Bad Hasbara - The World's Most Moral Podcast - 206: Hamasterisk*, with Adam Johnson

Episode Date: May 19, 2026

Matt and Daniel are joined by Citations Needed co-host and author of the new book “How To Sell A Genocide,” Adam Johnson. They cover the consent factory being run by American cable news, use of the word “terrorist” by journalists to describe a population being terrorized, and every fedora’d Jewish child’s best friend: Abraham Lincoln.Please donate to Pal Humanity: https://palhumanity.com/New Bad Hasbara Merch: https://estoymerchandise.com/collections/bad-hasbara-podcastSubscribe to the Patreon https://www.patreon.com/badhasbaraHow To Sell A Genocide: https://www.plutobooks.com/product/how-to-sell-a-genocide/Citations Needed: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/See Francesca Fiorentini and Matt Lieb May 21 in Pasadena: https://events.leapevents.com/event/new-world-disorder-05-21-26-8-pmWhat’s The Spin playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/50JoIqCvlxL3QSNj2BsdURWhat’s The Spin Album List: https://bit.ly/whatsthespinlistSkad Skasbarska playlist: http://bit.ly/skadskasbarskaSubscribe/listen to Bad Hasbara wherever you get your podcasts.Spotify https://spoti.fi/3HgpxDmApple Podcasts https://apple.co/4kizajtSubstack https://substack.com/@badhasbaraSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/bad-hasbara/donationsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

BetMGM is an official sports betting partner of the National Hockey League and has everything for the action on the ice. Hockey fans in Canada can place live bets, create same game parlayes, take player props on their favorite skaters, and bet on the 2026 Stanley Cup champion, including if that team will be from Canada or the USA. BetMGM also has original bets, which are hockey markets you can't find anywhere else. And it's not just about what you can do on game day. The BetMGM app has improved its lineup this season to include instant withdrawals, data insights, and a brand new rewards hub. Download the BetMGM app today and enjoy the NHL like never before. Betmgmgm.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1866-531. 2-600. To speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGEM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. T-DRIves and Jaffers Orange Rose. Microchips is us.

iPhone cameras us. Taco salads us. Bodomobamos us. Olive garden us. White foster us. Zabrahama us. Has virus us. Hello everybody and welcome to Bad.

The world's most moral podcast. My name is Matt Lieb. I will be your most moral co-host for this podcast. I am Daniel Matt. I'll be your other most moral co-host. And that right there is the first straight ahead just by the script intro we've done in, I don't know how long. It's kind of incredible.

As soon as it happened, I was like, let's not break this. Let's not break this streak. Let's see if we can go an entire intro without making it weird or strange, and we did it, except for, you know, this part where we are talking about the intro. We met a reference our own accomplishment. But we did the best we could. Thank you to everyone for watching slash listening to another episode of Bad Has Barro. We love all of you out there who continue to support the podcast, either by subscribing on YouTube

or by subscribing on all of the podcast apps or doing this. thing that we love people doing, which is going to patreon.com slash bad as barra and joining and getting an extra episode every week, you know, if you like this podcast, but you wish there was more. Well, how about 100% more podcast? If you listened, if you listened to our Rani Akhalak episode last week and then spent the rest of the week being like, God damn it, I didn't get to hear them talk about the dog rape story for 45 minutes. That's right. My favorite story of the week, oh, that's too bad. Well, guess what?

You're in luck. Because if you go to patreon.com slash bad as barra and join, then you can watch that. And if you join at the $10 tier, you can not only watch the episode, but you'll see your name and a scroll at the end of it. Who doesn't like to have their name in a scroll? That's what I say. Just like all the characters in the Torah. Just like every person on Schindler's list.

I mean, is those... Is that a scroll? It wasn't a scroll, but it was like, you know, I think it would have been a scroll in olden times. So get your name on a scroll, be on Bad Hasparis list. That's you then scroll. And also, if you're like, man, I sure would love to get an extra episode, but I'm not someone who knows how Patreon works. Well, don't you worry, if you're a big YouTube guy, memberships are now open for YouTube. That means that you can join the, you know, the YouTube.

membership for Badis Barra, and you get the same thing. You get, you know, at $5 here, you get extra episode every week. At the $10 here, not only do you get that extra episode, but your name is on the scroll. So join, join on YouTube. I know we got a bunch of YouTube fuckers who are just like, I don't leave this website. Well, now you don't ever have to, okay? We did it, and we did it for you. And if you're someone who's like, I don't like YouTube, I don't like Apple, I don't like

fucking Patreon. We're now on Substack. Remember Substack? Substack is a website where journalists do journalism, but it's also a website where we do our podcast. So you can also join for the exclusive bonus episodes on Substack. Baddust bar. That substack.

So many different discreet comment sections for me to look at it three in the morning while pretending that I'm not the kind of You do that. Yeah, that's right. You got to become that. Yeah, I'll tell you right now. After a while, it's bad for the mental health to keep reading comments from people. And it's not that we don't love you. Of course we love you. You're all very special. But everyone's got different feelings about things. And unfortunately, sometimes our feelings aren't going to be your feelings. But let's, you know, let's all try to remain amicable and not scream at each other.

We can do that. I don't know. I feel like if you're subscribing on Patreon or any of the other, like if you're a paid subscriber, I got no problem with you screaming at us. That's true. Part of what you're paying for

is like a safe space for you to like just off the road, you know, and tell us what the fuck you think. It's okay. It's no harm. I mean, I'll be real with you. We got some of that last week, I'll tell you. We sure did. And there is part of me that's like, what if we made a $30 tier?

And then you can say mean things to us. How about that? I'd rather that. But yes, we love all of the hogs out there. Eating up the premium slop. So thank you for doing that. Shout out to producer Adam Levin on the ones and twos. And it is time.

Oh, last thing, important thing. If you like stand-up comedy and you're in L.A., please, please go to the Ice House in Pasadena this Thursday. At 7.30, Francesca Fiorentini and I are going to be doing stand-up there at the Ice House in Pasadena. It's a really fun show. You don't want to miss it. Tickets are in the description link. So clicky-click and get ticky-tick. And hopefully, ice won't raid your house while you're at the Ice House.

I mean, you know, I'm not going to pretend like I. haven't made that my intro joke for the last six months. Of course, you know, you got to, you got to do it. You got to talk about it. It's called the ice house, you know, like how you're not going to bring that up. Okay. Today's episode is brought to you by Pal Humanity. Pal Humanity was founded by two Palestinian physicians who are sisters and is dedicated to serving their communities amidst crises. crises. The charity organizes field medical visits and distributes essential items, including diapers, menstrual and hygiene kits, and infant formula. Their work prioritizes perinatal care, children with special needs, and medication distribution. If you have any money and you would

like to support a worthy cause, we encourage you strongly to go to palhumanity.com and donate today. That's P-A-L-H-U-M-A-N-I-T-Y dot com. Daniel, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Man, I love hearing the spin. What's the spin? Well, glad you asked. This is not part of the spin, but I just want to give a special shout out to the Montreal Canadiens, Les Abitans. I got Wien's Quebec album up there behind me. They're playing Game 7 tonight. I'm sure by the time everyone hears this, it will have already been a fait accompli as you as you will but man they fucking screwed the pooch in game six so i'm

hoping they can turn it around and win a clutch game on the road to head to the conference finals and probably lose to the carolina how do you say screw the pooch in french foote le chein okay well look at that you did it yeah uh or uh in or in quebecua french it'll be foque le dog voque le dog yeah they got weird french over there it's just franglish um all right so We have the author of How to Sell a Genocide today. So I've got sales-related songs on the show. Oh, I love that. All right.

So number one, classic, Tom Waits, the album Small Change, featuring Step Right Up. Step Right Up, Step Right Up, You know, selling hawking products. It's sanitized for your protection. It gives you an erection. It wins the election. It's really fun. Tom Waits has a voice that always sounds like a carnival barker. Yeah, and this is really where he started.

Oh, that was the beginning of it? Bringing that gravel into it. I mean, he was always gravelly, but it got, yeah. I like the idea that, no, before that, he kind of was doing an Elliot Smith thing. He was doing more of a, like, Bruce, not Bruce Springsteen. I don't know what he was doing,

but more jazz loungy crooner. He's, but really leaning into the alcoholic, uh, rake character, uh, around that album. Um, money for nothing and the checks for free. Dara Straits. That's right. That's right.

Brothers in Arms. Yeah. First time I ever heard the F word. not, you know, the slur F word in this song on the radio. Oh, wow. They just let that happen, huh? That little, he's a millionaire. Wow.

It was a different time. Definitely. Steely Dan, their final album. I didn't say that nostalgically, by the way. I didn't say it's a different time. Like, ah, I wish we were back then. I'm just saying. I know what's deep inside your heart.

I know what you said. That's right. Everything Must Go. This is their final album, and it's got a song called The Last Mall, and it's got a song called Everything Must Go. That's sort of the bookends of the album. And, you know, kind of a charmingly cynical send-off to their career. They're like, we're going out of business, everything must go. Not enough bands do that. I know. Not enough bands end with a clearance sale album. That's exactly right. Yeah, yeah, that's great. That's how you got to do it. Cole Porter's classic standard love for. for sale. I don't know that one. Appetizing young love for sale.

Love that's new and still unspoiled. Love that's only slightly soiled. I think it's about sex work, basically. Oh, fun. A song from the point of view of a prostitute. And it's covered, or not, it's done by Dexter Gordon on the album Go, an instrumental version. I love that.

Cole Porter, he, what do you do? Like, I get a kick out of you and shit like that? Yeah. He's, uh, it's fine. Oh, he's fantastic. He's fantastic. Stephen Sondheim gave him props in his book, and he dissed a lot of lyricists,

but Cole Porter got the thumbs up. Look, I'm sure he's great. He just never stuck with me, you know? Go listen to the cast album of Kiss Me Kate. That's one of his musicals. It's very good. Okay, I'll check it out. Brush up your Shakespeare.

A lot of fun. Donna Summer, bad girls, also about streetwalkers, selling sex. produced by George Omeroder, of course. And finally, speaking of musical theater, Who will buy my sweet red roses? Hell yeah.

Hell yeah. I was in that. Can I have some more Hasbara? That's right. I played The Doctor. Did you? Yeah, it's a non-singing part. I would do these school plays.

They weren't even school. They were like after-school, fucking, you know, city rec center plays. And there were musicals. And they always gave me the, fucking part of non-singing part. The Doctor. I played Lieutenant Branigan and Guys and Dolls.

No song. I played the fucking Cossack. Officer Kruppki in West Side Story. In Fiddler, I played the fucking Cossack guy. He has no songs. He has no songs. He just goes into town and he's just like, get out. Sorry, Tavia. I know I promised.

I feel like that I can do. Asbaris, if there's any pro-Israel people who like hate watch this podcast, I'll be like, of course he played that part. Tidecasting. Yeah. Anyways, Matt sings all the words in tradition. I do.

I do. I just sing tradition, tradition, tradition. All right, so that's what's spinning. Before we introduce our guest, I just want to give a quick shout out to an event that both Daniel and I, unfortunately, missed out on a, the world's first anti-Zionism conference. And what I mean by that is the conference against anti-Zionism. organized by people who brought Ben Shapiro as their headliner. To Toronto.

Was it in Toronto? Is that where it was? It was in Toronto, yeah. I love it. I believe so. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it was. Anyway.

Yeah. Ben Shapiro was the headliner. Okay. Well, Ben Shapiro was the headliner, and not only that, but also we had friend of the pod, Jesse Brown. So proud of him. Yes. You know, we, so many of us were born into a family, you know, and you have no choice about that. I know.

You don't get to pick in advance. It's a set menu. There's no substitutions. But the point of life in many ways is not to neglect or forget your original blood family, but to find your chosen family, like your people. And we, many of, some of us don't ever get there. Yeah. And some of us work and build a career.

And then only later did we realize who were really meant to be with and be around. And this picture just warmed our hearts. And we just want to say, congratulations, Jesse. Look at you. Shout out to Jesse Brown, who's there with Eve Barlow, Lizzie Sivetsky, and Emily Austin. This is organized by Tafsik, and this is the anti-Zionism conference. It must be in Toronto because Tafsik is a Canadian organization. Oh, yeah, yeah.

I like that he wrote, they dwarf me in courage. So he's kind of like big dogging them by being like, I'm taller than all these ladies. Nightmare Lula of rotation. Nightmare Lula of rotation, absolutely. I'm glad he found some friends in Canada who aren't trying to kill him. So, you know, shout out to Jesse Brown,

one of the greats. If you haven't heard our tribute to him, go look on our channel for the song Jesse's World. Jesse's World, one of our certified bangers. Oh, all right. Now it is time to introduce our guest. Very excited to bring him back. He is a returning Bad As Barra champion, co-host of the Citations Needed Podcast,

and the author of the new book, How to Sell a Genocide, the Media's Complicity and the Destruction of Gaza. Ladies and gentlemen and everyone else, welcome back to the podcast, Adam. John Say. Or as I call him, AJ Double Plus. AJ Double Plus. Thank you so much for having me on. You know, you guys were talking about Fiddler on the roof in Canada, and there's a fun,

if you guys, you guys know the fun fact about Norman Jewison who directed the film. He's not Jewish. He's not Jewish. Well, he claims the studio picked him director because they thought he was. Because he's like Episcopalian or something. But they just saw Jewson and we're like, well, he must be the son of a Jew at some point in the Middle Ages.

I'd like to know the derivation of that family. He claims that was the reason he got the gig. But no, he's like Episcopalian. So he is Canadian, much, much like yourself. That's wild. I mean, I'll be real. I thought he was Jewish because his name was Norm Jewish son. So, you know, I get it's not an unreasonable assumption, but you know how these things go.

You can never. You really, you never. Well, it's actually spelled, it's actually spelled Jew is on. So maybe it was short for Jew is on the pyre. Yes, maybe it was an anti-Semitic name. It's very possible. Statistically speaking, it's pretty likely. So, yeah, sorry, just your fiddle on the roof, fun fact. That's what this podcast is about, actually.

Fun facts. Thanks so much for having me on. Glad to have you back on. And it's especially great to have you now that you've got something to hawk, you know, although... That's true. All proceeds, all royalties are going to tell us... Yes, all royalties are going to the Middle East Children's Alliance. Fantastic.

Not proceeds, but royalties because the publisher does need to make money as they're very, very small. People of Press out of London. And the Middle East Children's Alliance does great work with providing food and aid and shelter to refugees from Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon and elsewhere. Yeah, wonderful, wonderful organization. Very good. So how's it going with the release of the book? I saw you in Brooklyn a couple of weeks ago at an event that the word has changed. Yes, you did.

The first podcast invite I've had where they showed up to the book event. That was very nice. We properly vet our guests. Well, you have to make sure you're not being catfish that I'm not AI. Right. Because last time it could have been a long con, you know, you came on and, you know, pretended to be, you know, all woke on Palestine. Look, let's just say citations were needed for the existence of evidence.

Absolutely. And I did produce a body. And Nima was there. It was good. I, you know, I hadn't actually seen Nima, my podcast co-host in. I saw him briefly in Chicago for like five seconds, but we hadn't been together, and we certainly hadn't done a show together in over six years.

So it was not fun. That's crazy. Because I'm in Chicago. He's in New York, and we both have two kids and we're busy and we just, you know, we don't do live shows like we're too old. Yeah.

And we're in different cities and it just feels gauche. But we, we, you know, we made sense for the book. So we kind of did a sort of quasi live show. And it was good. And then I did two other events and this weekend. I don't know if this will air past this weekend probably,

so maybe it won't be relevant. Oh, no, tomorrow. Yeah, tomorrow. Okay, well, I will be in D.C. on the 22nd in Baltimore, on the 23rd at Red Emmas. Well, the event in Brooklyn was packed. I mean, it was overflow. They had speakers outside this little bookstore on, you know, in bedstay.

Thank you for doing it in my neighborhood. What's the reception been like and what's it been like for you talking about it nonstop? And we're about to put you through those paces one more time. No, I'm always happy to. Mostly because I think that, you know, it's a story that needs to be told. It's a counternerve that needs to be told. And what the book attempts to do, one of the things that attempts to do is to provide a very rigorous and empirical basis to what people broadly perceive or into it that the media has an institutional and overwhelming anti-Palestinian bias. And it shows that, I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt with over 25 data points,

seven of which I just published in The Intercept last week to give it like a visualization and to make it as concrete as possible. You'll be happy to know that honest reporting one of the Zionist crybole groups did attempt to critique the Intercept article, which I was very flattered about. And they didn't really, they couldn't find it in any errors. They just said they did the like racist tautology of, well, it's different because it's different. Well, why is it different? Because they're terrorist.

Well, it says you. That has no morally, it has this not, or intellectually, not a significant claim. It's just, it's just appeal to authority and appeal to totology. And appeal to racism. Right. And appeal to racism. Yeah, because there's these glaring double standards and they can't be like, well, there's no double standards because it's so overwhelming. Yeah. Their only argument is, well, it's different because they're terrorists. And it's like, well, right, says you. And they're like, and then, and then when Dana Bash does this line, which she always says, according to the United, you know, to the European

Union, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, kind of like pump up the number. we throw in New Zealand, right, population 4 million. But of course, you know, for 90% of countries, they're not terrorists, and that distinction is not very, is not meaningful. And certainly to vast loss of the world, if not the majority of the world. It's certainly like they're playing on the, you know, understanding that Americans by and large will point at an, you know, Arab and go, come on.

That's a terrorist. Basically, and increasingly, I think this has less purchase, but all they have is these kind of whiny, exceptionalizing terms which require appeal to authority. Like, you know, you get seen and always does a designated terrorist organization. It's like, ooh, well, designated, never mind. It's been designated by the FBI. I had known it had a certificate from the FBI. You know, because the term terrorist was abandoned by the BBC and the Associated Press back in 2015.

And it was increasingly used, it was increasingly used less and less by the New York Times as a label because it was, so much scholarship was coming out and being like, this is clearly a selective, racialized, uh, arbitrary term that has no consistent application. And then after October 7th, it just went back. BBC, I think the BBC still refused to. So crazy. Didn't you have an, am I remember correctly, you had an exchange with someone at the New York Times who essentially couldn't even improve on that racist totology from honest reporting? No. And other people have as well, as I noted at my Brooklyn show that you attended, uh, breach media and Canada approached the CBC with the same, uh,

data showing the asymmetries, obviously Al Jazeera also separately approached the New York Times. And they just say it's different because it's different. You say, well, why is the killing of Israelis a massacre and a slaughter and horrific and barbaric? And we can get into that data if you'd like for the listeners. Whereas Israel manages to kill 20,000 children in two years, again, the numbers almost certainly double that. And somehow manages to do that without once committing a massacre or slaughter that feels statistically very unlikely. Or being barbaric or savage. Or being barbaric or being savage, which are very obviously racially coded terms that have

their origins in 19th century ontologies of civilization. So a civilization, and in the middle you had barbarians and then at the other than the spectrum we had savage. This was a very common Victorian-era racist trope, you know, during peak, you know, caliper. And these obviously racialized terms are completely selectively, you know, a vote. And when you do approach the New York Times and say why, they just say it just has to be because bombing someone is just qualitatively different than shooting them up close. And you say, well, Israel also shoots them up close. So how does that work? They've killed hundreds, if not thousands of people up close. Oh, well, that's different. Oh, well, that's different. Our style guide clearly explains Mr. Johnson that it, quote, just hits different. That's right. Yeah. And then so what they do is they, is that, and then invariably the only thing they can appeal to that is some non-arbitrary does. is this terrorist distinction. But again, the goal of media and principle is not to just regurgitate

government lines, it's to challenge government lines. And again, the fact that the fact that Israel managed to kill six figures, 20,000 children at the very least, almost certainly double that, and did so purely with anodyne military operations that were never deliberate or never had malicious intent, seems statistically impossible, which again, we can get into that data and why the first chapter functionally is about that. It's about the asymmetries, the first two chapters, because once you establish that they have total asymmetry with how it's covered, whether it's emotive language, whether it's Palestinians and are prisoners versus hostages, even though they both are being held without trial, whether it's minors versus children. These asymmetries are the first thing you

establish qualitatively and quantitatively to sort of set up the premise that, okay, you agree that they're separate. And now we're going to interrogate why they're treated separately, why they're treated differently. And very soon you realize it's because, and this is what the New York Times wants to say, but can't quite say, which is it simply has to. Because if they're, if they're not different, then the whole, the whole edifice falls apart. Right. It's the whole ideological framework doesn't work. In fact, it tilt, it tilts all the way over to the other side. Right. Because of the massive asymmetry and carnage. Because of the quantitative. So, but before we get into the data, which is incredible, your command of this stuff,

and the sheer amount of research that went into it. I just want to read a paragraph from the introduction and then I want to play you something as a way to ask you a little bit more about the sort of scope of the book and the parameters that you set for yourself. This book will argue that this process, which is to say the process that allowed and enabled

and created the genocide, was neither inevitable nor self-sustaining. it took deliberate choices by deliberate moral actors, editors, reporters, bookers, producers, and TV personalities, who decided early on in the so-called Israel Hamas war that defending the powerful and spinning a fictional narrative to soothe Western liberal audiences was more important than speaking plain truths than defending a dispossessed people from a wholly asymmetric campaign carried out by Israel with the full backing of the U.S. to destroy in whole or in part the Palestinians of Gaza. And to do so, you limited yourself to a certain time frame, right, the first six months after October 7? The first year, but a focus on, but a focus on the first six months.

The first year. Okay. And then in terms of which usual suspects you're focusing on, you focused on mainstream legacy media that most of us would think of as liberal, center-left, liberal-coded. The reason why I did that? Because that's a question I get a lot. Like, why did you focus on them rather than Fox News? And I think it's important to make it clear why we did that as far as the, the,

focus of the study, is that liberal buy-in, I mean capital L liberal and liberal media, not the kind of Rush Limbaugh-Buggeyman, there's a baseline of support for Zionism and for imperialism and war in general, and that's never really sufficient, especially with the Democrat in office to make it truly bipartisan. You need the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN, and to a great extent, MSNBC to support the axioms of the genocide to get it from that 35, 4.4.4.4.5.4. And to support the 40% to that 65, 70%. And we saw this for the war in Iraq, right? You needed the New York Times to launder, you know, yellow, kick, uranium, and aluminum tube propaganda. You needed the New York Times editorial board to support it. You needed Jeffrey Goldberg at the New Yorker to, to launder Israeli

propaganda about Hezbollah sleeper cells and Saddam having links to 9-11. You needed the Atlantic magazine to support it. So liberal media buy-in is essential for bipartisan genocide. And this genocide would not have been possible without bipartisan lockstep support, especially with the Democrat in office. So just to clarify why that was the focus of the study, it's because it was, to use a baseball term, high leverage. It was a very high leverage intervention versus the kind of baseline banality of New York time, or rather Fox News and daily. That stuff's important to keep the kind of juices flowing and the and the kind of reptilian brain id on the right, which is always essential but it's not as high leverage it's not as it's not as dispositive yeah you need the

intelligentsia and right-wing intelligentsia is a oxymoron so because effectively doesn't exist yes and also i think it was the most notable um you know at least this is not from a perspective of an institution institutional liberal buy-in but individual liberal buy-in that it was way more notable when someone who you know purported to believe in all sorts of you know human rights and dignity for everywhere, every person in the world across every spectrum, suddenly had a carve out for what was so clearly a genocide. And that, you know, I think calling it or bringing attention to the leverage that is, you know, there is interesting. And it's something I personally love to point out whenever I'm talking about Zionism is the liberal Zionist is the one that I think

really shocks people the most. Well, that's what we've probably focused on that disproportionate. on this show because it's the one that infuriates us the most pisses us off it's also the most contradictions it's the most convoluted and contorted which means it's the funniest exactly well right it's the most it's the most it's the most rich it's it's it has the richest veins it has the most contradictions the biggest the biggest bullshit and the most self-delusions and the most contorted world views and frameworks because you have to reconcile one supposed liberalism with their support for what we objectively see on our timelines every day which is the nihilistic murdering of children for a month on it.

That's why you got to always go back to it just is when it comes to, you know? Just different. Why is it different? It just is. Because things fall apart. The centrism cannot hold. That's right. Wow.

Is that Yates? That was Yates. All right. So I want to show you a recent video from someone who I haven't gone all the way through the book yet, but I have to believe he shows up in the book as one of the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the main or core participants in all of this, one of the main interfaces with the media during the Biden era of the genocide. And that's Jake Sullivan, who has recently come out and expressed some deep, sincere, something or other. Let's see what he's saying. I can't even watch this.

Too many innocent people died in Gaza. Oh, too many. Too many is such a by a factor of what? Well, that's the question. I've written about this before. Whenever someone says too many, quote, innocent Palestinian side. The logical follow-up question is, what was the number that you were okay with? Yeah. What were you used to do for? By definition, you have some range in your head of acceptable dead Palestinians. So what's that number? And then the corollary question to that would be how many, if let's say it's a thousand or five thousand dead Palestinians are worth it to you for the so-called to so-called defeat Hamas, which, by the way, they still haven't done and is not a military objective that anyone thought was reasonably possible or made any sense on its face, then how many Israelis

please get to die for Palestinian security. Is that also 5,000? Yeah, right. Yeah. So again, the whole question, if you were third, and we did go into this in chapter, in chapter six, I call it the, there's two positions. There was starve Palestine, bomb starving Palestinian children, which was the Republican position and the liberal position, which was bomb Palestinian children on 600 calories a day. Those were the two available options to you in mainstream. Those are the two-party system, baby. Those are my two favorite political parties.

And the Biden position, Sullivan position, the bombing was somehow justified and morally righteous because, again, they were going to so-called eliminate a moss. But make sure that you're feeding the children 600 calories a day while we bomb them. Considering Adam is that those starving children had three repulsies, so they deserved to get bombed. They weren't actually starving. And what's important, again, we can get into this and you can finish the clip, but is that his heart must bleed at all times. That's right.

He is simultaneously feeling he has to feel bad and sad all the time. but he's also very he's also powerless whenever confronted with these moral decisions and he has again the key here and we get into it and this is all discussed in chapter three is the Biden must be presented as a third party and Biden officials must be a third party they're separate from the genocide they are not covering up war crimes at the state department which we know both Sullivan and Blinken did they are not shipping arms at one point I think on average it was about two billion dollars a week in arms they are bumbling third party humanitarians with a clipboard who were simply watching this unfold from the sidelines.

And presenting themselves as a third party was the key propaganda coup they achieved, which we can get into. And if you watch the subsequent interview since they left office, they all parrot that line, despite it making zero sense. Well, they're sad. You know, they were always sad about how many they had to kill. Or they were steamed about being, you know, stormwalled by the Israelis. Exactly.

We'll get into here. Damn Israelis. Yeah, yeah. We'll talk about the modes of rationalization, and that's one. Here's more of that clip. As a result of Israel's military operations. Military operations. I have also said that genocide, from my perspective,

like he died as a result of the bullet I fired into his skull. It's a moral abstraction. Yeah, genocide doesn't kill people. People kill people. Right. There is actually an intent to do the destruction and not to fight a terrorist foe while conducting operations in a way that killed too many civilians. Oh, they're terrorists. Okay, never mind them. So on a moral basis.

Tell me about morals. I woke up every morning and went to sleep every night. Thinking about what we could do to try to alleviate the subway and reduce the length of the war and get to a ceasefire. Psychotic science. He ultimately got to a ceasefire. You really can't get to take yourself. I can't. I can't with these fucking people.

There's such, they, I think to some extent they believe their own bullshit, to some extent they know they're being cynical. I think the fact that he talks about being able to sleep at night says at least that they somewhat believe their own bullshit because I think if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Yeah. I mean, who knows? Ultimately, again, as a materialist, it doesn't matter.

right? The purpose of a system is what it does. I really don't care within his heart, but I do think they created a self-reinforcing what Cass Lusting calls a crippling epistemology, which is a diluted worldview whereby which the, they would, whether they framed it as American credibility or Israel security, that the so-called elimination of Hamas, something that Tony Blinken himself in January of 2024 acknowledged behind closed doors, supposedly, according to NBC News, was by definition impossible, as they are an indigenous resistance movement, again, regardless of is what you think of them. They are, they are Palestinians. They are of Gaza, despite what they tell you, they're not ISIS, they're not exogenous, they're not alien, they're not holding them all hostage.

It's not one big human shield. And anyone in Gaza shooting back at the Zionist with a gun is considered Hamas, whether it's PIJ or PFLP or just some teenager who doesn't like the fact that you killed his father. And that can, that resistance will always exist. It will never go away so long as there's injustice, apartheid in colonialism. And the idea that you can somehow, you can, and again, Israel was clear that their goal, that their strategy was collective punishment, that they were going to punish the general population, they were going to hide behind clapchap about human shields and, you know, Hamas forcing people to stay or some other such nonsense, and that they were going to kill and punish and starve and displace repeatedly over and over again two million people until

the military actors submitted and gave up as part of a textbook, siege, collective punishment, medieval like siege operation. This was like any other siege medieval siege operation but it needed a nominal military. There was a lot of pride flags. Oh, that's true. I forgot there were pride flags.

They have paid pride, so never mind. And so this was part of their strategy. And the Jake Sullivan's of the world, they say, okay, well, we can't go back from this axiom. We can't go back from quote unquote eliminating Hamas. And we cannot we cannot undermine American credibility. I mean, why did they, why did the U.S. killed two million

Indo-Chinese in the 1960s long after everyone, you know, knew they had no popular support and it was a complete fiction? Because there is this concept called American credibility, which exists to some extent independent of the Zionist ideology that very much captures the White House here. And they just wouldn't budge and they still won't budge. And if you talk to them, even if you talk to Harris or hear what they say, they do not dispute any of the fundamental premises of the genocide in terms of their decision. making. They don't, they don't regret anything fundamentally. They'll do some, they'll do some hand-wringing about like, we should have pushed harder or some other such vagary, but like the

fundamental premise that there was some legitimate right to defend itself, whatever that means, and in a context like the Zionist project in the Levant was never, is never challenged. It's sort of too many died. Well, how many should not have died? And if too many were dying, why did you not stop arming them, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't pass the sniff test. It's just kind of woo-woo, liberal sort of hand-waving to, because they want to still function and operate in and out of progressive spaces. I mean, supposedly he's restarting the national security action pack with Ben Rhodes, who's supposedly a critic of Israel. Wait, who is. Jake Sullivan is? Jake Sullivan is, yes. Okay. He founded it with him about 15 years ago, and now they're bringing it back. And then there was

some leech report to, I think, Politico or Axios about how, how Jake Sullivan and Ben Rhodes were going to have to, like, come to terms with Gaza. And it's like, well, Ben Rhodes doesn't get to forgive Jake Sullivan for God. Like, that's not his position to do that. If Jake Sullivan feels bad about Gaza or seeking some kind of forgiveness or atonement, then he needs to retire from public life and spend the rest of his existence raising money for refugees in Gaza. Not like leaking stories about coming to terms it with Ben Rhodes. I mean, so you have these liberal elites handing, handing each other indulgences, whether it's, you know, Jake Sullivan or John Feiner or Tony Blinken, all of whom, of course, have gigs at the Center for American Progress, which is effectively the Democratic Party's

government and waiting. And they're all going to come back. And so far, no leading progressive for 2028, whether it's Rocahanna or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has come out and said they're going to cut these people out of the Democratic Party. They refuse to say so. I think it's like what One of the things I like about the fact that you focus very specifically on sort of the first six months after October 7th and then beyond the full year. But because of the amount of, I don't know, revisions that people have been doing in terms of history, the way in which we now, everyone's sort of rewriting the story of what happened. after October 7th, then where exactly they stood? And was that part of the calculation for the book? Did you specifically focus on it because of the fact that so many people are doing,

what do you call it when you, yeah, they're just revising. Repetition laundering. I mean, for sure, that's part of it. A lot of it is that the decisions that were made, that the genocide was very much knowable. Of course. Everyone on this podcast said it. I said it in October.

Anyone who knew anything about God. Which I love, by the way, I love that that is, that has been one of the things. So there's no excuse for like too many Palestinians died. Right. Like that is that is not that is absolutely. Yeah. A historical. Everybody knew this was going to happen.

And the reason we knew it was going to happen is because the. Because we've been studying it forever. Well, that's too. I mean, anyone who knew anything about it was saying it was going to be a genocide. And Zionists had been attacking. people saying that it's fake because people after October 7th, like a day after, were like they were crying genocide. Clearly, this is fake.

They were laundering the story. It was like, no, anyone who knew anything about how much disproportionate numbers of like, you know, every one Israeli killed will kill like 300 Palestinians. When we saw the numbers that were coming out after October 7th, we said, oh, we know what this is going to be. this is a pretext for genocide. There's no way it won't be. And we were, of course, correct. I can name you half a dozen Israeli think tanks that have plans for emptying out Gaza. There are pre-existing plans. Now, they would frame it as like voluntary migration.

And, you know, they would sort of, they would put it in more anodyne terms. But the idea of getting rid of Palestinians and Gaza, because again, they're an inconvenient people. They do not comport with their liberal or right-wing Zionist ideology and national mythology. They want to do what the United States did to its indigenous population, which is exterminate them, but they started their genocide 80, 100 years after the U.S. did. And so what you have is you have, and then you have Israeli elected, the defense minister calling them human animals, Yov Galant. You have the president, Isaac Herzog saying there's no innocence in Gaza. You have of course, you have Israeli politicians promising another Nakhba, which is a one that apparently

they're allowed to years. The agriculture minister. You have Netanyahu, of course, giving his famous Amlock speech. Now, of course, Rosenberg at the Atlantic would come in and say, no, no, no, he actually didn't mean the genocidal reference to Amlock. He meant this other reference to Amlock in the book of Sam, but the non-genocide of the show. And so you have all these genocidal rhetoric

in the early days, first, you know, October 9th, October 13th, October 26th. And then they did the thing they said they were going to do. They're going to live in tents. They did that. They said they're going to commit mass murder or mass slaughter. They're human animals, dehumanization rhetoric. they did that again we can talk about the new york times and the alenics role of coming in and

and vaguely touching on that genocidal rhetoric and saying actually you're misunderstanding it it's really kind of hot-headed locker room talk it's not real um and so uh i mean this is the aladdin boys will be boys you know no really the atlantic published three articles that effectively said the kind of boys will be boys argument and the new york times said their one article where they had to sort of acknowledge the genocidal rhetoric didn't interview a single Palestinian and basically interviewed a bunch of psychobabal Israelis who said, oh, they're just kind of blowing off steam. But of course, every genocidal promise they made, they kept. And that's the thing. And especially the ones in Hebrew, they did the thing they said they would do.

And everyone knew they were going to do it because they said they were going to do it. But what you had is in liberal media in the U.S., especially at the Atlantic in the New York Times, is you had this liberal Zionist laundromat where the most vulgar, most racist, most genocidal shit would go in and then it would come out, again, whether it was David Leonard or or, or, or, yeah, Rosenberg, and it would come out at the other end of, of, of their publication, and it would come out as a quote unquote hunt for Hamas or some sort of targeted zero, anodyne, zero dark 30 like, well, we're just going to get the people responsible for October 7th. And you, again, this term hunt for Hamas appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times,

we don't hunt for Hamas. What does that even mean? Again, talk to them, they'll tell you, they're all Hamas. So it's, you, you repeat. had this liberal Zionist laundromat that was the function of Western media, which is effectively to take what was a country, and it still is, and it still is, of course, in a genocidal fervor, poll after poll after poll, shows the majority of Israelis support the expulsion of Arabs from Palestinians from Gaza and from Israel proper. They support mass starvation. 68% say they're not bothered by mass starvation.

Obviously, you have 94% support the bombing of Iran. You have something like 70 plus percent support the genocide. And Gaza, of course, I don't call it that. They call it the war or whatever. Completely normalized, completely supported by the political class, total consensus. And then once we sort of get the version of events over here, it's this reluctant war to get their hostages back. And it's just kind of one big Rambo 2 operation. And repeatedly, this fiction was just sold over and over again in concert with the other modes of propaganda I talk about.

But, you know, I mean, again, you talk about the way in which the genocidal rhetoric and the fact of genocide and all the markers of genocide, right? When Raz Siegel wrote his piece on October 13th in Jewish Current saying, this is a genocide, this wasn't like some provocative, he was just simply repeating what people were saying in Israel, the leaders themselves were saying. So when Jake Sullivan gets on stage and does this kind of, well, you know, they had a limited war with Hamas and I feel really sad about it and too many died. It doesn't, it doesn't track. It wasn't mission creep. It was the mission. It was the mission which everybody knew at the time. Right.

So you spoke about the premises of the genocide, which is a very interesting phrase, that in order to put this thing over the top with the liberal intelligentsia, there had to be a rollout of certain pretexts and premises, which forms the sales approach, the marketing strategy, right? The whole sales plan of this thing. Can you take us through sort of what was, because what really emerges from reading your book, hearing you speak about it is that it was, you know, you couldn't have crafted it more deliberately

to have one premise and then the next one. It seemed to be built and constructed in a particular way to tell a particular story and to tick off certain boxes. What was that order of operations? So, yeah, the title of the book is not meant to be provocative. It is quite literally a guide to how they sold a genocide. And if you recall on October 7th, Tony Blinken briefly sent out a tweet calling for a ceasefire because that was pro forma during these previous bombing campaigns in 2021-18, 2014, 2012, 2009, the State Department would feign this need for a ceasefire. And then hours later, he deletes this tweet. At some point in that process, there was a discussion that we're going to go for broke. Now, they wouldn't say we're going to commit a genocide or

attempt to commit a genocide. But certainly, they wouldn't say ethnic cleansing either, but clearly the so-called war on Hamas was going to involve mass displacement. And anyone who knows anything about the history of Zionism, knows displacement as a one-way ticket. And very clearly that at most it was going to be a genocide at quote-unquote best, it was going to be Israel killing some arbitrarily high number of Palestinians until they finally had their medieval recompense. Right. And it was a signal to everyone that the word ceasefire was now going to be.

And then on October and then on October 13th. Anti-Semitic. Tony Blinken issues a state department memo banning anyone in the administration using the word ceasefire because everybody knew what it meant. Sorry, on what date? October 13th, 2023. So six days after the tweet that he deleted of him to his own tweet. That ceasefire was the term everyone knew what it meant.

At that point, Oxfam, Amundice International Human Rights Watch, had called for a ceasefire. Again, they later tried to mystify it into this exotic, well, who really what's a ceasefire? You know, epistemologically, I mean, it's sort of, they tried to act, sort of do this academic routine, but everybody knew what it meant. It had a, it had many historical antecedents. Halmas had entered ceasefires of Israel half a dozen times before. Again, 14, 12, 9. we can go on and on. But they didn't want people using that term. Now, they later then

rebranded ceasefire to mean something completely different, which is Hamas surrender in March of 2024, which we can get into. But there was initially in this first few weeks, those were the premises and axioms of genocide. The first and most urgent of which was that calls for a ceasefire were somehow unsurious. They were not a genuine, they were not a realistic solution. The The Atlantic runs 12 articles by our account on this. They have Hillary Clinton. I don't know how you have a ceasefire. Graham Wood, even compares a ceasefire with Hamas to Frederick Douglass to Frederick Douglass buying slaves and presents it as a moral hazard.

So you have this kind of highbrow rejection of ceasefire. David Leonhard does this. Editorial boards of the Washington Post and New York Times do this. It is removed from the realm of seriousness. The Atlantic doesn't publish a single article for the first three months, clearly proposing a lasting ceasefire. I think the anti-seas ceasefire. I think the anti-seas-execis. Reefire rhetoric to me is like the premier example of the retconning that we see now in which,

you know, at some point, it became, of course I want a ceasefire. Everybody wants a ceasefire. No, it went from a fringe left wing position to centrist consensus overnight, and we can talk about why and how that was. And it's because the definition of ceasefire actually changed because ceasefire through 5,000 years of human warfare meant both sides cease firing and they reach a political solution. It does not mean one side wholly capitulate and one side have complete military control over the other, which is what the definition became when Biden began to endorse a ceasefire on the eve of the Michigan primary,

where he was being embarrassed by the uncommitted movement. So this was another brilliant public relations coup, which I wrote about at the time for the nation. And that premise, of course, was completely based on a glaring contradiction, which is, I support a ceasefire. And then in the very next breath, they would say, we need to build Gaza without Hamas and power. well you sort of skipped a step which is why would Hamas just randomly surrender and hound over their weapons to Israel or some so-called Arab you know Arab army that's that's just a Zionist proxy obviously doesn't make any sense so no wonder they were working tirelessly when you're working tirelessly you know when you're working on something absolutely nonsensical

and absurd and impossible it takes fucking you will you will you will never achieve it by definition which of course not until Trump imposed one uh himself in and in January of 2025 and so what you had was is you had this um the first few there's kind of two stages so you the first few weeks and months where the premises are asserted and then later in February in March of 2024 we have the rebranding of ceasefire what i call in you ceasefire new ceasefire it's kind of like new Pepsi or like new metal or new metal right because because because ceasefire is polling at seven ceasefire is polling at 7580 percent as a word it's yeah it's fire with a rap breakdown yeah because it's always easier it's always easier to rebrand your detuned deceit you you you

It's easier to rebrand genocide than it is to sort of change policies. And so this is helped along by, again, so-called progressives in Congress, Elizabeth Warren, Rokana, all of whom promote this boutique war on Hamas where they don't support a ceasefire. Bernie Sanders very famously never supports a ceasefire, not a lasting one. He goes on CNN and CBS in February and December of 2023 and says, I quote, I don't know how you have a ceasefire with a group like Hamas who seeks Israel's destruction. of course Israel seeks Palestine's destruction, so I'm not sure what that means. So at some point supporting a... That's the Hamas as ISIS trope that you lay out as one way. Well, we'll get into that.

So APEC clips those two media appearances Bernie Sanders makes and says, thank you Sanders for making it clear we can't have a ceasefire with a terrorist, blah, blah, blah. And so the part of this premise is the idea that you need to ISISify Hamas. Hamas can have no political or secular grievances. They have to be mindless jihadists who just kill Jews for the lulls because they, again, what Biden calls it, their ancient hatred. So they just happen to be anti-Semitic, which is bad luck for them because it happens to be

the, you know, ostensibly the religion of the state who dispossesses them from their land, which again, out of all the gen joints and all the towns and all the world. And then they, and then, but any, any nuance or any kind of secular grievances are seen as terrorism, apology. And this is immediately, this is immediately disciplined and enforced by corporate. So we have, there's a vignette in the book. On October 7th, Ali Valshi is running the anchor, desk at MSNBC. He brings on Iman Mojadine, who had lived in Gaza for two years. And what do they do?

They start, they're not celebrating. They're not supporting the attack, but they're providing context for it. They're saying, you know, Gaza was an open-air prison by some humanitarian groups. They've been 75% of the population who live there were displaced from where their parents or grandparents lived in Israel. They have no freedom of movement, you know, et cetera, et cetera, kind of giving context for context was the other C word you weren't allowed to say at this time. Immediately all hell breaks loose. This is the first. And since last time that Comcast Corporate has directly intervened in MSNBC's coverage. They immediately call Rashida Jones and Kandai and Caesar Conday or the head of MSNBC.

Oh, wait a different one, sorry. No, a different one, sorry. Oh, okay. No. But she's the head, yeah, they call on the head of NBC News and see NBC into the Comcast corporate office and say, never do that again. That is terrorism apology. Then they say, we're going to bring in Martin Fletcher, the retired longtime Middle East correspondent,

who actually had family who were, who were in. injured and died on October 7th, and he himself had served in the IDF as a volunteer from the United States. So he is now the official authority you have to call in reference when you want to do any story at NBC or see MSNBC for Gaza. And this happens in two days. So there's a conference call where Martin Fletcher is on, and we have two sources that can attest to this. And he gives this speech where he talks about how Palestinians are not real. They were invented in 1967 by Arab armies. Jews are the actual Palestinians, you know, Israel left greenhouses in Gaza in 2005, the sort of Zionist propaganda.

And if you have any questions about Gaza, you have to go to him. The message is very, very clear that there's a specific narrative you're permitted to have. And if you deviate from that narrative, as, you know, Ali Valshi and Muayadin had done, again, not thinking much about it, just sort of doing what they thought their job was, which was to provide a reason for why something would happen rather than saying it was an act of mindless ISIS-like, quote unquote barbarity, they're disciplines. So then in October 9th and 10th, Jonathan Greenblot, who again, apparently lives in the green room sleeping on the couch at MSNBC, specifically morning Joe, comes on and says.

Jonathan Green Room is the head of the, he's the head of the anti-defamation league, which I'm sure you all call the apartheid defense league. I call it the association for dual loyalty, personally. Well, that's one way of framing it. I'm not allowed to say that. And then he says, well, who writes your scripts, Hamas? and so, you know, and he's so he's calling Ali Valshi Hamas on MSNBC and there's no disciplining, there's no retribution, there's nothing, he can just sort of say whatever he wants.

And he goes on that show, he goes on Morning Joe on almost a weekly basis and just spews whatever libel or or vective he wishes to spew against whomever he wishes to spew it. And there's no, he can, he spreads the beheaded baby hoax, which we can get into routinely, long after it's been debunked. He spreads the babies in ovens long after it had been debunked, as had other guest on CNN. And so what you have is you have very early on this asymmetry, another asymmetry of editorial enforcement. So what liberals can't do is they can't say, I support Zionism, I support Israel, fuck Palestinians, who cares about them. They have to launder their chauvinism through ostensibly universalist values.

And so there's there's, oh, we're editorially rigorous. Well, anyone who can study the data or the most cursory glance at the data can see they're editorially rigorous towards anyone who's pro-Palestine and basically have no editorial standards for anyone saying the most lurid and racist shit about Palestinians. Every media institution, liberal media institution, has a Senate parliamentarian who is going to unfortunately be there to say, sorry, we can't do it. We can't. Yeah.

How they got rid of the $15 minimum wage, I think. It was a Senate parliamentarian just was like some new, new bit of order that we don't know about. Yeah, there's all the power. There's some editorial minutia they have to, they have to square out. We heard this over and over and over again from sources that they would never say, first off, the number one way they disciplined it was just through really hacky racial proxy. If you were Muslim, Arab, or vaguely coded as such, especially if you were younger, you were just taken off the Gaza beat.

You had your social media monitored, oftentimes snitched on by pro-Israel. colleagues, typically co-workers. How long did Elman moiled in last after October 7th before? Well, he's still there. He is still there. He is still there. He was moved off of the, he was brought into a generalized panel show, so he no longer picks his guest.

He effectively was demoted. They couldn't fire everyone. They fired Medellan, who can't, of course, publicly doesn't talk about it because I believe because of whatever their arrangement was. But I think anyone who's seen reporting on that can knows, knows why he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, he was, I think, in November of 2020. Right. I, I, I, I, from what I remember, it was framed, uh, at least maybe on his end as, him leaving, but he was fired. Is that, is that, is that what happened?

I, I can't comment on the details of that. I haven't spoken with him, but I will say that, I will say that they, it was very clear, it was very clear what was going to be permitted and probably did not comport with, whatever. his views were. So I can believe it. I can believe it. And so, you know, you had the same, you had the semifor article about three Muslim anchors being fired, which was basically true, or at least departed with whatever, whatever, I'll use, for legal purposes will remain vague. But very clearly, there was a line you had to tow. And it was going to be enforced through the selective editorial line.

And then so anchors are not supposed to have, specifically on Gaza at MSNBC, we're not supposed to have deep editorial. opinions. And that applied to everyone but Joe Scarborough, who could say whatever he wanted to. It would go on five-minute diatribs about how much he loves Israel, and it never was disciplined. The rules simply to not apply to him because he aligned with the ideological premises of management. You know what's crazy? It just occurred to me. One personality we have not even talked about, I don't even think once on this podcast in any depth. And I'm wondering where she was during this time is Rachel Maddow. We did a stuff. We did a story. study. Rachel Maddow didn't talk about it. She never talked about it. She just avoided it because she

knows who butters her bread. She mentioned it in passing a few times. I think I want to say we studied the first 11 weeks and I think she mentioned it three times. But it was, it's done in this kind of, and we talk about it, just covering it like an earthquake. Because liberals, you had to talk about it. You couldn't just avoid it altogether. But you discussed it in passive terms. Biden was not a moral agent making any decisions. So she would, I mean, he's not, he's not poot. He's not poot. He's not Putin. He's not Putin. So obviously she operates within a very, like, safe liberal imperialist to milieu. She's not going to criticize God. I mean, she never talked about it, not until, not until Trump came in office and it became a little bit safer along partisan lines. But no, Rachel Maddow, and this is

reflected in the data. Rachel Maddow is aggressively, aggressively in my here as a supposed liberal voice. You know, as is frankly Chris Hayes. Chris Hayes mentions it a couple times here and there, But, you know, he's heavily featured in the barbaric savage language. Again, shores up every premise about Hamas's supposed barbarity and in lack of secular demands. Doesn't contextualize anything. It's not, it's not so late 2024, really after the election that he starts when it becomes more politically safe. I mean, Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are company men.

They know the score. He is someone who has in the past at least signaled an understanding of Palestine in a way that I think Rachel Maddow probably never has. Yeah, I mean, he's yeah, I will say the one MSNBC personality, because again, Medellin's fired. One personality in our data that shows up that does do good reporting, qualitatively good reporting on this is Joanne Reed. Right.

Who then says she's fired over it later. And I tend to believe her story because she has very sympathetic segments. She has like three or four really good sympathetic segments. and then, you know, you do the, you do the Jerry McGuire, you know, I'll give him two weeks and she's out. What I was saying about Chris Hayes was my expectation for him was, I'll just say this, I was surprised Joanne Reed was the one doing it and not Chris Hayes because, you know, it's always been good on Palestine, relatively speaking.

You can go back and look at her blog post from 0809. Yeah, I didn't know about, I didn't know that she, you know, was a ball knower when he came to that stuff. She is, to her credit. Again, I've been a critic of hers for other reasons. Yeah, sure. But certainly on this issue, she is much better than anyone in MSNBC. She was a very, there were some other exceptions around the margins.

You know, again, I think Moyhadeen had done some decent stuff. But, I mean, he wasn't, at that point, he wasn't picking, he wasn't picking the guests. And so, and again, it's all kind of, it's never part of a broader narrative of like, momentum. So it's like to the extent to which it's talked about, it's what own Jones refers to as orphan stories. You do one segment and then it just kind of goes away. There's not like a sustained buildup like you have with the war on Hamas, you know, stories and the constant, you know, hostages this and hostages that. It's not a sustained moral narrative that leads to any like call to action. And I will say to the extent to which I would criticize Joy and Reid's coverage,

it never really connected the dots with Biden. Because in MSNBC world, Biden is being manipulated by Netanyahu. That is a central, especially as you get closer to the election, that's a central narrative that allows them to be angry at Israel or allows them to even empathize with Palestinians, but never really question the power structures within the United States because you need this idea that Biden is helpless or being manipulated by Netanyahu. I guess Netanyahu has manipulated five consecutive presidents and a certain point that's on you. and and and he you know so i think to the extent to which it was addressed as a political or kind of

there was a call to action it's mostly just mostly just hand-wringing because Biden is ultimately never can never be said to be responsible i will say i think chris hayes maybe connected those dots somewhere in late summer 2024 but it's certainly initially within the first six months MSNBC is fairly lockstep in its coverage with with like one or two here and their exceptions and it's it's again CNN had a similar policy which we can talk about where mark thompson the head of CNN issues a memo in october 26 this was reported by daniel boguslaw at the intercept uh and confirmed uh by me through through some to sarah and i's reporting for the book um sarah lazar lazara my partner who did most of the reporting because she's a reporter

and i'm a media critic um so when i say we that's general there's me and others i'm referring to um they found that that there that there's this memo sent out that said effectively, you could not mention the death count in Gaza or any war crime in Gaza or any horrific tragedy or whatever you called it in Gaza without bracketing it immediately with the death count from October 7th. So any mention of suffering in Gaza, Palisian had to be framed as defensive as a response, a military response to October 7th. Plus Hamas run, right? The Hamas run. Well, so we can talk about that as well, because I think that's key, as I talked about in Brooklyn. I'm sure you saw. But I will say one more thing on this.

But there's no parallel. You don't mention October 7th and mention the fact that from January 1st of 2023 to October 6th, 2020, Israel killed over 300 people in the West Bank, or they had killed over 40 children in Palestine. No, that's anti-Semitic context. You're not allowed to mention the 523 children killed during Protective Edge in 2014 or over 1,500 civilians killed in 2014. You're not allowed to mention the hundreds who were permanently maimed and killed in 2018 during the March of Return. You're not allowed to mention the hundreds killed in 2021 during that nihilistic bombing. Not allowed to mention any of that.

Not allowed to mention the mowing the lawn, putting them on a diet. You're not allowed to mention any of that because second you mentioned that, Comcast calls up your boss. History has to begin on October 7th. There's a kind of political Big Bang. And to ask what happened before that is to ask what's north of the North Pole. It's an absurdity. Nothing occurred before the Big Bang, right? And so I want to talk about the all Ali hospital bombing on October 17th, which you referenced

to in. reference to Hamas run, because this is key. So on October 17th, there is a shelling of the hospital, the Allulay Hospital, kills between three to 500, three to 400, depending on who you ask. The numbers vary, but it's a lot. Initially, the media, the New York Times, CNN assumes correctly that it's Israel because they're bombing 99.999% of places in Gaza. And so New York Times has a headline that's something to the effect of Israel air strike hits hospital in Gaza, according to Gaza officials. Now, Israel immediately says it wasn't us. It was an errant P.I.J or Hamas rocket have ever killed at that point is, I think, three or four.

So, mysteriously, an errant one kills 400 people. You're welcome to believe that. I'll choose not to. We know that 1,200, or rather 1,500 P.I.J and Hamas rockets had landed in Israel in the first three months, killed a total of 12 people. But mysteriously, an errant one kills 350. Again, welcome to believe it. Forensic architecture caught Israel in several lies. That's right. They had a fake call between P.I.J. militants where they're like, man, it sucks that we bombed that hospital. That was crazy.

And then Channel 4 in the UK does a forensic analysis says they are Israeli exits. They straight up just invented an audio call between people. Like, can you believe we did this? With the wrong accent and everything. But the take-home point here is that it gets indexed as at most likely a Palestinian self-bombing, basically. Or kind of he said, he said who's to know. So then the Zionist crybole campaign comes in. You get honest camera, I mean, name a Zionist organization,

the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblot. They say, this is blood libel. You accuse us of bombing hospitals. Because if you recall, there was mass unrest, specifically in Muslim majority countries. There was riots, justifiably so. And it was a lot of the ceasefire crowd, such as it was, or anti-genocide crowd said, okay, it's been 10 days.

They've killed an obscene amount of people at that point, five, six thousand people. Now we can wrap it up. It's over. This is kind of the, you know, George Floyd moment where we can all sort of build up enough momentum to put pressure on the White House to end it. But Israel steps in and does this fog of war who says, you know, he said, he said routine by blaming it on P.I.J. Because it's clearly it's probably not an air strike. It's actually probably a shelling because of the, because of the forensics. And then this Zionist Crying campaign works. And of course, it provides an internal justification for pro-Israel editors and producers within these meat organizations where two primary things change, which

end up being very consequential and I think effectively making a genocide inevitable, which is number one, from that point forward in the New York Times and CNN, and we know for sure, and then other outlets you can infer, Israel cannot be blamed for a bombing until they themselves actively confirm it. So this is why you start getting all these headlines in the New York Times of blast and Gaza kills 15. Gazins say explosion kills 20. It's official policy. that until this was official policy that is this was on by myself and daniel bogus law and it was after uh this particular bombing the l lehli hospital bombing correct and wow this did not exist before again that's why they had the initial crybole campaign because the new york times said you know israel airstrike

right so it became part of the style guide like it was it was enforced through the style right through a memo and and cnn has cnn has the exact same thing except cn has an extra layer which is you you have to get gps location of the bombing. Now, this is not a standard that had existed in Gaza prior to October 17. It is not at a standard that exists in any other war zone. It doesn't exist in Ukraine, doesn't exist in Sudan, doesn't exist anywhere else. You have to get affirmative confirmation from the military in question that you're criticizing. Of course, Israel just takes days or weeks to do it or just doesn't do it at all. And so immediately, the visceral impact of Israel bombs hospital or 15 children die in Israeli strike becomes blast in Gaza kills 15 clearly on a visceral PR level that's

going to have a meaningfully different impact on the on the average viewer and then a second thing changes in New York Times headline syntax it's after blast comma chaos and confusion like just some kind of poetic abstraction this is qualitatively quantitatively shown in the book in chapter four we go through the first 60 days so to be not as arbitrary as possible we go through the first 60 days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the first 60 days of Israel's bombing of Gaza. And we've even waited a week to make it even more fair. And 32 examples of Israel, of Russian agency are centered in the headlines out of 60 days, whereas two for the first 60 days for Israel, and those two are fairly benign. It's like Israel amasses troops to invade Gaza or something.

But ultimately, Israel agency is completely removed from headlines. And that matters, because that's what goes viral, that's what gets people outraged, and Israel knows this. And the second thing that changes, that was probably just as if not more significant is that's when you first start getting the Hamas run health ministry, because they said, oh, the Gaza ministry lied about the death count, because they initially said it was 500 and then revised it down to 300. But of course, that's completely normal. If you recall, the 9-11 death count was originally 10,000. If you recall October 17th was originally 500, or October 7th, rather, was originally 500, and then it was 1400, then it was ultimately 1,200, then it was 1,129, depending on how you define it. And so that was, that's a normal

thing, but it got, it got turned into this, like, sinister terrorist propaganda. And the thing is, is that everybody knew, everybody knew that the so-called Hamasran health ministry numbers were accurate. They're used by the World Health Organization. They're used by the U.S. State Department. They're used by Human Rights Watch. They're used by Massad, we later learned. And there was a study done in 2014 comparing the Gaza Health Ministry death count with that of the IDF. And it was, there was a difference of 7%. They're effectively the same thing. So everyone had to, so it was, it was really a prototypical liberal imperialist propaganda in that it was technically accurate, but obviously very racially coded and misleading and dishonest. And so there,

from then on, you had 500 people die according to Hamas, run health ministry. Fifteen children, you know, killed in refugee camp according to the Hamas run health ministry. CNN adopts us, New York Times adopts this, AP adopts this, Washington Post adoptses. Now they all quietly dropped it throughout late 2024 and into 2025 because internally everyone knew it was a cynical propaganda label that had that was completely dishonest. Have they all dropped it?

Have they all? No, it pops up here and there, but it's mostly they don't, it's not used to them. You can't trust those Palestinian around health ministries. They use Arabic numerals to Calchian. The number. The numbing effect of that, of like,

because again, we were getting, if you recall, this was five, six hundred people a day were being killed. One day in late October had a thousand, thousand people were killed in one day, which is obviously insane. Hundreds of children are being killed and maimed and eviscerated every day. And the numbing impact of removing Israeli agency and framing the death counts as somehow terrorist propaganda did so much work. Putting that hamasterics on it, right? Hamastrox.

Exactly. Hamas deraic on it was so essential to numbing liberal outrage that, and it all happened because of the supposed, this October 17th, privately campaign. And it was at that point, you say, oh, again, they're going for this. They're going for a genocide. And liberal institutions in lowercase, oh, liberal media are just going to go along with it. Because I suppose I have one more thing. Just be clear. Yeah. Yeah. There's no evidence on CNN or MSNBC of anyone using Hamas run as a pejorative or a label for the health ministry until October 17. So it's something I'm not asserting this. This is quantitative. You can show it. Just to just to be clear. And then, of course, it explodes into the hundreds. But go

ahead. I just wanted to clarify that. No, it's a clear sign. This wasn't a theory, you can prove it. No, understood. It wasn't an impression you had. It's clearly a functional invention at a particular moment in time to help sell this genocide. One of the things I've always loved about your work, Adam, is, you know, I've been listening to citations needed since it started. Your ability to, I mean, tropes get talked about a lot when it comes to, like, you know, non-existent blood liables and whatnot when it comes to Jews, but you're very good at naming media

tropes. You're very good at sort of a nomenclature of genres of lies. And I just, you know, picked up on a few things you've been using recently. One of you can give us really lightning round, quick definitions of them. What are these things referred to? So the first

one I've got here is, what is quantum Zionism? I heard you speak about it on the electronic antifada yesterday. If you keep the definition of Zionism extremely vague where it remains in the superposition and it doesn't, and you don't need to collapse the wave function, it can be whatever you want it to be. And the system you try to pin someone down to define it,

then it's just apartheid and ethno-supremicist as an actual physical place that physically exists in the physical world rather than a moral abstraction or a kind of vague impression you have on a trip you went in when you were in high school. And what you see is Zionism as a sort of value, or even let's just say pro-Israel sentiment, is, can be as abstract and warm and fuzzy as one wants it to, given the current needs to comport it with one's supposed self-image as a liberal, versus the thing that actually exist in reality. And you see this when people say, okay, well, clearly, you know, Israel needs to be disciplined as a country, as a project and as an institution. The U.S. needs to stop supporting it. They'd say, well, you need to support, you know, the opposition

to Netanyahu, whatever, even though they're more genocidal than NN Yahoo and key ways. And then you point that out and you say, well, I support this such and such within Israel. And it's like, look, that's great, I guess. But like, that doesn't exist in reality. Right. So anytime you force anyone to collapse the wave function and have a position, their position is just racism. Yeah.

I'm imagining an episode of Star Trek next generation where Jordi LaForge is like, but Captain, if we took the liberal Zionism, we shot it through the wormhole into the delta quadrant. In that quadrant, those two things are not in contradiction. And you see this with like, again, Again, people say, well, in retrospect, they should have had this limited war on Hamas. It's like, even if that's justified, which it's not, it doesn't exist.

Right. Again, I get you have an emotional attachment to it. I understand it. You know, I went to a Christian Zionist church growing up. Like, obviously, it's an important part of your identity and much more intensely. You know, you're kind of fed the narrative and, you know, we have to have a place. And I get all that. It's very emotional.

But at some point, you have to grow up. Right. You have to realize that reality exists with or without whatever you think in your mind. Right. It's just solipsism. It's not real. It doesn't exist. And totally narcissistic, too.

To just assume that your personal definition of Zionism that doesn't really have any real world effect on anyone other than what you think. It should be the one that people respect. And you see this with the way, it's like a cultural signifier. They'll say, well, I believe Jews have a right to self-determination. You're discriminating its meaning. It's like, that is, Israel is a country that exists in reality in the third dimension. It has F-22s. It shreds toddlers.

It has tanks. It has occupying military forces. It shoots people in the head. It's got tens of thousands of 10,000 plus people in its fucking dungeons without trial. That's not my Zionism. That's not my Zionism, Adam. My Zionism is peaceful and without Palestinians. Right.

And so you have this idea that like, well, we have, okay, you have a demographic problem because at the beginning of Zionism, Jews make up 5, 10% of the Levant. We'll say, I think it was probably roughly 7% or 8%. So it's not like Jews as such are not, are not indigenous. to the Levant, but certainly the millions of colonists from Europe aren't in any meaningful way, especially since they're just doing it today. You have people moving from Orange County or from Canada or from London to go settle a fucking house that was just stolen. Like, obviously, that's insane. Like, everybody knows this doesn't make any sense. Like, no matter how sentimental

your values are or how sentimental your feelings are, like, you need to grow up and like understand reality. It's a perfect description of it. Calling it. It's like, Shorewinger's Jewish state. It's both an apartheid state and a land of peace and milk and honey at the same time. And it's like, oh, and they say this like, oh, I support a liberal, you know, a Jewish democratic state. It's like that's by definition impossible. You cannot have a democratic state where one, we're one ethnicity. I love that they append that now. That's a new thing that I just started seeing. It's like, do you believe in Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state? I got a, what was it? and rainbows. Federation of, it was some, you know, Zionist organization survey that I took because they texted it to me. I was like, why not? And it asked me if I believed in Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state.

And I was just like, please give me a text box. I want to yell at you via a text box. But instead it was like, yes? No, definitely. If it's only democratic for one religious ethno group. It makes no sense. It makes no sense. It makes no sense.

Yeah. Like, like de jor and de facto. Another one that you- Unicorn's right to exist. Right. Another thing that you, a great AJism, is a asymptomatic or what is it? Asymptotic. Asymptotic two-state solution. Explain that one. Well, there was, yeah, there was the asymptotic two-state solution. And then there was the Biden's asymptotic break from Netanyahu, which we can also talk about.

I guess you're going to start with what is asymptotic? It's a math term. for approaching zero but never, never getting there. To be clear, I already knew that. This is for everybody else who's stupid. For the people who don't know. For the stupid idiots, not me. Yeah.

So basically, like, whether it's the ceasefire talks in 2024 or the two-state solution, it's important that liberals have a thing of a jig that can point to to justify the current existing atrocities they're defending. So the fake ceasefire talks for our 2024, we're at a, a thematic extension of the peace process, which is this nebulous. It was actually one of the first episodes we did. I want to say it was episode six we did about the asymptotic peace process or maybe it was like 17 or 18, I don't remember.

But basically, this was back in 2017 or 2018, 2017, that liberals can't say I support apartheid because that's the thing that actually exist in, again, material reality. So they say, this is an unfortunate product of, you know, recalcitrant Palestinians or even sometimes I'll say recalcitrant right wingers in Israel or whatever. But I support it. But I support a peace process and a two-state solution, right? This is the pro forma liberal line you throw out because you can't defend the thing that actually exists in reality in the third dimension. So you have to liberals need a thing I'm a jig, a process to point to and say, look, I support this process.

And they saw this, of course, the siege. Like even though Biden is rubber stamping all these weapons to go kill toddlers and to displace families and to starve people, he's working on a ceasefire. Okay, well, what's the status on that? It's been six months. They're working on it. It's a thing I'm a jig that I can point to. because liberals can never just support the bad thing. They have to have a nominally humanitarian progress system in place they can point to,

even though everyone knows it's fake and it doesn't exist and has no real world purchase. I didn't know there was a word for the thing where it approaches zero and never gets there. But that's a great word. Because clearly the goal is to have the annexation of the West Bank and the explosion of Gaza. A hundred percent. The peace process is a perfect cover to do that. in a so-called liberal world order. The incentives are obvious.

To be fair, Matt, it also is in some ways an asymptomatic peace process because there are no symptoms indicating peace. Yes. No. Both work. Both work. I guess to wrap just before the break, Adam,

we've gone longer than we usually do before a break, but that's because you're just so chockful of great, great stuff. And these things are so crucial to understand on a like, like we you know every week we we take examples of stuff but your capacity to zoom out and be like here's what it's an example of here are the patterns here are the tropes here are the principles underlying it um the sale of a genocide this is we i might be courting trouble with this both content wise and and in terms of chronology in terms of you know how much time we want to spend in it but if i was to give you two minutes before the break and promise that matt and i will not

interject and extend the time to speak about the current discourse around people like AOC and Platner and this kind of who can we trust, who can't we trust, you know, how adjacent to, you know, to right-wing whatever's can we get before people become too icky for us to appreciate them for them speaking out about Gaza genocide. We covered this with Rania last week and it was, you know, it provoked a lot of people. conversation among our listeners. What's, without necessarily getting too into the, the issue itself, or if you want,

but I'm also just interested in your take on, on the discourse around in the past week. I mean, as to whether or not we should trust any elected on Gaza, whether it's Platner or AOC, I think there's a pretty clear Lippman's test. It's not calling it a genocide, although that's useful. Although, again, that can just kind of be a buzzword. It's, do you support BDS?

To me, that's like a very, if you're very clear ante, if you're serious about this issue, do you support boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the country that's doing the thing you call a genocide? Does any politician currently? Rashida Taleb does. So if you do not support that, I don't trust you, period. And I don't know what Platner's position on that is. I don't technically know AOCs. I don't think she supports it, although I'm not sure anyone's bothered asking her. But if you don't support that, I don't really trust you in general.

And I, of course, don't trust Platner because he's a, you know, blackwater mercenary. but like he certainly says the right things relative to you know his opposition he certainly represents i think a rhetorical change but i think that in 250 will get you a cup of coffee at dunk of donuts so like you know do i trust them not at all uh no i don't trust anyone now you know do i does that do i do i think necessarily that needs to lend itself to like hypercynicism do i not think it's possible there's space for them to change possibly i again i would like to see clear statements about arms embargo. I know that Platner supports it. I know AOC has supported it, but I've also said things that have been somewhat contradictory. But to me, it's like, do you have credibility on this

issue? And unfortunately, the only elected I've ever seen have consistent credibility in this issue is Richard D'Soult. What's interesting about the credibility is that, you know, I, well, I think your litmus test is interesting. It's not been, I think, the litmus test that people have been using for a while, which has essentially been, are you willing to call this a genocide? And I think the problem is that the word genocide comes with certain implications and obligations. And one of those would be to isolate and remove from the Democratic Party those responsible for the thing you call genocide. So I wrote an article for The Intercept about this last month.

Right, right, right, right. I reached out to AOC and I reached out to Rashida Tili. And I reached out to Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen and Rokana, all of whom are kind of considered progressive leaders and said, do you think that these people who helped carry a out the thing that you yourself called genocide, because all of them had used the term, Chris von Holland had used ethnic cleansing, but more or less. And the only person who I thought gave a good answer who responded was Rashida Tili. He said, absolutely, they should be repealed to the ICC. And they should be removed from democratic politics. Now, Rochana and Acacio-Cortez are not obligated

to get back to me on email for an intercept article. But certainly, like, I think that until they draw a clear line that anyone involved in the genocide be removed from polite society and and be referred to the ICC for war crimes, which is, again, consistent with the thing that they themselves said. Until they say that, I don't believe a word they say. Right. And I would say until either of them, as the case may be,

apologizes and owns in some way for outright lies made and consequential moments with the attempt of influencing people to support or forgive or ignore the commissions of, the people they were trying to get elected at the time until there's some acknowledgement that hey that was whack that what i did there or at least or it was misguided there was certainly a way of of shilling for Biden although of course rscied talib never did um but she did support trump either in fact she actively told people not to vote for trump which feels like a pretty pretty consistent

position uh not to valorize too much i just thought her take on that was was pretty good and pretty consistent um uh you didn't have to lie that there was a ceasefire talks i think i think saying that again rocana and to some extent von holland both said it and of course at Casu Kortez, someone infamously said it at the United Center in August of 2024 at the DNC. I watched it live and that was the central

lie at the time that maintained that took pressure off the White House. And I don't know how you don't at least address that. Again, it's maybe we'll just kind of vibe past it. And frankly, like if she came out and supported BDS, I would much prefer that. But I do think like

you have to address the fact that you effectively trivialized and belittled the protesters both inside and outside the D.C. So you are critical of her for saying that. I was critical at the time. I was going to write about it for the nation, but someone who wrote before I did. Follow a question. Why do you support Marjorie Taylor Green then?

Yeah, I trust her about as far as I can throw her. Well, you just said you loved her. You shouldn't trust any politician. I bet you could throw her a few feet. she kind of smaller, right? If she went limp. But you look, I mean, this is the thing. When people do this like AOC versus MTG, it's like you don't have to choose.

Right. It's an insane false choice that people have done. If you think AOC is less progressive than MTG. Like, who thinks this? To the issue of like, to the issue of, I think you alluded to earlier, Tucker Carlson, like, no, obviously I don't trust Tucker Carlson's supposed an indesignism. Like, is it good that he builds, you know, distrust of his role within the right? Does it have value to the Palestinians? Of course it does.

Yeah, yeah. But would I trust him in a position of power? Or do I think he understands that this is a huge grift opportunity? Like, again, this is a man who called Iraqis monkeys. Like, you know, do I think he's trying to preserve the national mythos of the so-called libertarian right with or paleo conservative right to protect American innocence by, again, when he had Joe Kent on and Joe Kent talks about how Trump really wants peace, look, he's sheepdogging for J.D. Vance.

I mean, I don't trust, do I think they're just trying to bottle up that anti-Israel hatred to sell J.D. Vance? Absolutely. But, like, again, you can make a similar argument about anti-Israel sentiment in the Democrats. And here's sort of a bottom line for me. When I observe the Palestinians in my life and many online, which is a much less more reliable metric, but whatever, basically saying, don't tell us who to appreciate right now. Don't tell us who to be relieved about.

Don't talk down to us. Don't lecture us that Tucker Carlson's going to stab us in the back. Maybe we know that. Maybe we don't know that. But no one's in any position right now to tell us what to be relieved about, what to take heart in, or whatever. I feel like there's some cue to take from that.

I mean, maybe. It's difficult to know how to draw a consensus from that. I broadly agree with that in principle, which is why I think, you know, again, Tucker doing his role as far as rhetoric goes is fine. Yes, that's right. And again, we need to erode support wherever it is. Like, I have no problem with that. The issue is, the issue is like, if you started this conversation off talking about trust, who you trust, and I can only speak for myself. And like, I think that there is a,

again, Tucker was so against the war in Afghanistan when he was on Fox News. This was his big thing where to pull out of Afghanistan, Trump signed the, and then the second Biden pulls out, he tries to Bingazia it for fucking six months. So like there's a there's a reason why I distrust Tucker Carlson. It's not because I'm a purist or like I'm shilling for AOC or whatever. Like it reality is that I think there's a there's a huge sense that there's this there's this popular anger at Israel. And I think both parties are trying to find ways of channeling it without changing anything.

And I and I know that when if Tucker Carlson ends up endorsing the arch Zionist J.D. Vance and his arch Zionist backers like Peter Thiel, we're just going to have the same. conversation again in four years. So, like, so rhetorically, I have no problem with it. I have no problem. I like rhetorically,

I like when AOC does it. I like, you know, I don't even mind that necessarily, right? So like rhetorically, anything we can do to erode support is, is good. And again,

I can only speak for myself. I do not claim to parrot the sort of broad consensus, the standpoint, the standpoint epistemology of Palestinians. But like, if we're talking about the political calculus for 2028, it would, it would just be nice if someone who also shared my values

on the left was more clear-eyed about this who could take that lame and take that stand. And to the extent to which Tucker Carlson has any purchase on this issue, it's because that doesn't really exist in the so-called professional left. So to the extent to which the right makes it makes inroads, it's almost by definition a failure of the progressive left to really take clear moral stance is what I would say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That lane should not be open for him. Also, Tucker Carlson does not call himself an anti-Zionist.

And this is the annoying thing about, you know, people trying to say, you know, oh, the left is like lionizing him as an anti-Zionist hero. It's like, no, he is not someone who by any standard reaches the, you know, anti-Zionist lionization, you know. No, he's an indignant American who doesn't trust Israel. is disgusted by them for any concatenation of reasons. Right. And also, but, you know, more to the point, he is someone who is serving at least somewhat of a purpose for the chuds who listened to him.

And that is the only time we've ever brought him up. And we're still going to get yelled at. Yeah, like, again, I'm not too precious. I'm not too precious about this. I'm not too, like, I don't do Cudy's politics. like Cudy's politics don't make sense to me, especially because like Akasur Cortez partners with Ted Cruz on China sanction bills.

So like the idea that we don't partner with people we disagree. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, that kind of doesn't pass the sniff. Well, in her, well, we talked about this last week. In her answer to the question about fucking insider trading. Well, yeah, working with white nationalists. Right, right. She's like, well, Burchett's called me a communist and a witch,

but, you know, we got to stop inside training. Right. So it's like. There are cases, however, there are cases, however, where I would not, under any circumstance, part with a white nationalist. Okay. Yeah, that is, I mean, again, like, genocide.

Yeah, I, again, that the Cudy's politics thing doesn't really make a lot of sense to me in the year, in the year 20206. I just also, especially because you were like, vote for the guy that I acknowledge is doing genocide because the other guy is also going to do genocide plus. And it's like, yeah, yeah. Okay, so like, we're all making compromises here. So what, what's with the Cudy's thing? Right. You also just reminded me of just this thought I had when it's like, I'm willing to work with a white nationalist. for, you know, to stop insider trading, but not work with the white nationalist, you know, to stop a genocide.

Now, like, let's set aside whether or not her saying yes to that bill would be helping, you know, defunded genocide. Well, to be clear, sorry, MTG's bill was supported by Talib. So, I mean, for whatever else was. And Al-Han Omar as well. And clearly they thought it was worth supporting. Right. And they're not pro-Nazi, so I don't know. Exactly.

Well, and to me, I say, okay, wait. But then, okay, what's, then what's, uh, Then what's bad about white nationalist? If not genocide, if not the threat of genocide to other populations, it's like when someone says, we got to kill all the Palestinians because they're bigots. And it's like, okay, well, what's bad about bigotry then if you believe in killing an entire group of people? Because it seems like. Yeah, because, well, that's the thing. I think that's what reads false to a lot of people is that Zionism, and especially in its current iteration of manifestation, is a fascist ideology.

And yet Democrats are from their leadership to the vast majority of the people. They're Zionists. They're pro-Israel. So, like, we've already crossed the fascists, like, threshold. We're debating which form of fascism is okay. And so, like, again, I think you can utilize and instrumentalize partnerships with people who have gross politics that are objectively bad without, like, being tainted by them. And as long as you're using them and they're not using you, because again, this goes into

media spheres, like, would you go on to her or else? Personally, I wouldn't in a million years because I would just call him a fascist and tell him to fuck off. And he would kick me out in 10 minutes because of his incitement against immigrants and his incitement against homeless people and trans people, et cetera. Like, that's not something. I couldn't sit in front of Turk Carlson and just talk about Israel. Like, that would be disingenuous. That would be not part of who I am. But like, so it's never clear.

That line is not always clear. There's a gray area there. Obviously, if I only went on podcast or shows for people that I 100% agreed with, then I couldn't go on any podcasts. So I think it's to me it's like it's you have to make a judgment call is that whatever you like but people speak in the But when people, well, except for you guys 100%. But when you see this and people talk about like oh, we're going to because again, now I'm not, I feel like I'm kind of doing going back and forth in this. But then you see you know people talk about oh, we're going to work with the right. And it's like what does that even mean though?

Like if there's a bill, sure, like supported. Right, right. But we're not going to go to like pep rallies together and be like, hey, remember that one time you said there was Jewish space lasers? I don't like that's not I don't know how you build a coherent politics around people who want to liquidate immigrants like I don't even know we can barely we can barely work with each other how are the fuck are we going to work with the right but again the fact that this is even something we have to discuss is simply a product of the fact that anti-Zionism and the professional progressive spaces is incredibly neutered and and written by CIP and these other kind of shitty you know think tanks that's right well that is how to sell a genocide folks the book is a very now. So yes, that's the book. Adam, thank you so much for coming on. We're going to take a quick break, but first, can you just tell people? Now we've got to sell some other things, not a genocide. We got to sell your book on selling genocide. Where can people find the book and anything you want to plug before you? Find our bookstores everywhere. The evil company online, Pluto Press,

wherever you can find it. It's available. It's not fringe. It should be fairly. You should be able to find it in your local bookstore. Hell yeah. Yeah, check it out at your local bookstore. Adam Johnson, thank you so much for coming back on the pod. Thanks for having me. And everyone, stick around because there's more show. So we'll be right back. And we're back as bad as bar of the world's most moral podcast. I'm here with my co-host, Daniel, Daniel Mote. How are you doing? Hey, man. I'm good. It occurs to me that we were, that was sort of an A.C. syntotic end to the interview with Adam. We kept getting closer and closer to the end, but it's like there's always more to say,

you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You break down this bullshit in the finest detail and there's still more. Yeah, it's crazy because I feel like I would be, like I'd be mad about it if everything he said wasn't so cogent. No, it's incredibly. So I, you know, it's, it's really great. He's a fantastic guest and he's, you know,

I can't wait to read the book. I know you actually got to dig into some of it. Whereas I need to, I need to. Because that is... I mean, when you have the numbers, you know, the numbers don't lie. And, you know, the Adam has the numbers. The Adam Johnson run statistics department. Dude, yes.

He's got the facts. He's got the facts. The dude loves some numbers. This dude knows dates and shit. that's awesome um well anyways everyone get his book the link will be in the description but we still have a little bit more show to go uh because uh listen the news keeps happening whether or not we want it to so uh i want to talk a little bit about well first let's mention honorable mention to nakba day um and what i mean by that is nakba day recently passed and uh the um

you know, city hall in New York, Mr. Mamdani himself put out a post in which he, uh, showed a video where he was honoring Nakba day, which is not something that I think, you know, I've seen anywhere else from a national political figure, especially one who's running an entire city, especially a city as big as New York. And so, I think, I think Eric Adams, the closest he came, was honoring Knuckin' Boots Day. Yeah, that's right. That's right. For him, Nakpa Day is a celebration of doing more Nakpas. But he, of course, got a lot of shit from it. And without getting into detail, I would say that most of the people who were angry about it were some of the most insane people that we talk about on this show.

people who were essentially big mad because they cannot stand when a Palestinian gets to tell the story of their own ethnic cleansing. And I was pretty impressed with how disgusting people were. And I'm also impressed with how Zoran is stuck to his guns on this one. Yes, yes. You know, he's not, I'll say he's done some things recently that I've not been too happy about. live there, but just as a national figure, I've been like, come on, bro, what are you doing? But in this case, I was very happy. Here's Ari Fleischer of the Bush administration. You remember them from doing Iraq war? Well, he says, my mother and her parents fled the Nazis to come

the New York City in 1939. My grandfather kept hidden Swiss francs and gold coins in his apartment in case he ever had to flee. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was there. Don't talk about gold coins. Come on. My heart breaks for NYC. My grandfather kept gold press latinum. Yeah. Just, he's just like, come on, man.

Just don't do the thing where you say gold coins. You already said Swiss francs. Don't admit that your father was Ferengi. Yes. Don't talk about the de blooms. My heart breaks for NYC. Mamdani is a menace. Pro Hamas and Hezbollah mobs are harassing Jews.

Mamdani has empowered them. Once again, this guy was instrumental in the murder of over a million Iraqis. And he's really mad at Zoran for posting a video talking about the Nakba. For marking, during, and by the way, this is Jewish, American Jewish Heritage Month. Mamdani is having a bunch of Jewish leaders, those who will deign to, you know, to meet him in over to Gracie Mansion for Chavuot, which happens this week. Lots of overtures to the Jewish community. Lots of, lots of, you know, a real open door policy.

This is the first I'm hearing of American Jewish Heritage Month. Seriously. I have never heard that in my life. In fact, I was informed of it by Elmo. There was a post that Elmo did in which he was standing next to, I don't know, someone who is Jewish and it was like, you know, happy Jewish heritage month?

And I was like, what month? When did we get a month? And here's the thing. Elmo's French Jonathan Greblatt wants to wish you a happy American Jewish heritage month. What does Mr. Greenblatt have to say? We have to kill Elmo. Elmo, you are Hamas for having Rami Usch on the show.

But yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm like, Jewish heritage. This is the first I'm hearing of this fucking thing. And fine, I don't give a shit if we randomly got a month. But let's stop pretending as if we like always had this month. Fuck off. Anyways, people were yelling at Mamdani. This is kind of the usual suspects.

But there's one in particular that I want to talk about. I know we've talked about her a lot on the show. I know that she's a regular subject. But there's something about Olivia Rheingold. And the way that she has been stalking. Zoran's wife that is there's just something unhinged

about it that I can't get enough of. It's incredible. And you know, this is not about Nakpa Day. This is Olivia keeping the focus on really where it should be, which is Ramadouaji's eight years old Spotify playlist or something. That's right. And she put out this video

Olivia Rheingold did a few days ago. And I just I have to play it for you. Just so you can understand the kind of journalism she's doing. On Tuesday, I asked Mayor Mom Donnie's office, why does his wife appear to have a Spotify account with songs about greedy Jews and how Israel going to die, bitch? By Wednesday, the account was...

Cool. I'm sorry, that's instantly clippable and going to become a favorite on this show as often as possible. Yes. You know, inshallah, everybody, with God. help someday soon. Israel going to die, bitch. When I make up in the morning and I

want some morning wood, but I don't have it. What do I think about? Israel going to die, bitch. That's right. Oh, God. Just God bless her. God bless her. God bless her. Totally shut down 100% private. And this was just one of the things I found after more than a month of following

every possible lead about who is real lead. This is, This is crazy gang stalking. Like, just the idea is like, I spent a month doing deep research into a playlist that Ramaduaji. And I filmed myself doing it. And here's a compilation of the highlights of me stalking Ramadouaji. This one, I'm wearing glasses.

This one, I've got book behind me. This one, I'm a little sickie poo. This one, I've got her office on speaker and they don't know it. And what does she actually? believe. The first thing I learned through interviews and her digital footprint is that anti-Israel politics are really the glue of her social circle. It's the philosophy of her favorite bookstore, which boycotts Israeli products. I'm sorry, but this is also the glue of my social circle. I feel like she's doing a lot of judging the glue that holds us all together here. And if we were

to be honest here and talk about the glue that holds Olivia Rheingold's social circle, would it not be... She's been sniffing it. I'll tell you that much. Yeah. It's glue, blood, and money, I believe. And I don't say money in an anti-Semitic way. No, it is literally you are a paid shill.

You took October 7th as an opportunity to pivot into a, you know, a lane that is very profitable. So let's be real about our social circles. Literally, you have lost your friends because you are so progenocide that you think starving children should not have, you know, sympathy because they had pre-existing conditions. The glue that holds you together is Hitler glue, whatever kind of glue that is. Anyways, let's go on. Also, when she went to Paris Fashion Week last fall, and that is despite making about $10,000 last year, according to tax filings, she popped over. to London, where even the vintage market she went to was all about Palestinian solidarity. I'm sorry, but I have to be friends with Olivia Ryingold. I want to be in her social circle.

Oh my God, Rammaport and gross. I just, before I continue playing more of it, I just want to read some tweets that we have compiled of this totally public meltdown that Olivia Rheingold is having when it comes to Ramaduaji, because she's been, you know, since the inauguration, I believe, she has been on a mission to comb her digital, Ramaduaji's digital footprint

to try to find dirt on her. And it has been, it's been shocking to read because she, I'm sure she sounds normal to herself, but to me, I'm like, oh, you are stalker, stalker. So, 2017, this is Olivia Rangel's suite.

Ramadduagi's, apparent Tumblr reposts an image of, what is it, Lela Khaled, the PFLP militant. Some dismiss this as youthful radicalism. 2023, she liked the exact same image about a month after the October 7th terrorist attack. Next tweet. For Ramadouaji, animus against Israel crosses party lines. I discovered for at the free press that she, has like posts from Tucker Carlson, including this one, railing against APEC.

I figured this out because I saw that her mom follows Carlson. Girl is like straight up stalking her mother, too. Just like, this is man. No shit, no shit, Shylock. Yeah. Come on. God. Ramaduaji attended a Paris Fashion Week event this past fall.

That's despite being married to mayor, Mayor Mamdani, a socialist who ran on taxing the rich and making just $10,000 last year, the mayor's office did not respond to a request for comments on who paid for the trip pre-inauguration, which also includes a visit to London. This is, I'm sorry, I'm picturing her making a call to the mayor's office, but it's like, It's a landline phone, but with a cord cut off. There's something schizophrenic about this that I find. It's an empty can of peas, you know, with a string. Right, exactly. Oh, my God. While abroad, Rabid Tijuana also tended to pop up fundraising for Palestine.

Again, it is unclear who pays for this trip, given her income of $10,000. dollars, Mrs. Poor bitch. Fuck her. She's too poor to go to these places. I love how you can't have money unless you have pivoted to pro-Israel content. I also like how you can't be into fashion or anything. Like you can't take trips.

You can't go anywhere. Yes. I mean, I just let her being mad that, like, Rama has a social circle that is, incredibly pro-Palestine, without realizing that she, girl, Olivia, you have spent the last two and a half years completely changing your entire, not just like worldview, but career, to being just this subject matter. So who's really talking shit? Also, what is she, if you look at the polls, what is she revealing about Rama, but that she's an average 18 to 35 year old in America right now? Right. Exactly. Exactly.

She's a fairly typical, you know. And this is my favorite. What I learned about Rameh Duagia after a month of calling up dozens of her friends and carefully combing her digital footprint. This is out loud. She's like a fucking paleontologist with a brontosaurus footprint, like dusting it for evidence, you know. I carbon dated this tweet and it says you've always hated me. Anti-Israel politics.

What I learned from drinking out of her toilet. What I learned from drinking out of her toilet. Yeah. Anti-Israel politics are the glue of her world. She attended an anti-Israel rally in the aftermath of October 7th. She liked a post from Tucker Carlson criticizing APEC. Criticizing APEC. Oh, no.

Oh, my God. She traveled to Paris Fashion Week last September, also stopping in London. The mayor's office did not reply to. my request for comment. Guys, I just want Olivia to be okay. I feel like a concern, like you know when you have a friend

who all of a sudden, you haven't thought about them in a while and then you check in on Facebook and they're just like, government not going to stop me from being me. And you're like, oh no. You know who has a song about that in his most recent album? Ben Fultz.

He has a song about connecting with a girl, used to be friends with in high school. And she's a tinfoil hat trumper now. Wow. Wow. I mean, you know, like, honestly, there is, it's like, it's worse, though, because this is like when you check in on a friend and their entire video feed on Instagram. That's good, Adam.

That's good. She's a prick. She's a pricking. I'm sad and lonely. Very good. No, it's like checking in on a friend on Instagram and you see. they keep posting videos of them, like, talk, like direct-to-camera videos. Their few of their teeth are gone.

And they're just like, you know, once again. Or it's like, you know what it is? Have you seen the videos where someone will pass by a car and say, this same car has been following me? And you're like, oh, no. And then you like, you keep scrolling and you see that they do this to every car. That's what it feels like. We're watching an online mental breakdown.

And honestly, as long as she's getting paid for it, I'm happy for her. Actually, come to think of it, every time I go out driving in Brooklyn, there's always a car behind me. That's fucking crazy. Coincidence? It's a different car every time. Can you believe how many cars they've got following me? I mean, I believe it. An endless variety.

They keep redoing the paint job. It's incredible. Government do anything. Keep you from being you. Seriously. But on the plus side. Israel going to die, bitch. Yeah, I sure is.

inshallah before we go this has got to be our last segment and I'm calling this segment 1877 Cars for Yids so if you're unfamiliar if you're not in the United States you probably don't know that for years and years and years there's been this commercial

for a charity no one's really known exactly what it is but it's called Cars for kids. I almost sold my, I almost gave my, donated my, I didn't know much about it. I just, it came up on, I, I'm not from the state, so I didn't really know it. I had a, you know, my grandmother's old 2002 Toyota Camry that I had to get rid of last year for, like, what am I going to do with this car? I, I contacted them, but ultimately, it wasn't registered in New York, so I couldn't, I couldn't donate it. You contacted them, but then they were like, I'll you Jewish?

And you're like, rabbi? It's like, what the fuck? But yeah. Who are these people? So first, if you haven't heard the commercial, this is the, you know, famous for being annoying Cars for Kids commercial that you've heard on every Southern California radio station and probably also throughout the country.

Here's Cars for Kids. 1-8-7 Cars for Kids. K-A-R-A-R-A-R-A. There's cars for kids. One 877 cars for kids. Don't eat your car today. Don't eat online at carsfor kids.com. That's cars with a K.

Pickups. It's quick and easy. All right. Sorry. I don't know why I had to, but I needed it. So those commercials have been around forever. They get stuck in your head. Well, here's the thing.

We just learned about 10 days, you know, previous to this recording on May 8th. Judge Gassia, what is it, Apcarian, Armenian last name, of the California Superior Court in Orange County found that Cars for Kids violated the state's laws against false advertising and unfair competition. So they've been kicked out of the state and let me tell you why, or, you know, more so let's have the New York Times tell you why. So Cars for Kids, the charity known for its repetitive jingle that sticks like glue in the listener's brain, must stop broadcasting its ads in California, Judge ruled. He found that the Cars for Kids ad violated the state's law against false advertising and unfair competition. For years, the charity has broadcast TV and radio ads featuring children singing a jingle with the organization's phone number to donate your car today.

but evidence presented at a civil trial showed that children, especially needy or underprivileged children, were not the exclusive recipients of the proceeds of the donated cars. In fact, the recipients, instead, Cars for Kids primarily funds a New Jersey-based Jewish organization. What is it? Ura. Ura! Ura!

I don't even think those kids were. playing those instruments. You know what? I suspect you're right. This is URA, which provides programs including... They should rename it Cars for Counterfeit Kids with a K counterfeit. That's right. KKK. Yeah, yeah, yeah. KKK.

Which provides programs including an adult matchmaking service. Oh, yeah, so it is for kids. It's for future kids, future Jewish kids products of the matchmaking. If you have enough cars and you're donating them, kids will happen eventually.

trips to Israel for teens and summer camps in New York, the judge wrote. The only program in California that Cars for Kids sponsored was a promotional giveaway of Cars for Kids branded backpacks. That's amazing. Isn't that great? This is testimony from SD Laudow. Landau. Oh, Landau. The CEO of Cars for Kids revealed that the charity sends 45 million a year,

60% of the funds it raises to Ura. It's this organization, which operates out of the same building as Cars for Kids. Ura has spent the money on, among other things, a $16.5 million building in Israel. So this is, apparently Cars for Kids is a front for just ultra-Orthodox Jews going to Israel and for buying land in Israel or at least buying building. It's a front for money-grubbing Jews

and how could we have possibly known that, Matt? To be fair, it's not like their mascot with a giant talking wad of money. Oops. Oops. So if you want to know about Ura, their literal mascot and this is a tweet from Ali Abunima

which is such a funny way of phrasing is. He goes, I know you're going to think this sounds fake, but the mascot of Ura, the Jewish group whose Israel junkets are funded by cars for kids is an anthropomorphic stack of money named five-ish. Ladies and gentlemen, if you were unfamiliar with five-ish, buckle the fuck up.

Here's a little bit of five-ish entertainment for all of you. I just can't find anything to do special for Shabbas. Oh, Ari, don't feel sad. Everyone can find something special to prepare for Shabbas. Here's a song that might help you. And I'll need all your help out there too. You got it. Okay, great.

Let's sing it together. Here we go. Shabbits is on its way. I'm doing something every day, a special something to prepare for Shabbis. Don't make the money, Chavez is on its way. I'll wear my suit and tie today.

Three special pseudos. We will eat on Chavez. I can't. A stack of money dancing with children in Yarmikas. So, you know, so. So, you know, how. There's on display.

My table clock is just for Shabbis. So, I guys, you know, I got mad Ari Fleischer for mentioning his grandfather's gold coins I am equally

mad at the fact that this fucking group is like you know what will really be a big hit with the Jewish kids a stack of money but what does cars for kids have to do with these videos about Jewish practice I don't understand

or is that URAs are we saying that Ura's mascot is This is Ura's mascot. Okay, got it. Okay, got it. And this is where 60%, the majority of the money for cars for kids, goes to five-ish, the dancing money Jew that we all know and love. This is like, this is, when I say, he's a whole, he's a whole tumud. Oh, it just, delete, delete, delete.

I don't, I don't. I don't blame Jews for anti-Semitism. That's the first statement I'm going to say. The second statement is, but sometimes we got to be more cognizant of the way we look. I've always had a problem with chocolate guilt. I get it. It's cute. Nobody knows why we do it.

So it looks like Jews eat money. I've always said this is not helpful. Now we have Fivish out here getting money by scam means. Fibish is scamming people into selling their cars. I don't know what to do anymore.

Hey man, those lyrics about special tablecloths aren't going to write themselves. That's right. Someone's got to pay the bills for the Chavez song. For the Chavez goys who wrote that song for them. Why did the money need to sing the song? Couldn't the kids?

have just sung it? Couldn't it have been a candelabra or a... Fucking, I don't know, dude. A holla. A holla with that sings. It's a piece of bread

that's like, hey, guys. Why does it have to be... Five is a pretty good pun, though, because five is a Yiddish name. Five is a... That's a funny joke. That's great. But it doesn't get beyond the writer's room.

You go, well, we certainly can't do that. That's too funny. Like, we'd have to... We can't do it. Because this is for kids. It's a Simpsons joke. If Simpsons were willing to do like anti-Semitism satire in their golden era, like that would be a really funny line.

A stack of money called Five-ish. Do we need to have fucking straight up, you know, Sesame Street Muppets and fucking mascots who are just doing tropes? You can't talk about tropes anymore, all right? None of this, no more bad has bar of fucking tropes. You can't do it when this is your guy. So I forgot to put this at the beginning of this. Yeah, go ahead.

Actual anti-Semitism. There's no anti-Semitism in the United States. Yeah, tell that to fucking Fybish. Tell that to five. All right. All right. Settle down, everyone. I'm sorry.

You're right, five-ish. I'm getting a little steamed here. But yeah, this is a real story. So it turns out Cards for Kids is a secret scam in order. to get money sent to the state of Israel or to help, you know, little, those little kids that Fivish is talking to help them get to Israel. I'd like to see, you know, they, you know, it said that they do adult matchmaking services. I would, I wonder if there's like an adult version of Fibish, you know. Yeah, you mean it's like, giving, giving, Genta like dating advice and like,

but like a little less, you got to stop putting the pussy on a pedestal. You gotta tell that bitch to relax. Five-ish the pickup artist. Yeah, that's right. You gotta nag them. You just gotta tell them how disgusting. Be like, hey, your eyes are Palestinian brown, and then she'll fall straight in love with you.

Feeling lonely. Have you ever tried taming the cunt? Respect the cock as it's dancing around. Oh, fuck, five-ish, man. Why you got to be like that? Anyways, anti-Semitism is an intractable problem. I mean, and it's, we even, you know, black America has 50 cent. We have five-ish.

Well, that's not fair. 50 cents, great. What's wrong, 50 cents? Yeah, but he's only 50 cents. Oh, I got 10 times that. I got you, yeah. Approximately, five-ish. I thought you were saying he was like a racist mascot.

Not at all. No, no, no, no, no. He's wonderful. No. He's, uh, in fact, he shows that you could be, you know, a rapper and a good business man. That's right. He's probably bad in some way politically. I don't fucking know.

And I don't care. All I know is Fiveish, you're out here, just creating more anti-Semites by being part of a scam. So, shout out to Five-ish. Shout out to Ura. Shout out to the Cars for Kids commercial for now forever. being, you know, something that reminds people of a giant stack of money that dances for children, Jewish children specifically. And that's been our podcast. If you would like to give us a giant stack of five-ish money, go to patreon.com slash badass barra. Or five-ish bucks a month. You got

the next episode a week. Or five-ish bucks a month. Yeah. And, you know, if you don't want to do Patreon, you can give us that same chocolate gelt over on YouTube memberships, so go to YouTube, do that. Or also, you can join us on Substack. We're there now. Please do. Email us, spatusbar at gmail.com

for all your questions, comments, and concerns. All right, everyone. Thanks again so much for listening. And until next time, from the river to the sea. I think this podcast is getting smarter asymptotically.

I like that because it's also insulting.