

his work. Well, I'm saying because I

36:30

don't need to consume endless versions of

36:32

a revisionist history, I understand. I know

36:35

where this comes from. If you listen

36:37

to his work, it's not revisionist history.

36:39

He's basing it on historical work. But

36:41

I'm, yeah, I know, but, but, okay,

36:43

so this is my point about jelly.

36:46

It's a shape shifting shifting thing.

36:48

Comedian or historian. He's not a

36:50

comedian historian or podcast would be

36:53

historian or actual historian You say

36:55

he doesn't claim to be a

36:57

historian, but he's pumping out tens

37:00

of hours of history Dan Carlin

37:02

He doesn't claim to be historian either

37:04

You see my point about the move.

37:06

It's like some weird Jiu-Jitsu move where

37:08

you say hang on you know all

37:10

about this as well You say I'm not

37:13

a historian, but I'm gonna spend

37:15

my time talking about history I'm

37:17

not a journalist, but I'm going to

37:19

spend my time talking about this thing.

37:21

I'm not an expert on this, but

37:24

I'm going to spend my time talking

37:26

about this thing. It's a weird move, yeah?

37:28

No. You don't think? No, I'm a free

37:30

American. I can talk about what I like

37:32

to. So what is the point here? But

37:34

we all can. The point is, what are

37:37

you pushing? What are I pushing? Yes. Liberty,

37:39

free markets, peace, prosperity? Peace, prosperity? Not getting

37:41

in another stupid catastrophic war which we're on

37:43

the precipice of right now? That's what I'm

37:46

pushing. What are we on the precipice of?

37:48

Well, I think you weren't you just talking

37:50

about it the other day? Everyone I hear

37:52

on the inside says about to attack around.

37:55

I think you just said something about that the other

37:57

day. Am I wrong about that? I thought I saw in

37:59

one year interview. that you did. No. That doesn't mean

38:01

we are on the verge of a war. I

38:03

mean you keep referring to we being in wars.

38:05

There's a very big difference between a

38:08

country having a military that's engaged

38:10

and a country being at war. This

38:12

country has not been at war for 25

38:14

years. You have not been fighting for

38:16

the American homeland for 25 years. Yes,

38:18

that's true. We haven't had a war

38:21

on our shores. We've been picking on

38:23

third world countries halfway around the world.

38:25

You haven't been randomly picking on them.

38:27

I mean Afghanistan you went I didn't

38:29

say it was random. Yeah, right. Okay

38:31

It wasn't like you suddenly decided to

38:33

bomb again me and Marl or something

38:36

You went for Afghanistan to find Bin

38:38

Laden and take revenge for 9-11 and

38:40

stop an attack like that happening again

38:42

on the American homeland That is very

38:45

different from a country being at

38:47

war. Yeah, but that's a total

38:49

mischaracterization of the war in Afghanistan.

38:51

It's one thing to say, that

38:53

might be an accurate characterization of

38:55

the special operations mission in late

38:58

2001, but then we thought a

39:00

20-year regime change war against the

39:02

Taliban. Because you got dragged into the

39:04

quick sound of war. Yes. Okay, fine. I

39:06

thought it wasn't a war. It's your use

39:08

of we. as if you're personally like suffering

39:11

this war. Yeah, you're a taxpayer. We're tax

39:13

paid. We're tax paid. So we pay for

39:15

it. Okay, fine. If I went back and

39:17

corrected you on every time you've used the

39:19

term we to refer to your government or

39:22

something like that, like if I were to

39:24

say, oh, we just imposed tariffs on China,

39:26

would you point out that I didn't? And

39:28

it was the Trump administration?

39:31

You take it obviously very personally,

39:33

and that's your right to do so, of

39:35

course, I'm just trying to do. Sure, yeah,

39:37

I think they've killed hundreds of

39:39

thousands of people and cost my

39:42

country $8 trillion and degraded my

39:44

country very much And there's a

39:46

very good argument to make

39:49

on that I'm still slightly bemused

39:51

about this move from I'm an

39:53

expert on this and I have used

39:55

to I'm a comedian I've never claimed

39:57

to be an expert on anything This

40:00

is the problem Joe. I mean, if

40:02

somebody says- If somebody says- Wait a

40:04

minute, you have to claim to be

40:06

an expert on something? No, you don't

40:09

have to be. You don't have to

40:11

be. So what's the issue? This is

40:13

like, I'm not a historian, but I'm

40:15

pumping out history. But what about an

40:17

expert, but I'm talking all the time

40:20

about this thing. But you're not even

40:22

talking about specifically on what he just

40:24

said. No, it's to have more experts

40:26

around. No, the expert class hasn't done

40:28

a great job. This is follow the

40:31

science. Yeah, but you know what? I

40:33

agree with that. I just said to

40:35

you, I agree with that. But one

40:37

of the problems is... During all of

40:39

COVID? I will put my track record

40:41

against any of the expert class on

40:44

COVID. I'm glad to do that. I'm

40:46

glad to do that. So should I

40:48

have just shut up? miss, not listening

40:50

to what I'm saying. I think you

40:52

have to take, I think we should

40:55

agree perhaps on the following, that one

40:57

major thing can break down in front

40:59

of your eyes or many major things

41:01

and it does not mean that every

41:03

single one of the sewer gates should

41:06

be lifted. Okay? Yeah, I get that

41:08

point. But who's saying it should be?

41:10

I'm saying this is a chatter on

41:12

what is part of our side at

41:14

the moment. is that a lot of

41:17

the sewer gates are being lifted. Sometimes

41:19

by people who know that they're doing

41:21

it, sometimes by people who don't, sometimes

41:23

by people who say, I don't know,

41:25

I'm just throwing it out there. But

41:28

at the very least, there's some damn

41:30

hygiene that should be required, isn't there?

41:32

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what you're

41:34

asking, but sure? Just that. Let's have

41:36

a bit of hygiene on our own

41:38

side, not lift every sewer gate. Broadly

41:41

speaking, and I'm sort of funny about

41:43

libertarians, I'm never quite sure, I always

41:45

think. I mean, I don't know, look,

41:47

I mean, essentially, there's something I'm missing

41:49

here. They should just choose, Joe. They

41:52

should choose. It's kind of, they just

41:54

want everything in the buffet. It's very

41:56

funny. Well, I think we want some

41:58

things, I don't know, okay. That's a

42:00

weird way to put it, but I

42:03

get your point. All right, well, I

42:05

mean, I don't know, look, I mean,

42:07

essentially, I just don't, maybe there's something

42:09

I'm missing on missing here, but if,

42:11

but if, but if, but if you're,

42:14

but if you're, You're saying I claim

42:16

to be an expert, but then I

42:18

have like a parachute to get out

42:20

of it by being like, hey, I'm

42:22

just a comedian who's just saying this.

42:25

But I don't think I've ever like

42:27

really claimed to be an expert. I

42:29

have opinions on things. Well, well, but

42:31

if you're not. Yeah, I know. But

42:33

isn't it weird to go around, for

42:35

instance, I mean, it's get to the

42:38

last year. It's a bit weird to

42:40

be simultaneously to be saying I'm not

42:42

an expert on a conflict and talking

42:44

about it everywhere. I don't think so.

42:46

Not really. I mean, I don't know.

42:49

I don't think like, I don't know.

42:51

I don't see how you, I don't

42:53

know. Do you talk about these things?

42:55

Which things? All these things that we're

42:57

talking about. Some of them, yeah. Are

43:00

you an expert? I am on some,

43:02

yes. On some, yes. On some, yes.

43:04

On some, yeah. But you talk about

43:06

some, you're not, but you're not an

43:08

expert? On some, yes. On some, yes.

43:11

On some, on some, on some, on

43:13

some, on some, I don't, I don't,

43:15

I don't, I don't, I don't, I

43:17

don't, I don't, I don't, I don't,

43:19

I don't, I don't, I don't, I

43:22

don't, I don't, I don't, I don't,

43:24

I don't, I don't, I don't, I

43:26

don't, I don't, I don't, I don

43:28

I think that is true. Listen, I

43:30

will certainly concede that I am weird.

43:33

So I'm not disagreeing with you. It's

43:35

weird that I'm as obsessed with all

43:37

this stuff as I am. I mean,

43:39

like, okay, I'm a weird guy. I

43:41

do, I tell jokes at nightclubs and

43:43

then get obsessed with politics and monetary

43:46

policy and like, okay, fine. But I

43:48

just, like, fundamentally disagree with this idea

43:50

that which I really do think is

43:52

quite anti democratic, you know elitist that

43:54

there's an expert class they can have

43:57

opinions on all of these things it's

43:59

weird for any regular person no no

44:01

no just read about it not my

44:03

view not my view seems like what's

44:05

nice I conceded already I said a

44:08

long time ago that I believe a

44:10

much of the expert class, let itself

44:12

and us all down very badly. And

44:14

I think that happened in foreign policy

44:16

in areas. Not every area, but it

44:19

happened in some areas. I think it

44:21

happened with COVID, in many areas. But

44:23

that does not mean that it's just

44:25

a free-for-all. Now, there are some things

44:27

we can still verify to be true

44:30

and can still agree on as baseline

44:32

levels of agreement in a free society.

44:34

And yes, everyone is free to air

44:36

their views, but it does not mean

44:38

that everyone who sounds off on an

44:40

issue, whether it's World War II, the

44:43

war in the Middle East, the war

44:45

in Ukraine, has an equally valid point

44:47

of view, no? I certainly wouldn't argue,

44:49

I mean, that to me is just

44:51

batting down a straw man, I mean,

44:54

I certainly wouldn't argue that everyone has

44:56

an equally valid point of view, and

44:58

I certainly wouldn't argue that there shouldn't

45:00

be some standards of like who you

45:02

would want to find interesting and talk

45:05

to and who you wouldn't, but also

45:07

it's have the... conversation that like I

45:09

don't know like if there's um if

45:11

there is if there are experts out

45:13

there who can smack all of this

45:16

stuff down or just destroy every point

45:18

that I make over the years or

45:20

whatever like okay so then do it

45:22

and then let's see yeah well that's

45:24

a bit weird because also that then

45:27

it's like the debate me bro thing

45:29

but I think what you're not debating

45:31

yeah I know let me just make

45:33

the main point I think what I'm

45:35

trying to get at, Joe, is that

45:37

it's a bit like the Twitter algorithm

45:40

thing, which is, yes, everyone is and

45:42

should be free to say what they

45:44

like on Twitter, apart from whatever, I

45:46

mean, the very fringe things of like

45:48

immediate excitement of violence and all that

45:51

kind of thing. But we all know

45:53

that one of the oddities of Twitter,

45:55

including since Elon took over, is that

45:57

what you hope is a restored marketplace

45:59

of ideas, ends up pushing you really

46:02

crazy shit. Yes. And that is what

46:04

I'm suggesting is happening on a podcast

46:06

level and maybe on a... level beyond

46:08

that. I get stuff on Twitter like

46:10

just do not want. I do not

46:13

want a guy with one half thousand

46:15

followers who's got some zenie new view

46:17

on something who isn't an expert but

46:19

is an expert to be pushed at

46:21

me and effectively what is happening with

46:24

the Twitter algorithm is happening everywhere else

46:26

as well. And we're all for the

46:28

open marketplace of ideas. I want that,

46:30

I thrive in it. But it is...

46:32

it is different once you get into

46:34

the thing of is something manipulating the

46:37

algorithm behind? Is the algorithm being pushed

46:39

on me? Why am I being given

46:41

this? Why am I not being given

46:43

that? Why am I being constantly pushed

46:45

this view? And I think that the

46:48

answer to a great degree is the

46:50

same thing in your world as it

46:52

is in the Twitter world, which is

46:54

if you go straight online and you

46:56

say, you know... JFK file drops, watch

46:59

live stream of Kennedy historians reading the

47:01

papers live, you're not going to get

47:03

any views. No one's going to watch

47:05

it. That's what kind of what's needed

47:07

is for the people to know the

47:10

documents to go through the documents. But

47:12

you and I know that if, as

47:14

there was some guy who did immediately,

47:16

you do something like live stream, moss

47:18

and involvement in JFK, you're going to

47:21

milk it online. The money comes in.

47:23

I'm saying that there's a similar algorithm

47:25

in all of our lives that we're

47:27

not as aware of as we should

47:29

be. Because we all know this at

47:32

some level, that there are certain things

47:34

that get your, a bit of your

47:36

base going, or get people going, interesting

47:38

and crazy, and then they start abating

47:40

it and all that sort of thing.

47:42

And that algorithm of online seems to

47:45

me to be spilling into the real

47:47

world. I

47:49

don't disagree that there's certainly more

47:51

sensationalist stuff will get you more

47:53

clicks I also don't think that's

47:55

a it's not really unique to

47:57

social media or podcasting I mean

47:59

this is true right for the

48:02

tabloids. Yeah, right, this has always

48:04

been true. So yeah, okay, so

48:06

it's kind of one of the

48:08

problems of humanity. Yeah, I don't

48:10

think anybody's arguing against that. You

48:12

know, it's certainly never my intention

48:14

when I talk to someone to

48:16

try to get more views. It

48:18

sounds crazy, but I'm only talking

48:20

to people that I'm interested in

48:22

talking to in talking to. And

48:25

in Darrow's case, it's because I've

48:27

been a listener of his podcast

48:29

for years. This is like genuinely

48:31

how I pursue things That's why

48:33

you're here. I'm genuinely interested in

48:35

your views as well Even though

48:37

you completely disagree with him That's

48:39

the mean this is the marketplace

48:41

of ideas in real time. I

48:43

agree. Although as I say, I

48:45

think you've massively underrepresented the Pro-Ukraine

48:48

argument and the pro-Israel argument in

48:50

the last two years I don't

48:52

know. I mean, well... That's my

48:54

observation. Okay. You're totally allowed to

48:56

have that observation. What is the

48:58

pro-Ukraine argument that you think is

49:00

not being represented enough? Well, my

49:02

broad view is that, again, something

49:04

to do with the algorithm, that

49:06

anything that is conspiratorial about... Zelenski

49:08

or the Ukrainians in the conflict

49:11

does very well. Anything that says

49:13

actually the Ukrainian army is fighting

49:15

to try to retain as much

49:17

of their country as they can

49:19

doesn't do as well. I think

49:21

that everything that is pushing the

49:23

idea that for instance the Americans

49:25

caused it or something like that

49:27

does well. I think everything that

49:29

says actually... In February 2022, Vladimir

49:32

Putin's tanks invaded Ukraine and they

49:34

shouldn't have done, doesn't do as

49:36

well. I don't think I've ever

49:38

heard anyone say... that what Vladimir

49:40

Putin did wasn't horrific. That's not

49:42

my point. The point is, after

49:44

that, there's a whole set of

49:46

things. Let's look at, for instance,

49:48

the issue of corruption. Ukraine is

49:50

a pretty corrupt country by EU

49:52

standards, by well-bank standards. And it's

49:55

been a problem, as it is

49:57

in that neck of the woods.

49:59

And it's understandable. that if the

50:01

US is one of the countries

50:03

putting money and arms into Ukraine,

50:05

then it's going to be a

50:07

subject of legitimate interest to the

50:09

American people and others, the European

50:11

taxpayers. Nevertheless, you end up in

50:13

this, and I know this because

50:15

it's the same thing in the

50:18

old media, you end up on

50:20

like the new bit of the

50:22

story, and there's always a risk

50:24

that you will lose sight of

50:26

the beginning of the story. For

50:28

instance, I mean, Putin's corruption is...

50:30

legendary, gargantuan, and not as interesting,

50:32

it seems to me. The algorithm

50:34

doesn't push that. And I think

50:36

that's, to a greater extent, the

50:38

case with the Israel-Hemaz war as

50:41

well. Well, isn't there a little

50:43

bit of a concern? Like, I

50:45

would say a couple things here.

50:47

Number one. I'm not denying, I

50:49

don't know how the algorithm works

50:51

or what it's pushing and it's

50:53

an interesting thing that we probably

50:55

should all know more about, but

50:57

I think there's a danger when

50:59

you're, to just classify everything as

51:02

well the algorithm pushes this and

51:04

doesn't push this, it's like it

51:06

could also be that some ideas

51:08

are just resonating more and some

51:10

ideas are more popular than other

51:12

ideas and there's probably, probably both

51:14

of those things are at work

51:16

in a lot of ways. than

51:18

talking about Russian corruption is obviously

51:20

because like well one of these

51:22

countries is an enemy and the

51:25

other one is one that we're

51:27

sending tens of billions of dollars

51:29

to. dating on between Zalinsky and

51:31

the weapons companies, I don't know,

51:33

he says he only got 70

51:35

billion dollars of it, but we've

51:37

spent closer to 170, so whatever.

51:39

But the point is that obviously,

51:41

if there is a country that

51:43

we are propping up funding, arming,

51:45

and they're corrupt, I would say

51:48

my starting point would always be

51:50

to be more concerned with that

51:52

corruption than an enemy country, which

51:54

it's almost kind of a given.

51:56

is a correct country. I don't

51:58

know. I'm sure there are fringes

52:00

of the right, who might say

52:02

like Vladimir Putin, some great guy

52:04

or something like that, but that

52:06

is, I really do not think

52:08

that is the argument that most

52:11

people who are critical of this,

52:13

of Biden's policy, are making. Sure.

52:15

I mean, I think one of

52:17

the interesting things that happens in

52:19

this is the old cliche of

52:21

losing the wood for the trees.

52:23

It just happens an awful lot.

52:25

And it's the nature of the

52:27

old news cycle, let alone the

52:29

current one, the social media era.

52:31

The social media era. Actually, I

52:34

remember that, sorry, we don't go

52:36

back to World War II, let

52:38

me just very quickly, I remember

52:40

this debate with Pat Bukano when

52:42

he was debating much more learned

52:44

historians on the subject of the

52:46

origins of World War II. And

52:48

the whole thing got lost in

52:50

all of this sort of mad

52:52

puzzle of views about iron ore

52:55

production in the Varian forest and

52:57

this sort of thing. And I

52:59

remember everyone was all over the

53:01

place and the moderator turned to

53:03

World War II begin. And he

53:05

said, World War II began because

53:07

Hitler invaded Poland. And those moments

53:09

come along quite often at the

53:11

moment, which is, yes, there's an

53:13

awful lot of very interesting things

53:15

to look into. There's a lot

53:18

of very interesting things going on

53:20

which we should all be able

53:22

to talk about and do talk

53:24

about. But... Sometimes you have to

53:26

remember the origin causes of things

53:28

as well, and you have to

53:30

stick to keeping that in mind.

53:32

Yeah, well, I think that a

53:34

lot of people are pretty bad

53:36

at the moment of keeping that

53:38

in mind. Like, you can, you

53:41

can concede. Ukrainian corruption, you can

53:43

concede all sorts of things and

53:45

still not lose sight of the

53:47

thing of if Russia rolls tanks

53:49

into neighboring countries, it can't be

53:51

allowed. Well listen, okay, so on

53:53

that I think we have an

53:55

area of agreement and I do

53:57

think like even while I much

53:59

prefer the the path that Donald

54:01

Trump is pursuing to the path

54:04

that Joe Biden pursued when it

54:06

comes to the war in Ukraine,

54:08

and of course this is, you

54:10

know. Donald Trump's thing is once

54:12

you piss him off. He's going

54:14

to call you every bad nickname

54:16

that there is. But when he

54:18

said when you don't piss him

54:20

off. Well, sure. But when he's

54:22

like, the Danes come to mind.

54:25

I believe he said that Zelenski

54:27

started the war. Yes, he did.

54:29

Which is like, OK, all right,

54:31

that's a little bit ridiculous. He

54:33

said, Lenki started the war. He

54:35

said Zelenski started the war. He

54:37

said Zelenski started the war? Yeah.

54:39

But it was, this is how

54:41

Donald Donald Trump started the war.

54:43

If he feels that you disrespected

54:45

him or came at him, he's

54:48

going to be 10 times more

54:50

vicious to you. By the way,

54:52

this happened two weeks before the

54:54

disastrous Oval office meeting. Yeah. And

54:56

I wrote the next day, the

54:58

cover in the New York Post,

55:00

which was a big picture of

55:02

Vladimir Putin with the headline, this

55:04

is a dictator. Just again, as

55:06

I say, not to lose track.

55:08

of the basic facts. Well look

55:11

I will say this as somebody

55:13

who is I'm very anti-war broadly

55:15

speaking and I do I do

55:17

agree with you that it should

55:19

like we should be able to

55:21

have conversations about all the things

55:23

that led up to the war

55:25

and all the different you know

55:27

like blunders that that were made

55:29

and also still recognize that Vladimir

55:31

Putin invaded a country and is

55:34

responsible for you know at least

55:36

hundreds of thousands of people dying.

55:38

And, you know, Scott Horton, who

55:40

I always try to promote on

55:42

here, he just wrote this book

55:44

called Provoked, I think it's the

55:46

best book that's been written on

55:48

the... history leading up to the

55:50

war between, it basically takes you

55:52

from the collapse of the Soviet

55:55

Union up to the war in

55:57

Ukraine. And even in that book,

55:59

the book is called Provoked and

56:01

the argument is that Western policy

56:03

was very provocative toward Vladimir Putin

56:05

and there were a lot of

56:07

off-ramps that could have been explored

56:09

and should have been explored. But

56:11

he has an entire chapter in

56:13

the book where he is saying

56:15

like, look, these are... Putin had

56:18

a lot of other options. He

56:20

didn't have to do this. It's

56:22

not as if any of that

56:24

justifies his invasion. And so I

56:26

do agree with you that whenever

56:28

we're talking about a war, particularly

56:30

a war of aggression, that should

56:32

always be in the front of

56:34

people's minds. I mean, you can

56:36

criticize, you can criticize lots of

56:38

things about the insurgency in Iraq,

56:41

certainly. But you should remember that

56:43

George W. Bush invaded the country

56:45

when he shouldn't have, and based

56:47

off lies. So I say that

56:49

when my government does it, I'll

56:51

say it when the Russian government

56:53

does it also. That being said,

56:55

there's a very strong argument that

56:57

there were many policies that the

56:59

US, you know, NATO and Europe

57:01

as well, but mostly the US,

57:04

pursued, that were just almost... Like

57:06

if you wanted to come to

57:08

this inevitable conflict, this would have

57:10

been the policy to pursue to

57:12

give you the best chance to

57:14

end up there. One of the,

57:16

you know, I was with a

57:18

British military friend recently and somebody

57:20

asked, what does the fog of

57:22

war mean? And he gave a

57:25

brilliant example of what it means

57:27

on the battlefield, which a lot

57:29

of people don't understand. There's a

57:31

version of the fog of war

57:33

in history as well. The great

57:35

Czech writer Milan Conderaa had a

57:37

beautiful phrase. in a book of

57:39

his from the 90s called Testaments

57:41

Betrayed, where he said, the odd

57:43

thing about mankind is he said

57:45

we walk through life in a

57:48

fog and we stumble along a

57:50

path and we create the path

57:52

as we stumble along it. So

57:54

that's not the interesting thing. The

57:56

interesting thing... is that when we

57:58

look back, we see the man

58:00

and we see the path, but

58:02

we don't see the fog. Everything

58:04

looks inevitable when you're standing in

58:06

the present. Everything looks like it

58:08

was going to happen this way.

58:11

And you have these endless, often

58:13

fascinating, often futile, explorations of what

58:15

might have been. But it doesn't

58:17

take into account the fog. It's

58:19

a very good point. And the

58:21

fog of Russia. after the fall

58:23

of the Soviet Union, was pretty

58:25

considerable. The efforts in the 1990s

58:27

to bring them into a more

58:29

obvious part of the international order

58:31

failed. My own view has always

58:34

been that in part we missed

58:36

an opportunity to pay a kind

58:38

of civilizational respect to the Russians,

58:40

which they deserved. But also throughout

58:42

the period that people now say

58:44

there are all of these off-ramps.

58:46

And now, so many people claim

58:48

that NATO went around the region

58:50

desperately trying to provoke the Russians

58:52

into some kind of war, or

58:55

inevitably leading them that way because

58:57

of NATO expansionism. They never take

58:59

into account what was in my

59:01

memory and experience very clear, which

59:03

was NATO didn't go around recruiting.

59:05

People came to NATO. People came

59:07

to NATO. countries came to NATO

59:09

wanting to join, precisely because they

59:11

feared the aggression that Ukrainians have

59:13

suffered since February 2022, and indeed

59:15

before. I was in Georgia just

59:18

after the 2008 war began, the

59:20

country, not the state. Or it

59:22

has to be. confirmed otherwise. People

59:24

were like, one, who innovated Georgia?

59:26

They're a bit of bastards. But

59:28

I was in the country of

59:30

Georgia and Putin had tried to

59:32

invade them and had seized South,

59:34

set here and have cars here,

59:36

and they were desperate to join

59:38

later. In fact, they were desperate

59:41

to join the European Union. I

59:43

rather frivolously said to a Georgian

59:45

friend, if you want we can

59:47

swap, you can take our British

59:49

membership with the EU. But in

59:51

the NATO thing, they were desperate

59:53

for it, and they were desperate

59:55

for it precisely for the reason

59:57

that many of the Ukrainians were

59:59

desperate for it, which was only

1:00:01

way to stop Putin expansionism. So,

1:00:04

you know, in the whole fog

1:00:06

of the post-Soviet era, that is

1:00:08

one of the many things that

1:00:10

gets left out of the conversation

1:00:12

with the conversation. And by the

1:00:14

way, Putin's actions in February 2022

1:00:16

and since, all he's done is

1:00:18

provoke two new countries to join

1:00:20

NATO and his borders with NATO

1:00:22

have grown. That's true. Finland and

1:00:24

Sweden wanted to join was because

1:00:27

they too are scared. It's a

1:00:29

heck of a thing to get

1:00:31

the Swedish to join a military

1:00:33

alliance. It doesn't come easy though.

1:00:35

It doesn't come natural. And these

1:00:37

countries joined because like... Georgia, like

1:00:39

Ukraine, they desperately feared Putinist expansionism.

1:00:41

And they weren't wrong. Okay, but

1:00:43

I get your point. First off,

1:00:45

the war in Georgia in 2008

1:00:48

actually came, was it two or

1:00:50

three months after the Bucharest summit

1:00:52

where NATO announced that Georgia and

1:00:54

Ukraine would be entering NATO? So

1:00:56

just making that NATO aspirations, the

1:00:58

NATO aspirations came first. But listen,

1:01:00

I don't think you're wrong. I

1:01:02

don't think anybody is ever implying

1:01:04

that we've expanded NATO through force

1:01:06

and that the countries who were

1:01:08

joining, or at least the countries

1:01:11

who were joining, didn't want it.

1:01:13

Although in the case of Ukraine,

1:01:15

there's a great piece in the

1:01:17

Washington Post about... this in 2006

1:01:19

where joining NATO was actually very

1:01:21

unpopular and there was a lot

1:01:23

done and largely because they just

1:01:25

didn't want to take on the

1:01:27

headache of the conflict that this

1:01:29

might provoke but you know the

1:01:31

question I think isn't necessarily like

1:01:34

do these countries wish to join

1:01:36

NATO of course I think most

1:01:38

countries in the world would like

1:01:40

the most powerful in the history

1:01:42

of the world to guarantee their

1:01:44

defense and subsidize their defense. The

1:01:46

question is, is that in America's

1:01:48

interest, and in terms of your

1:01:50

point of seeing through the fog,

1:01:52

I mean, look, there was, as

1:01:54

you know well, in the 90s,

1:01:57

in the late 90s during the

1:01:59

first round of NATO expansion, there

1:02:01

was a lively debate amongst this,

1:02:03

and I don't mean a debate

1:02:05

amongst. outsiders or non-expert experts or

1:02:07

whatever. I mean, within the real

1:02:09

deal experts, the wisest gray beers

1:02:11

in the national security apparatus, there

1:02:13

was a real debate with at

1:02:15

least three secretaries of defense who

1:02:18

warned against this. Robert Gates, Robert

1:02:20

Gates, Robert McNamara, the Secretary of

1:02:22

Defense, who warned against this, Robert

1:02:24

Gates, Robert McNamara, William Perry, the

1:02:26

Secretary of Defense at the time,

1:02:28

almost resigned. And goes, this will

1:02:30

inevitably lead to a... with Russia

1:02:32

and his exact words were and

1:02:34

then when there's a Russian response

1:02:36

everybody will say look this is

1:02:38

why we needed to expand NATO

1:02:41

but the point here is okay

1:02:43

even within that deep debate which

1:02:45

there were lively debates about even

1:02:47

the people who were on the

1:02:49

pro expansionist side of things like

1:02:51

Henry Kissinger even he said Ukraine

1:02:53

would have to be a special

1:02:55

arrangement Ukraine will not come into

1:02:57

NATO because obviously that's leading to

1:02:59

a war with with Russia and

1:03:01

so I don't think it's unreasonable

1:03:04

and I think this is a

1:03:06

fair thing that we should do

1:03:08

in all conflicts is like To

1:03:10

have as a as as Meersheimer

1:03:12

puts it to have strategic empathy

1:03:14

to say like hey listen Let's

1:03:16

let's reasonably place ourselves in the

1:03:18

other person's shoes and say how

1:03:20

would we react? If somebody was

1:03:22

expanding their military alliance That is

1:03:24

explicitly anti us and is bringing

1:03:27

it up to our borders and

1:03:29

now is openly for years and

1:03:31

years and years Saying that we

1:03:33

are going to bring your largest

1:03:35

neighbor where you have very important

1:03:37

strategic interest from your point of

1:03:39

view Into our military lines and

1:03:41

you are saying over and over

1:03:43

again. This is our red line.

1:03:45

Do not do this and then

1:03:48

they keep flirting with doing this

1:03:50

over and over then they back

1:03:52

a street push that overthrows the

1:03:54

government there. Don't you think maybe

1:03:56

that would be a provocation? First

1:03:58

of all, two things. If you

1:04:00

want that strategic empathy, I'm not

1:04:02

an admirer of, but if you

1:04:04

want to do that you can

1:04:06

do it the other way around

1:04:08

as well surely. Yeah. I mean

1:04:11

do the same thing with the

1:04:13

Ukrainians. Do you say the same

1:04:15

thing with the Latvians and others?

1:04:17

Yeah, but I would never, Douglas,

1:04:19

but my response to you was

1:04:21

never, I can't understand why the

1:04:23

Latvians or the Lithuanians would want

1:04:25

to be a NATO. I understand,

1:04:27

yes. Right. And I can understand

1:04:29

why Russia thought that Ukrainian membership

1:04:31

in NATO was a red line.

1:04:34

I can understand that. But that

1:04:36

wasn't why Putin invaded in 2022.

1:04:38

And I think there's an oddity,

1:04:40

if I can say so, maybe

1:04:42

this particularly comes across on the

1:04:44

libertarian. bisexual side, but I think

1:04:46

there's an oddity of the... Let

1:04:48

the record show him a happily

1:04:50

married heterosexual man. They'll say that.

1:04:52

I think there's an oddity that

1:04:54

sometimes particularly happens on the libertarian

1:04:57

side, which is a presumption that

1:04:59

things only really happen in the

1:05:01

world because we make them so.

1:05:03

And, you know, Russia invades Ukraine

1:05:05

because of American policy in Eastern

1:05:07

Europe post- 1989, something happened in

1:05:09

the Middle East because of American

1:05:11

policy and I think it's a

1:05:13

very blinked and parochial view of

1:05:15

things because my experience in countries

1:05:18

around the world is that there's

1:05:20

a heck of a lot going

1:05:22

on that America is frankly not

1:05:24

really involved in. Well that's certainly

1:05:26

a strong man of my position.

1:05:28

I'm not saying that America is...

1:05:30

No, no, no, no, no, but

1:05:32

what I'm saying is, it is

1:05:34

very... in fact, it's partly since

1:05:36

you... I kindly raised the issue,

1:05:38

Joe, behind your book. It's one

1:05:41

of the things I find. Democracy

1:05:43

is in death cult. It's one

1:05:45

of the things I find very

1:05:47

interesting. about this with democracies, which

1:05:49

is it is one of the

1:05:51

things in the nature of a

1:05:53

liberal democracy, that because we have

1:05:55

the right to err, our opinion,

1:05:57

because we have the right to

1:05:59

criticize our government, and much more,

1:06:01

we end up doing all of

1:06:04

that. And there is a misapprehension

1:06:06

people can come to, I don't

1:06:08

know if you do, but they

1:06:10

can come to, which is effectively

1:06:12

we are the only force that

1:06:14

causes action in the world. And

1:06:16

there's a reason for that, which

1:06:18

is that we have, thank God,

1:06:20

thank God. say in how liberal

1:06:22

democracies are run and how we're

1:06:24

governed and we can chew over

1:06:27

all of the disagreements that we

1:06:29

have, but when the liberal democracy

1:06:31

comes against the kind of rock

1:06:33

like a death cult, a totalitarian

1:06:35

regime, a dictatorship like Russia or

1:06:37

the Iranian revolutionary government, there's always

1:06:39

this temptation to say... to focus

1:06:41

our attention on our own side

1:06:43

because we can't do a darn

1:06:45

thing about the other one. It's

1:06:47

a version of, you know, the

1:06:50

great late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

1:06:52

said when he was ambassador to

1:06:54

the UN, it's sort of known

1:06:56

among those who know about it

1:06:58

as Moynihan's rule, which as he

1:07:00

said, if you sit at the

1:07:02

UN Human Rights Council, any of

1:07:04

these bodies, you would come away

1:07:06

with the belief that the most

1:07:08

abused people with the fewest rights

1:07:11

in the world live in America

1:07:13

live in America. and other Western

1:07:15

liberal societies. And he came, because

1:07:17

we're the ones that talk about

1:07:19

it, you know, if there's one

1:07:21

incident of racism in America, the

1:07:23

whole world knows about it. Everyone

1:07:25

reads it, so there'll be protests

1:07:27

everywhere. If there's one incident of

1:07:29

racism in North Korea, it's not

1:07:31

going to make any news. And

1:07:34

then you have on top of

1:07:36

that the fact that the... the

1:07:38

way in which despotisms and death

1:07:40

cults and dictatorships work. The information

1:07:42

just doesn't come out. And Moynihan's

1:07:44

rule ended up being that the

1:07:46

In this point he said that

1:07:48

his rule by the end of

1:07:50

his time in the UN was

1:07:52

that the number of human rights

1:07:54

violations that occur in a country

1:07:57

happen in exactly inverse proportion to

1:07:59

the numbers of claims of human

1:08:01

rights violations. Because only the countries

1:08:03

which care about it and which

1:08:05

such things can be erred in

1:08:07

are ever going to get it

1:08:09

out. But the point of Moynihan's

1:08:11

law and the warning of it

1:08:13

is, be careful not to come

1:08:15

away. with the mistaken idea that

1:08:17

the freest and most liberal societies

1:08:20

are the worst. And I think

1:08:22

there's a version of Moynihan's law

1:08:24

that applies whether it's from the

1:08:26

Middle East, to Ukraine and Russia,

1:08:28

which is we come away with

1:08:30

this, people may come away with

1:08:32

the impression that the bad things

1:08:34

in the world effectively all come

1:08:36

from here. And there is quite

1:08:38

a lot to be said for

1:08:41

some of that, but there's not

1:08:43

everything to be said. And much

1:08:45

of the world runs on a

1:08:47

dynamic and a dynamo, which you

1:08:49

can't do a darn thing about,

1:08:51

other than to try to understand

1:08:53

it. Yeah, okay, so I mean,

1:08:55

again, I certainly... There there is

1:08:57

truth to a lot of that

1:08:59

and I think that is a

1:09:01

fascinating kind of dynamic where there

1:09:04

is something about kind of like

1:09:06

you know I notice this even

1:09:08

Just with my own kids like

1:09:10

it's like and people when you

1:09:12

have kids and you raise them

1:09:14

really wet You know like you're

1:09:16

really sweet to them and you

1:09:18

don't hit them and you give

1:09:20

them a good life small things

1:09:22

end up becoming huge like things

1:09:24

in their mind like someone pushed

1:09:27

me at the playground and it's

1:09:29

like who this is like the

1:09:31

way the way I grew up

1:09:33

like the way I grew up

1:09:35

like the way I I think

1:09:37

it would be certainly incorrect to

1:09:39

assume that everything that happens bad

1:09:41

in the world is somehow a

1:09:43

consequence of US meddling. I also

1:09:45

think that there's people on the

1:09:47

other side here, maybe the people

1:09:50

who are more neo-Con leaning, more

1:09:52

hockey leaning, they have a tendency

1:09:54

to only focus on the bad

1:09:56

things that... everybody else does and

1:09:58

act like our policies have no

1:10:00

impact on this. Right so very

1:10:02

specifically you know with the Russian

1:10:04

invasion of Ukraine I'll just get

1:10:06

two like bullet points on this

1:10:08

and there's we could talk about

1:10:11

a lot of this but look

1:10:13

number one in in 2008 as

1:10:15

you well know right the Joe

1:10:17

Biden's CIA director, who is the

1:10:19

CIA director for the entire war

1:10:21

up until Donald Trump just came

1:10:23

back in, he wrote the net

1:10:25

means net memo to Condoleeza Rice,

1:10:27

a private cable to the then

1:10:29

Secretary of State when he was

1:10:31

ambassador to Russia to let her

1:10:34

know that this flirting with bringing

1:10:36

Ukraine into NATO is going to

1:10:38

end up in a war. And

1:10:40

by the way, the Russians don't

1:10:42

want to do it. His words

1:10:44

exactly, if you keep pushing with

1:10:46

this, the Russians are going to

1:10:48

have to make a decision that

1:10:50

they don't want to make. whether

1:10:52

they intervene or not. And number

1:10:54

two, Streltenberg, if I might be

1:10:57

butcher on that again, but the

1:10:59

head of NATO, he himself said

1:11:01

that Vladimir Putin sent him a

1:11:03

draft treaty in late 2021 and

1:11:05

said, look, if you just put

1:11:07

into writing that you will not

1:11:09

bring Ukraine into NATO, I won't

1:11:11

invade. Now, if you want to

1:11:13

argue that... This, this... I admire

1:11:15

your appeal to authority to the

1:11:17

head of the CIA. It's not

1:11:20

an appeal to authority. Well, how

1:11:22

is that an appeal to authority?

1:11:24

You regard the view of the

1:11:26

CIA direct on that occasion as

1:11:28

being useful for your argument. But

1:11:30

secondly, there's an oddity to believing.

1:11:32

What Vladimir Putin says? No, wait

1:11:34

hold on. You didn't let me

1:11:36

finish my point. Okay. So don't

1:11:38

believe what he says I'm not

1:11:41

going to pretend to read his

1:11:43

heart in mind or something like

1:11:45

that But at the very least

1:11:47

you handed him the giant excuse

1:11:49

in order to do it I

1:11:51

mean, maybe he doesn't really believe

1:11:53

it But this is his argument

1:11:55

to his own people and to

1:11:57

the world that it's like look

1:11:59

and and we put him in

1:12:01

a position very plausibly say to

1:12:04

the international community in the same

1:12:06

way that if the Soviet Union

1:12:08

had survived and the United States

1:12:10

hadn't and they were he doesn't

1:12:12

very plausibly have the opportunity to

1:12:14

do that he invaded Ukraine because

1:12:16

he wanted to annex the whole

1:12:18

country because he was trying to

1:12:20

pretend the whole place being run

1:12:22

by Nazis well I mean okay

1:12:24

the whole place wasn't run by

1:12:27

Nazis there certainly worse than Nazis

1:12:29

there what he told the Russian

1:12:31

people Oh, he also brought up,

1:12:33

listen, when he announced... You can

1:12:35

lie an awful lot when you're

1:12:37

a dictator and you have the

1:12:39

ability not just to run all

1:12:41

of the media, but to kill

1:12:43

your political opponents. I mean, you

1:12:45

can do an awful lot. Sure.

1:12:47

None of this... You know, I

1:12:50

just got back from Ukraine again

1:12:52

the other week, and it's so

1:12:54

weird. I saw the oval office

1:12:56

meeting as it happened from a

1:12:58

trench in the front line between

1:13:00

the Russian and Ukrainian and Ukrainian

1:13:02

positions in the east of the

1:13:04

country. And it was so weird

1:13:06

seeing the way in which this

1:13:08

country's territory was being talked about

1:13:11

by outsiders, particularly by America, because

1:13:13

there's so many oddities about it,

1:13:15

but the people who are fighting

1:13:17

there, the soldiers on the front

1:13:19

lines, like the ones I was

1:13:21

with, they're not... fighting Russian soldiers

1:13:23

because the Ukrainians... homes of 30

1:13:25

kilometers behind them. And I just,

1:13:27

I think among much else that

1:13:29

stuff that cannot be forgotten about.

1:13:31

None of this is simply about

1:13:34

NATO expansion or this or that.

1:13:36

It's about a country whose people

1:13:38

are suffering in their third year

1:13:40

of war and it's almost total

1:13:42

war. It's as much total war

1:13:44

as we've got in the modern

1:13:46

age and But that's not, I'm

1:13:48

not disagreeing with any of that.

1:13:50

I'm not saying the Ukrainian people

1:13:52

were fighting because they wanted to

1:13:54

keep their country. People don't very

1:13:57

much like being invaded by foreign

1:13:59

countries. I understand that completely. And

1:14:01

I've also always said throughout this

1:14:03

whole thing, that is their right.

1:14:05

They have a right to do

1:14:07

that. We as Americans have a

1:14:09

right to have an opinion on

1:14:11

whether our government ought to be

1:14:13

funding and arming the thing. But

1:14:15

all I'm saying is that I'm

1:14:17

not making an appeal to authority

1:14:20

to authority. the top people in

1:14:22

the Russian government all unanimously saying

1:14:24

like this is our red line

1:14:26

you keep flirting with NATO expansion

1:14:28

into Ukraine and then you have

1:14:30

all the people at the top

1:14:32

of NATO and at the top

1:14:34

of the US government admitting it

1:14:36

too and going like this is

1:14:38

the whole beef so why is

1:14:40

it like these two things aren't

1:14:43

mutually exclusive? No they aren't but

1:14:45

I mean they weren't going to

1:14:47

expand NATO to Ukraine. Well they

1:14:49

kept flirting with it and you

1:14:51

know this. And it was very

1:14:53

unwise whenever anyone from the rest

1:14:55

of the West even flirted with

1:14:57

it. Didn't Colonel Harris openly say

1:14:59

that NATO was going to join

1:15:01

you? Yeah, shortly before the war.

1:15:04

Yeah, I never saw her as

1:15:06

the Kissinger of our era. Well,

1:15:08

I agree. No, there's some area

1:15:10

of agreement, Doug. That's Tim Walsh.

1:15:12

He's the guy. Well, obviously, that

1:15:14

guy's the future. But, but, but

1:15:16

okay, but it is still the

1:15:18

vice president of the United States

1:15:20

of America. And it's, listen, it's

1:15:22

not just. Again, that's not why

1:15:24

Putin invaded. But, well, you, you

1:15:27

can, he invaded, he invaded because

1:15:29

he, because the thing he's dreamt

1:15:31

of since he's full of, falling

1:15:33

down in the Soviet Union is.

1:15:35

You know how he dreams? We

1:15:37

know a lot from what he

1:15:39

said and what he's done. since

1:15:41

the fall of the Soviet Union

1:15:43

and his statements, certainly very early

1:15:45

on in his presence. But if

1:15:47

he does have a red line

1:15:50

and you violate that red line,

1:15:52

is that because he's following his

1:15:54

dreams or it's because he's... His

1:15:56

dream is, as is said, many

1:15:58

times is the reconstitution of the

1:16:00

Soviet Union's territory. I don't think

1:16:02

that's exactly what he's said. He's

1:16:04

eluded many times to like how

1:16:06

great the Soviet Union was and

1:16:08

what a tragedy it is that

1:16:10

it collapsed and things like that.

1:16:13

But regardless of- Something we can

1:16:15

agree is a fiction on his

1:16:17

part. Oh, I think the Soviet

1:16:19

Union collapsing is one of the

1:16:21

greatest things that's ever happened in

1:16:23

the history of the world. One

1:16:25

of the most evil regimes of

1:16:27

American action. Sure, there's a lot

1:16:29

of factors in there, but yes.

1:16:31

So I'll throw in some pro-American

1:16:34

views. I will certainly concede that

1:16:36

us luring them into Afghanistan. was

1:16:38

played a huge role in weakening

1:16:40

the Soviet Union. It came with

1:16:42

the minor little price tag of

1:16:44

9-11. That was the... Okay, but

1:16:46

you know, that's a... The Soviet

1:16:48

Union did not fall just because

1:16:50

of Afghanistan. No, I didn't say...

1:16:52

I said it played a role.

1:16:54

I didn't say it was just

1:16:57

because of Afghanistan. No, I didn't

1:16:59

say it played a role. I

1:17:01

didn't say it was just because...

1:17:03

things that don't work can go

1:17:05

on an awfully long time. Well

1:17:07

look the Soviet Union went on

1:17:09

an awfully long time I mean

1:17:11

it was. I thought when I

1:17:13

went to North Korea some years

1:17:15

ago that couldn't go on for

1:17:17

much longer and on it goes.

1:17:20

Yeah no okay so fair point

1:17:22

there but certainly it's going to

1:17:24

be you know it's it's a

1:17:26

much different dynamic for communist country

1:17:28

like North Korea who is a

1:17:30

relatively small and not expansionist, whereas

1:17:32

the Soviet Union was trying to

1:17:34

maintain an empire, which is a

1:17:36

much tougher thing to do. Look,

1:17:38

the United States of America is

1:17:40

going broke trying to do it,

1:17:43

so it was pretty tough for

1:17:45

them to do. All I'm saying

1:17:47

here is that, like, if you,

1:17:49

if the dynamic, again, it's not

1:17:51

just that, like, first off, in

1:17:53

2008 at the Bucharest Summit, we

1:17:55

announced we were doing it, and

1:17:57

we didn't give them a map

1:17:59

plan, but we announced they are

1:18:01

coming into NATO, they are coming

1:18:04

into NATO, Kamala Harris comment, over

1:18:06

and over and over again through

1:18:08

the years, people at the highest

1:18:10

level of the US government asserted

1:18:12

that this is going to happen,

1:18:14

that it's a matter of time.

1:18:16

And then, 2014, this was a

1:18:18

major, major provocation toward the Russians,

1:18:20

that we backed this street protest

1:18:22

against the democratically elected government there.

1:18:24

And it's, again, it's tricky because

1:18:27

the Maydown protests were... genuine students

1:18:29

in the center of the city

1:18:31

who were uprising against a corrupt

1:18:33

government. I'm not even arguing that

1:18:35

Ukraine's a corrupt... you know and

1:18:37

that again it's like it's the

1:18:39

people of Ukraine like other countries

1:18:41

when they do have agency beyond

1:18:43

what Washington yeah I'm not claiming

1:18:45

any of those people don't have

1:18:47

agency I'm just claiming that Washington

1:18:50

poured a hundred million dollars into

1:18:52

the thing and sent our politicians

1:18:54

over there our politicians openly saying

1:18:56

we're on your side where you

1:18:58

have the backing of America looks

1:19:00

like historically you know America does

1:19:02

like to be on the side

1:19:04

of people who desire freedom over

1:19:06

When it's convenient, not so much

1:19:08

when it's not. Well, not in

1:19:10

Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt. I'm

1:19:13

glad you joined me in my

1:19:15

dislike of the House of South.

1:19:17

Okay, fine. But look, it does

1:19:19

attack. I was worried from him

1:19:21

in there. Yeah, but it does

1:19:23

attack your central point there, that

1:19:25

it's like, no, I'm sorry. See,

1:19:27

this is my beef isn't ever

1:19:29

with talking about the corruption or

1:19:31

the evil things that other governments

1:19:34

do. What I don't like is

1:19:36

this whitewash over our own corruption

1:19:38

and the evil things that are,

1:19:40

the idea of America, we have

1:19:42

a history of just standing with

1:19:44

the We will overthrow democratically elected

1:19:46

governments with no problem, which by

1:19:48

the way, Janakovich was democratically elected,

1:19:50

with elections verified by the EU.

1:19:52

But I'm not denying any of

1:19:54

those kids had agency, and I'm

1:19:57

sure a lot of them were

1:19:59

protesting against their own corrupt government.

1:20:01

But the point is that, like,

1:20:03

look, imagine on, I think Jeffrey

1:20:05

Sachs came up with, this isn't

1:20:07

mine, but imagine on January 6th.

1:20:09

if like Chinese politicians were coming

1:20:11

over and handing out sandwiches to

1:20:13

the the rioters and saying we

1:20:15

have your back we have I

1:20:17

mean listen we would lose our

1:20:20

collective minds if another country came

1:20:22

in and did something like that

1:20:24

okay and but I mean we

1:20:26

lost our collective minds about Vladimir

1:20:28

Putin installing Donald Trump and it

1:20:30

was all just completely made up.

1:20:32

It wasn't even a real thing.

1:20:34

But so to think, okay, we

1:20:36

didn't lose our minds on that.

1:20:38

A certain subset of the media

1:20:40

lost their minds, yes. For me

1:20:43

being a subset. For me being

1:20:45

a... No, mindset. Yeah. For me

1:20:47

being the bisexual libertarian here, you

1:20:49

have corrected me on my collectivism

1:20:51

several times here and you are

1:20:53

right. Yes, we didn't lose our

1:20:55

mind, I am speaking, but others,

1:20:57

many other people here did. But

1:20:59

others, many other people here did.

1:21:01

a hundred million dollars into a

1:21:04

street protest against a democratically elected

1:21:06

president of Ukraine and the whole

1:21:08

issue is over essentially whether he's

1:21:10

going to tilt toward an economic

1:21:12

deal with Europe or tilt toward

1:21:14

an economic deal with Vladimir Putin.

1:21:16

I mean, Douglas, like if anyone

1:21:18

did that in our region of

1:21:20

the world, we would, D.C. would

1:21:22

overthrow that government, invade in a

1:21:24

moment, if China poured $100 million

1:21:27

into Mexican protests and was able

1:21:29

to overthrow the democratically elected government.

1:21:31

What do you think D.C. would

1:21:33

do? and tries to change policy

1:21:35

in this country. And nobody's trying

1:21:37

to overthrow Qatar. Nobody's trying to

1:21:39

overthrow the Amir or his family.

1:21:41

And they've been poisoning American universities,

1:21:43

American institutions, buying up American politicians,

1:21:45

they put billions into this country.

1:21:47

I think I just sent you

1:21:50

something about that this morning. Yes,

1:21:52

I mean, well, okay, but that

1:21:54

is a little bit different than

1:21:56

overthrowing our neighbor government and trying

1:21:58

to install a hostile government toward

1:22:00

us. You're saying that like we'd

1:22:02

lose our mind if anyone tried

1:22:04

to interfere here. There are lots

1:22:06

of people... But I wasn't saying

1:22:08

if anyone... And the most obvious

1:22:10

one is Qatar, which has pours

1:22:13

money into DC and into elite

1:22:15

institutions and universities in this country.

1:22:17

And I don't find from one

1:22:19

week to the next anyone who's

1:22:21

particularly riled up about it. Well,

1:22:23

so they've been, I mean, so

1:22:25

they're pouring money into DC, and

1:22:27

so do you think that they

1:22:29

are influencing US policy through doing

1:22:31

that? I think they're trying to,

1:22:33

yeah. Maybe, they are trying to.

1:22:36

I mean, I don't know. They're

1:22:38

definitely succeeding with the universities and

1:22:40

others. Maybe. For sure. They should

1:22:42

try with the political class more

1:22:44

if they're trying to turn us

1:22:46

anti-Israel or something like that, because

1:22:48

both major parties in this country

1:22:50

will fund and unconditionally support Israel

1:22:52

no matter what. I mean, I

1:22:54

just, I cite it as an

1:22:57

example of something that's very interesting,

1:22:59

which is a. attempt to interfere

1:23:01

in American public life, which gets

1:23:03

almost no attention. And indeed, the

1:23:05

governments, whether a Democrat or Republican,

1:23:07

still seem to adore the Qataris,

1:23:09

even as they act as one

1:23:11

of the backers of terrorist groups

1:23:13

across the Middle East and elsewhere.

1:23:15

And I cannot understand why it

1:23:17

doesn't get more attention. Well, according

1:23:20

to the former Defense Minister of

1:23:22

Israel, they were begging. cut her

1:23:24

to pour that money into Hamas.

1:23:26

No, that's not what happened. Well,

1:23:28

that's what he said. Yeah, his

1:23:30

words, begging. The, uh, you, you're

1:23:32

referring to the funding of Hamas

1:23:34

in the 2010s. Yes. Yeah, no.

1:23:36

The, the Qataris poured the money

1:23:38

in. And the question on the

1:23:40

Israeli side was what you allowed

1:23:43

to do with funds that were

1:23:45

going into Gaza and the Israelis

1:23:47

allowed the funds to go from

1:23:49

Qatar to Gaza. I think a

1:23:51

little bit more than that. I

1:23:53

think when the funds dried up,

1:23:55

Netanyahu sent the head of the

1:23:57

Mossad and there to beg him

1:23:59

to keep the funds going. Again,

1:24:01

I'm not sure. It's like quoting

1:24:03

the head of the CIA, quoting

1:24:06

the head of the Mossad. Maybe.

1:24:08

But that's not the that's not

1:24:10

the evidence of the last 18

1:24:12

years. I mean, it's you can.

1:24:14

Okay. So I I mean, I

1:24:16

guess I think I'm allowed to

1:24:18

quote powerful people when they admit

1:24:20

what they're doing. I mean, it's

1:24:22

kind of like again. I mean,

1:24:24

it's just it's just an interesting

1:24:27

thing because again, it's a discipline

1:24:29

about this, which is do I

1:24:31

only quote powerful people when they

1:24:33

say the odd thing that I

1:24:35

agree with or do I simultaneously

1:24:37

distrust all powerful people? It's just

1:24:39

an interesting rhetorical. Well, no, I

1:24:41

mean, I think that obviously like

1:24:43

I don't blindly trust anyone in

1:24:45

the political class or the media

1:24:47

class for that matter either, but

1:24:50

when they admit things that are

1:24:52

like very against their interest to

1:24:54

admit and kind of give away

1:24:56

the whole game that now they're

1:24:58

pretending doesn't matter. Are you sure

1:25:00

whether it's a CIA or must

1:25:02

add that it isn't just if

1:25:04

they say something that you happen

1:25:06

to want? to be the case.

1:25:08

Well this is kind of like

1:25:10

saying if I were to end

1:25:13

on trial and I were to

1:25:15

like I'm the prosecution and I'd

1:25:17

enter into evidence a written confession

1:25:19

by the defendant and you go

1:25:21

well are you only entering this

1:25:23

in because this kind of goes

1:25:25

along with your case like I

1:25:27

suppose we're all guilty of having

1:25:29

these these incentives to some degree

1:25:31

but I do think it's a

1:25:33

relevant detail that the former defense

1:25:36

secretary admitted this and by the

1:25:38

way Netanyahu's admitted the Gaza. For

1:25:40

the reason of preventing the establishment

1:25:42

of a Palestinian state. No, that

1:25:44

was not the case. That is

1:25:46

what Netanyahu said, that is what

1:25:48

Ehud Barak said. It's all up

1:25:50

and down. There's one claim, there's

1:25:52

one recording of Netanyahu saying something

1:25:54

along those lines. But look, I

1:25:57

mean, we should get on to

1:25:59

it. We should get on to

1:26:01

it. I could read you the

1:26:03

quotes from Ehud Barak as well.

1:26:05

It's all of them I've talked

1:26:07

about it. The situation there. on

1:26:09

the war of the last 18

1:26:11

months now, more than 18 months

1:26:13

in the Middle East, is a

1:26:15

result. Not of that, but of

1:26:17

Hamas deciding to start another war

1:26:20

with Israel and trying to annihilate

1:26:22

their neighbor. But you don't think

1:26:24

if they were being propped up

1:26:26

by Israel, that has nothing to

1:26:28

do with the group? They're not

1:26:30

being propped up by Israel. The

1:26:32

reason why Hamas were in power,

1:26:34

as you know, much, much against

1:26:36

the interests of the Israelis, and

1:26:38

other American states, folk. insisted that

1:26:40

the Palestinians should have elections straight

1:26:43

after the Israeli withdrawal. They had

1:26:45

elections perhaps on wisely and Hamas

1:26:47

won and then didn't have another

1:26:49

election again and ruled the Gaza

1:26:51

for 18 years until they finally

1:26:53

got the great fruit of their

1:26:55

labours on the 7th October 2023

1:26:57

and went around... southern Israel massacring

1:26:59

everyone and they could including young

1:27:01

people at a dance party and

1:27:03

then caused in turn the destruction

1:27:06

of the place that they were

1:27:08

meant to be governing. It's a

1:27:10

the whole thing is a great

1:27:12

tragedy and all of it is

1:27:14

at the feet of Hamas. I

1:27:16

certainly agree with you that it's

1:27:18

a it's a great tragedy and

1:27:20

I do you know I think

1:27:22

it's it's it's You

1:27:25

know when you accuse me of using

1:27:27

the quotes that kind of you know

1:27:29

back up what I believe I think

1:27:31

it's very convenient here to remove all

1:27:34

Responsibility from the Israelis like even if

1:27:36

I'm telling you that you have these

1:27:38

quotes I mean again I'm not talking

1:27:41

about fringe figures figures We could read

1:27:43

through the list of people who have

1:27:45

admitted what the strategy was with them

1:27:48

funding and propping them up. But hold

1:27:50

on. Let me just say so if

1:27:52

you're gonna tell me Israel props up

1:27:55

this terrorist organization in order to kill

1:27:57

the peace process in order to make

1:27:59

sure that the international community gives them

1:28:02

a no one by the way uh...

1:28:04

what smotrich right the the finance minister,

1:28:06

okay? He's on record, he's on record

1:28:09

saying, look, Hamas is an asset, the

1:28:11

Palestinian authority, they're the liability, Hamas is

1:28:13

an asset because then we can tell

1:28:16

the international community, well look, what do

1:28:18

you want us to do? There's a

1:28:20

terrorist organization here, we can't do business

1:28:23

with them, and then even Ehud Barak

1:28:25

admitted like this was also so that

1:28:27

liberal Israelis. you know if it was

1:28:30

the Palestinian authority they'd be like hey

1:28:32

we should make a deal with them

1:28:34

but since it's Hamas they can't okay

1:28:37

so if Israel props up this terrorist

1:28:39

organization and then as a response to

1:28:41

them committing a horrific act of terrorism

1:28:43

decides to level the entire place and

1:28:46

just slaughter women and children in large

1:28:48

numbers. It didn't level the place Gaza's

1:28:50

not hasn't been destroyed by now. Yeah,

1:28:53

it did not go into level the

1:28:55

place like that now Okay, they went

1:28:57

in and leveled the place, but that

1:29:00

wasn't their intention Let's just go back

1:29:02

to the beginning if we can sure

1:29:04

because it's important Since you're interested in

1:29:07

the question the Palestinian state the Palestinians

1:29:09

were given another state in 2005 when

1:29:11

every single due was removed from the

1:29:14

Gaza by the IDF and when even

1:29:16

the graves of Israelis in Gaza were

1:29:18

dug up and taken into the rest

1:29:21

of Israel. Of all of the what-ifs

1:29:23

of Palestinian Arab history, the era since

1:29:25

2005 should be one of the great

1:29:28

what-ifs, which is what if the American

1:29:30

taxpayer's money that was poured into Gaza,

1:29:32

the European Union taxpayer money that was

1:29:35

poured into Gaza, had been used by

1:29:37

a government in Gaza in a government

1:29:39

in Gaza. to build a state that

1:29:42

lived side by side with their Israeli

1:29:44

neighbors and flourished. And it's not like

1:29:46

the money wasn't there, it's not like

1:29:49

there wasn't the international will. Ishmael Hanir

1:29:51

and the other leaders of Hamas used

1:29:53

that money, as you know, to make

1:29:56

themselves billionaires and to buy themselves and

1:29:58

their kids' condos in Qatar. to

1:30:01

live extremely well whilst withholding the

1:30:03

money from the Palestinian people whilst

1:30:05

building their network of tunnels throughout

1:30:07

Gaza and building an infrastructure of

1:30:09

terror. And that's what they did

1:30:12

with 18 years in Gaza. And

1:30:14

of all of the what-ifs, just

1:30:16

consider that that one was in

1:30:18

their hands. The Israelis did not

1:30:20

make them vote in Hamas. The

1:30:23

Israelis would not want... a terrorist

1:30:25

entity that wants to annihilate the

1:30:27

state of Israel, that is there

1:30:29

on their doorstep, constantly firing rockets,

1:30:31

starting wars every few years. Why

1:30:33

would the Israelis want a group

1:30:36

there that means that if you're

1:30:38

living in towns like Sterot or

1:30:40

Ashklon or Ashdod, your children grow

1:30:42

up all the time knowing that

1:30:44

they might have to go to

1:30:47

the bomb shelters? And that's during...

1:30:49

peace time. Well according to them

1:30:51

the reason they want it there

1:30:53

is because then it kills the

1:30:55

peace process and then you have

1:30:58

a no no one to negotiate

1:31:00

with certificate and that then you

1:31:02

can keep your eyes on building

1:31:04

up settlements in the West Bank.

1:31:06

There are as now Many people

1:31:08

to negotiate with. Mahmoud Abbas maybe,

1:31:11

I don't know as a joke,

1:31:13

goes currently in something like his

1:31:15

20th year of his first four-year

1:31:17

term as head of the Palestinian

1:31:19

Authority. But Mahmoud Abbas is there

1:31:22

in Ramallah, the compounds of the

1:31:24

Palestinian Authority, which I've been to

1:31:26

many times, in Ramallah are there.