Skip to content

Danny Jones Politics

“Pentagon Is On Red Alert” Mossad Just Declared as #1 Threat | Scott Horton

This is a three and a half hour conversation between podcaster Danny Jones and Scott Horton, director of the Libertarian Institute, longtime editorial voice at Antiwar.com, host of The Scott Horton Show, and author of Provoked and Enough Already. It is a politically charged interview, and what follows reports Horton's claims faithfully and attributes them to him as his arguments, not as settled fact. Where a claim is strongly contested, that is noted briefly and neutrally.

Published Jun 8, 2026 3:29:32 video 39 min read Added Jun 14, 2026 Open on YouTube →

At a glance

This is a three and a half hour conversation between podcaster Danny Jones and Scott Horton, director of the Libertarian Institute, longtime editorial voice at Antiwar.com, host of The Scott Horton Show, and author of Provoked and Enough Already. It is a politically charged interview, and what follows reports Horton's claims faithfully and attributes them to him as his arguments, not as settled fact. Where a claim is strongly contested, that is noted briefly and neutrally.

Horton's through line is a libertarian critique of what he calls the American empire: a thesis that almost every government intervention abroad creates a new problem that justifies the next intervention, a cycle he calls "a self licking ice cream cone." He argues that US foreign policy is driven less by elected presidents than by a set of "special interests," which he lists as the bankers, arms manufacturers, oilmen, agribusiness, and Israel, and that the neoconservative movement functions as the vanguard of the Israel lobby inside Washington. From there he walks Jones through the 1990s patriot conspiracy scene, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Iraq War, 9/11, Iran's nuclear program, the 2026 Israel and US strikes on Iran, Gaza, and then a revisionist account of the world wars rooted in Woodrow Wilson and Pearl Harbor.

Many of these claims are contested by mainstream historians, intelligence reviews, and the named individuals. The page below reconstructs the whole conversation in order, keeps the specifics, the names, dates, and figures Horton cites, and flags the contested points without taking a side. The video's title ("Pentagon Is On Red Alert, Mossad Just Declared as #1 Threat") is a thumbnail framing by the channel; the actual discussion is broader and historical.

How a skateboarder ended up here

Horton opens by deflating his own authority. He is, he says, "just a skateboarder from Texas," same as Jones is a skateboarder from Florida, and he learned all of this by running an interview show since 2003 and conducting roughly 6,000 interviews. He was assistant editor and then editor of Antiwar.com for many years, working under Eric Garris and the late Justin Raimondo, and is now editorial director. He praises the site for keeping its deliberately old school look, recalling the day in 2004 it switched from yellow to red, white, and blue, "Post nuke, you know, it's PHP."

His method, he says, is to build a timeline in his head of how each intervention sets the stage for the next, paired with a libertarian economic analysis: anything the government does distorts the natural order, probably causes a problem, and then becomes an excuse for more government to fix the problem it created. In the Army, he notes, they call it a self licking ice cream cone, and he applies the same logic to the welfare state, the regulatory state, inflationary money, and above all the military and what he calls the American world empire. When you see a flag burning overseas, he argues, the right question is "what happened before that," and the trail usually runs back to some earlier American action. His framing: the central question of geopolitics is "whether America is dominant in Eurasia or whether Eurasia is dominant in Eurasia," and that, in his telling, makes America the aggressor, though he stresses "there's no virtue in victimhood" and not every government Washington targets is run by heroes.

He traces his own awakening to growing up in 1980s Austin, learning early about Iran Contra and government involvement in the drug trade, and watching the first Gulf War as a 15 year old who, by his own admission, "just want to see some explosions." He remembers George H. W. Bush claiming he did not need a congressional declaration of war because he had a UN resolution, and announcing a "new world order" several times, which fed a preexisting right wing patriot conspiracy community that read it as a plan for one world government under the United Nations. Horton says he believed that then and now thinks it was wrong: Bush did not mean a literal world federal government.

Coming to grips with being wrong, and the books

Horton hands Jones his two recent books, joking that the giant one (Provoked, on Russia, Ukraine, and the new Cold War) is "like a phone book" and "one third footnotes," with 8,000 citations. He frames the first two chapters as a reckoning with how wrong he was in the 1990s. His key example: he once read the 1997 creation of the NATO Russia Council as evidence that the West intended to integrate Russia into NATO and build "a one world army of the North." He now argues the opposite, that the West never wanted to integrate Russia, kept it "in the waiting room," and lied about it the whole time. He says restudying that era over 20 years changed his read.

That same period, the Waco siege and the Oklahoma City bombing, is where his interest in foreign policy and federal power crystallized.

The Oklahoma City bombing, as Horton tells it

Horton's account of the April 1995 bombing is one of the most contested segments. He argues there was a major cover up: that government informants helped Timothy McVeigh, and that the FBI let them escape prosecution to protect agents from accountability for prior knowledge they failed to act on. The building, he corrects, housed the ATF, the Secret Service, the agriculture department, and a daycare center; 20 children were among those killed.

His "easiest explanation" is a sting gone wrong: the FBI was following one rented truck, and the bombers used a second truck and outsmarted them. He points to the book Oklahoma City by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles, and cites federal prosecutor Larry Mackey as having admitted that the prosecution team agreed to let guilty co conspirators go free, the stated excuse being that they did not want to jeopardize the death penalty case against McVeigh by raising reasonable doubt about whether he was "just the idiot driving the truck." Horton names the white supremacist enclave of Elohim City and McVeigh's neo Nazi associates as part of this, and says CBS's Dan Rather interviewed FBI agents in 2001 who said investigated material was never turned over to the defense, postponing the execution six weeks. He says he interviewed one of those agents, Rick Ojeda, who maintained the Elohim City material was never disclosed.

These are Horton's claims. The official position, upheld by courts and the 9/11 era investigations, is that McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the principal perpetrators and that no "John Doe 2" was established; the broader conspiracy and cover up theory remains disputed and unproven.

"Who's really pulling the strings": the special interests

Jones pushes the natural question: who is actually behind it, if not the presidents? Horton's answer rejects a single secret cabal. The Dallas Morning News editor pretending never to have heard of McVeigh's friends, he says, is not a conspiracy, "they're just lazy and stupid." The real power, he argues, is what Ross Perot called in 1992 "the special interests," which Horton defines concretely as the bankers, the arms manufacturers, the oilmen, agribusiness, and Israel, each with tens or hundreds of billions at stake and each embedded with the government.

He saves Israel for last "for effect," and frames its lobbying as uniquely strange: a foreign government acting as a major domestic lobby, including lobbying US state legislatures to pass anti boycott (anti BDS) laws determining who residents may boycott if they want a state contract. He cites Texas and Kentucky as examples. He contrasts this with Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland, which he also opposes but at least sees as American firms. Asked to steelman the benefit America gets from Israel, Horton struggles to name one, references James Bamford's reporting that Israeli firms supplied software for NSA computers with back doors, and Glenn Greenwald's reporting from the Snowden files that the NSA shares raw intelligence with Israel. He dismisses the "they buy American arms" argument as money taxed from Americans, bounced off Israel, and handed to domestic bomb makers, "a net negative on everything."

Jones reaches for a Terminator metaphor (the liquid metal villain reabsorbing a severed limb), then Horton reframes it through The Silence of the Lambs: a power structure "wearing America's skin," acting like it is us. Horton ties this to the decline of the old WASP establishment, the Skull and Bones world of the Pierces, Whitneys, Rockefellers, and Morgans, the Bushes and John Kerry. His co host Darryl Cooper's point, he says, is that whatever you think of the "Bonesmen," they believed the country was theirs and felt a sense of stewardship; now "no one's in charge," it is "an imperial court" up for the highest bidder.

His example of bidding: the 2015 to 2022 Yemen war, which he says Mohammed bin Zayed of the UAE and Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia got the Obama administration to green light, fought with American planes, bombs, maintenance, air traffic control, and midair refueling. He cites roughly 75,000 direct violence deaths and around 300,000 total excess deaths. He quotes Harry Browne: "It's not just the abuse of power. It's the power to abuse as long as it's there."

The debt: interest now exceeds the Pentagon

On the budget, Horton cites the official military number around $800 billion but says the real figure, calculated by Winslow Wheeler, is about $1.5 trillion, with proposals to make the official number $1.5 trillion, pushing the true total over $2 trillion. The national debt, he says, is near $40 trillion, and interest on the debt is now the biggest line item after Social Security, exceeding Medicare, Medicaid, or the official Pentagon budget. His vivid framing: the entire income tax paid by every person in Florida goes just to pay interest on the debt, "to the central bank of South Korea." On screen the show flashes a graphic, "US interest payments reach $1 trillion."

What Israel needs from America, and the propaganda question

Horton argues that from the Israeli or neoconservative point of view, nothing matters more than perpetuating and increasing influence inside the United States, because without America, Israel "would at least have to rein in their insane ambitions." Jones asks how Israel, with competent intelligence services, lets damaging footage leak (Itamar Ben Gvir at the gallows, intimidating bound protesters). Horton's answer: their control comes mainly from money, blackmail, and intimidation, while their public relations has always been "ham handed" because, as the aggressors, "what can they do except lie from morning till night." He says smartphone cameras have broken the old narrative monopoly, recalling that they used to hire pollster Frank Luntz to focus group exact phrasings.

He then offers a darker interpretation: that fostering hatred can serve Israeli domestic propaganda, citing V for Vendetta ("I want the people to remember why they need us") and the documentary Defamation by Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir, whose punchline, Horton says, is that the worst antisemite in the film is the director's own Zionist grandmother. He recounts Ariel Sharon's 2000 visit to the Temple Mount and the Second Intifada, and Benjamin Netanyahu telling French Jews after terror attacks that they are "not French, you're Jews, come home to Israel," which Horton calls a despicable lie. He notes most American Jewish friends would refuse to move to Israel, and references the "end time prophecy" theory that some actors want to stoke antisemitism to drive the diaspora to Israel.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine and the seven country plan

Jones asks Horton to lay out the Wolfowitz Doctrine, noting John Kiriakou had described it to him from inside the CIA. Horton's account: after the first Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz, then under secretary of defense for policy under Dick Cheney, with Zalmay Khalilzad and Scooter Libby beneath him, wrote the Defense Planning Guidance for fiscal year 1994. The original leaked to the New York Times and caused a scandal, so it was softened, but Horton says it argued the same thing: America would be the dominant political and military power on Earth, seizing what Charles Krauthammer called "the unipolar moment," building an order so dominant that no rival or group of rivals (Russia, China, Europe) would even consider challenging it.

He connects this to the 1996 strategy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written for incoming Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, with David Wurmser as principal author and Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and Charles Fairbanks III among signatories. Its companion piece, he says, is Wurmser's Coping with Crumbling States, and a related monograph, Tyranny's Ally, with a foreword by Perle. Both Clean Break and Coping are posted on his site, he notes.

Then the headline claim: General Wesley Clark's account, which Clark repeated in a debate with Horton on Piers Morgan's show. Clark says that in the fall of 2001, weeks after 9/11, he learned at the Pentagon of a memo planning to "take out seven countries in five years." Horton lists them as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, calling it "the Likud's hit list," and reads "Lebanon" as a war on Hezbollah. He situates the Office of Special Plans under Abram Shulsky, with Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, and a roster of staffers ("lots of Michaels," he jokes) as the network that "lied us into war with Iraq." His summary: the neoconservative movement is "a cross between the Likud and Lockheed."

The "seven countries in five years" quote is genuinely Clark's, repeatedly stated by him; whether it reflected a formal approved plan versus internal discussion is debated.

Ahmed Chalabi and the "Rube Goldberg" scheme

Horton describes Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi as the con man who convinced Wurmser the whole plan would work. He cites Bob Dreyfuss's article Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy and notes Chalabi was a Shiite exile, a Jordanian banker convicted in absentia of embezzling millions, who worked with the CIA on failed 1990s coup attempts (where officer Bob Baer "got burned") before getting a burn notice and moving to the neocons.

He lays out the plan as a "Rube Goldberg machine," like the board game Mouse Trap: remove Saddam Hussein (a secular Sunni Baathist ruling a Shiite majority), install a Hashemite king (a cousin of Jordan's king, claiming descent from the Prophet Muhammad), and on Chalabi's assurance the Iraqi Shiites would then obey, telling Ayatollah Sistani to order Hezbollah to stop being friends with Iran and start being friends with Israel, even rebuilding the old Mosul to Haifa oil pipeline. Horton calls this "completely stupid," noting the British Hashemite monarchy in Iraq collapsed in the 1950s precisely because Shiites would not cooperate, even issuing a fatwa against it.

He says counterintelligence later investigated Chalabi for leaking to Iran that the US had broken Iranian codes, and that the DIA and CIA suggested Chalabi may have been sent by Iran to deceive the "Israel first" neocons into doing Iran's dirty work by toppling Saddam. He points to John Dizard's 2004 Salon article How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons, quoting (via Dizard, via Moayad, via Chalabi) the line that Chalabi "just needed the Jews in order to get what he wanted from Washington and that he would turn on them after that," and points to Marc Zell, Feith's former law partner, calling Chalabi a "treacherous, spineless turncoat." His verdict on the planners: "The neocons are as stupid as they are evil."

Horton's bottom line on the war's outcome: Iraq War II "accidentally handed Iraq to Iran," installing Dawa party governments under Ibrahim al Jaafari and Nouri al Maliki, enhancing Iranian regional power "by hundreds of percentage points," the opposite of Wurmser's claim that "a free Iraq will be a nightmare for Iran." He notes Dave Smith's challenge: if Hashemite bloodline magic worked, why not just phone the king of Jordan to call Sistani and Hezbollah now? Horton says hundreds of thousands of Americans fought a war "they still had no idea what it was even about."

9/11: the "dancing Israelis" and what Netanyahu said

Horton handles the so called "dancing Israelis" carefully, walking through interpretations from least to most extreme. The five men, employees of Urban Moving Systems, were detained after a witness reported them filming and celebrating as the towers were hit. Horton notes the "dancing" framing may have been embellished, and that the documented reporting (ABC, Washington Post) was that they appeared happy. He says the most benign reading is that they were movers who pulled over to film a shocking event many people filmed; a middle reading is foreknowledge they did not fully share; and the worst case, which he says he does not think is necessary, is operational involvement. He lands on a minimal interpretation that they "saw our worst day and thought score," believing it would bind America to Israel.

He ties this to a documented New York Times account from September 12, 2001 by reporter James Bennet, in which Netanyahu, asked what the attacks meant for US Israel relations, answered "It's very good," then edited himself, "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." Horton adds that Bennet, writing later in The Atlantic (a detail Horton credits to writer Jon Schwarz), included a line cut from the original: Netanyahu musing "I wonder if the American people will blame us for this." Horton reads this not as evidence of a controlled demolition but as Netanyahu understanding al Qaeda's actual motive: American support for Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

The "It's very good" quote is widely cited and traces to Bennet's contemporaneous reporting; interpretations of its meaning vary.

Bin Laden's manifesto and the roots of 9/11

Horton distinguishes bin Laden's viral 2002 "Letter to America" (which he says misled some TikTok viewers into sympathy) from the 1996 Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. That title, he stresses, refers to US forces in Saudi Arabia bombing and blockading Iraq. He says the document opens with the 1996 Qana massacre in southern Lebanon, an Israeli artillery strike on a UN shelter that killed 106 women and children, and identifies Naftali Bennett as the artillery officer (Horton's attribution; this specific claim is disputed and not established in mainstream accounts of Qana).

His blowback chain: bin Laden's propaganda about American support for Israeli killing of civilians inspired Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian engineering student in Hamburg, and his friend Ramzi bin al Shibh to join al Qaeda; Atta became the lead 9/11 hijacker. Horton adds that 11 of the 19 hijackers had previously fought "on Bill Clinton's side" in Bosnia and Chechnya, his point being that America armed and supported the same networks throughout the 1990s as long as they were killing Serbs and Russians. He cites former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer's analysis that bin Laden's recruitment was built on concrete American policies, not on hatred of American culture or freedom: "they hate us for our freedom" is, in Horton's telling, a deflection. He credits his book Enough Already (2021) with assembling this history.

He then names the 1953 Iranian coup, turning a constitutional monarchy into a dictatorship because Iran wanted to own its own oil, as the first domino, "the chain of dominoes that have been falling this whole time."

The historical timeline Horton builds

Throughout the conversation Horton keeps returning to a chronology of interventions. The timeline below reconstructs the sequence of events he cites, in the order they occurred, to show the cause and effect chain at the heart of his argument.

1917 Woodrow Wilson enters World War I, which Horton calls "the Great Blunder," arguing it broke a stalemate, enabled the Versailles terms, and seeded both Soviet communism and Nazi Germany (per James Powell's Wilson's War).
1939 Chamberlain's war guarantee to Poland, which Horton argues pushed Hitler into the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact with Stalin and the invasion of Poland (per Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War).
1941 Pearl Harbor. Horton cites Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit and the "McCollum memo" to argue FDR maneuvered Japan into firing first.
1953 Iran coup. A constitutional monarchy becomes a dictatorship after Iran sought oil sovereignty, "the chain of dominoes."
1979 Iranian revolution and hostage crisis; America keeps Iran's prepaid weapons money.
1980s US backs Saddam's Iraq against Iran for eight years to contain the revolution; Iran Contra.
1991 Gulf War ends; Wolfowitz reportedly tells Clark to "clean up" former Soviet client states. Defense Planning Guidance drafted (the Wolfowitz Doctrine).
1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Horton alleges informants and a cover up.
1996 A Clean Break written for Netanyahu; Qana massacre; bin Laden's first declaration of war.
2001 9/11. Weeks later, the alleged "seven countries in five years" memo (Wesley Clark).
2003 Iraq War II begins; outcome, Horton argues, hands Iraq to Iran.
2007 National Intelligence Estimate: all US agencies conclude Iran has no active nuclear weapons program. Bush declines to strike Iran.
2015 JCPOA signed; Yemen war begins.
2018 Trump withdraws from the JCPOA after Netanyahu's "secret files" presentation.
2020 to 2021 Assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh; Natanz sabotage; Iran enriches toward 60%.
2026 Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Iran hits US bases across the region; the interview is recorded amid the ceasefire's collapse.

Figure 1. The cause and effect chronology Horton narrates across the interview. Items are reconstructed from his claims and the books he cites; several (Pearl Harbor foreknowledge, the OKC cover up, the Qana attribution) are contested by mainstream historians and remain his argument, not established consensus.

Still funding the Taliban, and "I never believed in Trump"

Jones asks about reports the US is sending the Taliban roughly $80 million every week. Horton says he does not know the exact numbers but is sure aid flows in the name of food and humanitarian relief, calling the whole NGO and USAID apparatus "a huge racket." An on screen graphic reads "$80 million every 10 to 14 days to Afghanistan." He is skeptical of a theory that the funding is meant to disrupt China supply chains, saying he would need specifics.

On Trump, Horton is blunt: "Ron Paul is the hero we needed. Trump is the hero we deserved." He calls Trump "Giuliani," charming only in his abrupt truth telling, and quotes Trump's own lines about the military industrial complex ("they love war because they love money") alongside his praise for Lockheed, Raytheon, and Boeing. He explains the "America First" slogan through a David Sanger interview, arguing Sanger tried to attach the toxic 1940s America First Committee connotation to Trump, but ordinary Americans had never heard of Charles Lindbergh, so the slogan just sounded right. Horton's preferred meaning, from Garet Garrett, is "defend America first and leave the rest of the world alone." His running joke: Trump is not a Russian spy, "he's an Israeli spy," pointing to son in law Jared Kushner, and he says he debunks Russiagate across 75 pages of Provoked.

How the 2026 Iran conflict could end

Horton says he cannot predict how Trump exits, because Trump contradicts himself constantly, sometimes within a single statement. His larger point: the strikes were "a total unforced error." He argues Iran proved it can reach every US base in the region, citing strikes from northern Iraqi Kurdistan down to Oman, hitting Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan, taking the Al Udeid Air Base (CENTCOM's regional headquarters) offline, and threatening the Fifth Fleet at Bahrain. He quotes Justin Logan of the Cato Institute: "What good is a military base that you can't wage a war from?" His thesis is that a moderately sized intermediate range missile force plus cheap drones (he cites $8,000 to $50,000 drones against million dollar interceptors) has called the bluff of American conventional dominance and changed the calculation for allies in East Asia too.

He notes the symbolic, restrained nature of Iran's responses: shooting at empty corners of bases, giving advance warning (Trump thanking them "for the heads up"), and deliberately not targeting US barracks for mass casualties, which Horton reads as Iran carefully avoiding the provocation that would make Trump "reach for really big bombs." He recounts the Shane Smith (Vice) interview at the Bushehr reactor, noting the US gave Iran its first reactor under Atoms for Peace, and an Iranian official's measured framing of the Strait of Hormuz as a defensive lever.

Iran's nuclear program, in detail

This is the most technical section. Horton argues Iran's civilian program is a "latent nuclear deterrent," like Brazil, Japan, and Germany, who could build weapons but choose not to. Under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, he notes, members have a right to enrich for peaceful purposes, which hawks call a loophole because mastering enrichment makes a state weapons capable. Iran's posture, he says, since roughly 2006 when it mastered the fuel cycle, has been "I'm not making nukes, but I could, so don't push me."

On the 60% enrichment talking point (associated with Marco Rubio's line that "the only countries with 60% enriched uranium have nuclear weapons"), Horton argues weapons require above 90% U-235, that no weapons state stops at 60% except on the way higher, that most arsenals use plutonium anyway, and that the obvious question is why Iran stopped at 60% rather than going to 90%. His answer: it is leverage, a bargaining chip. He dates the escalation to Israeli actions: the December 2020 assassination of nuclear chief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by a remote controlled machine gun (he attributes it to Israel using the MEK), and the April 2021 Natanz sabotage, after which Iran pushed to 60%.

The headline intelligence point: Horton says two National Intelligence Estimates (the highest level assessment, requiring consensus of all 18 US intelligence agencies) unanimously concluded Iran had no nuclear weapons program, the famous one published November 2007 (he names National Intelligence Council chair Thomas Fingar), reaffirmed in 2011, and echoed in DNI Tulsi Gabbard's February 2025 threat assessment and her Senate testimony weeks before the 2026 war. He recounts that George W. Bush, in his memoir, complained the 2007 NIE forced him to tell the Saudi king he could not start a war his own agencies said was unwarranted. Horton notes he personally called for the estimate's release ("release the Iran NIE") on Antiwar.com in August 2005, in a piece titled Who's Behind the Coming War with Iran, which also warned Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz.

He defends the 2015 JCPOA as a good deal that returned Iran's own pre revolution money (held since 1979), expanded inspections atop existing NPT safeguards, and that Trump tore up in 2018 after Netanyahu's "secret warehouse files" presentation. He calls Trump's claim that the Obama deal "gave them a nuclear weapon" a flat lie, and his claim that Iran was "two weeks" from a bomb "0% true." He notes that the JCPOA itself permitted Iran to reduce compliance if the US left, which is what happened.

He also recounts a striking historical reversal: that figures like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Alexander Haig favored normalizing relations with Iran and building a Caspian pipeline across it in the 1990s, and that Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney agreed, criticizing Clinton's sanctions in a 1998 Australia speech with the line "God didn't see fit to put all the oil under friendly democracies." The Israel lobby, Horton argues, vetoed normalization each time.

Escalation dominance and Iran's military advantage

Horton explains "escalation dominance," the Pentagon's doctrine of not fighting unless it controls every stage of a conflict. He says the Joint Chiefs warned Bush against attacking Iran in January 2007 for exactly this reason: with 100,000 troops in Iraq and 50,000 in Afghanistan embedded with Shiite forces, American soldiers were effectively hostages who could be hit "right in the back." He credits Jones for noting that Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine leaked to the Wall Street Journal before the 2026 strikes that the US would "run out of interceptors." Iran's whole strategy, Horton argues, is short, medium, and intermediate range missiles plus drones, an asymmetric force that can hit bases and Israel without needing a navy or land army Trump could destroy.

Why the Trump and Israel dynamic looks the way it does

On Epstein, Horton doubts Trump is being blackmailed over child abuse, reasoning the CIA would have used such material a decade ago; he guesses any leverage is more mundane. His core explanation for Trump's deference to Israel is flattery and money: the Adelson money (Sheldon and Miriam Adelson), plus a personality that responds to praise. He cites a White House clip, briefly posted then removed, in which Trump says, "When somebody's nice to me, I love that person. Even if they're bad people, I couldn't care less. I'll fight to the end for them," which Horton reads as almost certainly about Netanyahu. He compares it to how Bill Kristol flattered John McCain ("you remind me of Theodore Roosevelt").

He describes AIPAC's mechanics, drawing on Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby: a list of 435 members of Congress, pledge cards and donations for compliance, and funding of primary opponents (he cites roughly $25 million in a House race and the targeting of Thomas Massie) for those who cross them. His framing of the politics: on the Democratic side, donors are hardcore Zionists while around 98% of voters are not, citing a poll that half of young American Jews are "functionally anti Zionist." He recounts the 2012 Democratic convention floor vote on Israel where, he says, the chair (Antonio Villaraigosa) gaveled through the "ayes" over loud "nays." On the right, he says the split is becoming "50/50," especially among the young, and calls the trend "untenable."

Palestine: "an Indian reservation," not a country

Horton argues the common framing of Palestine as a neighboring country at war with Israel is wrong. In his telling, the Gaza Strip and West Bank are more like an Indian reservation, de facto annexed in 1967, and the conflict is "a canned hunt," not a war between peers. He calls the West Bank and Gaza "the last 22% of historic Palestine." He rejects the cliché that "if Hamas laid down their arms there would be peace," arguing the reverse, while explicitly condemning Hamas's targeting of civilians on and before October 7, "Screw them and their horrible evil murderous tactics," and insisting that the aggressor being wrong does not make the other side heroes; the civilians, he says, are the victims.

He cites 972 Magazine reporting on Israeli AI targeting systems "Lavender" and "Where's Daddy" (he calls it "Daddy's Home"), which he describes as identifying suspected militants and striking them at home with their families. He references the Committee to Protect Journalists' counts of Palestinian journalists killed, a Tucker Carlson interview with an Oxford abdominal surgeon describing operating on children without anesthesia, and Haaretz reporting in which Israeli officers allegedly said soldiers kill Palestinians "for sport when they're bored," and described keeping "a sub army of Palestinian slaves," civilians forced to enter potentially booby trapped buildings ahead of troops as human shields. He quotes Max Blumenthal's line from reporting Goliath: "The entire political spectrum in Israel is from Dick Cheney to Hitler."

These are among the most serious and contested allegations in the interview. The 972 Magazine reports on Lavender and "Where's Daddy" are real published investigations; the Israeli military has disputed key characterizations of them. The "for sport" and "human shields" claims trace to specific reports and testimonies that Israel contests. They are presented here as Horton's account of that reporting.

A map of the actors, as Horton frames them

To make the relationships in Horton's argument legible, the diagram below sketches the actors and the lines of influence he describes. It is a representation of his framework, not an endorsement of it.

Figure 2. Horton's causal model: special interests (which he lists as banks, arms makers, oilmen, agribusiness, and Israel) shape Washington's choices; the neoconservatives act as what he calls the vanguard of the Israel lobby; the wars produce blowback (terrorism, debt, allied distrust) that becomes the justification for the next intervention, the "self licking ice cream cone." This is a depiction of his thesis, which others dispute.

World War II, retold

Asked about World War II, Horton offers disclaimers ("I'm not the world's greatest expert") before giving a revisionist account he credits to Darryl Cooper's Martyr Made series (The Enemy is the Germans), James Powell's Wilson's War, Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, Keith Knight's review of Churchill's seven volume history, and Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke. He stresses "there's no particular virtue in victimhood," that Hitler and Churchill can both be bad.

His core claim: "It's all Woodrow Wilson's fault." By entering World War I when it was a stalemate ("peace without victory" was already at hand), Wilson tilted the balance, enabling harsh Versailles terms, a continued blockade that starved Germans after the armistice, and the stripping of German lands. He argues Wilson bribed Kerensky to keep Russia in the war, which weakened the interim government and let Lenin and Trotsky seize power in October 1917, and that the resulting humiliation enabled the Nazis' rise. He notes the standard schoolbook version blames the Senate's refusal to ratify the League of Nations, but says even that concedes that without Wilson there would have been no USSR, no Nazi Germany, no Second World War, and no British and French carve up of the Ottoman Middle East.

On Churchill, Horton quotes the argument that English policy for centuries was to war against whichever power dominated the continent, regardless of ideology, "if it was France, we'd go to war against France." He cites Churchill's later remark, after Stalin's rise, "I guess we stuck the wrong pig." He argues Hitler wanted to ally with England against the communists, and that Neville Chamberlain, humiliated after Munich, threw "an emotional fit" and gave Poland a war guarantee, which let Poland refuse to negotiate over Danzig and pushed Hitler into the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact with Stalin so he would not have to fight East and West at once. He notes Buchanan's claim that Chamberlain's own foreign secretary thought the Poland guarantee was insane, and that Britain could not actually protect Poland, which ended the war enslaved to Stalin until 1991. He clarifies the "Nazis in New York" point: those were the American German American Bund at Madison Square Garden, not Germans, and small in number.

These revisionist framings (Wilson as root cause, the "unnecessary war" thesis, Pearl Harbor foreknowledge) are associated with a specific paleoconservative and libertarian school and are rejected by most mainstream WWII historians. They are presented here as the argument Horton and his cited authors make.

Pearl Harbor, and the comparison to the Iran strike

Horton argues the only way FDR could enter World War II was "by lying us into war." He cites Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit, saying the US had broken not just Japanese diplomatic but military codes and that the White House withheld this from Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short, who were then blamed. He points to the "McCollum memo," an eight point plan (labeled A through H) to provoke Japan: keeping the fleet at Pearl Harbor, surfacing submarines off Tokyo, aiding Chinese resistance, and the oil and steel embargoes. He quotes Secretary of War Henry Stimson's diary, "By all means, the Japanese must be maneuvered into firing the first shot." He notes Hitler then declared war on the US, a gamble (hoping Japan would attack the USSR) that failed.

The McCollum memo is a real document; whether it constituted an adopted plan and whether FDR had specific foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack are long debated and not accepted by mainstream historians.

Horton ties this to the present: Trump himself, he says, compared the 2026 strike on Iran to Pearl Harbor (telling the Japanese prime minister "Why didn't you tell us about Pearl Harbor?"). But Horton's contrast is stark: where Pearl Harbor killed mostly military personnel, he says the US and Israeli strikes hit two schools and a girls' volleyball practice, killing around 150 to 167 people, "mostly girls," plus killing Iran's supreme leader (he calls him "their FDR, their pope slash president") along with family members, in the middle of negotiations and based on what he calls a false nuclear weapons claim. He references Tucker Carlson's line that Trump has somehow been "enslaved to the will of Netanyahu," citing the imagery of Trump pulling out Netanyahu's chair and sitting at the side rather than the head of the table in his own situation room.

The FBI's "prohibited access files"

The interview closes on secrecy and the Epstein affair. Horton says he suspects the war timing partly served to push Epstein coverage out of the news. He references Matt Taibbe's reporting at Racket News on a "second set of books" at the FBI, "prohibited access files," a parallel filing system, and speculates it could contain Oklahoma City material, citing his interview with FBI agent Rick Ojeda about undisclosed Elohim City evidence. He connects this to broader transparency complaints, including Joe Kent allegedly being denied access to Charlie Kirk material, and the Trump assassination attempts, plugging Ken Silva's book The Trump Assassination Plots (the Libertarian Institute's 20th book), which Horton says debunks the "fake Iranian plots" against Trump.

On the Butler, Pennsylvania and Florida golf course incidents, Horton is careful: he does not dispute who pulled the trigger in Butler but finds it "perfectly reasonable" both that a lone person can do harm and that sophisticated actors could identify unstable people online and "push them a little bit," comparing it to "the Lee Harvey Oswald story." He notes "total jackassery" by local police at Butler as a plausible mundane explanation too. The exchange ends warmly, with Jones thanking Horton for "this education on American history," Horton joking that his recall comes not from a photographic memory but because "these aren't memories, they're vendettas," and plugging Provoked, Enough Already, the Scott Horton Academy, and his two shows.

Key takeaways: Horton's argument in brief

These are Horton's positions, summarized as his argument, not as verified fact. Several are strongly contested.

The empire is self perpetuating. Each intervention abroad creates a problem that justifies the next one, "a self licking ice cream cone," and maintaining the empire requires expanding the very government power that, he argues, is bankrupting and corroding the country.
Policy is captured by special interests. Not a single secret cabal but a set of moneyed interests, which he lists as banks, arms makers, oilmen, agribusiness, and Israel, with the neoconservatives serving as what he calls the vanguard of the Israel lobby.
The Iraq War backfired. He argues toppling Saddam handed Iraq to Iran, the opposite of what its architects promised, and that the planners relied on Ahmed Chalabi's false assurances.
9/11 was blowback. He attributes al Qaeda's motive to concrete US policies (bases in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel) rather than hatred of American freedom, citing bin Laden's 1996 declaration and Michael Scheuer's analysis.
Iran has no weapons program. He argues 60% enrichment is a bargaining chip, that successive National Intelligence Estimates found no active program, and that the 2026 strikes were "an unforced error" that exposed the limits of US conventional power.
The Trump and Israel dynamic runs on flattery and money. Not invisible mind control but personality, donor money, and the lobby's disciplined targeting of dissenting politicians.
The wars trace back to the world wars. He builds the chain back to Woodrow Wilson and frames Pearl Harbor as a provoked entry, a revisionist reading mainstream historians reject.
Cameras broke the narrative monopoly. Smartphone footage, he argues, has made it impossible to spin the realities of the Gaza war, even as the gap between elite policy and public opinion widens.

Competing claims, side by side

Because the interview is one sided by design, the table below sets several of Horton's central claims against the contesting mainstream or official positions, neutrally, so a reader can weigh them.

Topic	Horton's argument	Contesting view
Iran nuclear program	No active weapons program; 60% enrichment is leverage; NIEs confirm this (largely supported by 2007/2011 NIEs)	Critics argue enrichment to 60% has no civilian justification and shortens "breakout" time (disputed)
Oklahoma City bombing	Informants involved; a deliberate FBI cover up	Courts and investigations attribute it to McVeigh and Nichols; broader conspiracy unproven (contested)
Pearl Harbor	FDR had foreknowledge and provoked Japan (McCollum memo, broken codes)	Mainstream historians reject deliberate foreknowledge of the attack (contested)
9/11 motive	Blowback from US bases and support for Israel, not hatred of freedom	Partly echoed by analysts like Scheuer; "they hate our freedom" framing remains common in official rhetoric
"Seven countries in five years"	A neocon plan revealed by Wesley Clark	Clark's account is genuine; whether it was an approved plan vs. internal talk is debated
Israeli AI targeting (Lavender)	Deliberately kills suspects with their families	972 reports are real; the Israeli military disputes key characterizations (contested)
WWII root cause	Woodrow Wilson's WWI entry caused the USSR, the Nazis, and WWII	A revisionist thesis most historians reject as monocausal (contested)

Figure 3. A neutral ledger of several load bearing claims from the interview against the contesting positions. "Supported," "disputed," and "contested" flags refer to the state of mainstream and official assessment, not to a verdict by this page.

Chapters

Timestamps are clickable. Click one and the player jumps there and keeps playing while you read. These are the video's own 34 chapter titles, verbatim.

0:00 What Scott learned from 6,000 interviews
6:10 Bush Sr.'s "New World Order"
9:24 Oklahoma City Bombing cover-up
17:08 Who's really pulling the strings
23:32 Skull & bones society
28:36 U.S. interest payments on national debt
31:34 What's Israel going to do without America?
39:00 Israel's end time prophecy
41:19 Wolfowitz Doctrine
50:08 Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi's scheme
59:34 The idiotic thinking behind the 2nd Iraq war
1:10:03 Mossad agents dancing during 9/11
1:14:13 What Netanyahu said on September 11th
1:18:25 Bin Laden's manifesto
1:25:42 The timeline of Middle East interventions
1:27:39 The U.S. is still funding the Taliban
1:30:17 Why Scott never believed in Trump
1:37:58 How the Iran conflict will end
1:45:52 Trump's path out of Iran conflict
1:46:51 Iran's nuclear program
2:02:08 Iran's top nuclear target
2:09:00 Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program
2:15:47 Iran's best military advantage
2:21:03 Why Trump might be innocent in Epstein scandal
2:26:04 Trump's loyalty problem
2:33:28 Palestine
2:44:54 Israel's army of Palestinian slaves
2:52:41 Adolf Hitler vs. Winston Churchill
2:54:26 WW2 was Woodrow Wilson's fault
3:03:31 The pact Hitler & Stalin made
3:09:19 Why Hitler declared war on the United States
3:10:47 How Trump's Iran attack is like Pearl Harbor
3:14:26 "Trump is enslaved to Netanyahu"
3:18:32 The FBI's secret Epstein files

Notable quotes

In the army they call it a self-licking ice cream cone. Scott Horton, 4:20

The special interests are the bankers, the arms manufacturers, the oilmen, agribusiness, and Israel. Scott Horton, 18:45

It's not just the abuse of power. It's the power to abuse as long as it's there. Scott Horton, quoting Harry Browne, 16:50

The neocons are as stupid as they are evil. Scott Horton, 58:00

Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, "It's very good." Then he edited himself. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy. Scott Horton, reading the New York Times, 1:15:20

Ron Paul is the hero we needed. Trump is the hero we deserved. Scott Horton, 1:31:00

What good is a military base that you can't wage a war from? Scott Horton, quoting Justin Logan, 1:44:30

When somebody's nice to me, I love that person. Even if they're bad people, I couldn't care less. I'll fight to the end for them. Donald Trump, via the clip Horton plays, 2:29:20

Palestine is an Indian reservation. The Palestinians have already been whooped. Scott Horton, 2:33:50

It's all Woodrow Wilson's fault. Scott Horton, 2:54:30

By all means, the Japanese must be maneuvered into firing the first shot. Scott Horton, quoting Secretary of War Stimson, 3:09:50

These aren't memories. They're vendettas. Scott Horton, 3:23:00

I'm just a skateboarder from Texas. Scott Horton, 0:30

There's no virtue in victimhood. Scott Horton, 5:00

Resources mentioned

People and shows:

Scott Horton and his book hub, plus the Scott Horton Academy of Foreign Policy and Freedom.
The Scott Horton Show and the Libertarian Institute.
Antiwar.com, where Horton is editorial director.
Danny Jones, host of the Danny Jones Podcast, on Instagram and X.
Provoked, the podcast Horton co hosts with Darryl Cooper (Martyr Made).
Wesley Clark, the source of the "seven countries in five years" account.
Matt Taibbi at Racket News, on the FBI "prohibited access files."

Books and documents:

Provoked, Horton's book on Russia, Ukraine, and the new Cold War.
Enough Already, Horton's book on the war on terror.
Oklahoma City by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles.
Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy by Bob Dreyfuss, and How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons by John Dizard at Salon.
A Clean Break and its companion Coping with Crumbling States, and Tyranny's Ally by David Wurmser.
The Defense Planning Guidance (the Wolfowitz Doctrine).
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
Wilson's War by Jim Powell.
Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker.
Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Pat Buchanan.
Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett, and the McCollum memo.
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.
The Trump Assassination Plots by Ken Silva (Libertarian Institute).
The documentary Defamation by Yoav Shamir.
972 Magazine reporting on the AI systems "Lavender" and "Where's Daddy."

Events and institutions named:

The Oklahoma City bombing (1995).
The Qana massacre (1996).
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
The JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal).
Al Udeid Air Base, US Central Command's regional headquarters.
The Cato Institute (Justin Logan) and Winslow Wheeler's military budget work.

A careful closing

This is one historian's deeply argued, openly partisan case, delivered at length to a friendly host. Horton is forthright about that, repeatedly disclaiming his own expertise, citing his sources by name and date, and inviting listeners to check him. The value of remaking it in full is not to ratify it but to capture exactly what he argues and on what evidence, so a reader can trace each claim to its source and weigh it against the contesting view, which on several of the most charged points (Oklahoma City, Pearl Harbor foreknowledge, the World War II thesis, and specific atrocity attributions) is substantial. The 2007 era intelligence finding that Iran had no active weapons program is well documented; the broad conspiracy readings are not. Read it as a map of a worldview, sourced and attributed, and follow the footnotes from there.

Full transcript

Well, thanks for teaching. Give me a little skate lesson, bro. Hey, that was fun, man. That was fun. Yeah, I got to get a bigger ramp. The mini ramps aren't as the the three-footers aren't as good as the bigger ones. I was afraid. I I I'm more afraid of little ramps and I took a risk and on a stranger sport, but I think it worked out, dude. Got a little bit of work done there. Yeah, man. That was fun. I know you've probably told this story like a million times, but all this stuff that you talk about and all the books that you write and all like you're like a galaxy brain of all of the wars America's been in and American foreign policy and the world and I'm just a skateboarder from Florida. I don't know much about this stuff. I'm sure you talk to a lot of experts on this stuff all the time. So, I'm uh try try to keep this like super high level for me today. I'm going to try to understand it the best I can. I know a little bit, but I'm just a skateboarder from Texas. Um, and and like you, I just do an interview show. It's only that I started my interview show in 2003 and I've done 6,000 interviews since then. Wow. So, I learned all this stuff doing that basically. And then also, um, I was assistant editor and then editor of anti-war.com for many years. I'm now editorial director, which doesn't mean too much. Um, it's the rest of the guys doing all the work over there right now. But, um, I love your website. Your website's super cool looking. It's like super old school. You kept it old school. We we we're always in the process of working on the new site that never comes. Don't do it. Leave it like it is, bro. It's sick. Oh, Eric's going to love that. Um, yeah. Uh, it is. I remember the day that they updated it in 2004 and it went from yellow to kind of red, white, and blue like that. And I was like, "Wow, dude. Post nuke, you know, it's PHP, dude. It's the latest thing, you know." Um, I don't know if it was really the latest thing, but it was a very fancy update at the time, but um, anyways, uh, I worked for Eric Garrison, Justin Roondo there, and I just learned a hell of a lot of this stuff. And I guess I'm always, um, trying to kind of build my own timeline in my head of how I understand all this stuff and how it all plays in to uh, you know, uh, each other, the different things happening. And um I guess it's kind of a libertarian economic analysis kind of thing too where just you know to a real libertarian a real free market guy essentially anything that the government does is going to cause some distortion in the economy and in the natural order of things. And then it's probably going to be a problem. Maybe it's necessary but it's probably going to cause problems. And then you're going to have more excuses for government to intervene more to fix the problems that they created. and then continue like in the army they call it a self-licking ice cream cone. It's the same thing whether you're talking about, you know, the welfare state or the regulatory state or, you know, inflationary money and all the different things that government does that cause all these social problems. Then they just are writing themselves new mandates to do more things. And then it's applying that same kind of analysis to the military and the American world empire. And if you go, "Oh my god, look, they're burning our flag." And then you go, "Well, wait a minute. Well, what did happen before that?" Mhm. Then you'll find that it all goes back to Harry Truman or whatever. You know what I mean? It's all but it comes down to the fact that as everyone listening to this knows we're number one. America is the world superpower, the world empire. Not Iran. America. The question is whether America is dominant in Eurasia or whether Eurasia is dominant in Eurasia. That's the question. And so, um, it doesn't mean that everyone that every government that our government picks on overseas is made up of heroes or whatever. There's no virtue and victimhood, but it means that America is the aggressor. There's if there's ever, you know, a world government, it's just Washington DC attempting to dictate to the rest of the planet. So, how But how does like a skateboarder from Austin, Texas getting so interested in in all of this stuff? Like, how did it kick off for you? Um, you know, I guess well, okay, I guess I always kind of, you know, my parents are just barely left of center Democrats. So, luckily, at least, you know, I was raised in the 80s and the early 90s, you know, was my childhood. So, I wasn't raised to rever. Not that like I was raised to despise him or anything, but just there were a lot of kids who were raised to rever him like a founding father or whatever. So luckily I was spared that, you know what I mean? For like my formative years, you know, I was young. And then I don't remember when I first learned that the government was responsible for all the cocaine trade, but I'm pretty sure it was before HW Bush ever became president. I knew that from the Iran Contra scandal in the 80s. I don't remember how I first knew that, but it's one of those things that kind of I always knew that the government was running drugs. Um, and this at the same time they were doing the giant just say no and drug war campaigns and really mandatory minimums and locking people in prison for consuming and trading in the drugs that the government ultimately was supplying at the top of the chain. How do you know this pre- internet? I don't know. You know, I'm from Austin. A lot of people know this. There's a lot of, you know, leftwing and right-wing dissident communities in Austin and libertarians as well. So there's always, you know, channel 10, the access channel, even going I don't know. And they would come maybe I just learned this from a friend's older brother or something. You know what I mean? I don't know. Like I say, I don't remember where I first heard that, but I kind of knew that like all going in. And I remember when HW Bush did I war. Yeah. I was all for it. Just not that I respected him or cared about restoring the monarchy in Kuwait back to the throne, but I just want to see some explosions, man. I was a 15-year-old boy in nth grade at the time. So, I just want to see a war because that would be cool. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. Um, but I remember thinking they're probably listening to Metallica when they dropped those bombs. Yeah. They're they're playing new Metallica torturing people in Guantanamo. God, which makes sense. Um, but I remember thinking, you know, I remember when George Bush Senior said he didn't need a congressional resolution or a declaration of war to go to war for Iraq War I because he had a UN resolution. And I remember knowing that that ain't right because even just my seventh grade understanding of the Constitution. I know that that's not where the war power resides is in New York City there, you know. And then he eventually did bow down and get authorization. Um but previously he had, you know, declared he didn't have to. And then he announced the new world order like four or five times in major speeches. Um, and then there was already kind of this pre-existing right-wing patriot uh conspiracy community at that time which had interpreted that phrase because it had been used in this sense in the past as new world order. Yeah. like the the plan to build a a real one world federal government under the United Nations and which is not really right and that's not what Bush meant by it but that's what I thought he meant by it and he was after all saying that they were the ones who authorized America to go to war not which you know and there was like the controversy he may be too young for this but there's a guy named Michael New who was uh serving in Bosnia as a peacekeeper in '9596 and he objected to being forced to wear a UN patch because he was and that, you know, this like we're building their empire kind of thing and serving as in a subservient role when really that wasn't true. Like the the patch was just a sop to the allies, but it was an American dominated thing all along. But anyway, that was kind of a big controversy at that time was and Bill Clinton would talk that way too. And in fact, um Oh, I have something for you here. Um these are my last two books. Holy [ __ ] Look at this thing, dude. It's like a phone book. Don't don't be intimidated. That's like one-third footnotes. There's 8,000 citations in there for you, so you know I'm right about everything. But sort of the first two chapters of that, it's Yeah. It's how Washington started the new cold war with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine. Okay. And the first two chapters that are in a way me kind of coming to grips with how wrong I was back then. Like for one example, they never I mean this is maybe the main example. They never wanted to integrate Russia into NATO and into America's right international security system. They always wanted to keep them on the outside, but they lied to them all along. And then I also kind of fell for those lies in a way because they would say, "Oh yeah, no, we definitely want to do this with you and whatever with them," which I took to be the big threat. So, for example, in 1997, they created the NATO Russia Council, which was, you know, as they put it, an alliance with the alliance, and they were telling the Russians essentially, you'll never be part of our group, but we'll let you like sit in the waiting room was essentially what it was. I looked at it and was like, oh no, see, they're integrating Russia into NATO and they'll have a one world army of the North, and then it'll be a world and the thing. And then, so what I thought was going on at that time was really not right. Then I went back and you know obviously had to completely you know restudy that whole era of history and as I have over the last 20 years since then. Um but so this is you know basically the John Burch Society conspiracy theory of the the coming one world government that never comes. Uh so that was what really got me interested in it all. And it was also is the era of the Waco massacre and the massive cover up of the Oklahoma bombing. was a bunch of government informants that helped McVey do it and they were allowed to all get away with it because being government informants that means a bunch of FBI agents would have to get in trouble for all their prior knowledge that they didn't act on appropriately and so they just buried that and made all that go away but again that kind of right-wing patriot conspiracy community already existed there it pre-existed the Waco massacre it was huge after Waco and then so as soon as they started lying about Oklahoma City the truth came out like within the first year everybody knew like in the the right-wing magazines where they had the names of the neo-Nazi bank robber group that had helped McVey with the thing and and the rest of it. So, and then there was, you know, the massive cover up. Wasn't McVey tied to Waco somehow? Well, he had been there. He was there. He was there like during the siege protesting against it. And, you know, obviously was highly motivated by what happened there to do what he did. But just point being, not just that a bunch of guys, you know, helped him do it, but that the government let them get away with it and the media let the government let them get away with it in a way that like to me really reinforced the idea that there's some secret network of power here that we're not aware of. How can they get every newspaper editor in America to go along with this? And it's just cuz they're lazy and stupid. Just cuz I was smarter than them as a kid doesn't mean that like they should have been smarter than me as guys older than me. who's well the FBI says there is no John Doe 2 so I guess we're over that and they just so like 30,000 foot view of the Oklahoma City thing like without getting spending too much time on it like what was it all about? Well it was like I know what happened but like what was the whole conspiracy? Okay, so there I mean there's a a very big chance that it was a deliberately provoked attack by you know undercover informants who wanted it to happen. A couple of them were not just informants but were like agents provocator involved in the thing. So, but then the idea the the easiest explanation is that it was a sting that went wrong that the FBI was supposed to swoop in and be heroes, but they just got outsmarted and I think it's a proven fact or we know that there were two rider trucks and essentially the FBI was following one truck and they knew it. So they just brought in another truck and did the bombing with that one and outsmarted the feds and killed all the people and then they covered it up and you know they admitted I mean the the US attorney who prosecuted the case admitted in an interview that he and all of his attorneys all agreed that they were letting it uh guilty people go free. They just didn't, their excuse was they didn't want to jeopardize the death penalty case against McVey. Because if they had to admit that all these other neo-Nazi friends of his helped him do it, then that raises the question whether he was just the idiot driving the truck and they were the ones who really did it. And they didn't want to cast reasonable doubt on his guilt. They had to get his scalp. And so we can either give everybody life or we can give one guy death. So we're going to do that. And that's their excuse. That's their official excuse for letting the guilty go free. It's in the book uh Oklahoma City by Gumball and Charles. Larry Mackey is the name of the federal prosecutor who admitted that to them. So I So I heard that that building had a bunch of it was FBI headquarters right No ATF. ATF. Okay, that's what it was. And Secret Service and and agriculture department and all different, you know, government agencies in there. And there was a daycare center. So 20 children were killed in the thing. It was a absolute catastrophe. Um maybe we'll have a call back to Oklahoma later in the show when we talk about Iran. But um yeah anyway, point being that was why I was a conspiracy nut was cuz in the 90s there was a lot of conspiracy stuff that was right, you know. Um and also I was wrong about the one world government thing and then but by the time of W. Bush came in and and was launching Iraq War II. It was right around it would have been I guess late O2, early 03 that I finally got it through my thick skull that like Coen Powell is not driving and this is not about building up the United Nations at all. And in fact, it's clear that they had to drag Cheney kicking and screaming to get him to agree to even ask the UN for a resolution at all. They wanted to just go. And you know, it was the British also insisted that they at least try to get a UN resolution to go. But the idea that they were essentially going to go after these rogue states in the interest of building up this baby blue global federal union thing was just obviously not right. You know, by the time of the invasion at least I was over it. Um and uh and you can just tell like you know their whole in you know the the Cheney regime the the W. Bush Dick Cheney government their entire thing was that they're the rulers of the universe. Nobody can tell them anything. They have the National Security Council. They don't need the UN Security Council. Again, it was Powell who like made them go to the UN, but Bush and Cheney were like I don't know if Cheney even ever agreed to it, but Bush was like reluctantly agreed to it. But anyway, the my friends, the John Burchers, I really like these guys. They're great guys. Um, in fact, one of their guys emailed me and we had a nice little phone call last week. Um, so I really respect them. They're great people. They love the Constitution and and the Bill of Rights and they're great guys, but just the one world government thing, that was the long answer to your question. That was what really got me interested in all the America's relationship with the rest of the world as being really the driving factor in determining the federal government's relationship with us here at home in the States that, you know, as long as we have a world empire, we're driving to suicide, right? So whether it's a deliberate conspiracy or not, this is how you destroy America is you overextend the damn thing and break it. And so um that's clearly what's happening. So my same concerns weren't really elated. You know what I mean? It's like because in the John Burch theory, first they got to wreck America, then the rest of the world will take it over one day. Well, just forget the second part. But they are wrecking America. And you can see why the Birchers think it's deliberate. How could you be the rulers of the most powerful nation state in the world and then just be a bunch of John McCain and just drive the thing off the cliff and die and look what they've done in just the 30 years since the end of the Cold War. 35 years they destroyed You couldn't have possibly had more irresponsible stewards of American power than the Bushes, the Clintons, Biden and McCain and these just absolute scum, Susan Collins or whatever who's supposed to be the correcting mechanism here. there isn't one, you know, it's Biden's all the way down. In fact, that's probably a good way to think of like our our war with Russia in Eastern Europe and our terror wars in the Middle East as well is just Joe Biden won the election of 88. The one where he had was forced out for plagiarism or whatever. Joe Biden won in ' 88. He's been president this whole time. This has been the Biden regime this whole time. That's all it is. Have you ever tried buying something online when suddenly you realize you have 25 tabs open from Reddit to Teeu to Amazon? That was me recently shopping for new office chairs. One site says the chair is perfect, the other site says it sucks, and then the other one says it destroys your back. And before you know it, you're comparing foam density like you work in a furniture lab. Which is why I started using dupe.com's research forme tool. You just type in what you're looking for, like comfortable office chair for long recording days, and dupe does the research for you in just minutes. It filters through sources, compares options, breaks down features, specs, pricing, and gives you a straight answer on what to buy and why. And my favorite part is it tells you what not to buy. So, it can save you the trouble of making expensive mistakes. So, instead of wasting your whole day, use Dupe. Be prepared to save yourself a ton of time and money. Just go to dupe.com and tell it what you're looking to buy. That's dupe.com to finally feel confident about what to buy. Who really is behind it pulling the strings, though? Like it can't be the presidents themselves, right? There has to be some other form of power behind it that's like making everything happen or I mean I mean it feels to me like there's like this hidden power structure that's like hidden in the shadows behind all this stuff. Well, you know, so that's the thing and that was what I thought too. How do you get the editor of the Dallas Morning News to just pretend he's never heard of McVeyy's friends before? Like whatever. There must be a secret thing going on here or whatever. But that's not it. Like they're just lazy and stupid. And and as far as like the actual, you know, the power mongers is really just comes down to, I believe, what Ross Perau called back in 1992, the special interests. And I remember asking my folks like, what does that even mean, the special interests? And I don't know if they defined it very well for me, but I'll define it very well for you. The special interests are the bankers, the arms manufacturers, the oilmen, Agra business, and Israel. you know, right? I mean, that's it. They're the ones who have the biggest stake in the game. The neocons, right? That's what the neocon is. Well, the neocons of the Israeli lobby, the vanguard of the Israel lobby. Okay. And and and with their ties to the military-industrial complex as well. But you have, you know, these different power factions with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in their role in the economy every year and all that. So they're all, you know, completely embedded with the national government and and play a huge role in determining its policies. And the Israelis are no slouches in that. I save them till the end just kind of for effect or whatever cuz it it should sound silly that a foreign government is one of the big lobbies in America. Yeah. over. I mean, if you'd never heard of such a thing, wouldn't you just assume that if a foreign government wants to talk to America, the ambassador's office is over there at the State Department. Go talk to him. Exactly. Right. What do you mean you're lobbying our legislature? What do you mean you're lobbying our state legislatures for Kentucky? One of the poorest states in this country, passing laws determining who Texans are allowed to boycott or not, if they're going to have a contract with the state of any kind. And Texas isn't the only one. I mean, these guys are way out over their skis as far I don't know if that's the right phrase for it. They're just they're playing a role that they should not be playing in our society whatsoever. It sounds completely crazy. If I tell you, look man, you know, Monsanto and Cargill and these you know gigantic um you know, Archer Daniels Midland that these zillion dollar firms lobby like hell in Washington and it's all really corrupt and they're stealing money from you, dude. you'd be like, "Okay, yeah, that sounds right." But these are American companies tilling American soil, feeding Americans food, even if it's got Roundup all over it or what, but like, at least we we know who they are and what they're doing. Now, I don't like it at all when they're buying up, you know, wheat fields in Ukraine and trying to enlist the government to protect their investments overseas. That's, you know, sickening, corrupt, bloody imperialism. But I just mean here, in fact, that's the kind of thing they do, you know, lobby for. Mhm. But anyway, Israel ain't got really anything to do with America other than in the most artificial sense because of all of that lobbying. You know, they attach themselves to us when we don't get anything out of it at all except terrorist attacks and bankrupt budgets. What do we what what do we get for them? Is there any way is there any like way in your mind you could sort of reverse the argument on yourself or like steelman the fact like what what what what benefit do we get if even if it's like a almost nothing they're going to they're going to say like tech patents or whatever I mean not even patents right tech innovations of whatever their companies do that okay I can't name a bunch of you know good ones I know that they as James Bamford reported that they provided the software to run the NSA's computers and got all their own back doors in it. Doesn't sound like we're benefiting from that, you know, which I don't know why they've even bothered because Snowden leaked and Greenwald reported. They didn't put this in the post of the Times, but they reported in the Guardian that the NSA gives America's entire hall over to Israel every day. Everything, which is So, yeah. Um, if you look, if you take I mean, what do the what do the pro-Israel advocates say? They go, "Well, look, when when Israel cashes a giant welfare check, it buys arms from American companies, so you ought to feel great about that." When wait a minute, they stole that money from you, bounced it off Israel, and gave it to one of your neighbors who makes bombs for a living. How's that benefit you, It doesn't at all. And if you take, you know, the whatever round up, call it 4 billion a year of money that we put into welfare for them that they spend on American arms. Mhm. That's still all a net loss. First of all, in being taxed from us anyway, for that we're being denied the capital to invest in our own lives. But then at best, they're making a real fancy super expensive piece of equipment to go and destroy lives and property with. Mhm. and then throw it out when it's useless. You know, it's all they're not providing goods and services to anyone. They're completely just a net negative on everything. Right. I wonder though like you know how you know how in Terminator when the dude the guy who like turns into like the metal blob or whatever. He like loses a limb or whatever and then he like goes back and it melts back into his body. I'm like thinking of that as like America and Israel and I'm like that they are so rooted in our politics, in our economics, in everything here. At what point is it like this isn't even America anymore? This is more Israel than it is America. You know what I mean? Look, so and this people in control, the people that make the most money, the people that that are in all the power, like it's basically like we're just sitting here talking about it like they can't control America anymore. We are Americans, right? But the people at the top layer, the people that control society and make all the money, they're they're all the same. They are Israel. Like they are part of Israel and they want they are working for Israel. So like at what point does it become futile? Yeah. I mean that's one way to put it. Like going back to like my younger conspiracy days, it was all supposedly about the skull and bones, right? The Anglo-American establishment, the Pierces and the Whitneys and the Abbotts and the Rockefellers and the Morgans, which even the Rockefellers were sort of white trash late commerce to all of that skull and bone stuff. But all that's over, dude, right? Like uh I know Bush and this was part of it, too. The Bushes are skull and bones. John Ky was skull and bones. Whatever. That's like the very last gasp of that old Wasp establishment, right? like they they um they kind of blew their wad in Vietnam and have been you know there's this is a point that Daryl Cooper, my co-host on our show Provoked, has been making a lot lately is um that like say what you will about the Bonesmen, they believe that this was their country, right? that they had a sense of of like real pride and and uh sense of responsibility of stewardship over it which they got us into a couple of world wars and you know really sucked on a lot of things or whatever but point being that really now no one's in charge. It's just an imperial court. The the Rockefellers built this world empire and then lost control of it. Now it's up for grabs right for the highest bidder. If UAE can pick up the bone, toss a little bit of money around and get a war in Yemen, then they'll do that. And there's no there's no you would think that this would be the role of the elected political establishment, but but there's they're not. I mean, they're they're there to take that call. Yeah. You know what I mean? And in fact like that's a perfect example really you know I just picked it at random was in 2015 when Muhammad bin Zed of UAE and Muhammad bin Salman of um Saudi Arabia he had just become the defense minister 29 years old they wanted to have a war in Yemen and they and this wasn't Israel it was them and they came to the Saudis yeah the Saudis and the Amiradis and they came to Obama and said man we want to bomb the Houthis they just sacked the capital city and took over this. The Shiites have taken over the capital city of SA now and we won't stand for it. Help us kill him. And Obama told them, "Okay, fine. Green light." And they fought a war for what, seven years? Eight years really, I guess it ended beginning at 22, they finally called it off. So from 15 to 22, so seven years they bombed the crap out of Yemen and then causing excess deaths. This isn't, you know, direct violence. I think the direct violence was something like 75,000 or something. and then with the excess deaths of something like 300,000 people killed um in this horrific war and it was just cuz this guy Muhammad bin Zed of UAE who most Americans have never heard of called up his buddy Muhammad bin Salman who most Americans at least at that time had never heard of this before you know he was crown prince bone saw over there you know murdering Kosogi and all that wasn't that famous yet so and these guys just called up the Obama government and essentially enlisted America to fight a war for them because of course it's our planes, it's our bombs, it's our, you know, um, contractors doing all the maintenance and the care and feeding of the planes and doing the air traffic control and the midair refueling. It's our war as the Yemenes called it, the American Saudi war against us. Like the Americans, you never even heard of it. The American people were never even consulted one bit about this. They just did it. They just announced a press release. this is happening. So the people that are in charge here just see dollar signs. The military industrial complex just sees money like bombs, machinery. We just ship it over there and we get to make a ton of money. That's that's high level. I mean, I'm sure there's a lot more involved than that. But like to distill it down that that's at the end of the day what it all comes down to. You know, as any socialist would tell you, if the capitalist can buy a congressman and use political force to have his way and to seek rents and exploit the helpless, they'll do that. The libertarians argument is, yeah, what are you going to do? Go full communism? You got to have private property. You have to have prices. You have to have capitalism or you're dead. So, we'll just have to get rid of the government. That's the problem is that there's a Congress to pass a Federal Reserve Act. There's a Congress to pass a declaration of war or authorization for the president to take our money and turn it into bombs and kill innocent people with it. We got to dismantle as much of that power as we possibly can because as Harry Brown said, it's not just the abuse of power. It's the power to abuse as long as it's there. And in the case of America, we're talking what already the bud the the official budget was 800 billion, but the the real budget calculated by Winslow Wheeler is $1.5 trillion on the military that they're already spending. Now they want to bump the official number up to 1.5. Which would put us over two. Isn't the interest like a trillion or something? Isn't the interest alone? I don't remember the I I don't remember the number right now, but I know that on the line graph, it's the biggest part of the budget other than Social Security. It's more than Medicare, Medicaid, or the Pentagon budget. So, the interest on the debt is more than even the cost of the entire world empire right now. At least on the official the official number. Uhuh. And it's at 39 now. It's at almost 40 trillion. So think of here's a way to think about that Danny would be that you take the income tax of not just Florida but just take Florida. Take the income tax paid by every single person in the state of Florida. All that money, it didn't go to helping some little old lady in the hospital. It didn't go even to killing some poor little kid in Palestine. That money just went to pay the interest on the debt to the central bank of South Korea. one-third of everything people every bit of their effort and blood, sweat, and tears. And you think of people who are, you know, doing real work for a living, manual labor, and busting their asses and paying taxes through the nose, dude. And it's just our government just takes it. They might as well just be lighting it on fire in front of our face like the joke is. They hate us so much, dude. You can't even quantify it. It's unbelievable the contempt that they have for us. US interest payments reach 1 trillion. Yeah. Like a better analogy to what I was trying to say earlier is like, forget the Terminator analogy. It's more like the signs of the lambs when the dude puts on the lady's skin. He's wearing your skin. It's like them. They're just wearing America's skin and they're acting like they're us. There's a lot of that, man. There's a lot of that. If you've shopped online before, chances are you've purchased from a business powered by Shopify. It's easy to spot by that purple shop pay button, and that's what we use for our merch store. The purple button has all your payments and your shipping info, so you don't have to track down your card or hope your browser remembered your payment info. There's a reason why so many businesses use Shopify, and that's because they make it incredibly easy to run and manage your own business. Because it's the business behind the business that really matters, and that's where Shopify excels with convenient tools and workflows. Shop Pay has the best converting checkout on the planet, meaning fewer abandoned carts and way more sales. That's a gamecher. You can spread your brand's word with the built-in marketing and email tools. Don't want to build your own page? Shopify has hundreds of ready to go templates to easily express your brand and forget the code like Daylight Computer, which is gorgeous. So, if you've got a dream, a product, and the drive to make it happen, Shopify has the platform that helps you do it with ease. Because businesses that sell sell more with Shopify. See less carts abandoned and more sales go with Shopify and their Shopay button. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com/dannyjones. All lowercase. Again, that's shopfy.com/dannyjones. Shopify.com/dannyjones. Just look at from the Israelis point of view, okay? Or from the neoconservatives point of view. They need America. What's Israel going to do without America? If if you're the Israeli Foreign Ministry or whatever and you have your list of priorities, why actually nothing else matters at all other than, you know, perpetuating your power and influence and increasing your power and influence in the United States, What if America turned their back on Israel, And they had to fight all their own battles, pay all their own bills, they'd be in a much tougher position, and or at least probably not. They'd at least have to rein in their insane ambitions. How about that? And so for them, it's everything, dude. For them, how do they let these videos of how does how does for Israel for for as competent as they are as a as you know, uh their their intelligence services competent. They're very good at controlling the most powerful nation in the world. How do they let all this [ __ ] leak out of like the Ben Ben Gavir doing all this crazy [ __ ] and like celebrating about the gallows and then going in front just I saw a clip this morning of him saying, "Oh, we're not going to let Trump do that. Like we're not going to let him get out of this war or whatever. We can't let that happen." And all the other stuff in like he he's like uh intimidating those people, those protesters that were like bent over. They look like Guantanamo prisoners. Like it's insane that they let this [ __ ] get out or they even let cameras into the room because they can see I mean it's not it's not like they're not it's no secret all this stuff like it's it's out of the bag more than ever now. Well, I think their control mostly comes from money and blackmail and intimidation, you know, whereas their their public relations has always been extremely ham-handed because what can they do except lie from morning till night, right? I mean, they're absolutely the aggressors mass murdering and displacing the people whose property and whose country they're stealing. And so, like, what are they going to do? Be honest. I mean, most of the time it's they're trying like scrambling to come up with some line of [ __ ] to make it somehow seem plausible or whatever. So, they're not practiced at really controlling the narrative that well. They're or at least I guess maybe in the past they were more effective at it. they'd have Frank Lunts do these, you know, focus groups and figure out exactly the right way to phrase things and stuff, but it's just, you know, with the last couple of years of war and that everybody's got a 3G, you know, cell phone camera and whatever, there's just so much footage of of the abject cruelty of the Israeli regime that there's just no amount of spin that you can put on that. I mean, even that footage of Ben Gavir, there was like somebody's got a camera in their pocket, right? that wasn't I don't think official like cameraman footage following him around. It's just everybody's got a camera and this stuff is just gets out. There's nothing they can do about it. I think it also may be too that there's at least a side of Israeli propaganda which is go ahead and hate us then because that kind of serves too that like see the whole world is against us if it wasn't for us because remember you know all governments are based on the fear of their populace at the very least of the fear of that it would be worse if it wasn't us it'd be somebody else and we're the ones keeping the somebody else away and all of that. So remember in V for Vendetta, I want the people to remember why they need us. Right? So in the Israeli government, it's the same thing. They have to tell their people all day that everyone in the world hates you. Everyone in the world wants to kill you. If it wasn't for us, they would. And that's why you're here. And that's why you can't just go to Europe. Don't leave. Even if there's rockets incoming from the north, don't get on a plane and go to France where you'd be perfectly safe and happy. Um, nope. you got to stay here because every non-Jew in the world wakes up in the morning thinking of only one thing getting his hands around your neck you know what I mean kind of thing and they do tell their people that constantly so then if they are if their actual you know activities are driving people toward anti-semitism or even more generally toward anti-Israel sentiments then that's actually great ammunition for them too to tell their own people see I told you they hate us man those people they hate us think how powerful ful that was in our, you know, it's kind of worn off a bit now, but think about after September 11th. Oh, they hate us. They hate us. They hate us. They hate us. And then, so what does that mean? I guess we got to kill them, dude. You can't just let people who hate you run around there. They're going to get you someday. So, you're going to have to do something, you know. And they just There's this um Sorry, one more thing on that is for you and for your audience, too. There's a a book called um pardon me a documentary called Defamation and it's by an Israeli Jew who goes out in search of anti-semitism and he can't find any anywhere and he hangs out with Abe Foxman at the and all Yeah. He goes to Europe, he goes to America and all this and then I'll go ahead and ruin it for you. The punch line is the worst anti-semite in the whole movie is his Jewish grandma who lives on the West Bank and who's an who's an original Zionist from before the Second World War and who's telling, "Let me tell you about these Jews." All right. And she's just the the most vicious anti-semite in the whole movie. My god. But everywhere he goes, it's fine. But he explains though the propaganda in Israel, how it's just show of this and show of that. That's the Holocaust. Show of this and show of that about everything always. It's a show of furniture sale. It's this show of dance party. It's the show of everything always. And it's just um and you'll hear this reflected sometimes. You'll hear Jews say that like they know that everyone in the world just wants to kill them. That was that was the point in defamation. The way that he he explains it was that that's the overall message is that everyone in the world who's not Jewish, they only wake up in the morning for one reason. It's to try to find an opportunity to do another Holocaust. That's the only reason that they even, you know, have breakfast or or make babies or do anything is so that one day they can get the chance again. And so, like, that's very powerful propaganda if you're dumb enough to believe it and be subjected to it. You know what I mean? be coralled into right relying on the loot to protect you then you know in fact one more thing on that right around the time that Ariel Chiron was destroying the last chance of the peace process in the year 2000 when he went to the temple mount and caused the outbreak of the second inifat there was a poll that said that the people of Israel wanted a two-state solution the so-called land for peace and let the Palestinians have the West Bank and Gaza Strip but if they can't have that and it's going to Inifatada, then they want Ariel Chiron cuz he's a tough son of a [ __ ] and he'll protect them. But he's the one who went and took his troops to the Temple Mount and set off the Inifata in the first place. Oh wow. Right. So they said, "No, we still want to do the Rabbine plan, but if we can't get that, then yes, we want a tough guy," you know. Now that sentiment's a long time gone, but that's how it was then. Right. Right. And there's also that whole conspiracy of how I don't know how much of a conspiracy it is, but it's an interesting idea or theory that they want to purposely get all this stuff out there to stoke anti-semitism to get the diaspora to move back to Israel for this whole crazy end time prophecy stuff that's coming out like they want to bring back the Messiah. There was a terrorist attack in France um in the Obama years, late Obama years. Remember when they hit Nice and Paris? They did the Charlie Hebdo attack massacre and the Eagles at death metal concert and all the ISIS and AQI AQAP attacks. And um uh ah crap, what was I going to say? Um oh and then Netanyahu came to France and he goes, and this is like the most objectionable thing. He comes to France and he goes, "That's right, French Jews. You're not French. You're Jews. Come home to Israel. You'll never be safe here. You'll never be accepted here." like these are people whose families have lived in France for hundreds of years really, you know, and he's like, "That's right. You can't be Jewish and French. It's got to be one of the other. You're Jews. Come with me." And all that and and then he doesn't care at all. It's funny that he's maybe even putting them in danger in in the most general sense, right? It's not a direct incitement to violence against them, but he's telling the the prime minister of Israel is announcing to the people of France that yeah, the French Jews among you, they're not really French like you. You know, ultimately they're all deep cover working for me is essentially the message he's sent, which is a total lie. It's a despicable lie, you know. Um it's just like when they they say the same thing about American Jews, too. But American Jews aren't the Israeli diaspora. American Jews have lived here for 120 years, right? They all moved here from Germany and Poland and Russian, whatever, dude. From France. No, I mean, all of my Jew, if I asked 10 of my Jewish friends if they would be interested in moving to Israel, they would be like, "Fuck no." Why would they? A lot of them, they're Americans. They've never even heard of Israel. Israel's just a word in a Christmas song. What who's who knows anything about that, It makes you wonder who wrote that Christmas song. What is this, Steve? Israel welcome European Jews with open arms. What is this? Some recent article. Oh, this is Yeah, in reference to what I was just saying about Oh, this is the 11-year-old him telling the French Jews that like, yeah, you'll never really fit in here, so come with me. Right. Right. Um, can you lay out this whole the whole Wolfowitz doctrine thing and how there was this plan to invade x amount of countries? I had I've had John Keryaku explain this to me and I think he was actually working in the CIA when this they were explaining this to him and he thought it was crazy. But um I think you got a great way of explaining this whole thing and how it like basically like foreshadowed everything that's happened since. Okay. So at the end of Iraq War I one desert storm the first Gulf War they call it Paul Wolfwitz was the deputy secretary of defense for policy under Dick Cheney. And then beneath him were Zme Khalil Zad and Scooter Lippy. All three of these guys from the you know core of the neocon movement. And they wrote a study that was or not study but a memorandum was called the defense planning guidance for 1994 for fiscal year 1994. That's the title if you're looking for it. The original version was leaked and became a scandal. They put it in the New York Times and became a little scandal. So they rewrote it, but it says the same thing again. Just has a couple of stops to multilateralism. We'll have our European allies help us and whatever, but basically it's the same thing again. And what it says is that America will be the dominant political and military power on the planet Earth from now on. We're going to take what Charles Crowutamemer, another important neoconservative, called the unipolar moment. We're going to seize that moment. And in that moment, we're going to build this new order where America is the dominant power in Europe, in Eurasia, in East Asia, and to the point where, forget exactly how they say, but essentially where no other power or even group of powers would consider attempting to challenge our power, right? Where we'd be so far ahead militarily and financially and and the rest that Russia, China, and Europe wouldn't even think that if they combined that they could challenge us. So they just wouldn't even bother because we're going to go ahead and spread our influence sees, you know, the dominance that we can. Now, of course, it's not a perfect one toone correlation, but you'll find that there's a lot of overlap between what the neocons are doing and what they think is good for Israel. So if you're talking about their plans to expand American dominance into Eastern Europe, that's not so much about Israel, right? But the same guys are saying and we really need to expand our footprint in the Middle East and that you know you could they would spin that as purely an American you know uh philosophy or or you know doctrine. But clearly you know these guys are very close to the Israelis and and share their interests and probably in many cases especially back then maybe they would even argue that there's just no difference between Israel's interests and ours. So it's not really undermining America to do what Israel wants cuz we're just getting ahead of the curve is all you know they they help identify future enemies to come like you know their problems with Hamas and Hzbala that's who we should fight you know that kind of thing. So um that is you know the doctrine behind the expansion into Eastern Europe that ended up leading to the war in Ukraine and then that's also the same doctrine that ultimately led to the expansion of American power in the Middle East as well. Now these things get a little bit conflated together and mostly properly. Um, but so Wolawitz had told Wesley Clark and and he said this on a in a debate with me on the Pierce Morgan show and and I had heard him say this before previously I believe um that he had had uh and that's a sorry for those not familiar. He's an army general, four-star general, the former commander, supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe under Bill Clinton. He did the Serbia War of 1999 for Bill Clinton. Fourstar general. Um it's still going on Pierce Morgan today. That's wild. Yeah, I know. Um, so he um he said that Wolawitz had told him in a conversation back in 1991 that now we got to go to the Middle East and clean up and take out all these former Soviet client states, right, the Syrians and the Iraqis especially, and that we have this window of opportunity to do this. And that was the way he put it. But then he also when we talked about the clean break which is a strategy document that was written by a couple of other neocons but are very close to Wolawitz anyway is a pretty small group of guys is Richard Pearl and David Wormser was the principal author of the thing um and he worked for Pearl and then Douglas Feith and Charles Fairbanks III and a couple others signed on to it maybe just one more. Um and this was a plan that they wrote for Netanyahu in 1996. This is Yeah. And this is when he's incoming to be prime minister of Israel for the first time. And it's an article about how they thought quite stupidly that it would be smart to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq because then that would give Jordan and Turkey dominance in Iraq and then that would separate Iran and Syria, Iran from Syria and Iran from Hezbala. and that they would take control of the Shiite religious clerics in Iraq and make Hezbollah stop being enemies with Israel and start being friends and build a pipeline to Hifa and all this crap. It's completely stupid, but they believed it. And so, but then it was um and then comes Wesley Clark um again in 200 in the fall of 01. I believe it's in October, November of 01. So, within two months after September 11th, he goes to the Pentagon. So he's retired by this point, but he's got clearance and all that. So he's still going up there. So he goes to the Pentagon and he doesn't say the name of the guy. I think it's a military officer. Says, "Sir, you know, you should know that they're talking about we're going to attack Iraq." And he says, "Iraq? Why?" Cuz he knows that Saddam is friends with Osama. Saddam is terrified of Osama, right? What are you talking about? Why would we hit Iraq? And the guy says, "I don't know." And then he comes back a couple of weeks later and the same guy says, "Hey, there's this memo." And it says that they want to hit seven countries in five years. And then he ticks them off. So it's Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. And this is the hit list. Yeah, this is the Lakud's hit list. Pretty sure. And when they say Lebanon, they meant Hezbala. I don't know if they really wanted to. Well, hell, they're bombing the crap out of Toot Beirut today. So maybe maybe so. Um, but I always took that to just mean a war against Hzbala in southern Lebanon, which is sort of the mini state of the Shiites in southern Lebanon. Um, but anyway, so this is, you know, essentially Israel's marching orders, and this is coming from the office of the Secretary of Defense, which is staffed by Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolitz. And then under him is Douglas bite the deput in his old spot as deputy secretary of defense for policy. He's got Steven Cambone another neocon as deputy secretary of defense for intelligence. You got on the defense policy board Richard Pearl Worms's boss and her previous boss and Jean Kirkpatrick and James Woolsey and uh Ken Adelman and all these neocons under Douglas Fe. You have then Abram Scholski, Michael Maloof and Michael Makovski, Michael Rubin, lots of Michaels. Yeah, Michael Line. All these guys working for Abram Scholsky in what became called the Office of Special Plans, the expanded Iraq Desk. And these were the guys who lied us into war with Iraq. This was the neoconservative network that lied us into war. And it's, you know, we kind of already knew this, but we got it from Wesley Clark that yeah, that seven countries thing is the modern iteration or was then the modern iteration of the clean break, which was sort of a another iteration of that original defense planning guidance and the Wolfwoods doctrine in the beginning that what we want to do is go after the last of the states that stand in our way. And as I I maybe that's oversimplifying. I should have, I guess, said, you know, along in in the spirit of the defense plan and guidance, but closer to what Wolawitz had personally told Clark back then, which was, "We want to clean up all the last of these states." Wolawitz famously wanted to go all the way to Baghdad in the first Iraq war. Thought it was a huge mistake to leave Saddam Hussein in power. We should go all the way to Baghdad. He was the leader of that parade back then. Mhm. So that's and then Wesley Clark is confirming that yes, this is essentially the same neoconservative doctrine. So then what do we have? We have a cross between the Lood and Lockheed taking us to war. Essentially that's the neoconservative movement. And what was the story with that dude Chelby? I know he was a big part of this. Yes. So Chalibby was first and foremost he's the guy that convinced David Wormser of all this [ __ ] right? About how this was supposed to work. And this guy was like a two-bit con man or something. Totally. Yeah. There's a great article by Bob Drifus called Tinker Banker Neocon spy. And so he was an Iraqi Shiite exile who then had been a banker in Jordan but had been convicted in absentia from embezzling millions of dollars from his own bank. Then he worked for the CIA in the 1990s trying to ferment a coup in 1995 which failed. This is where the famous CIA officer Bob Bear got burned by him. in that whole thing which kind of complicated mess the failed coup of of 95 and then I believe I'm not sure if he was involved in the failed coup of 96. It was like I think it was a failed uprising of of 95 and then a failed coup of 96 but I don't think he was involved in the coup. But anyway, neither of those worked. But so that was how he got his burn notice from the CIA that we don't like this guy anymore, you know. But so then he went went to work for the neocons. And there was another um Iraqi exile, an actual extras himself named um I forgot his first name. I want to say like Hadnan or something like that. Makia was his last name. And these were like these two Iraqi exiles who are going around telling everybody that like uh all we got to do is get rid of Saddam and peace is going to break out. It's going to be perfect, you know. And then so one and this is in so a clean break has a companion piece called coping with crumbling states a balance of power strategy for the leavant also by wormser and you can find both of those on my website scott horton.org a clean break and coping with crumbling states. And then they did a monograph by Wormser with a forward by Pearl called Tyranny's Ally, America's failure to remove Saddam Hussein, demanding that America, you know, do the clean break for Netanyahu essentially. Um, and I don't think Chalabe's name is in the first one, but coping is really just a longer version of the clean break kind of anyway or, you know, to a great degree. It's a companion piece to it. And Chalabe's in there two or three times and he's in the book Tyranny's Ally four or five times I think. Oh wow. And what worms are saying is don't worry this Iraqi exile that we know Ahmed Chalaby assures us that this is how it works, right? And so and well what the hell? We're spending the time on it. This was the idiot Rube Goldberg scheme. Okay, picture the Middle East here, right? You got Iran, you got Iraq, you got Jordan, Syria and Lebanon here and Israel here, right? the Israelis because this is written, the clean break is written for Netanyahu when he's becoming prime minister the first time in 96. And what they're saying is forget land for peace and the Labor party's, you know, Oslo peace process. We're throwing that in the trash. We're going to have peace through strength and total dominance over our neighbors. That's it. And so uh but our biggest threat is Hezbollah on our northern border because they already had their peace deal with Egypt and they had already signed their peace deal with Jordan in 1994. So our biggest threat is Hzbala on our northern border and they're backed by Syria which is a Bis country Bist regime bath government led by the Alawites which is sort of a breakoff sect of the Shiites but is close to the Shiites and is allied with Iran and Shiites is sorry you're going to get a lot of dumb questions. No no that's a good question. Shiites is the same as Iran Iranians or Shiites? Yes the Iranians or the Shiites. So um the their 79 revolution was a Shiite fundamentalist revolution and their supreme leader the Ayatollah Kmeni and then Kami these guys are Shiite religious authorities. Got it. And also political you know rulers there. So they're friends with the Shiites in Syria and they back the government there. They have an alliance with the government in Syria and then they use Syria to arm Hezbollah with rockets and missiles that then they can hit Israel with. Got it. So, how's Israel supposed to steal the last of Palestine if Hezbollah is going to constantly be firing rockets at them every time they make major advances against the Palestinians? So, what we need to do is we got to neutralize the threat of Hezbala. And then this idiot David worms says, "So what we want to do is we want to focus on getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Even though Saddam Hussein is a secular Sunni, he's a botist like Assad in Damascus, but they're enemies. They hate each other and he's a Sunni sitting on a super majority Shiite Arab population. So picture Iraq now stuck between the Levant and Iran from Baghdad more or less in the center of Iraq. Let's say from Baghdad all the way to Iran and down to Kuwait. That's all super duper Shiite majority territory, right? like uh predominantly Sun Shiite territory all the way to Iran. So Saddam is really the roadblock preventing Shiite power from connecting from Iran through southern Iraq to Syria and to Hezbollah because he didn't [ __ ] with those guys. Yeah. He hated them. He just bought America supported Saddam Hussein for eight years in a war against Iran to contain the Iranian revolution all through the 1980s. Oh [ __ ] Now, David Wormser is saying, and this is why I call it like a Rube Goldberg machine. If you ever played like that game, the board game mouse trap when you're in elementary school or whatever, like a Rube Goldberg contraption where has a hundred moving parts just to drop the thing on the mouse. So, but what's supposed to happen here is that once we get rid of Saddam, then we'll put in the cousin of the king of Jordan. And because he is a Hasheite, which means a Sunni kingdom from Saudi Arabia that the British had put in power in Jordan back a 100 years ago. Um, but they claim to be descended from the prophet Muhammad. And David Worms says, "As long as we put a Hasheite king in power in Baghdad, as long as he claims, as long as he's a Hashemite and has the blood of the prophet, then the Shiites will do whatever he says. We are assured this by our good friend Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who promises us that this is how it works, right? But this is not how it works, dude. Okay, so the Shiite leaders in Iraq and Iran and wherever. They do claim to be descended from the prophet Muhammad and can even claim to trace their lineage back to him and all that. The Sunni Hasheite family also claims the blood of the prophet and they claim that they can trace it back. Maybe they can. I don't know, sure. But the point being is that Shiites rever their own religious leaders who have the blood of the prophet or whatever. But that doesn't mean that they are hypnotized slaves and do whatever they're told even by their Shiite religious leaders, much less Sunni kings from the Levant, right? who they may claim to have the blood of the prophet, but that doesn't mean that they can boss these people around any more than I can boss you around. There's just no connection there. And in fact, when the uh British had installed a hashite king in Iraq, it lasted for like 20 years with Brit or 30 years with British power backing it from like the 20s through the 50s. But then it fell because the Shiites would not cooperate with it at all. And they even had a fatwa against which is like a religious edict against cooperating with the Sunni kingdom. So if David worms had known his history at all, he would know that no putting a Hasheite in Baghdad is not going to be a magic spell over the Shiite population there. But then he went further. Shalabi promises us that then the Hasheite king will be able to tell the religious leaders in Najaf Iraq which is in far southern Iraq the Ayatollah Sistani and his guys that we'll be able to tell them to tell Hezbala to stop being friends with Iran and start being friends with Israel and then we'll even build the oil rebuild the old British oil pipeline from Mosul and Kirkook to Hifa and the new Shiite Iraq under the enslavement of the Sunni king will then be best friends with Israel and and Turkey and Jordan, America's friends, and will be this giant block on Iranian power. So, this is completely stupid and wrong. By the time they did the war, the cousin of the king of Jordan, I don't know what happened to him, but the king died and his son became king. I guess I need to go and study up what happened to the cousin, but they dropped the idea that they would put the king's cousin in there. There were times where they even floated making the king of Jordan the king of both somehow or whatever. But they never did any of that. And they ended up by the time in 2002, as I'm sure you may know, the idea was, well, we'll just put Shalabi in there. The same guy who told made all these promises to us. We'll just make him the guy and then he'll tell all the Shiites what to do and they'll build oil pipeline to Hifa and all that. Now, so this was the thinking, the absolute idiot thinking behind Iraq War II. So there, and I know that this is true, and it's is it's really a shame that there are, you know, maybe a million guys or something, right? Because there are so many guys that rotated in and out of Iraq. I forgot the total. It may have been a million guys fought in that war overall. You know, something like that. High hundreds of thousands of guys. And there are a lot of guys who fought in that war. They still had no idea what that war was even about. Who was shooting at them and why and what when what had happened was America took the Shiite side in a civil war and we put Iran's best friends in power there. Not our best friends. Ahmed Chalabi got a job at the oil ministry or whatever, but he wasn't in charge. Mhm. And then if you look at the guys that were the prime ministers while we were in power there after once they wrote the constitution and held their purple finger elections and all that it was Ibrahim Jafari and Nuriel al- Maliki for the rest of the time of W. Bush. These were guys from the Dawa party supported by Iran. And in fact there was what happened was Chalabi was caught leaking to the Iranians that the Americans have broken his broken their codes. And then so they launched a counter intelligence investigation into Chalabe and his friends at the Pentagon. And the DIA and CIA both leaked to the papers that they thought that Chalibi didn't just leak to Iran that we had broken their codes. Chalib had been sent by Iran to lie to these Israel first traders and convince them that a war against Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel just to get us to do that dirty work for him. how did this come out? So, I mean, they put it in the Guardian should be able to find it. DIA. So, there there there are plenty of stories about they're investigating him for the leak. But then they went further and they go, I think it was CIA and DIA both say, "We think because remember the CIA had already put a burn notice on this guy. They didn't like him. He was working for the Pentagon neocons." Um, and so maybe they were just blaming him, but they were saying that it was Iran. There you go. They were saying, and look, they, it's true, dude. They had Iraqi National Congress headquarters was in Thran. And in fact, as long as we're at this, dude, go ahead and I'll give my disclaimer while you type it up. Okay? Go to salon.com and it the article is called How Ahmed Chalibi Conned the Neocons. And you got to forgive me because look, salon.com is the wokest, gayest, stupidest damn website in the whole world. Everybody knows that. I And so please forgive me. But listen, the guy that wrote this article is um just Google it, dude. Just go to go to uh how Chelby conned the neocons and then and then no on Google and then type in salon after that. Yeah, it'll come up. There you go. So look, this is by John Dazard. And John Dazard is a serious journalist from the Financial Times. I I'm barely acquainted with the guy, but I know him. And he's not some woke commie k from Salon like you would think of. This article is from 2004. And back then, Salon actually published journalism from time to time. So sue me, okay? I'm sorry. God damn it. I wish this article was at the Financial Times website. We wouldn't have to do this. But look, this article is freaking hilarious. And it h it's all about how he was just lying to them, dude. and they're stupid. And if you forgive me, okay, I'm going to get us all in trouble here. Do F Jews. Okay, so here here's Mark Zel. Mark Zel was friends with um Mark Zel was a law partner with Douglas Fe representing settlers on the West Bank. Okay. Okay. So here um oh no, no, I'm sorry. Um, this is the wrong one, but this is even better. Okay, this is a guy, wrong anecdote from the same article. This is a guy who was friends with Ahmed Chalaby from this investment group in Jordan. And he said he asked him, "Hey man, what are you doing hanging around doing business with all these Zionists?" So now I am quoting Dazard, quoting Mo Assad, quoting Chalabi. Okay. So nobody, you know, lynch our friend Danny here. It's not his fault. He told me not to worry. He just needed the Jews in order to get what he wanted from Washington and that he would turn on them after that. Oh my god. Right. And then so now if you just do zel ze l and you'll see where Mark zel is you know pounding the table and saying uh chalaby is a treacherous spineless turncoat. Well it's in there eight page up and down a little bit. Um he's a treacherous traitorous turncoat. See, he said that he would build a pipeline to Hifa. And he promised that. He promised a lot of things. He promised a treaty with Iraq. This is And you could still follow Mark Zel on Twitter to this day. He's a riot, dude. And he's a total, you know, ludnet cook. Like I say, he was law partners with Douglas Fe, who was the head of the office of special plans and who signed on to the clean break. And here he is. One of these quotes is, "Well, he used to have one set of friends and now he has another one. He's a treacherous, traitorous, turncoat, whatever." So, there you go. So, wow. So, the neocons are as stupid as they are evil. And what's hilarious about this actually is that this big fat dork, David Wormser, who thinks that he could pick a fight with me and win it, which is just, okay, I pick the fight, but he thinks he thinks he can resist at all. It's hilarious. Um, this idiot David Wormser did this interview with a uh like a born again Christian podcaster guy uh where they were reviewing Tucker's 911 uh thing. I forgot 911 documentary 911 documentary. And um so they're critiquing it and they make some actually interesting points. But a couple of things about it. The first thing is he confirms everything that I say about who's who and the divides inside the uh Bush administration at that time. He's disputing what I think is he's kind of taking Tucker out of context and then disputing him. But in doing so, he confirms everything that I say about what was going on there and all that. But then he also continues to sputter this idiocy about how no, see, the Shiites have to do whatever the Hashemites tell them because they have the blood of the prophet. But as Dave Smith pointed out, if that's true, why don't you just pick up the phone and have the king of Jordan call the Ayatollah and call the leader of Hezbala and tell him to knock it off? Why do you got to have a regime change in Baghdad first? Right? Why don't you just call the Ayatollah Sistani and say, "Hey, Ayatollah Sistani, tell Hezbala to make nice with the lood. Do your magic spell. hypnotize him. Doesn't work. This is completely stupid. And here he recorded this interview, I think late last year, the year 2025, after America just handed Iran, handed Iraq over to Iran, over to their very best friends. After his entire war played out exactly the opposite of what he said. He says, "In coping with crumbling states, a free Iraq will be a nightmare for Iran." No, dude. You just got rid of Saddam for Iran. you big dummy. You put the DA party and the Supreme Islamic Council in power there and then he stayed. He worked for Dick Cheney, I think, into the second term and he still doesn't remember the war that way. He thinks he won. Does he at what point did the Ayatollah Sistani call the Ayatollahe and Hassan Nasra and tell them to knock it off and start making nice with the West and with the Israelis? Cuz I don't remember that happening this whole time. Right. Why can't they do that right now then? There's nothing but a sock puppet. Is the king of Jordan even a human man? He's a sock puppet wrapped in cellophane, packaged, delivered, owned, controlled straight out of Langley, Virginia with no will of his own whatsoever. David, pick up the phone, call the king of Jordan, and tell the king of Jordan to tell the Iranians to open the straight, pal. Tell him to use his magical hypnosis powers with his magical bloodline. It doesn't work. And yet this idiot still thinks he was right about Iraq war 2 after all this time. And I like picking on him because everyone always blames Richard Pearl. And Richard Pearl was the lead gangster here. But Wormser is the egghehead. Worms is the academic who told Richard Pearl, "Yeah, this stuff Chalaby told me checks out." Whatever. You know, Jesus. So, since we're already on the subject of summer cooking on this podcast, before you pretend your kitchen is fine, let's talk about those pots and pans you've had since college. If it warps, sticks, or burns stuff, do everyone in your family a favor and throw it out. Summer is when we mix up our meals the most. Steaks on Mondays, taco Tuesdays, burgers for the boys, breakfast for dinner. That's why I love the ease of my Hexclad cookware. It makes cooking effortless. I no longer have to scrub my pants. I simply wipe them and they're clean in a couple seconds. And I often find myself admiring them when they're sitting on my stove top. Their nonstick is ceramic and protected by a stainless hex pattern, so I can use metal utensils without worrying about scratching the pan. They're heavy, they look incredible, and it feels like quality when you pick them up. They're metal utensil safe, dishwasher safe, and oven safe up to 900°. And the handle stays cool. With over 1 million customers and 50,000 five-star reviews, it's not a secret why Gordon Ramsay uses Hexcloud at home and in his restaurants. They come with a lifetime warranty, so this is literally the last cookware you will ever need to buy. Don't go through another summer with cookware that makes every meal harder than it needs to be. For a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off your order with our exclusive link. Head to hexcloud.com/danny. Support the show and check them out at hex a.com/danny and make sure to let them know we sent you. Yeah, Tucker's 911 documentary was wild. Um, the one of the things that's interesting is I actually know one of the dudes who was former FBI who worked was stationed at the same FBI office that those dancing Israelis were taken to. Oh, is that right? And told you the story of them being booked and Yeah. Uhhuh. Crazy. They were mad, I think. Right. Oh, yeah. the high-fivers just there was a woman that was in her apartment or whatever who saw these guys on top of a parking garage filming the whole thing happen and like dancing and high-fiving and [ __ ] and then she called she called the cops. Well, the dancing part I think was actually invented by um uh I'm alawahari's brother in Egypt I think called the dancing Israelis. Okay. The high fibers I think was Justin called them. That was a reporting in ABC and I believe Washington Post that they were happy to see the towers hit. Mhm. Now, what the [ __ ] were the MSAD agents doing filming that? Okay, so there's two ways of looking at it. And there there's at least one witness and maybe even two that say that they were there at like 8 in the morning. Now, I'd like to ask follow-up questions in front of the grand jury, please, that like, wait a minute, are you sure they were there before the first plane hit or not? Or what? Right. Because if they were working there the day before, which I I believe they're alibis, they were working there the day before and then when they heard about the attack or even saw it, you know, from their drive, they pulled over because they knew they would have a good view because they could see the towers there from the time they were there the day before. So even when the guy says on Israeli TV that we were there to document the event, he doesn't explicitly say we were there starting at 8 camped out waiting for the first plane to hit to document the entire thing, right? Like it could just be the the missing part of that sentence is we heard about it on the radio so we pulled over to document the event. A lot of people pulled out cameras to document the event. Right. So like if they if we know for a fact which we don't but they were they actually what were they actually doing? What was their what was their cover? I believe they were well they were movers. It was urban moving. They were actually moving [ __ ] that day. Yeah. And then and they had video cameras because you there was no phone cameras back then. So, they must have had an actual video camera with them or at least still pictures. I'm not sure. I I know there are stills, but they could be taken from the video if there's video, but I know there are stills that, you know, ended up getting foyed where, you know, they're there. I forget now in the pictures that were released if you can actually see them holding up their lighters or not. I know that was the accusations that they're holding up their lighters like they're the ones burning the tower down really you know like you know kind of like when somebody pretends to hold up the moon or whatever you know what I mean in that and they're like move a little to the right okay right there you know this kind of thing so look the idea is let's let's well you could go like the worst case scenario is they were helping run this cell of bin ladite terrorist and did this to us right I don't think you need to go that far you know another interpretation would be that they knew it was going to happen that they were tracking these guys and then they didn't warn us everything that they knew which that's what the FBI said was that they had given a warning that boy you know there are bin Laden in your country you better look out and given us that warning in August but nothing specific when you know it's possible here they knew a lot more than they had led on um and then the more benign take the most benign take is that they saw that the towers were hit they understood that these were kamicazi attacks that must have been by Arabs of some kind or another. And they thought it was absolutely hilarious. And they thought that this will be great for Israel and they were laughing about it and celebrating because now America will do whatever Israel says now that we've been hit by the same kind of terrorism when they got pulled over. That was what they told the cops was we're not the problem. The Palestinians are the problem and now you know what it's like to be us and whatever. So it would make sense if they were just like that's again the most minimal explanation would be that they saw our worst day and thought score. Which is basically the same thing as Netanyahu himself. Oh and by the way, thank you for reminding me of this anecdote. Um, so you've probably heard and your audience probably knows there is a New York Times story dated September 12th, 2001, but it was published that night, of course, right? It's from that day. And their reporter Oh, man. His name is on the tip of my tongue, too. Damn. What was the article called? Do you remember? no. But it's easy enough to find because it's it's September 12th, 2001. And Netanyahu tells the New York Times reporter, he's asked the question, "What does this mean for America's relationship with Israel?" And Netanyahu says, "It's very good." And then he says, "Oh, well, or um you know what I mean, like not very good, but like overall it'll help, you know, cuz your enemies and our enemies are the same kind of thing." You know what I mean? He's sort of like, but that's that's his original take. But now what's important There we go. The Israelis spilled blood. the Israelis. Uh, spilled blood is seen as a bond that draws two nations closer. Yes. And James, there's a quote in here from Netanyahu. Yeah. So, there you go. It's very good. Wow. Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, "It's very good." Then he edited himself. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy. He predicted that the attack would strengthen the bond between our two peoples because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the US has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror. Yeah. So, um, and then Chiron says, "I believe together we can defeat the forces of evil." But now, here's what's funny. Okay, this article is by a reporter named James Bennett. And I had no idea about this. I only uh got this footnote from John Schwarz, a left-wing writer. Uh no T in Schwarz there. Um and no H in John, by the way, John Schwarz. he pointed out that James Bennett, that same reporter, he wrote an article 10 years later, September 11th, 2011, and he wrote this article for The Atlantic. And in this article for the Atlantic, he recounts this conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu, but he includes a line that got cut to the New York Times floor, but it's included in the Atlantic article. And right in this same conversation where Netanyahu is saying to him that it's very good, he also says, "I wonder if the American people will blame us for this." Now, he's not talking about them secretly putting bombs in all the towers and a bunch of crap, It's that he knows good and well that this is the motive of al Qaeda to attack America, that America supports Israel and their merciless violence against the Palestinians and the Lebanese. Wow. And so, he just muses out loud to James Bennett. I wonder if the American people blame us for this. This is the night of September 11th. And then he says, "Nah, I'm sure they'll see that just, you know, we got a lot in common against our common enemy and whatever." But he brought that up because he knew good and damned well why they hate us. They hate us because Bill Clinton at Israeli insistence kept the bases in Saudi to bomb Iraq for the entire end of the 20th century there. They hate us because we provide the F-16s and the M16s that the Israeli Defense Forces use to mercilessly slaughter Palestinians and Lebanese and steal their property. That's what it was about. Those are the main reasons that al-Qaeda turned on the United States. Netanyahu is no fool on that. And so he couldn't help himself. But oh no, I wonder if the American people are going to blame us and like we're going to actually not benefit from this. We could lose from this if the American people, you know, are wise enough if their president would tell them the truth about what just happened here and why instead of saying, "Well, they hate us because we love our mama." Didn't um Bin Laden make articulate this in his manifesto or whatever to the American people or something like this. This went viral on TikTok like a year or two ago. Yeah. Now, here's the thing about that. That was from the letter to America which was from 2002 and it included a bunch of like single white liberal female Tik Tok mom type people saying, "Oh, I get it. Bin Laden's a hero or whatever, which was not right at all." Right? Not that he was even anywhere near justified in attacking civilian targets. This is completely crazy and stupid. But then that became the narrative, right? It was like these these people are taking Bin Laden's side. Well, just forget that. Go back to 1996. His first declaration of war against the United States was in 1996. And it's called the Declaration of War against the Americans occupying the land of the two holy places. That is Bill Clinton's military is stationed in Saudi Arabia to bomb and blockade Iraq. Is the title of the damn thing. Wow. And then on the first page, he goes on and on about the Kana massacre. We now call it the first Kana massacre because they did it again in 2006 and then they did it again this year in 2026. Huh. Anyway, in 1996 at the first colon massacre, get this, it was Naftali Bennett, the once and almost certainly future prime minister of Israel was the artillery officer who called in an artillery strike on a UN shelter and killed 106 women and children. And Bin Laden ranted all about that on the first page. Where was this again? In Ka, Lebanon. Lebanon. Okay. And this is where Jesus walked on water, they say. M just to tie it into, you know, things people know of. Um so, uh Bin Laden ranted all about this in his first declaration of war against the United States. He said, "We'll never forget the severed heads and arms and legs of the babies and the children in Kana." Well, that was what inspired Muhammad Ata and his friend Ramsay bin Al-Se to join Al Qaeda. Muhammad Ata then was the lead hijacker on September 11th. and he joined al Qaeda because of bin Laden's propaganda about American support for Israel. So catch up now. Stay with me. He got an Egyptian engineering student studying in Hamburg, Germany, goes to Afghanistan to volunteer for a Saudi sha to kill Americans as revenge for what Israel is doing in Lebanon. See, that's blowback. That's the consequences of American foreign policy. And of course these are terrorists that America built up their entire network with Britain and Saudi Arabia to fight the war in Afghanistan as well as in Bosnia, Kosovo and Cheschna. In fact, as I show and provoked, 11 of the 19 hijackers had fought on Bill Clinton's side in Bosnia and Cchet or Chetchna. Really? 11 of the 19. So even though they were attacking us all through the 1990s, America was still supporting them all through the 1990s as long as they're killing Serbs and Russians just the same way we support them now, like in Syria, as long as they're killing Shiites. And so um so yeah, so then and then he put out another declaration of war in 1998 that was, you know, briefer. And the point being that and there's a really great book about this. Well, my book Enough already has all this in it, but um when did you publish this one? In 21. 21. Uh that's all the terror wars from Jimmy Carter all the way through Trump won in there. Um but um Michael Shyer, the former chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, made this point. Bin Laden, if you read, you know, all his collected writings and whatever, he could go on and on about all religious justifications, but justifications for taking revenge for real things that the American government was doing over there, right? And he was not unlike in the propaganda. He was not saying they got to get us cuz of the song Baby It's cold outside just shows what degenerates we all are and we got R-rated movies and girls can show their knees in public and whatever. Had nothing to do with that crap at all. For our freed they hate us for our freedom. That's right. And and now you know did they disapprove of American lensiousness and whatever on those terms? Sure. But is that the reason for their war against us? Absolutely none. And as Shyer pointed out after, you know, reviewing all of this bin Laden propaganda throughout the 1990s, all of the recruitment stickick, the stuff that he used, a sloganering that he used to recruit people to fight us was all based on American policies, concrete, real actions that everybody knew was true, right? It wasn't even he wasn't even saying, you know, operation this and that, you've never heard of, right? He would say they're occupying the holy land of Saudi Arabia, birthplace of of Muhammad and the religion of Islam, Mecca, Medina and all that, right? So they're occupying Saudi Arabia in order to bomb and blockade Iraq. Well, they're supporting Israel in Palestine and Lebanon. They're supporting dictatorships throughout the region to keep them compliant. They're putting pressure on them to overproduce oil and keep the oil prices artificially low to subsidize our economy at their expense. And as they would claim quite incorrectly, we turn a blind eye to Russian, Chinese, Kazak, and Indian and other violence against Muslims. They're supposedly such big humanitarians, but when Muslims are the victims, we don't say anything. when that wasn't really true. Bill Clinton backed them again in Bosnia and in Cheschna, although he did kind of stab him in the back in Bosnia, and I think they might have been a bit salty about that, but anyway, and they backed him against the they backed the weakers against the Chinese during that time too before September 11th in the 1990s. Um, so anyway, but it was these concrete reasons that he would cite, right, in order to get people to join him, right? If he was just complaining about our R-rated movies, nobody's gonna kamicazi a a New York Tower over that. The way he got Ata was he criticized American support for Israel killing kids. Right. And Ata said, "All right, I'll join that fight." Just exactly the same as Americans joined the fight once our towers got hit. Right. Exactly. We already had a massive standing army and somehow we got 50,000 new recruits anyway. Country started bombing elementary schools in the US. Like we would definitely do the same thing. American Muslims joined the army because their solidarity was with America, That was who they saw as the the side that they were on in the fight. You know, just as where, you know, this Egyptian is volunteering for this Saudi to avenge Lebanese, it's all one kind of um over there. Maybe it's not a United States, but it's the Muslim lands over there. So it's no different than a Californian being upset about what happens in New York, you know. Right. Right. It's Dude, the whole Middle East is just like this hornets nest. It's all it's it's historically just been so hard for me to follow everything and all the moving parts and the little countries and regimes and religious fundamentalists that are That's why I wrote enough already. that's what kind of where we started here about. Yep. Despite all my new world order kookery from previous days, my my real point was that I got used to building these timelines to explain all this stuff to myself and how each one of these interventions sort of set the stage for the next intervention. So we do a bloody coup in um 1953 in Iran and we turn it from a constitutional monarchy into ironfisted dictatorship because they wanted to own their own oil, right? Yeah. And the Americans were worried that they were going to start tilting toward the communists. They were allowing a communist party to run and things like that. Let me ask you this. So then that anyway that just kicked off the chain of dominoes that have been falling this whole time. Really? Today's episode is sponsored by Quo, spelled Quo, the communication system built for businesses so you'll never miss a call. Miss Calls, the slow follow-ups are silent killers, and businesses lose momentum without even realizing it. Quo fixes that by letting your whole team handle calls and texts from one shared number, so nobody's out of the loop, and customers actually feel taken care of. So, I ended up locking my keys in my truck at the beach, and I ended up having to call three locksmiths before I got one to answer. The first number called me back, but it was too late. It's not just that they lost my business, but it feels like they don't care when they don't answer my call, and you don't ever want that happening to your business. Quo works right from your phone or your computer, keeping everything in one clean view. Its own AI even logs calls, creates summaries, and flags next steps, so nothing ever falls through the cracks. More than 90,000 businesses currently use this because it fits how modern teams actually work. Your money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free plus 20% off your first 6 months when you go to quo.com/danny. That's quo.com/danny. I've been hearing reports I've been hearing people talk about how, and I don't know how true this is, how the United States is still sending the Taliban $80 million a week or something like this. Have you heard this? I don't know the numbers, but yes, I'm sure they are sending them foreign aid in the name of, you know, feeding people and whatever. So why why why are we send the Taliban that much money every week? Oh, it's such a racket, man. All the NOS's, all of the the humanitarian relief organizations and all of that. And I'm sure there is a real need. It's a very poor country, and they've been through a 20-year war. And, you know, I don't know what economics the Taliban know, but it ain't much, you know. So like our our are our our people in need over there a lot. Wow. Every couple of weeks United States confirms 80 million every 10 to 14 days to Afghanistan. Amazing. And um what's the date on that? That's a crazy So this is just like and they can spend that on whatever they want, you know, this doesn't have to go to and look this is the story for everything we've done or what? Nah, I you know it's in the name of humanitarianism. I'm I'm virtually certain it'll all be in the name of food aid or providing you know arming the or providing the the money for the groups that distribute the food aid and all that. It's just the same as any of these and and the whole war is like that too. It's a huge racket of distributing all the humanitarian goods and right all the state department flunkies and all the US aid flunkies and all of the attached NOS's and stuff. It's a huge industry. I read something somewhere um that said the reason that we could be funding the Taliban all with all this money, it was to disrupt supply chains between the Middle East and China or something like that to like fund them to like sabotage supply to China. Does that make any sense to you? No, I'd have to know more specifically what they're referring to there, right? you know, I mean, um, I really don't know a lot about America's current relationship with the Taliban regime in Kabell, you know what I mean? Or, you know, how much of one there really is or not. Let me ask you this. When you like when Trump was running for election in this previous election and, you know, he was beating the drums on being the solidifi solidifying his legacy of peace and no more wars and all this stuff. And with all of your knowledge and seeing the patterns of history with the United States and the people that are operating behind the scenes here, did you foresee how this would end up with this presidency so far? Yeah, I never believed in Trump, man. You know, Ron Paul is the hero we needed. Trump is the hero we deserved. And he um look, he's Rudy Giuliani. That's what he is. That's who he is, right? He's so um you know if there's a charm in him it's that he'll abruptly tell the truth about you know horrible things but like right like the Mary Mson thing. Yeah. Like I have I think it's in enough already you know I begin each chapter with a series of quotes notable quotables and I think it's at the toward the end there I have Trump saying oh the military-industrial complex they are so corrupt and evil they own this town. And then the other one is like oh the military-industrial complex they love war and you know why because they love money and right like this is he goes 10 times harder than like Eisenhower right the way he says it right and then the third quote is we love Lockheed and Rathon and Boeing and we want them to be strong and we want to make sure that that right he's just Giuliani man he could pretend to be an America first but you know even the phrase America first that really was sabotage. There's a horrible evil uh maybe Israeli spy New York Times reporter named David Sanger who's been on the Iran beat for many years. And Sanger interviewed Trump in 2016. It may have been 2015. and he says, "So, um, your policy, you know, in regards to to Europe and Asia and whatever, would you say that you're America first?" And Trump goes, "Oh, yeah. I like the sound of that." Well, what's going on there, see, is that Sanger was trying to trap him because America First was the America First Committee, and that was the slogan of the America First Committee, the people that wanted to keep us out of the Second World War until they dissol uh disbanded after Pearl Harbor. And so um the connotation there is supposed to be horrible anti-semitic cooties because everyone knows that the real story of World War II is we should have invaded Germany in 1935 and that anyone who was against joining that war loved Hitler and especially that horrible horrible American hero Charles Lindberg the first guy to fly across the Atlantic and got his baby stolen and all that. Well, you're supposed to hate him because he used the J word like three times in the runup to Iraq to World War II. And so he's supposed to be radioactive toxic AIDS. And if and if you get the Charles Lindberg name anywhere near you, if you get America First anywhere near you, then everyone's going to know that you're a right-wing anti-semitic reactionary terrible terrible person. And so that was why David Sanger suggested that to Trump is he was trying to hang it around his neck like a millstone. Except here's the problem. Americans have never heard of Charles Lindberg. Not even the heroic aviator or the guy who got his baby stolen. Much less that he one time gave a speech where he used the J-word when he was oversimplifying who was trying to get us into the war in Europe. And he should have been more specific. Well, so the American people didn't know that they were supposed to hate Trump for saying America first. Instead, they just heard America first and they were like, "Well, this is America and we're Americans. What are we supposed to be? England first, China first, Israel instead or yeah, America first sounds right." So, it made a good slogan. But point being then that Sanger is a horrible guy, but also that Trump when he used that phrase, he was not calling back to the guys who wanted to keep us out of the European war. He was not calling back to the America First Committee or Charles Lindberg or Joe Kennedy or anybody else involved in that who was trying to keep us out of war. He was just saying America first, which if you come to think of it, if those words don't really have a context or mean anything, then George W. Bush can be America first. Because America first just means I'm a stupid, selfish jerk and I can do what I want and no one can stop me. Right. When America first meant defend America first, it meant France is not America's eastern frontier, nor is Ukraine. Defend America first. Leave the world the hell alone. Not go out and mug an old lady cuz you can do what you want and no one can stop you. Help the Israelis, you know, genocide a population off the face of the earth because they want to steal their property, You know, and so, but it's a little too vague, ain't it? America first. It needed to always be like Garrett Garrett's book, defend America first and leave the rest of the world at hell alone. That's the what that is supposed to mean. But see, Trump never meant that. He only got it from a singer who was trying to sabotage him. Trump never read Roondo. Trump never read nothing. You know, right. So there was So yes, so I saw right through him. He's nothing but an Israeli agent. This is my big joke last June was I told you he wasn't a Russian spy. He's an Israeli spy. In fact, they even had like a funny conspiracy theory that the Russia gate hoax was actually a heroic attempt by the FBI to stop Donald Trump because they knew he was going to nuke Iran. And they thought, well, you can't say that cuz that's anti-Semitic. So, they would would accuse him, they falsely accused him of the Russia Gate hoax instead in order to try to bog him down, which I'm just joking about. Try to save us from Israel. There's there's 75 pages on Russia Gate and Provoked, by the way. I I hate Russia Gate and I debunk the hell out of it. At least tied with the best Russia gate debunkers in America. I It's crazy to me that there's still people that believe that whole thing. I talk to people all the time that are just like a host. What are you talking See Israelis. Look at who his son-in-law is. Look who what? Look at his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Oh yeah. Yeah. This is the Lood man. That's all it is. I was joking, you know, when he was running in 24 that he's running on the lood party ticket. I wouldn't be surprised if he named Netanyahu prime minister of our Senate and kicked himself upstairs and just let Netanyahu run the whole damn government at this point, I mean, that's it, man. I saw invited I don't know if it was fake or real, but I saw uh something on Instagram this morning that Netanyahu is allegedly coming to the White House UFC card in two weeks. Oh, really? I can't imagine that's going to be popular. Yeah. I mean, he's got to do what he can to try to shore up whatever. The top comment on that post on Instagram was, uh, like this comment if what you really want to say will land you in jail. And it had like 2,000 likes on. That's funny. I just like to see him get in there with any old member of Hamas and just do a bare knuckle. Let's see who wins. You know, that's what I was saying. That's what I said to someone. Dom challenged George W. Bush to a to a boxing match. Let's just settle this in the ring. Yeah. And Bush pussed out. That's what I was saying. I was saying that's what they should really do with the White House UFC ticket. They should get all the top like most uh most guilty people in the Epstein files and let them do a celebrity death match, like a political death match on the White House White House lawn. Sounds good to me, dude. I'll help you curate the list there. I think that would be that would be entertainment. That's the entertainment that America needs. Yeah, dude. set us free. Um, so what do you think the outcome will be of everything that's happening in Iran right now? Well, okay, as I said, George W. Bush put Iran up two pecs by giving them Baghdad, giving their best friends Baghdad. They're not total puppets, but they're very close. Compared to having Saddam sitting in power in Baghdad, George W. Bush enhanced Iranian power by hundreds of percentage points, right? Um, this is at least equivalent to that and in fact probably much worse in terms of American, you know, strategic folly. Now, I don't give a damn cuz I want to come home from everywhere anyway. So, it's no great loss to me. But the war with Iraq didn't result in us losing all our Middle East bases. it didn't result in, you know, really the calling of the bluff of American conventional military power because of course America did kick Iraq's the nation states militaries ass in three weeks, right? Uh same with the Taliban. They can't stand against our air power, our marines, our army. Well, our Green Berets would go in there and blast the crap out of them. But in both cases, they prove that we cannot defeat an insurgency, right? We can take on a state army, but as far as like leaving our guys standing on a street corner, they get blown up. And we're not really that good at figuring out how to deal with that very much. You know what I mean? Yeah. Urban combat and picking and choosing parties in some crazy foreign country where, you know, they're every one of their customs is different from ours and everything else. so you could even cut them a break, right? You could even say that like, well, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, they really only prove our inability to do counterinsurgency, right? They prove that Stan Mcristel and David Petraeus are full of crap when they push all this coin doctrine stuff. James Mattis, too. Those guys suck. Still, though, you can't take on like our real big green machine when we're coming at you. You can't take on our our navy. You can't take on our air force. you can't stop our army if we really come at you. Well, here we really came at a country that's nothing like a near peer to us, right? Iran is a not even a a mid-rank power, right? They're in the lower third at least of nation states, you know, powerful nation states in the world. And they held us at bay. And not only that, but they proved that they can reach out and touch all of our bases in the region. They hit our bases in, you know, from northern Iraqi, Kurdistan all the way down to Oman. Hit Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi, UAE, Oman, and also Jordan. Now, they didn't destroy all those bases, But they hit them and they took out whatever radars they wanted to. They pitted runways. They hit planes sitting out on the tarmac, the Awax, the Boeing, you know, midair refuelers. and they proved that essentially no American base is safe. Um I'm very fond of quoting Justin Logan from the Kato Institute said, "What good is a military base that you can't wage a war from?" And like whatever, dude, it's true. I've warned for 20 years that this is the case. You know, you're familiar with that map that this is like a funny meme that goes around and says, "Oh, yeah. Well, if Ron if Iran doesn't want trouble with us, how come they put their country so close to all our military base?" Right? And it shows all those military base around. But I would always make the point that, you see, that's why we can't have a war. All our guys are hostage. All our guys are too close to Iran. Right? Now, back in the Bush years and Obama years, we had 100,000 guys in Iraq and 50,000 in Afghanistan. They were all hostages. They relied with the Shiites in both countries. They could have got Order 66 right in the back, right? Is that too old of a reference now 21 years ago? Um, so that was one of the main reasons that W. Bush was afraid to do it back in 2007 was we had our guys embedded with the Shiites. We're turning their Shiite militias into the Iraqi army. We start bombing Iran, all our guys could get shot right in the back. Right. Well, but even still without that, just having a few bases in, you know, the green zone and in Kurdistan, still they can reach out and touch them. And they did reach out and hit every one of our bases in Kuwait, Bahrain. Our fifth fleet station at Bahrain totally destroyed our main air base at Aludid in Qatar taken totally offline. They hit it a few times and then the Qataris agreed, we won't let America fly any sorties out of this base, right? for Iran to spare it. That's our central command headquarters, our main air base in the region. H null and void. When war breaks out, the locals go, "Oh, sorry. You can't use your base." And then they hit, you know, whatever else in Saudi and and um and UAE and the rest too. So that means then like picture the Gulf. It's been the case really since World War II, but especially since the Carter doctrine in 1980 that the Persian Gulf is an American lake. We will. In fact, Carter announced that the Soviet Union tried to invade Afghanistan and dominate the Gulf. That that would mean nuclear war with the United States of America. You know, he's given like a NATO article 5 war guarantee to that body of water. Nobody better try to dominate this Gulf or you got to fight with us. Well, that bluff is is canceled. It's called and on a totally unforced error on a war that we started that we absolutely did not have to. We bombed them on the 28th. Why not on the 27th? We had no need to bomb him on the 27th. We didn't have any need to bomb them on the 28th either. We started this war total unforced error. And then and so like Iraq put Iran up by a huge percent. This has two, but it has also because of course it's half their Gulf, right? It's half their coastline, but it's also taken us down three pegs over there, right? Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi, UAE, Oman, Iraq, all those countries, Jordan, they all have a by far like I don't know how to quantify it, but a massive deficit in trust in the United States conventional military power to protect them. We cannot shoot down all the incoming rockets, We cannot just sit here and beat our chest and say that everybody has to do what we say or else. Apparently, the Iranians ain't that afraid. They'll keep fighting. So, it changes the calculation. Hell, it's got to change the entire, you know, conception of the balance of power in East Asia as well. South Korea, Japan, and Indonesia, and Australia, and obviously the Taiwanese, everybody has to has to be now wondering what good are American war guarantees. I mean, obviously, we have Hbombs, so nobody ever better attack Los Angeles or Norfolk, right? Or you're going to have a real problem. But can we actually use our conventional military power to choose winners and losers around the world? Evidently, all you need is like a moderatelysized intermediate range missile force, right? And they got those drones, too, which are taking out our rockets and the asymmetrical warfare part of it where their drones only cost 50 grand versus a million dollar rocket. I read a thing that says they cost eight. People are way overestimating the cost of what happened. Something happened yesterday where we shot down a bunch of their drones. Yeah, they were attacking Kuwait in response to America attacking, you know, we're on it's like an Israeli style ceasefire where we're still attacking them and now but it hasn't completely fallen apart into general hostilities at the time we're recording this at least the so the 28th the 28th of May. Yeah. Of May. Yeah. bless you. The um but there's a real danger now. So, okay. So, here's the thing, and now I'll get actually get around to answering your question, maybe. Um, Iranian power is going to be greatly enhanced, but I don't know. I have no good way to predict for you like how Trump is going to back out of this and end this. Like, what is he going to do? It seems like every day that goes by, he has less less offramps, right? Yeah. And he he tweets so much and he contradicts himself so much. even like in the course of one statement, he'll contradict himself. Um, you know, we have everything in hand. We're going to have a deal like any any minute now. And then, oh, the Iranians, they're so desperate. Surely they'll give in to me and whatever. Like, and the same thing, you know, like I thought you just said that they were like in the process of signing on the dotted line. Now you're saying you're sure they probably pretty much will once you hurt their economy more in another little while or you know, right? So, he doesn't know what to do, right? Netanyahu promised him just like W. Bush, this will be easy. All you got to do is go in there and knock them over and then you do whatever you want. You get whatever. It's funny because like I was just watching yesterday I was watching an interview that uh the dude from Vice, Shane Smith, interviewed one of the head people in the Iranian government. Oh, is that right? Somewhere. Uh he went there and he was like walking around and they gave him a tour of their um their nuclear reactor or whatever at Bucher. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, you can pull up that vice video. just dropped like 2 days ago or 3 days maybe 4 days ago and um like they're showing it like check out this nuclear reactor. Guess who gave us this nuclear reactor? The United States of America under Adam at Adams for Peace some. Yeah, that'd be their medical isotope reactor in Tyrron. Yeah. Yeah. like you guys literally gave us our first nuclear reactor and um and then Shane Smith was like reading um some of Trump's tweets to him like how they're they're begging they're begging for a deal and like [ __ ] man I am I can't obviously you can't just take everything they say as the gospel right I mean of course they're gonna they're going to say whatever they have to say to to for you know public perception but like [ __ ] man that dude was ext seemed at face value at least very measured and very reasonable in his response to this crazy [ __ ] like Trump's just like lashing out. Yeah. And and you know this guy seemed very he's like look the Straits of Hormuz you know it's not just about trade but that is also if we give America access to the Straits of Hormuz we're going to give a country who's attacking us and doing this war of choice against us a whole another front of attack on our country. Like that's a whole another angle of attack they can take against our country. Yep. Yeah. This is the one fast scrub through it to where you show uh where he's walking through the nuclear reactor. It's pretty funny. It's funny how like the Iranian leadership are notorious for all being a bunch of PhDs and stuff. I don't know if you saw that funny meme where their former foreign minister is saying Alexis Dtoqueville who I'm sure all Americans have read, you know, cuz he was educated in Colorado or whatever. So he read Democracy in America, but none of us ever have. I have Democracy in America by Alexis Toqueville, but I never read it. I'm going to read it someday, man. And the Iranian leadership I'll have, though. Mhm. Oh, so yeah. So here here's one one of the questions he was asking this guy. He's like, "Look, if this is the nuclear reactor that we gave them, that's funny." He's like, he's like, "Look, it seems like this the source of all of your problems here in Iran are your nucle is your nuclear [ __ ] right? And if everyone's so worried about you getting a nuclear weapon, he's like, "Bro, why not just go to fossil fuels? You got all these reserves. We could do wind and solar." Like, that seems like a legitimate question. Like, if I was the head of of Iran, I'm like, maybe just like let's get rid of the nuclear. It'll save us a lot of headaches. Let's just go to fossil fuels. So, what does he say to that? He his answer was like, "Look, we're a really big country and you know, everyone else relies on nuclear energy." And he he made like the climate change argument. That's pretty gay. What he should have just said was just focus on and and this is what they have said in the past is just it's a matter of opportunity cost. They have their own domestic supplies of uranium. There's not much of a global market for uranium, but they can burn their own uranium to run their electricity program and sell their oil if they could ever get their their sanctions lifted. Right. Right. And then they never say this or I shouldn't say never but I can't think of a time they explicitly have said this and I they have denied it before but I think it's pretty clear that their intention in creating their civilian nuclear program was one what we just talked about they're just saving money on this so making money on that. Yeah. But it's also because and and the hawks will complain that this is a giant loophole in the non-prololiferation treaty, but they're guaranteed under the NPT the unalienable right quote unquote to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes or to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Well, the problem with that loophole-wise is you can master the ability to enrich uranium to whatever percentage you want and to be able to make yourself a nuclear weapons threshold state. So, what they their position has been since I guess like 06 at least I think they you I think it's fair to say they they had mastered the fuel cycle in in '06. should double check that because they there was a a moratorium while they were negotiating with the Europeans for a few years there and they had an additional protocol but I'm pretty sure they they were enriching bio6 but anyway point is that what they're showing was look I'm not making nukes but I could so don't push me right so there this is like a latent nuclear deterrent Brazil and Japan and Germany are the same they everybody knows they know how to make nukes they could make nukes they they can enrich uranium, but they're not doing that because the circumstances don't warrant it currently. And so they're not in the case of Germany and Japan, they have war guarantees from the United States. In the case of Brazil, they don't have any enemies that threaten them whatsoever. So why screw around, you know? Um, and they signed the NPT. But the point being that, so the Iranians were in a tough position, right? Because America declared they're going after rogue states that had the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, starting with Saddam, but then maybe Korea and maybe Iran and maybe Syria. So Saddam goes, "Look, man, I got my hands up. I'm not doing nothing. I already gave you all of my thing. I don't know." And they went and they just buffaloed right in there. They just lied their way right in there anyway. North Korea said, "Screw this, man. We're making atom bombs. That'll keep you out." And they did. They withdrew from the treaty. They started making atom bombs. Wasn't that something with Clinton where like he made a promise with Clinton and but he went behind his back anyways and did the bomb got the bombs? No, not exactly. But let's get back to that in just a second. so um the Iranians said, "Look, man, our books are wide open. Our hands are up. Don't shoot." Okay, you can see what we got here. So unlike Saddam who had no nuclear program at all, and they go, "Well, the fact that he won't admit that he has one is proof that he's hiding it." Yeah. Well, they go, "Look, we have a nuclear program, but you can send in your inspectors to monitor the thing. We're not diverting uranium to any military purpose, so you got no excuse to go after us, right?" Um, that was essentially the position they were in because they knew that if they broke out and tried to make a nuke that we would bomb them first. Like we we're W. Bush was essentially in the position, I guess he just decided he he didn't have the bandwidth to stop North Korea, so he just didn't. But if Iran had really broken out toward a nuke, he would have started a war against them to prevent them from getting that far. So this was the standoff really leading up to last June was Israel was saying, America, you can't let Iran have a civilian nuclear program because it's just cover for a nuclear weapons program. They're going to make nukes and they're going to use them on us. So, you should just attack them now. And then Bush, Obama, Trump won, Biden said, "No, we're not doing that." However, Iran, you better not break out toward a nuke and try to make a nuke because if you do, we'll bomb you before you're done. You won't have a Manhattan project because we'll do whatever it takes to prevent you from getting that far. So, don't you even try it. Right. And then they would say, "Look, man, we're not making nukes, so don't do nothing. But if you do something and start bombing us anyway, well then we might, right?" So they were they would never say that last part out loud, but that was heavily implied. And they we were they were letting us give them a full cavity search like absolutely. they had now. And in fact, I got a little bit I got in a little bit of trouble on the Rogan show um a couple weeks ago when I talked about this because he asked me another question when I got to uh when I was talking about under the Obama deal and then we skipped ahead to the war. But what happened was Trump came in and tore up the Obama deal in 2018, And so the JCPOA, the JCPOA. Now, as I was saying, Iran is already a member of the non-prololiferation treaty, and they already had a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. All the JCPOA did was just add another layer of inspections and another layer of restrictions on their program on that. So, for anyone who wanted to pretend that, oh geez, we don't know, they must be making secret nuclear weapons, the JCPOA expanded inspections to such a degree that nobody could even plausibly make that case anymore. And then, but what happened was Netanyahu implausibly made that case in 2018. He did that presentation where they claimed that they found all those files at that warehouse outside of Tyrron and that all these files proved that they had a secret nuclear weapons program after all. And that was what they used to convince Trump to tear up the deal then. so you think the JCPOA was a good thing? Yeah. Look, people are mad because they got money and and it it makes, you know, bad hesbara where you got this giant pallet full of cash, right? But the thing is that was Iran's money that America stole during the revolution 1979 that they had sent over here to buy weapons with and they just kept the money. So John Kerry convinced them to join this deal where they roll back their program. They expand their inspections and all they get on in return is their own money back. And sanctions relief that we end up never even giving them. Right. Uh so you know there was such hype Donald Trump said about it I think yesterday or this or I think yesterday that under Obama's deal they would have a nuclear weap Obama's deal gave them a nuclear weapon and they'd have nuclear weapons and they'd be using them on us by now. Like this is just even like sub Bush or Bill Clinton level lies here. This is completely [ __ ] and stupid and wrong. He's just relying on people not knowing the first thing about it whatsoever. Now he could complain that the Obama deal had sunset provisions on some of the restrictions, not on their their restriction against making nuclear weapons, but on how many centrifuges can be spinning at any one time and whatever. But the thing is, if he had come in in his first term and just played hard ball and said, "Now listen, I don't like you and I don't like the president I just replace and I don't like this deal. I want to get rid of these sunset provisions or I want to extend the length of them or whatever." He could have done that, Right. But he didn't try to do that. He just tore the damn deal up. And then according to the deal, it said in the deal, if America breaks the deal and leaves the deal, then Iran can then cease abiding by some of its restrictions without breaking the deal. It's said in the deal that they could stop obeying parts of it in order to try to get America back in the deal, essentially to play that pressure. So, here's where we get to this crap. I know you heard it a million times. Your audience has heard this a million times. But they got 60% enriched uranium. Well, you can't make a nuke with 60% enriched uranium. I guess theoretically you could, but no one ever has. And it would be a massive unwieldy thing. It has to be above 90% enriched uranium, okay, to make a nuke. And so what they do is like Marco Rubio is the the most quotable on this, but they all kind of do this. Rubio goes, "Hey, look, man. The only countries in the world that have 60% enriched uranium have nuclear weapons. Uh, okay. sounds good. Yeah. No, no weapons state is enriching to 60%. They're only enriching to 60% on their way to some higher grade. In fact, they make virtually all nuclear weapons states make their atom bombs out of plutonium anyway. So, he's just bluffing, right? What he's doing is what he's trying to say is they got no excuse to enrich up to 60% and they're like on their way to 90% weapons grade and so you're supposed to be upset but you're not supposed to stop and ask well why do they stop at 60? Why not 65 or 70 or 90%. They could have enriched up to 90% U235. Why they stop at 60? Because they're not making nuclear bonds, right? I could bunch of crap. What was their response to it? What did they say about the 60%. I'm I don't know if they ever explicitly said this, although I think they probably did, but it's clear anyway that it was leverage. It was a bargaining chip. Got it. Right. They're saying, "Boy, you guys really don't like it when we enrich up to 3.6%. And you really, really don't like it when we enrich up to 20." Well, now we're going up to 60. And in fact, they didn't even do that until the spring of 21 when um in the Biden years is because because at the end of 20 in Trump's lamed duck period in December of 20, they used the Mujahadini Kulk communist terrorist cult the Israelis did to assassinate the head of Iran's nuclear program, Dr. Fakr Zada, something like that. They they killed him with a remotec controlled machine gun in um December of 20. And at that time, I believe that's when they started reaching up to 20% again. They still hadn't gone up even to 20% until then. And then in April of 21, the Israelis did a big sabotage attack at the Natance enrichment facility and blew up the electric thing. No, no, no. This is later. Okay. And when they blew up the the uh the power station at Natans in 21, that was when they started enriching up to 60%. Got it? And it's clear there is no other explanation. The explanation is they're trying to get us back to the bargaining table. That's it. There's no other use for the 60% except to use as a bargaining chip. Right? And yet what these people do is they go they respond to the the pressure that the Iranians are putting on them by enriching up to 60%. By just essentially lying and pretending that the 60% enrich uranium is itself a threat. And it's to the point where of course Trump you know again I'm pretty sure this statement was yesterday. He's like they're two weeks away. They'd have had a nuclear bomb in two weeks and they would have used against Israel and all the other countries in the region. And this is just 0% true. Just zero. There's no chance whatsoever that if they did their absolute best that they could have had a nuclear bomb in two weeks. That's just a damn lie. And then if they had one, they're going to use one gun type atom bomb which is going to be what like Hiroshima size 10 kilotons. And they're going to kill all of Israel and all the rest of the Middle East too with their one atom bomb that they got. Now he's lying. Like this is Bill Clinton level stupidity and deception. It's really embarrassing. Let me ask you this. If they did hypothetically have nukes. Who are like the top three to five countries that would be most worried about that? obviously Israel is number one, right? Saudi cutter. What about China and Russia? What are their stances on on Iran? What what is their concern of Iran getting nukes? I think China has been less helpful, but Putin has been very helpful in getting the Ayatollah to the table to do the JCPOA of 2018, for example. Yeah. They and and it was funny. Trump claimed this, but the Chinese did not. But he claimed that he had agreement with Kim, I mean, pardon me, with Chairman Xi um when he visited a couple weeks ago that they agreed again that Iran must not get nuclear weapons. But that has been the consensus of the UN security council and China has been at least abstained or been relatively supportive of Bush and Obama's efforts to get Iran to deal and to promise not to make nukes. The thing is the nuclear weapon states are all members of the NPT except for Israel, India and Pakistan and North Korea. But but the major nuclear weapon states um America, Britain, France, uh Russia and China, they do not want to see nuclear proliferation. they're already superpower states or, you know, major power states with nuclear weapons arsenals. They don't want to see those spread. Um they like they consider things to be, you know, stable how they are. And so that's their promise in the non-prololiferation treaty is one that they'll give up their nukes someday, which they don't really mean, but two, they promise never to give them or share them with anybody else. Yeah. Nuclear submarines are the scariest part of nukes. Yeah. Because like one it's one thing to have like a groundbased ballistic missile launcher, right? But it's a whole another thing if you can sneak a submarine up to the coastline cuz then there's like there's no warning time. It's literally up and then it's that's does Iran doesn't have the capability of submarines? No. No. Right. North Korea traverse the North Korea has submarines, but they're diesel powered submarines, so they're like really easy to hear and they got to refuel all the time, so it's like not that big of a threat. Yeah. Um, look, I overall, and we could talk about the the North Korean nukes if you want to, but overall the thing is, you know, I read this story about how we're working with the Australians, and we're going to build up this new nuclear submarine force in Australia, nuclearpowered submarine force in Australia. And they plan to be done with the whole thing by60, maybe it was 2050. But just you see how they reveal there that like they have no intention whatsoever of having normalized relations with with China by then. They they anticipate a permanent, you know, armed cold war confrontation in the Pacific. Who? The Pentagon. Oh, right. the the American strategic planners is they they got this huge submarine program that they don't expect to be ready to open for business for another 25 years. But that's what they're working on because it just doesn't occur to them that we could just get along with China and ramp down all these tensions and not need a whole new nuclear submarine. Are these class submarines? I forget. Was the same thing with Iran and the rest of these. We could just normalized relations with Iran. We could have normalized relations with Iran a long time ago and then it doesn't matter if they have nukes and then they're even less incentivized to try to break out and want to make a nuke. Why would Iran want to make a nuke? We already got rid of Saddam Hussein for them. Who do they need to protect from other than American and Israeli aggression? We're the only ones. Yeah. Yeah. And and by the way, you know, um there have been so many times where American, you know, influential powerful uh people and representing powerful interests, particularly oil interests have wanted to normalize relations with Iran. And then it was the Israeli lobby that just vetoed it. And this goes to like the in the early Clinton years, you know, Zabnzinski had been Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. And so the Iranian revolution was a huge humiliation for him just as well as it was Jimmy Carter. The hostage crisis and the failure of Operation Eagle Claw and all that. All that egg was on Signni Brazinski's face. But by the beginning of of the Bill Clinton years, right? So what 13 14 years later, he's like, "Ah, what the hell? Bygones bygones, man. We can get along with Iran. You know what we should do is we should make a bunch of money building a pipeline from the Caspian Basin across Iran. That way we could screw the Russians cuz you know he was Polish and wanted to screw the Russians more than any other thing. So let's build a pipeline south through Iran. This would be a great way for us to make money and to end the cold war with Iran and begin to reintegrate Iran. The revolution was a long time ago. Who cares if they got an Ayatollah or not? Whatever, man. We can do this. And and Alexander Hey, who had been Henry Kissinger's guy. Kissinger being a Rockefeller guy. Um and Alexander Heg had been Reagan's Secretary of State. He said, "Yeah, exactly, man. Let's normalize relations with Iran. Let's build an oil pipeline across Iran and have it terminated on the Gulf. Get some oil out there." And you know who agreed with Brazinski and Hey about that? The CEO of Hallebertton, Dick Cheney. No way. Whose job it was, you know, they build oil infrastructure. That's what they do. They build pipelines and transfer stations and stuff. That's what Hallebertton is. They're a oil services construction firm. Dick Cheney goes, "Yeah, man. You know how we screw the Russians? we build a pipeline across Iran. And he even and this actually caused a little mini scandal at the time. I happen to remember from the '90s that in 1998 he made this complaint in Australia. And that's like bad manners for a government official or a former government official to criticize American foreign policy on foreign soil. Oh man, you're not supposed to do that even if it's Australia. So when Dick Cheney was in Australia and he said that idiot Bill Clinton needs to lift these sanctions so we can do business with Iran. He said God didn't see fit to put all the oil under friendly democracies. So we're just going to have to do business with whoever we got to do business with. And then that caused a little mini scandal at the time because he dared, you know, be overseas while he made that criticism. But what was his criticism? That Bill Clinton should lift the sanctions and normalize relations with Iran. That's wild. in 1998. And then so what happened was of course in all these cases is the Israel lobby scream bloody murder. That absolutely not. And then of course once Dick Cheney becomes vice president and he can socialize all of Hallebertton's costs and have the Marine Corps pick up the slack and terms of their blood lost and the rest then he'll just do that instead. And and did push very hard for strikes into Iran in 2007 especially but Bush wouldn't go along by that time. So when Keryaku was here last, he was telling me that there were two national intelligence estimates done on the Iran's nuclear program. And essentially what this national intelligence estimate is is where they get he said it's the highest level intelligence assessment that is you can get right highest one possible. It's where you get the heads of all 18 aent, all 18 intelligence agencies and they all come together around a big round table and they all they ask every single one of them. Y do you think they have they they're going to have a nuclear weapons program? Do you think how whatever they ask them all and they they both times it was unanimous across all 18 US intelligence agencies that they did not have a nuclear weapons program. Exactly. Right. Which is freaking nuts. Yeah. Now the it's funny because um it was published in November of 2007 and it made a huge you know difference when it came out was written by Thomas Vengar was the head of the national intelligence council at the time when they published it and it caused a huge scandal and and W Bush complained in his memoir about how he had to bow and scrape before the king of Saudi Arabia and say I'm sorry Mr. King, how can I um your royal highness, how can I launch a war against a country when my own intelligence agencies say they're not making nukes? And I know what you think. You probably think that I told them to say that, but I didn't. They're screwing me by doing this and whatever, but there's nothing I can do about it. Sorry. Um and um so what they determined in that and in fact uh check me, dude. I bet you can find me saying release the Iran NIE. I'm pretty sure I wrote that for anti-war.com in 2005, two years before the national intelligence estimate. So, so we knew that they had an NIE two years before they finally published it. Damn me if it's 06, but I bet you it's 05 when I say that. Release the Iran NIE because we already knew that that the National Intelligence Council has investigated this and decided that Iran is not making nuclear weapons. It took two more years before they finally published the thing. when was the most recent one? Was that it? I don't know. I know they reaffirmed their same position ever since then, including in 2011 and in, you know, with the all the estimates that came out after the JCPOA. Then um in I don't I don't know about Biden years or or Trump won if they had a new estimate then. I don't think that they did, but I know that in the threat assessment from January or sorry, February of 2025 by Tulsa Gabbard and the Yes. the the director of national intelligence office, which is relying on CIA and everybody else's assessments there. So, this was not an NIE, but they reaffirmed their intelligence that Iran has not made the political decision to begin to try to make nuclear weapons to to embark on an atom bomb program. And then she reaffirmed that in testimony before the Senate just a couple of weeks before the war started last June. Oh, damn it. It was 06. I'm sorry. Wow, bro. I'm sorry. Release the 25 years ago. If you want, as long as you're on anti-war.com, search for who's behind the coming war with Iran. And that's me from August of '05 where I warned that they can close the straight of Hormuz 21 years ago. Wow, dude. Um, you've been on this beat forever. And look, I mean, and by the way, like I am, as we established at the beginning here, I am just a skateboarder, dude. I only know this stuff because of so many other people were doing so much great work at the time. And my job was interviewing them, reading them, and interviewing them. Steve, I'm not scholar. I just know who apostrophe. You got it. There you go. it's easier to There you go. There you go. So, August 5th, 2005. and just do Ctrl+ F for Hormuz. Or maybe I just say I might just say the gate of the Persian Gulf. Let's see. The gate of the It's in there somewhere. Damn it. Where is it? Oh, yeah. See, so I got this part totally wrong. Think of Iran as a fancy western word for Persia. It's the other way around. Think of Persia as a fancy Western word for Iran. But then its coastline comprising one side of the Persian Gulf. Access to Saudi oil in the Arabian Sea could easily be halted which would destroy the world economy and quickly. Wow, dude. Sorry, dude. But so yeah, a lot of people were warning about this for a very long. Newsweek has learned that the CIA and DIA have war gamed the likely consequences of a US preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As the Air Force source tells uh tells it, the war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from us. That's another question. Like are they not wargaming this out now? Yes. Oh, now I don't know what before they did this because I heard I heard that there was the joint chiefs of staff dude Dan Kaine, right? Who basically was against this whole thing in the beginning. He was telling Trump not to do it. Is that correct? I'm not sure about that. I I'm not sure that Trump asked him if he should do it or not. I think Trump asked him, "Hey man, if I ask you guys to put bombs on targets, can you do that for me?" And then he said, "I I sir," you know what I mean? I don't I never saw anything where Trump said, "Hey, man, if this is a bad idea, let me know." Or what? You know what I mean? I don't think And you know what though? No, no, no. You're right and I'm wrong. You're right and I'm wrong because I totally forgot about Um, but you are absolutely right because they put this in the Wall Street Journal, I think one day before the war. Wasn't it the Thursday before the war that Kaine was in the Wall Street Journal saying, "We're going to run out of interceptors." Yeah. He leaked it. You're right. He leaked it before the war that he had war on Trump. We cannot shoot down all that they have to shoot at us. And this was, you know, the point here too that I was making way back then. This came out as I was I had the the source then saying that they don't like the war games even in '05. Um but in January of 2007, the the joint chiefs took W. Bush to the Pentagon and gave him a briefing where they told him, "Look, okay, we'll do the surge in Iraq, but we don't want to go to Iran. Don't make us do Iran." And they explained the reason why was because they would lose escalation dominance. And that means essentially that the theory is the Pentagon doesn't want to fight anyone unless they believe they will control every stage of the conflict. That's escalation dominance. Maybe the conflict will escalate. If we attack them here, they'll attack. They'll counterattack there, but we'll be ready for it. We already know what all their options are and we'll have them completely poned all across the board, right? But if we don't like say Iraq for example, what the hell are they going to do about? As Paul Wolawit said, Iraq is doable. Right. Right. Iran not so much. We can look are we the superpower and them not? Absolutely. Can we bomb them to hell and and can Yes. And can they bomb us in our country here? No. Right. But can we control every stage of the conflict over there? No. Right. And the reason why more than any other reason, it's the same one you already know. Their medium-range missile force. They never built up a big land army. They never built up a big navy. Trump goes, "Oh, we sunk their navy." Their navy is sitting in port doing nothing. Their entire military force was around short, medium, and intermediate range missiles. They can take out our bases. They can hit Israel. And so if so, we ought to not put them in that position. Now remember how the Ayatollah, the old dead Ayatollah now acted when Trump killed Solommani. Didn't do anything. He shot rockets at an empty corner of an American base in Iraq as a symbolic thing only. Right. And did he give warning too? Like he even gave warning. Yeah. And remember last June, Israel with American help sits there and bombs them and bombs them and bombs them. Finally, America jumps in and drops 14 bunker busters. Right. And was I told to do? He shoots 14 missiles back at our base and cutter, but deliberately misses misses and calls ahead and warns. Trump even thanked him. Thanks for the heads up for calling ahead and warning that you're going to do it. So, this is nothing but the symbolic open hand slap, right, of nothing. Like, dude, I don't want to fight you. I can't sit here and be a total pacifist in the face of you bombing my nuclear facilities. So, here's a touch. Here's a a slug in the arm, but then come on, man. Let's not do this. But then as we're all warning that if the goal is regime change and you're going for a real war and you put their back up to the wall, well, they're going to hit all our bases in the region, man, they're going to call our bluff. We better have our boats way the hell out in the Indian Ocean out of range or they're going to be sinking our ships, man. They could hit our ships. And we're very lucky actually that you know even in their strikes where they did hit all those American bases in the region there they did not target the barracks. They did not rain massive volleys and try to kill as many American servicemen as they possibly could. It was like take out this radar dome and take out this air you know runway or or you know refueling station or something and then they hit oil refineries and chemical plants and all of that. But they did not sit there and try to kill as many Americans as they possibly could and wisely so, right? I mean, I think they know our president is loco and if they were to do something like sink an aircraft carrier or I mean, I don't think our carriers are dumb enough to get that close, but if they were to do something like sink a ship with a few hundred or a few thousand guys on it, then Trump might start reaching for really big bombs and get really upset. And they're not trying to do that. So, they have not really targeted our navy. They've not targeted us for mass casualties. They've played an asymmetric game very carefully. And yes, they've hit civilians. They killed civilians in hitting these oil tankers in the Gulf and all of that. Like, damn them. I'm not taking their side or whatever. American civilians. I'm not sure. Um I know they hit American tankers up there, you know, off the coast of Iraq and Kuwait to show that it's not just the straight, it's the whole Gulf. It's called the Persian Gulf for a reason, man. They can, you know, hit any part of it that they want. So, um, and they've hit, you know, civilian targets in terms of the refineries, and there was a, I believe in, I think it was in Bahrain, there was this massive chemical plant that they hit. is it the water dalination plants, aren't those a huge deal out there because the water they so little water? I don't think they've hit them yet, but that's the threat, right? Because that's that's going to [ __ ] the people there. That's going to that's going to starve the the citizens of the country, right? It could destroy. And that was our whole argument in the beginning of this. So, we need to save the people of Iran from this evil totalitarian um religious craziness. That's a bunch of crap. And you know, if they start attacking those things, it's just like, hey, look, they support al-Qaeda in Syria. It ain't about Islamic fundamentalism, dude. It's something else. Israel hates the Shiites more. So, we'll support, you know, any Sunni suicide bomber as long as they're fighting against Israel's enemies in Hezbollah and Iran. I don't understand it, man. It's just like if it feels like I mean I know that Trump is probably the most pollare president in the history of the country. Like there's no one who's been more hyperfocused on polls than this guy and this is the one thing that he's just basically losing everyone's support on. When you got to wonder what they're telling him too, man. I mean like what is it? Like what like just come out with it. Just like tell him, "Okay, I was in the [ __ ] files. [ __ ] off Israel." I think people would would like him for that. Yeah, dude. Seriously, like, you know, I I sincerely doubt that he hurt children or that if he did that they like have proof of that that they can hold over him or whatever. Like, I don't know. I suppose anything is possible, but like I don't think that that's really true. I think that they would have used that. The CIA would have used it against him back 10 years ago, right? You know what I mean? Um, so I just I don't think it's that like if if they got him blackmailed anything, it's cheating on his wife with just some flooy or whatever. But like who cares, dude? Just admit that. Epstein probably gave him a girl who was underage who looked like she was of age and he didn't question or whatever. And like maybe like but still like the times that that was in that was normal, right? All those dudes were doing that crazy [ __ ] All the most powerful people in the world were were doing that stuff. Like unless he was doing something truly evil, just come out with it. Just admit. Honestly, I don't even think it's that, dude. I think one, it's the money from Sheldon and Miriam add now, but it's the money. They gave him so much money. Um, and and like look, I think there's a handshake there, but also like these are just his friends, right? this is the way it's not like you know people would say about him especially like in his first term that like oh wait I think this guy's anti-semitic and it was like dude first of all he's like completely phoemetic you know he's like obviously surrounds himself with the far Israeli right even you know what I mean he's like an Israeli Jewish nationalist in in his own way or whatever he said they would they would vote him to be president over there yeah yeah but even if they even if he didn't like them though. If he didn't like them, then he would dislike the Arabs a hundred times more, right? If that's what we're talking about, I was like Trump is some kind of crotchy old racist or whatever, which I don't even think is really right. But but like does he have any regard for the Arab Palestinians at all? Even if they're Christians, dude, he doesn't care about them at all, dude. The Israelis are his friends. They tell him that he's handsome and tall and wealthy and successful and he likes that stuff. You think it's that simple? Yeah, dude. I guarantee you, speaking of national intelligence estimates, I guarantee you there's a national intelligence estimate in Israel that simply says just flatter Right? Like that's all. Just tell him he's handsome. He'll do anything you say. And in fact, you guys might have seen this. You got a huge [ __ ] and you're the most best president the US has ever seen. They posted a video um on the White House YouTube channel and then they took it down a few weeks ago. This is I think when the war was still going on, like before the ceasefire was declared. And what had happened was you could tell he gave this speech. It was at the White House. He gave this talk to a small group. Um, and I think he even like acknowledges the camera for a second, but I think he knows the idea is this is a private thing and this is not going to be on TV. So, he cuts loose a little bit more and then they ended up I think accidentally posting it anyway. Um, but some people saved it and stuff, you know. But he says in the thing because he can he can be like this man where he's just so abruptly honest and he says in the thing something like you know when people want me to do something all they have to do is flatter me. I really like it when you tell me how great I am. And in fact I'll even do bad things for very bad people. If they'll just tell me that I'm great. And I think that was almost certainly a reference to Netanyahu. I'll do bad things for even I think he even said for very bad men as long as they say nice things to me like he even just said it like that. That's it, dude. People when they tell you who they are. Yeah. And so, you know, this is how Bill Crystal used to get John McCain. He'd go, "Wow, John McCain, you remind me of Theodore Roosevelt." And John McCain would just swoon into his arms. Who do you want me to kill, Bill? You know, it's the same thing here. They go, "Look, man. You're you're even better than Abraham Lincoln. You're even better than George Washington. You're you know you're as good as Abraham Abraham. is this the video? Oh, wow. Here. You can hear it through these. Oh, cool. Great show. I love this guy. He's so nice to me. Every time I watch and I appre, you know, we're not supposed to be seduced that way, right? But I am. When somebody's nice to me, I love that person. Even if they're bad people, I couldn't care less. I'll fight to the end for them. So, I appreciate it. Wow. I feel like he's like letting out all these little Easter eggs to like vindicate himself, you know, like to explain to the people who are really paying attention why he's doing all this crazy [ __ ] you know, that with the Mary Matt video. Like, I don't even think she cares about the United States. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, too, um, there's so many people who feel betrayed by him because they gave their loyalty to him like with him barely even really asking, right? He made a couple of promises about curbing immigration or whatever and then he said no new wars. So, I don't know about all his friends, but he said that and so people just gave him their undying loyalty. He does not return undying loyalty, right? it. He'll stab his friends right in the back, right in the front. He don't care about that. It seems like the people he's most interested in impressing are people who used to not like him, right? Lindsey Graham. Well, I don't like you. You don't like Jews and you're you don't want to do all the wars. And then he's like desperate. Lindsay, my man, what do I got to do? Who do I got to kill to make you like me? What do I got to do to suck up to you? And then Lindsey Graham goes, "Okay, look, just bomb natants." Okay. Okay. You know, so so you think his vicious attacks on people like Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massie are just because Israel's telling him to do it? I mean, well, and you know, they crossed him by contradicting him on That's true. on Israel. But yeah, I mean, I'm sure Miriam Adlesen checked with him like, "You want me to destroy this guy, right?" And then Yeah. Yeah. you know, I mean, they spent what, $25 million on a house race. Um, and this is how it works, by the way, man, for people who wonder about the, you know, secret Israeli control of America, what it is. And this is in and they do lie, cheat, and steal and blackmail and whatever, there's there's a lot of that, but their primary object, as in um detailed in in Walt Mirshimer's book, the lobby is they're just a special interest, and they lobby just like a special interest does. Yeah. And just like with Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill or Monsanto or whatever, right, or or the Chase Bank or whoever, they've got office towers full of lawyers and secretaries and receptionists and staffers whose job it is to do work. And so they have a list of 435 congressmen. If anybody on this list crosses us, they get a mark, right? And then they'll even come I've heard congressman tell this story. guy just starts running for Congress, decides to put his his hat in the ring in the Democrat primary or something. And somebody from Apac comes calling and goes, "Here, just sign this pledge. We'll give you 85,000 bucks. We'll help bankroll your campaign." You read the thing. Fine. What do I care? I don't know. Get your money. But if you go, "Wait a minute. No, actually, I don't like this. I'm still I resent the way you guys helped li 25 years ago, so screw you." They go, "Oh, screw us, huh?" Well, we're going to give this $85,000 to your primary opponent instead. Maybe we'll give him double 190. And then um if you still win the primary, then we'll see you in the fall. And if somehow you win in the fall, Well, we'll see you in two years. And they don't drop the ball. They stay on the ball. They've got their chart. They know who they hate. They know who their vendetta is against. They know who dared to cross them and who must be made to pay a lesson and to you know to to take a lesson and serve as an example for the rest. And so you can even see the way Apac has been bragging about the defeat of Thomas Massie is you know this is what happens when anybody messes with us. Don't even try it. Now, back to like your earlier question about isn't that really badass bar though when they just kind of can lord it over us that they're, you know, in charge of us in this way that they get to make these decisions for us in this way. And I would say, yeah, but you see what I mean about how well they're to them they're getting their work done. They got rid of the guy that they didn't want and it worked. So, you know, whatever they suffer in terms of bad public relations later, that's more nebulous and diffused and spread out over time and place. But they got rid of the guy they wanted rid of. And they set an example for other congressmen that boy, if you want a career on Capitol Hill, you have to go along with these people. They will get your ass. And there's just nobody organized with enough money to stop them. There's no group that says, "Actually, we have hundreds of millions of dollars, too. And if you will only tell your Apac representative to screw off, we'll double whatever he was promising you. Right. There's just nobody like that. No, there's no American patriot with money who's willing to spend it in that way. Not one. Do you see any opportunity or any possibility of this changing or like the chickens coming home to roost with all this stuff? I mean, well, it's a lot of fun, right? and seeing how poorly American democracy works on this case, right? Like you have especially on the Democratic party side where the owners and donors of the party are hardcore Zionists and 98% of their voters are not. In fact, there was just a new poll that said half of young Jews in America want a bational state. They don't even believe in Zionism at all. They the headline was functionally anti-ionist. half of American Jews. Never even mind the rest of the Democrats. Okay. Holy crap. So, you have the power versus the people. And the people absolutely may not win, must not win, cannot be allowed to win, especially those AI tech surveillance [ __ ] Oh, yeah. And like there was a funny anecdote from I'm pretty sure it was the 2012 convention in LA. It was definitely in LA. I think it was in 2012. And it was the mayor of LA, Vil Rosa, I believe was his name, was the chair of the party. And they did a vote on Israel. And the eyes were like I and the naysay were like, "Nay, like the whole giant basketball stadium just roaring with naysay on shouting down this pro-Israel resolution." And the chair looks off stage and he goes, "Okay, the eyes have it." And bangs his gavl. And the whole place just goes up in a riot, you know, like, you got to be kidding me, dude. Wow. Because like, hey, those are just the rules, dude. That's just how it is. The people do not get a say. Y'all are just decorations on this. And y'all are extras in our TV show of our convention here. You don't get to choose. That's And but that is untenable, right? You can't just go on forever like that, right? And now on the right, think on the right, it's becoming like 50/50. and even more so among the young where people are also very much turning on Israel. It's not quite as stark of a difference in between the party and the people as it is on the Democrat side, but there are a lot of people on the right who are absolutely sick and tired of this. It seems like most, you know, the ones I talked to that aren't are just the people It's like the the the people that will follow Trump to the gates of hell, you know, are the are the only ones like the people like, you know, like my dad's age who only watch Fox News. They don't really They don't really give a [ __ ] about it. They're just like followers of Trump no matter what. Just trust them. Yeah. And and you know, partisanship is the mind killer, right? You don't want to help those other guys win. They're way worse. Even if you're mad about what this guy's doing and whatever, you know, that those kind of arguments work real well. But yeah, um but look, man, you know what it is is it's just the abject cruelty of the Israeli regime and the way that they persecute their helpless victims here. I mean, you know, I don't know how confused people are about this still. I assume pretty bad. But, you know, the Palestinians, it sounds like they have a country called Palestine, right? Like, we're Americans from America and Canadians are from Canada and these Palestinians are from Palestine. And so, it sounds like it's the country next door to Israel and that Israel is always at war with its next door neighbor, Palestine. But that's not right. Palestine is an Indian reservation. The Palestinians have already been whooped. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were already de facto annexed and taken, stolen by Israel back in 1967, and the millions of Palestinians who live in those territories kidnapped along with them. And when the Israelis bomb them, what we're talking about is a canned hunt, right? This is not the same as America fighting Mexico across the Rio Grand. This is like America going to war with the Navajo on their reservation out in Arizona shooting fish in a barrel. Yeah, that's right. Like like Dick Cheney and his friends where they they do like a canned hunt literally with with you know fences and even like chain link ceilings so they can go around and and hunt wild and delicious animals. That's [ __ ] weird, you know. Um yeah, it's the Republican way of war, you know. Um, so this is how this is what's happening to the Palestinians, right? Is Israel is on top of Palestine, right? Israel is where Palestine used to be. And then these are the last, you know, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is the last 22% of historic Palestine and the Israelis are insisting on stealing the rest of it. You know, they love to use these ridiculous cliches like, "Oh, if if um Hamas laid down their arms, then we'd have peace. But if Israel laid down their arms, then Hamas would just kill all the Jews." That's not true. The Israelis don't want peace. If Hamas laid down their arms, the Israelis would murder every last one of their babies and steal their property. It says in the Bible they can kill whoever they want and steal whatever they want. The enemy is Amalecch even though actually if you read the Bible they finished killing every last Malikite 3,000 years ago. So you must just be bullshitting that these people are Amalecch or you can just call anyone you want Amalecch and then you have the right to murder them. But that's all it is is murder. has nothing to do with self-defense whatsoever. The Israelis are the aggressors. Now, Hamas did kill innocent civilians, not only on October 7th, but in the past. They've done suicide bombings and pizza parlors and city buses and all kinds of crap. Screw them and their horrible evil, you know, murderous tactics of targeting civilians. Just because the Israelis are the aggressors doesn't mean that they're heroes, okay? But it means that the Palestinian civilians are the victims of Israeli aggression here. 100%. 100%. October 7th, nothing but the thinnest excuse at this point for what they've been doing for what, 80 years? I heard they were doing something like taking the the Hamas fighters and like having people following them back into their homes before they kill them. So they could kill them in front of their entire family. The AI. Yeah. There's a a online uh news outlet called 972 MAG. That's the area code or the country code for Israel. It's called 972 MAG. And they did these reports on an AI program called Lavender. And another one called Daddy's Home. And that's the one you're talking about. It ain't even just an IDF soldier follows him home. It's the AI decides this guy must be Hamas and then follows him home and then either kills him in front of his children or kills his whole family with him too. And they were doing the same thing. the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least at first, were keeping count of all of the uh Palestinian journalists that the Israelis were killing. And then in so many cases showing where they would wait until the reporter, the journalist would leave his house and then they'd kill his wife and babies right after he left the house. God, dude. Or um or they wait till they get home and kill them all. And it's most deliberate thing. I don't know if you saw Tucker last night, but Tucker had a fantastic monologue last night and then he interviewed a doctor from Oxford University who is a abdomen specialist who was over there operating and telling Tucker the absolute worst horror stories, dude. Of operating on children without anesthesia. People dying, a little girl who was wounded in her throat and they they operated on her. She was okay, but she couldn't swallow and they couldn't give her IV fluids cuz they had nothing. So she just starved to death over two weeks and just died even though she would have otherwise been okay. And talked about how and we covered this at anti-war.com that the signature wounds where clearly what's happening is the Israeli snipers are having fun having contests where they today they shoot everybody in the elbow. Tomorrow they shoot everybody in the head, the next day in the neck, the next day in the genitals. Little boys blowing their parts off for fun. Their own commanders told Haretses, "Our soldiers kill Palestinians, quote, for sport when they're bored," unquote. That's the commanding officers said that they do it. They target, they have contests for which body parts, let's shoot them all in the left knee today. We'll get them all on the left knee. And then the doctors are like, "What is this? This is like the fifth left knee guy we've had today." I'm like, "Oh, you see what's going on here?" And then tomorrow it's in the eyeball. Tomorrow it's a little boy's parts. And then what they do is they justify this by claiming that they are the master race, the uber mention and that the Palestinians, they're the UN mention and they have the right to murder them. See, they are the exact equivalent of the German National Socialists. That's exactly what they are. They claim that they're the master race that everybody else they call them goyam which just means you know the n-word. I mean to deny people of their humanity so that it's okay to murder them and steal their property that they covet. You know what is happening right now in Gaza? They're bombing killing. Is it all gone? They they kill people like a hundred a week instead of 100 a day now. Something like that. Maybe a hundred every couple of weeks. I saw the most horrific footage yesterday of this dead little girl in this guy's arms and still photos and and also footage of him where they killed a um a family a woman and her you know what's so strange? Elon Musk hasn't said a goddamn thing about any of this stuff and it's all it's all over Twitter but our ex or Yeah. He's completely compromised, man. SpaceX is a Pentagon contractor. But like he's also the same guy who said Trump was in the Epstein files. Yeah. He was mad and said sorry and deleted that. Right. That ain't the same as opposing a policy, you know. Uh I've never seen him be brave on the issue of Palestine ever, you know. Um but you know what though, actually I take that back because he's brave enough just letting us see it. You know, he could go along with the, you know, absolute censorship regime and he does not. And the Israelis push so hard for that. But you know, I was thinking about this the other day. Um, when I was a kid, um, I'm 49. I'm a bit older than you, but when I was a kid, there were You skate better than me, though. VHS tapes that went around. I never did quit. That was the thing. I stayed out That's the key. Um, but there were these videootapes that went around called Faces of Death. I remember this. And it was basically just pictures of like a dead body next to a train. something. There was the one shot of that politician that says, "Stay back. Everyone shoots themselves, but um mostly you it was just dead bodies from here or there." And I remember watching that and I don't even know if I saw the whole thing. Maybe I watched it and like part of they had then Faces of Death 2 and three and what and I remember there were some of the boys, you know, when we were teenagers like, "Oh man, I got to watch like all of these." You know what I mean? It's such a big deal. I was Yeah. And I remember thinking like me I've had my fill like honestly I don't think I had ever seen a dead body before real one other than like Hollywood makeup whatever until I saw the faces of death and I was like okay like whatever pop my cherry on that you know what I mean I'm a teenager now and not a little boy so now I've seen what it looks like to see a dead body and like okay got my little shock and I'm kind of over it but like I don't need to sit here and watch this over and over and over again. I get it, you know? Right. But now I'm like, man, compare that to the dead bodies that I've seen from the Gaza Strip over the last 3 years. Like, man, like I got a a clump of neurons over here somewhere that's just nothing but dead kids. So many dead kids and just horrifically mame little babies. Man, there was this one where the they bomb the house and half of the little girl's corpse got blasted across the street and she ended up hanging from some rebar on the already destroyed building across the street and somehow her arm ends up she's completely dead. She's, you know, gone from the waist down. I don't even think she had legs anymore. And somehow her arm ended up like this, stuck behind her head as her corpse is just hanging up there. Like this is some straight up like biblical level evil, dude. This is the kind of thing where if the Jewish religion was true, then God would be coming to destroy them for disobeying him again now like he always does. Right. You shall not covet other people's things. You shall not steal. You shall not kill. That's all they do. and deliberately target women and children. You know, the I'm sure you saw the one with the the grandmother walking the little boy across the square and they snipe they murder the old grandmother and her little boy, little toddler boy, too. And they and they think it's hilarious. They don't give a damn. Yeah. They don't give a damn. There's so many of these. I mean, pictures of guys, you know, carrying their dead children in plastic bags or they just been blown apart and they're just trying to get them to somewhere to try to bury them. Get the bodies. Yeah. you know, um, and and where they're absolutely deliberately targeting children. They can try to lie and claim collam collateral damage all they want, but it's absolutely clear what they're doing there. You know, shooting little boys in the testicles. That's so they can't grow up to make more little amalachites. Right. That's what that's about. It's genocide. That's exactly what it is is genocide. And in fact, I'll go ahead and add um Oh, there's the grandmother. You got it right here. Yeah. Don't put this in the video in the in the show, though. This will get us. We just show your reaction to it maybe. Yeah. Here they are trying to cross. I've seen this. I don't need to see this again. Oh my god, dude. Yeah, they don't give a damn, dude. Yeah, it's pure evil. It is. It's pure evil. This is exactly what it is. You know, there's a there's a story in Harets. You could find this really easily um where a Israeli military officer admits he says we have a sub army of Palestinian slaves and this is what he's talking about is real human shields. You know they claim that Hamas fighting from within a civilian population is using them as human shields which is somewhat true, right? and which insurgents almost always do unless they got a deep jungle to hide in or something. Um um but what the Israelis do is they will take children, elderly, whatever prisoners, not Hamas bad guys they captured, but regular civilians that they capture and they'll force them to walk through the rubble ahead of the troops. Force them to go into houses first in case they're booby trapped or Mines and [ __ ] Yeah. using them as human shields and u they do it all the time and there's in Harets one of the yeah there you go we keep a sub army of Palestinian slaves is what he says and this is from uh the original quote comes from Harets um an IDF officer told that to an Israeli it's important to note that we can enter houses without using human shields we did it for months according to a proper entry procedure which uh included is sending in a robot, a drone or a dog. This procedure proved itself but it took time and the command wanted to achieve uh wanted achievements here and now. Yeah. So they use elderly women. They send in people's grandmothers to clear the house to see if it's booby trap first. [ __ ] crazy. The Israeli government is they're the equivalent of the Soviet communists under Joe Stalin. That's who they are. They're monsters, dude. And I don't mean the whole population of the country. I mean the regime that rules Israel. And in fact, the public opinion polls show that the Israeli people are really horrible on all this stuff, too. On the other hand, I had a guy in recently saying that. Yeah, that guy I think you I think I got him from your show actually. Um Shil Sha. Oh yeah. Did you talk to him? Yeah, I had him in here. Oh yeah, he's interesting. He was former IDF. Yeah. Yeah. He was explaining all that stuff and how they sodomize their prisoners and [ __ ] Oh, it's just Oh, yeah. The and the tortures. I mean, this is something that the guy the the doctor was talking about on Tucker last night. Guys forced blindfolded, shackled on their knees for two months, not allowed to even lay down. They got, you know, they're handcuffed with their cuffs tied to their ankles behind their back on their knees. And they're left like that for months. They're not allowed to even fall down and and sleep. how do they eat or [ __ ] somebody cram some face, you know. Yeah, they just, you know, they torture him to death in many cases. I happen to Yeah. Ben was saying, I always want to give the civilian population the benefit of the doubt that if they had good leadership, then they'd follow good leaders, too. You know what I mean? But they'll follow bad leaders straight to hell. You know, if the And this goes back to me as a 15year-old boy in 1991. I told you I didn't care about the Iraqis. I didn't care about the Kuwaitis. But George Bush Senior was giving me license to indulge in my blood lust. Right. Yeah. It's not wrong if the president United States dresses you up in a uniform and tells you to do it, right? Or you know, you get to watch it on TV, but it's us. It's red, white, and blue. It's your country doing it. So now it's okay. You can be as evil as you want. You can, you know, take great satisfaction in the destruction of the Iraqi people at the hands of the American military. And be morally right. You know, with with eagles and yellow ribbons and American flags and Whan Jennings songs and whatever you need all around you to tell you that you're in the right, you're doing the right thing. It's the same thing for every 15-year-old boy at my high school and the same thing for the population of Israel. the our leader says that not only we doing this but we have to do this so hell yeah otherwise what might happen to us or whatever you know people rationalize justify anything. So in other words then if they got a prime minister in there who was not an insane psychopathic murderer Yeah. but who wanted to try to figure out how to do the right thing they'd probably support him in that too. Yeah. No, it kind of shocked me when he was explaining to me that the young generation of Israelis in Israel like support all this stuff and support Netanyahu and yeah, they're getting worse. You know, back um gez 15 16 years ago now, Max Blumenthal was writing his book Goliath and he moved to Israel to write that book. And I interviewed him about it over there and I remember him telling me he's like, "Oh, Scott, dude, you got no idea how bad it is here, man. these people. He goes, "The entire political spectrum in Israel is from Dick Cheney to Hitler." There is no left at all. There's tiny little like commie movement, useless and probably, you know, more harm than good Um even though it can hardly be more commi than Israel where the government owns almost all the land in the first place. But um but there's essentially you know the libertarians there are psychopathic genocidal lunatics. The the entire political spectrum is all like completely nuts. So and they've been driven that way by their own regime. I mean this may be out of date now. I don't know. But I remember thinking certainly years ago that if they had decent leadership over there who was willing to compromise and make peace with the Palestinians and then make peace with the, you know, and normalize relations with the rest of their neighbors based on that that they'd be fine, And imagine moving to a neighborhood and not just establishing that like, hey, you know how to fight, but like going around doing nothing but pick fights with all your neighbors all the time just to prove how much tougher you are than them. Mhm. That like, okay, you got your peace through strength, you got your peace through dominance, but everybody around hates you. And how long, how does that make sense for the long term, right? When if you wanted a narrative about Israel that would make any sense at all, it would be that, hey, after World War II, during and after World War II, a lot of bad stuff happened. A lot of people got displaced, a lot of new borders were drawn, and what are you going to do? the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Hard to go back on that. It's so long ago. Fed comply. Whatever. Whatever. But let the Palestinians at least have the West Bank and Gaza. At least let them have their measly stinking 22% of what's left of Palestine. But nope, you got to take all that, too. That's not the West Bank. That's Judea and Samaria. We're going to take all that. We're going to take the Gaza Strip and turn it into the Riviera. Mhm. no Palestinians allowed and their 2,000-y old churches bombed off the face of the earth along with their mosques so that we can have it instead. And like I said, this is the whole point of the clean break, Well, we could make peace with our neighbors or we could just get America to kill them all for us, Speaking of World War II, let's jump. Let's make a big jump. Um, something I'm no expert in at all and I don't know much about, uh, is this whole World World War II, um, story. I know you have a a show with that dude, um, Daryl Cooper. Daryl Cooper, that's who it was. Martyr. Martyr Maid. Yeah. Who's I haven't I haven't listened to all the stuff, but I heard uh, it's really good. And um, Churchill was a very bad guy during this whole thing. And a lot of people like to joke, oh, Churchill was the good guy or the bad guy, and Hitler was the good guy. People like to look at it through this through this lens and and um there's no particular virtue in victimhood. Exactly. Exactly. We can both be very bad guys here, Danny. You and me both. Yes. Exactly. Essentially, I think I think you made the connection with Churchill and George W. Bush. You said George W. Bush was the Churchill of the 21st century or something like this. Yeah, that was what they said. And this is like this is not at all what they teach you in school. Yeah. And and then Yeah. I just turned that around. The joke was maybe that's right. Maybe Churchill was just the George W. Bush of the 20th century, right? Only, right? So, so the argument get to write the history and pretend that he was something better. So, so I think the argument Julian made to you is like uh Hitler, he had the biggest GDP or whatever and he would have gone on to and expanded forever and eventually made it to the shores of the United States. Yeah. Well, that's a bunch of crap. So, So, what really happened? Well, a couple of disclaimers. Okay. First of all, I'm not the world's greatest expert on World War II. I've read a few books about it, but I've never I've never written about it hardly. I think I wrote one. I think you gave a really good explanation of Pearl Harbor, too, Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, when I say I don't know anything about it, it's, you know, you can judge like relatively, you know, compared to what I know about other things or compared to how much other people know about the same thing or what, you know, compare how you want, but you know, I got some useful things to say about it, but I guess I can disclaim too that like there there could very well be things I'm overlooking or whatever as well, you know, but you know, my basic version of World War II is that It's all Woodrow Wilson's fault. And that what happened was when by the time Woodro Wilson got us into the First World War, the damn thing was over. You know, his whole slogan was peace without victory. But that was what was at hand. Nobody was winning and nobody could win. the um the uh Soviets, you know, the the commies had taken over Russia and pulled them out of the war. They were freezing to death, you know, or no, I guess no, the commies had taken over yet, but the the the um the Zar's troops were essentially, you know, getting nowhere, frozen on the battlefield on the Eastern Front. On the Western Front, the French, the British, and the Germans, everybody was freezing. Nobody had any boots or ammo or anything, and no one was getting anywhere. The Germans are on French soil, but barely. And the whole thing is already a stalemate. It's a stalemate. And then idiot Woodrow Wilson comes and dumps hundreds of thousands of American GIS into the fight. And they tilt the balance in power so far in favor of the British and the French that they're able to force the German surrender on completely unreasonable terms. First of all, the first thing he does is he bribes Kinsky, the new ruler of Russia, to stay in the war. Now, the original Russian revolution was in March of 1917. Lenin and Trosky didn't take over until October. And the reason they were able to was because Woodro Wilson paid Kinsky, the interim leader, millions of dollars and gave him tanks and guns and trucks and food and whatever to stay in the war. Um well I might be conflating with World War II there gave him not exactly full Lin lease but gave him a bunch of money and equipment to stay in the war. I guess I forget the exact extent of it but it was enough that it convinced Kinsky to stay in the war. Therefore then when Lenin Androsky went to cease power in the kami revolution in October one the Kinsky regime didn't have any support from the people because he wouldn't end the war. And then two there were no soldiers there to protect St. Petersburg from the commies. So the commies were able to to end the war um to cease power and then end the war. Um but then the British and the French got to dictate such harsh terms to the Germans that not only did it lead to, you know, their economic devastation, but they kept a full blockade on Germany and starve them by the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, starved after the war was over. Um and then they stripped them of all of their outlying territories as well. So you had major parts of Germany or you know what had been Germany and and predominantly German lands were stripped away and given to Poland and to Czechoslovakia and to France and whatever. So this was there's a great book by James Powell called Wilson's War. How will how Woodro Wilson's great blunder led to the rise of Stalin, Hitler and World War II. And so step one is he bribed Kinsky to stay in the war long enough for the commies to create the Soviet Union. Then he helped the British and the French stick it to the Germans so badly that they were willing to accept the rise of the Nazi party in the name of claiming revenge and reclaiming their lost territories and prestige. So this is even the way I learned it in government school as a kid was that Britain and France at their terms in the Versailles treaty uh were so harsh that it ended up humiliating the German people so bad that they were willing to accept the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. That's even my public school education confirmed, you know, told that much of it. And you know why? Because the rest of the story is that it's all the Senate's fault. Because if only the Senate had ratified the League of Nations treaty and Versailles treaty, then we'd have set up the original United Nations in Europe and America would have already been the dominant power in Europe and we would have been able to stop the Nazis from getting carried away as soon as they came into power earlier. So it's not Woodrow Wilson's fault for getting us into a war. It's Henry Kat Lodge's fault for refusing to ratify the treaty, which would have solved everything. Right? So that's why they'll teach you the first part is because it comes stuck with the second that what we really needed was to join the League of Nations. But what they're admitting there is that if Woodro Wilson hadn't done that, there would have never been a commie USSR and there would have never been a national socialist Germany and there have never been a Second World War. He could add that they also helped to completely destroy the Ottoman Empire and let Britain and France seize the entire Middle East, create the state of Israel, you know, the mandate in Palestine and all the rest of that also flows from Woodro Wilson's Great Blunder as Pal put [ __ ] So then the butterfly effect effect. Yeah. Yeah. And like I can uh I can definitely recommend Daryl Cooper's uh you know he's got um Enemy the Germans war part one and part two are out. But also my colleague at the Libertarian Institute Keith Knight has a great show where he went over he read Winston Churchill's sevenpart history of World War II which I actually am going to inherit from my dad one day that he got from his the the giant seven volume history of World War II by Winston Churchill. But Keith Knight goes through there and is like, "Holy crap, look what he says right here, guys." And just, you know what I mean? Reading it with that critical eye. And so essentially this story that he tells in there is completely different from the hindsight story of World War II. Well, the Nazis were here in New York like holding conventions and [ __ ] in New York City and like uh those were Oh, those were American. Yeah. Those weren't the Germans. That was maybe the German American bund, but they were American Madison Square American fascists. Yeah. Oh, okay. is, you know, the the Democrats make such a big deal about that, but you could fit every single American Nazi all together in one Madison Square Garden and that's all of them. So, you know, they love to exaggerate that stuff. I thought it was interesting you were explaining this book um about it compiled all of the American headlines about World War II. Oh, yeah. Up until the point where the we entered the war. Well, it's not just American ones, but it's headlines from newspapers in in especially in England and the United States. It's called Human Smoke by Nicholas Baker. And it's oh it's so interesting because and by the way Daryl Martyr Made he points out that there are some errors in there. It's not perfect but what it is is you read that book man Human Smoke and it is about how they just had off-ramp after offramp after off-ramp after off-ramp and they just wouldn't take them. They are just so determined to get us into this war and and by us I mean the Anglo-Americans is the English leaders. Um, and as Keith Knight pointed out in in his review of Winston Churchill there, um, and I've heard this quote before, but where Churchill says, "Look, man, he didn't give a damn about Nazi Germany and the evil of national socialism or any of that." That wasn't it. What it was about was Germany was the most powerful nation on the continent. And English policy, as Churchill says, English policy going back centuries has been whoever is the most powerful nation on the continent, we go to war against them to keep them from dominating the whole continent to keep the balance of power. He said, "If it was the French right now, we go to war against France. If it was Russia or Poland, then we go to war against them. We're going to war against Germany because they're the most powerful." And so that's, you know, long-term English policy. And he was unable to say, "Well, wait a minute. Is that actually the best idea in this case? And especially after our experience in World War I where we lost hundreds and millions of I almost said hundreds of thousands, millions of young guys got chewed up in this thing where now mechanized warfare is just so much different than it had been in centuries past that like man there's something like 20 million people died in the first world war. You want to do that again after 20 years of improvements in killing people technology? That could get really ugly. Winston, are you sure that you're just so married to this policy there's no wiggle room in it at all? No, it must be. And this is in Pat Buchanan's book. It's called Churchill, Hitler, and the unnecessary war. And the quote unnecessary war is from Churchill only he's saying it was unnecessary because we should have just done it earlier or better or whatever. But he also said after the war in the rise of Stalin Soviet Union in the cold war which it was really Churchill himself went to Truman's hometown in Missouri and gave his speech about the iron curtain and how the inaugurating the cold war and he said, "Oh look, huh, I guess we stuck the wrong pig." Wow. And which think about like this, okay? Hitler and Stalin, national socialism and international communism. This is like matter and antimatter, right? These guys are going to war, right? It's almost certain they're going to war is a huge part of what led to the rise of the Nazis in the first place was the existence of the commies in the east and the holmorore in Ukraine and everything else, right? This was almost inevitable, right? Virtually inevitable. And I think Hitler saw that as well and was he wanted to ally with England against the communists. Churchill in effect, well actually not even Churchill, Neville Chamberlain before Churchill became prime minister, Neville Chamberlain of course had declared peace in our time and that he had an agreement from um from Hitler about Czechoslovakia. He'd only take as much as he'd taken, but he wouldn't take the rest. Then he went ahead and took the rest. And then Neville Chamberlain, the lesson for all of us in history is that England and America should have invaded Germany in 1938. Right. But what actually happened was he went into an emotional fit. Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain because he was humiliated by this. Right. So he threw a fit and went and gave a war guarantee to Poland and said to Poland, "If you if Germany attacks you, we will jump in on your side." Well, thing about that is Poland was ruled by fascists. They were called the colonels and they were right-wing, you know, nationalist virtual Hitlerites themselves. And they were in process of negotiating over Danzig and whether the Germans would get a corridor to this formerly German Yeah. over this formerly German city of Danzig that had been awarded to Poland after World War I. Well, once they got the war guarantee from England, they told Hitler, "Screw you. Now we don't have to negotiate with you." And so he said, "No, screw you. I'm taking Danzig one way or the other." And invaded Poland. But what happened? Because he knew that England had made this deal with Poland. Then Hitler went and made a deal with Stalin, the Molotov Ribbentro Pact, the Hitler Stalin Pact that said, "Let's both invade Poland and divide it and make and have peace between us because He knew that England is now going to declare war on him and France along with England is going to declare war on him. So what does that mean? That means he just has to fight all the Western democracies first. He has to destroy France and Belgium and Denmark and then fight the commies anyway. But just destroy all the Western democracies first. Mhm. And in in Pabuchanan's book, he says that when Neville Chamberlain gave this war guarantee to Poland, that his own foreign minister, Lord Gray, said, "Are you crazy?" And said he should be locked in an insane asylum for giving them a guarantee. Yeah. For giving Poland a war guarantee. Because of course, Britain had no ability to protect Poland anyway. You might remember at the end of the war, Poland got turned over to Stalin and was enslaved until 1991, right? 1990, right? So, they weren't they weren't, you know, saved by England in that war. Even with America in the war, we we'd had to start the war with the Soviet Union. As soon as we sacked Berlin, we'd have had to declare war on Moscow if we were going to liberate Poland, right? We weren't going to go that far. you know, the English are passing out war guarantees that America is supposed to cash, but we can't even follow up anyway. All we could do is liberate France and the western half of Germany. The communy's even got the eastern half of Germany. Wow. So, and 60 million people died. Mhm. And because it's the worst thing that ever happened, you're supposed to believe it's the most inevitable thing that had to happen, But like, I don't know, man. Maybe not. And especially when you brought up Pearl Harbor, the only way that FDR could get America into the Second World War was by lying us into war. by setting up those boys to die. And you know, I interviewed Robert Stinette is the guy that, you know, proved this case. He was a American naval veteran of World War II and he even justified what FDR did and still believed in the war and still believed that that FDR had no choice. I interviewed the guy multiple times about it. Really, he wrote the book Day of Deceit, the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. It said they didn't just break the diplomatic codes, they broke all of the military codes. They knew everything the Japanese were doing. And the White House kept that information from Admiral Kimmel and General Short out at Hawaii. Yeah, it was Admiral Kimmel and General Short and they got screwed. They got blamed. But it was FDR who, you know, in fact what what Stinette found is not only that they had broken all the codes, but he also found the Macala memo, which is the eight-point plan to provoke Japan into attacking us first. What? And it's labeled A through H. these are all the different things that we have to do to get them to attack. And so one was leave all our fleet out at Pearl Harbor instead of bringing them home to San Diego. Then was surfacing submarines off the coast of Tokyo. Then was increasing support for Chinese resistance against the Japanese. Then was the oil embargo and the steel embargo. And all of this was made to provoke them into hitting us. That was why so we could use that as an excuse. So that we could use that as an excuse. As the Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary, "By all means, the Japanese must be maneuvered into firing the first shot." And then they use that. They set up 3,000 American sailors to die so they could get us into the war in Europe. Holy [ __ ] And um and so they did. And then Hitler, by the way, Hitler declared war on the United States. So they FDR wouldn't have been able to do that unless he made that absolute idiot blunder which he did because and it's funny cuz I had always heard that this was just such a stupid mistake but there was a reason that he did it. The reason that he did it was because he wanted the if if he declared war on the United States he wanted the Japanese to then declare war on the Soviet Union. And then that way the Soviets would have to divide their forces in and which would benefit Germany. But the Japanese did not declare war on the Soviet Union. So Hitler rolled those dice and lost. He provoked America into entering the European war, but he didn't convince the Japanese to entering the war against the USSR in the East and so screwed himself in that way. But that's the explanation of why he declared war on the United States. But um there's no question of FDR's treason there. They knew the attack was coming. They left all the guys out there. Had them bunch all their ships up together to protect against sabotage when they were just setting them up perfect to be sunk. It was such a lucky coincidence that all our aircraft carriers were out at sea that day. And it was all the obsoletal World War I ships that got sunk. Oh my. 3,500 guys killed. That's [ __ ] insane. It's crazy. It's like this [ __ ] just keeps repeating itself, man. And hey, as long as we're talking about Pearl Harbor, let's talk about Iran. So, Donald Trump himself compared his attack on Iran to Pearl Harbor. Remember, he had the Japanese uh prime minister in his office and she says, "Why didn't you tell us about that you were going to attack Iran?" He goes, "Why didn't you tell us about Pearl Harbor?" This is like making the direct comparison. And then, but in our sneak attack on them, we didn't just hit and kill 3,000 of their military guys. We hit two schools and killed an Oklahoma City bombing worth of children. 167 something orund I guess they they lowered it as like 150 something mostly girls some teachers and boys as well but almost all girls that were killed. Imagine the Alfred P. Mura building that that Oklahoma City federal building only all of them were kids instead of just 20. In the daycare there that the whole building was a daycare. That was what America killed in our Pearl Harbor sneak attack on Iran here. And it was the one school and then there was a different uh place um like a gymnasium where they were doing volleyball practice, a girls volleyball practice. They killed another 21 there. And they killed Iran's FDR, their supreme leader since 1989. and his family was with him, right? And his family, too. His his wife, his daughter, um and his father. Oh, sorry. No, killed and left the son alive. Killed his his wife and daughter. Um but then um but then also imagine if America had been a Catholic country and FDR had also been our pope too, That's what we did, We did a Pearl Harbor attack, a sneak attack in the middle of negotiations against a country that was not threatening us on behalf of a third nation based on some ridiculous lie they're making nuclear weapons. And then not only do we kill all their military heroes, we slaughter their daughters by the hundreds and kill their pope slashpresident. What would we do in that scenario? Dude, I mean, yeah, as I was saying on the Rogan show, if um if that was our story of Pearl Harbor, then our story of World War II would be that we kept nuking them until we ran out of nukes and all the Japanese were dead. Right. They still justified nuking them based on just that's what they get for attacking us at Pearl Harbor where they killed almost all combatants. I think maybe all combatants died. Um and then we nuke them and kill 75,000 people in an instant in Nagasaki, 100,000 at Hiroshima. And we go, well that's what you get for hitting Pearl Harbor. If they had hit Pearl Harbor and slaughtered a bunch of kids and they hit DC and killed at the we America would own Japan now. We'd have killed them all. Yeah, you're right. But whatever, dude. We can do whatever we want and those Iranians are just going to have to lump it. And and isn't it true also, didn't Trump say like we keep trying to negotiate, but our the negotiators keep getting killed? The Iranian people on the Iranian side when whoever we're talking to, they keep getting killed. So, we have to keep it a super secret now. Yeah. And what was funny was like the implication was supposed to be what? That they're being killed by Iranian hard that No, they're being killed by the Israelis. It was the Israelis who were targeting anybody that we're talking to. that's nuts. The script writes itself. Trump said, "We got a deal. We're negotiating uh based on their 11point plan and we have a ceasefire." And Israel immediately ramped up their slaughter in Lebanon in order to say your ceasefire does not include us. And and Trump said Israel is forbidden, all capital letters, forbidden from bombing Lebanon anymore. They just kept bombing them. and pay any mind whatsoever. You know, this is this is what led Tucker Carlson to say that Trump has evidently somehow been enslaved. He's enslaved to the will of Netanyahu. How can the ruler of the world superpower be sabotaged and dictated to by the prime minister of some crappy little Marylandized state over in the Middle East? We don't, you know, I don't know if anybody knows exactly the mechanism here, but he's in charge, not our guy. Yeah. It seems it's true. It doesn't make sense that there's like this huge invisible leverage where we can do all of this stuff for this small client state. Like they must have a huge huge invisible hammer that we just can't see. You may be right about the blackmail there, man. Because you know, they had all kind of leverage, all the exact same political leverage on W. Bush and on Barack Obama on, you know, Joe Biden should have let him get away with murder. Do you think they had leverage on Obama, too? I mean, just as much weight as the lobby has, but Obama, Bush and Obama both, and with Robert Gates as their secretary of defense in both cases, they told the Israelis, "No." I mean, Ahoud Mer really pushed in 2007, and Bush goes, "No, this is before the NIE even came out." Bush told them, "Forget it, pal. We're not doing it." Um, and uh, you know, Robert Gates gave this interview recently where he said, "Oh, Netanyahu told me all this same stuff in the Obama years. Oh, it'll be easy. All we got to do is hit them. They'll fall right down and we'll get whatever we want and whatever." And he goes, "No, that's" and I told Netanyahu then. That's not true. That's completely crazy and we're not doing it. And so, they at least had the stones somehow for whatever, you know, political capital they had saved up to say no. I mean, you might remember when Obama passed the nuclear deal, he gave a speech that was pretty hardcore in terms of these sorts of politics where he said in his speech, he goes, "Now, I've heard the prime minister of Israel and his objections loud and clear and duly noted." However, my job is securing the national interest of the United States of America, and you're just going to have to suck it up, Netanyahu. You know what I mean? But that was like tough. That was probably the hardest thing he ever did, right? You know what I And then he had to say that specifically like, "Look, man. I'm not ignoring you, but I'm just saying this is my solution to your problem and it's going to have to be good enough for you." Um, Trump will not talk to Netanyahu that way. He will not. No. I mean, that picture, I don't know what's going on. It's a great meme of him, you know, pulling out the chair and pushing in the chair for Netanyahu. Like, it's crazy, man. Sit at the head of the table. Yeah. Even that New York Times story where they're in the situation room. Trump refuses to sit at the head of the table. He sits at the side of the head of the table across from Netanyahu as an equal in his own situation room in the White House. Dude, it's so it's so crazy. It's it's it's a it's a it's a crazy conspiracy that's just spiraling out of control. And it's crazy because it's all right in our faces. It's all available for us to see if we have the the the eyes to see it and the ears to hear it. And it's just like no explanation. We we'll give you no reasonable explanation. Like even with the Epstein stuff, like we'll drop this all in your laps and uh we'll dax [ __ ] but you'll be able to figure it out and we're not going to give you any answers. It's just here. Here it is. By the way, here's some here's some UFOs by while while you're at it. Go play with that. I mean, it's like it's an insult. It's an insult to us. There were people who even thought, and this may have played into it, that like one of the reasons they decided to launch the war was just to get the Epstein stuff out of the news. It was there was so much in those files to be, you know, waited through so many independent journalists who were just Where's all the footage, too? We know there was cameras. We know there was a whole We had We had witnesses that told us that there was whole entire rooms half the size of this room stacked with servers and monitors that were monitoring everything. So, where's all that [ __ ] FBI's got it. By the way, you know, this barely got any coverage. I And I was so busy moving and everything. I did not follow up. But Matt Taibbe wrote a thing at Racket News about how they found this whole other collection of FBI files. A whole like secret parallel stash of FBI documents on like files on everything and everyone. Yeah. Um, this was like I don't know what four weeks ago or something and it had slipped out. Someone had admitted that they had like this parallel filing system and somebody followed up like, "Wait, what? What was that again?" You know, was that you find that? Yeah, there you go. FBI secret stash finally uncovered. For a generation, the FBI has kept a second set of books called prohibited access files. After a long flight, they're finally being examined. So, I don't know what all was found in there, but this is the stuff, man. I bet you I bet you there's stuff on the Oklahoma bombing in Elohim City and stuff in there, dude. You know, I interviewed an FBI agent who worked on the Oklahoma bombing case, and this was I don't know if you remember this, but right before McVey was eu executed in the summer of 2001. Mhm. Dan Rather from CBS News interviewed some FBI agents who said that they had worked on the McVey case and or the the Oklahoma bombing case and they knew they could testify that information that they had investigated was never turned over to the defense. So they actually postponed McVeyy's execution for like six weeks while they found a bunch of boxes of stuff to turn over to his defense attorneys and then they turned around executed anyway. But I interviewed one of those FBI agents myself. His name was Rick O'Hada. And um he said that even then after they turned over all the boxes, the stuff that he investigated, which was about the white supremacists at Elohim City, McVeyy's friends out there in eastern Oklahoma, that none of that stuff ever turned up, was ever disclosed. So that's the kind of thing that makes me think, what's in these prohibited access piles? All the stuff that we don't want Danny to ever see goes over here in this separate drawer. You can learn this, but you can't learn that, and speaking of prohibited like files that they keep away from everybody. What about like the whole Joe Kent thing where he was trying to get access to the whole Charlie Kirk thing to see if there's any foreign influence. Never even mentioned Israeli. He just said, "I want to see if there's any foreign influence." And they said, "You don't get access to any of this shit." Right? This is before they allegedly said that he was blocked out of everything or lost his clearance, Which is just like [ __ ] crazy, man. Which makes you question the whole Trump shooting thing, too. I mean, Tucker did another great documentary on that. I don't know if you saw that. Tucker did a really really Oh, yeah. Yeah. In fact, I just published a book by Ken Silva. You might know Ken Silva from Headline USA. He's a really great investigative reporter and we just published his book. It's our 20th book at the Libertarian Institute. It's called the Trump assassination plots. And he goes in deep deep dives of everything we know about um about the kid in Butler, Pennsylvania, about the guy down at the golf club in Florida, and then plus also debunking the fake Iranian plots against Trump, which are total [ __ ] Um and uh yeah, it's our 20th book at the Institute, the Trump assassination plots, and he goes into all that detail, what we know and what we don't know about all that. And like I think in the case especially of the kid in Butler, Pennsylvania, you know, they lied, right? They said that he didn't have this online. He didn't have an online identity at all and whatever. And then but Tucker found it when all of that stuff, right? And look, I think this is purely speculative, right? Like I don't know this, but I'm just saying it does make perfect sense that whoever whatever intelligence agencies or whatever sophisticated actors could have software that can find people who are making unhinged threats online and figure out how to infiltrate their lives then and give them bad ideas and push them toward things that they otherwise might not do. I think the possibility is certainly there in the case of Charlie Kirk too like Yeah. I don't think I really have much reason to doubt like who pulled the trigger there. You know, they say, we'll find out at the trial, but they say his own dad turned a man. Dads don't turn in innocent sons on I heard that that was all [ __ ] I heard that the guy never actually I think I heard I don't know where I heard this. I don't know. This is just I'm talking out of my ass right here, but I thought somebody told us recently on the podcast that they someone actually got a hold of his dad who refused to talk to anybody in the beginning and now he's saying all that's [ __ ] None of that actually happened. I don't know about that. But even assuming that the accused is the guy that pulled the trigger, it still is plausible that there are ways to identify people online who are that close to the edge and then figure out ways to infiltrate them and and push them and give them bad ideas and totally even capabilities and whatever and get them to do things. So, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out. And same thing with this guy Ruth. I mean, everybody knows that he was a cook. He'd been to which guy is this? Ruth No, the guy that at the club in at the golf course. Oh, the golf course. Yeah. Where he had been to Ukraine and was known as a loon in Ukraine had maybe succeeded in recruiting a couple of mercenaries from Afghanistan to go fight there. But like I guess believably they immediately started covering their ass and saying that like this CIA officer who was over there said that when she came home she told customs, "Look out for this guy. He's a cook. he's over there and he needs to be, you know, whatever, whatever. Or she told the FBI that or something like that. And people mistakenly said that he was in a Black Rockck commercial and that was supposed to be so suspicious that so was the Why are they all kid? But they're not Oh, they're not. Yeah. No, the the Pennsylvania kid. He was just a high school kid and it was nothing. Has nothing to do with the assassination at all. The Butler kid. He wasn't in a Black Rockck commercial. Yeah, he was. But as a high school kid years ago, that has nothing to do with anything, right? It was only suspicious if they were both in Black Rockck commercials, but they weren't. Oh, the other guy wasn't. The other guy wasn't. You know what he was in? He was in a video that was filmed by the ASOV battalion, who are America's suck puppet Nazi brigades in Ukraine fighting the Russians. And so that was what that video was. It wasn't a Black Rockck video. It was an AOV battalion video. Oh my god. And um so if that guy's a cook and he's a nut and he's already convinced that Trump wants to sell out our heroic Ukrainians uh against the villainous Russians and whatever, then it doesn't take much probably for someone who, you know, has, you know, covert action authority in government to take a guy like that and push him a little bit. It's like the Lee Harvey Oswald story. Yeah. You know where Trump's going to be on Wednesday, right? Mhm. You know, it's going to be, you know, playing rounds on this course here and what and when as now I'm speculating there. Yeah. It's also perfectly reasonable to believe that some loser can get a gun and reach out and touch someone with it. I mean, that's people really don't like that fact. But that's that's actually what's really good about guns, right? Is someone who is weak can be equalized with someone who was strong. Little old lady can shoot dead a crackhead and protect her own life, right? That happens, right? Um, but that also means that some jackass can kill someone great without much effort, right? And then, you know, people get upset about that because it doesn't feel right, but it is possible at least, which I'm not trying to jump to too many conclusions on any of those. I'm willing to speculate a little bit, but it it is also true that like firing a rifle at a target ain't that hard, you know, hold your breath and squeeze the trigger or whatever, right? You know. Mhm. Don't pull it, squeeze it. Whatever. It's just crazy, man. That that that Butler shooting was bizarre beyond belief. I mean, just the fact that he was able to get past all the Secret Service people, the sniper people didn't see him. There was like that that one just or they did, but they held their fire. They didn't just immediately identify him and they were back and forth talking about what should I do? Like, no, you're supposed to take this shot. That was weird, man. That was weird. That was very weird. And it gets weirder the more time that goes by. You know, one thing is though too is you, you know, like I remember some of the reporting out of there right away and and I actually had a chance to read the latest version of Ken's book yet. But there did seem to be a lot of like just total jackasserie on the part of the local cops there too. Yeah. Were like, well, I wasn't supposed to be looking out that window. Jimmy was supposed to be looking out that window or whatever. And they're ultimately just a bunch of deputy sheriffs. They are not good at that job. It was like they said the one guy was looking out the window, but if he'd only like actually put his head out the window, he would have been able to Just stuff like that, which you know, maybe those are convincing enough lies, but they also are like because they're plausible enough that they could really just be the the simplest explanation as well, you know? Yeah, for sure. So, I don't know. Well, Scott, thank you so much, man, for uh giving me this education on American history. I really appreciate it. I've had a lot of fun. Hey, show them my books again. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Provoke. This is the most recent one. This is the foam book on the history of Russia Ukraine. Is that right? Ukraine. Russia Ukraine. America's pedaling, meddling. I'm sure there's some great Victoria Nuland quotes in here. Oh, there's a lot. We didn't get a lot of time to talk about Russia Ukraine. That'll be a whole another podcast. That' be a whole other show. We could do that. And enough already. Uh, time to end the war on terrorism. Oh, yeah. And then look, man, I am uh everywhere books are sold. Uh yeah, mostly Amazon, but yeah, you can find them wherever. And I have a new project which is the Scott Horton Academy of Foreign Policy and Freedom, which is basically me walking you through both of these books and doing like the deep deep dive on all that. And that's all at scott hortonacademy.com. Excellent, man. Dude, your memory of this stuff is so goddamn impressive. Do you have like a photographic memory or something like that? Like how do you you recall names and times and like all this stuff? It's it's insane. Yeah. Um, never talked to anyone with like this this depth of memory recall on history. That's funny. Um, I uh I was joking on Twitter. How do I know all this? People ask me, how do you know all this stuff? These aren't memories. They're vendettas. I love it. That helps them stick a little bit. That's a good way to sear them in your brain, you know. Yeah. Cool, man. Well, we'll link all this stuff below. And uh thanks again, dude. I really appreciate it. Absolutely. And hey everybody on YouTube, check out my two shows, The Scott Horton Show and Provoked with Daryl Cooper as well. Hell yeah. We'll link it all below for folks.