Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 8/11/25: Trump Putin Summit Set, Internet Personality Destruction, Israel Assassinates Al Jazeera Team, ADL CEO "Intermarriages", Gaetz Exposes AIPAC Congress Trips

Episode Date: August 11, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss the Trump Putin Summit set as Zelensky shows concerns, a viral chart showcases how the Internet is destroying cognitive ability, Israel assassinates an entire Al Jazeera team, the ADL CEO showing concern for jewish "intermarriages", and Matt Gaetz exposes AIPAC Congress trips. Show Notes: Our interview with Seth Harp will be rescheduled to later this week due to conflicts with his book tour. We also apologize for the AMA issue this morning as our studio had tech difficulties getting the stream live. The AMA will be rescheduled for this Thursday!   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. The Stuff You Should Know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must-listen podcasts on movies. It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know Summer movie playlist. What Screams Summer? More than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater, and a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie Playlist. on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Have you overlooked at a piece of abstract art or music or poetry and thought, that's just a bunch of pretentious nonsense? That's exactly what two bored Australian soldiers set out to prove during World War II when they tricked the literary world with their intentionally bad poetry, setting off a major scandal. We break down the truth, the lies, and the poetry in between on hoax, a new podcast hosted by me, Lizzie Logan, and me, Dana Schwartz. Every episode, Hoax explores an audacious fraud or ruse from history.

Listen to Hoax on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys, it's AZFud. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion. You may even know me as a People's Princess. Every week on my new podcast, Fud around and find out. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the table. Listen to Fud Around and Find Out, a production of IHart Women's Sports in partnership with unanimous media on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, because. I'm a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breaking points.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. Big show today. So Putin and Trump are going to be meeting in Alaska.

Might we get a Ukraine peace deal? We will break all of that down for you and what the indications are. Also, we're going to dig into some social trends. I know if you guys saw these viral charts, social scientists are sounding the alarm over some significant personality changes, especially among younger generations. So we will try to figure out what is going on there. Israel assassinated a well-known Al Jazeera journalist and his entire crew. We're going to have an editor over at DropSight News who knew him well, join us to talk about his life, his legacy, and also Israel's just relentless murdering of journalists and the silence

from the West, as that has been ongoing. We're going to dig into some wild comments made by ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt, including some on intermarriage, quite a hot take there. Some big updates on the Israel First Movement here in the United States. And investigative journalist Seth Harp is going to join us to discuss his new book. The Fort Bragg Cartel, I do not think you want to miss that particular topic. We're also going to be doing our AMA live today for premium subscribers. So if you want to take part in those going forward, make sure you sign up.

at breakingpoints.com. That's right. Thank you to everybody who has been doing that. You can support the show, breakingpoints.com, monthly or yearly memberships. We're always looking out for benefits and for the customer experience. But if you can't afford it, no worries. Just please, if you're watching this video, go ahead and hit the subscribe button on YouTube, or if you're listening to this on a podcast, leave a five-star review, and then more importantly, send an episode that you really like to a friend, to a family member. It really helps us grow. It's not one dollar in marketing ever spent on this show. And yet, it continues to grow. So thank you to everybody. As Crystal said, we're going to start with the Ukraine-Trump summit, or the, sorry, Trump-Russia summit.

Ukraine is still a questionable one. It will take place on Friday in Alaska. A lot going on here behind the scenes. Here is Trump now talking about it in the Oval Office. Here's what he had to say. President Zelensky has to get all of his, everything he needs because he's going to have to get ready to sign something. And I think he is working hard to get that done. Well, you're looking at territory that's been fought over for three and a half years with, you know, a lot of Russians have died. A lot of Ukrainians have died. So we're looking at that, but we're actually looking to get some back and some swapping. It's complicated. It's actually nothing easy. It's very complicated. But we're going to get some back. We're going to get some switched. There'll be some swapping of territory.

to the betterment of both. But we'll be talking about that either later or tomorrow or whatever. Pay very close attention to what he said there about the swapping of territories. That is going to be the crux of this entire summit and whether or not it is successful or not. Let's go and put this AP story up on the screen. Trump says he will meet Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss the end of the Ukraine war. It remains up in the air whether President Zelensky will attend. Originally, they had floated a summit, which was bilateral between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and then trilateral, including the Ukrainians. However, the Ukrainians are making quite a bit of noise. Now, afterwards, and drawing some red lines of their own in the sand, this entire idea of swapping territory is the one which the Russians are going to have the most trouble with, Crystal. All of the, by the way, the way that this is all come about is so preposterous that, you know, look, I mean, I generally am more supportive of Whitkoff, I think, than most other members of the administration,

but this is part of the problem with having a guy who's doing Gaza and in Ukraine and also previously built, previous qualifications of building the Fountain Blue Hotel in Las Vegas is basically he met with Putin. Putin was like, sure, yeah, let's end the war. I'll have a ceasefire, and that will entain basically freezing things where they are. Wyckhoff thought that to mean that he would be open to not just a ceasefire, but potentially giving up some territory. Putin and his comments have been like, no, no, no, no, that's not what we're doing.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are like, hold on a second. we can have a ceasefire. By the way, Ukrainian law says that we need to have a national referendum on whether any of that's going to happen. Remember, the entire country, plus the delusional Europeans all still believe that Ukraine needs to be restored to its original borders. Including Crimea. Including Crimea. So it's like we are basically nowhere in terms of the conflict. There's been no diplomatic resolution. At the same time, Trump has introduced these secondary sanctions on countries like India, which currently has a 50% tariff. The policy, of the United States right now is all over the map. We are both in a more hawkish direction

with harder sanctions than Joe Biden ever proposed. The United States is currently shipping just recently some $250 million of offensive weaponry to the Ukrainians, including the shipping of a Patriot battery, which was never open under the Biden administration. And yet at the same time, we're meeting here with Putin. I mean, look, my card's on the table. I want the war to end, But that's going to require some serious compromise from the Ukrainians and the Europeans, which they have not yet been able to make. So right now, things are crazy. They are just totally ambiguous. The summit itself and how it will all come about is one, which is indicative of the Trump administration, which is like flitting about, basically, from policy to policy.

We went from berating Zelensky in the Oval saying, you don't have the cards, to actually he does have the cards because he's getting most of what he wants. So, yeah, that's where we're at right now. We're meeting with Putin on Friday. We'll see what happens in Trump's words, because I don't really have anything else of them. Yeah, well, let me start with the positive. Yeah, it's good. I agree. I agree. I agree with it. Listen, they should have met on day one. Great. Good. You know, the only way you're going to be able to resolve this is through these sorts of meetings.

So I will say that is a positive step in the right direction. I'm with you. I want to dwell a little bit on what you're saying about Whitkoff because this was a major screw up from him. He appears to have completely misrepresented or misunderstood. the Russian position in terms of what they were willing to, quote, unquote, give up, which is basically they're not actually willing at least from the outset to give up anything. And so he misstated that, created a lot of confusion, had to walk it back. And, you know, I think it's worth reassessing a lot of the Whitkoff Hageography that we got

at the beginning of this administration, not just because of this sort of like amateur hour fuck up with, you know, a major high-stakes negotiations such as this. But we also know at this point that with regard to Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Whitkoff has not been part of the solution. At the end of the day, he has been just as much a part of undermining, towing Netanyahu's line and destroying those negotiations with Hamas as, you know, as Trump himself and as Netanyahu. So I think it's worth us putting to bed the idea that Steve Whitkoff was going to be some, you

know, some wild card, great negotiator, going to bring world peace that has not been the track record that this man has, that we have seen for this man. Even though originally, you know, there was some promise, but it's like you said, especially with the Gaza, you know, with the way that that has all come about, it does raise serious questions here about Russia, the way that Russia. And the problem with the schizophrenia of the Russia policy is that you can basically look into this whatever you want. And I know I'm dwelling on this, but it's very important if you follow the details. So on the one hand, we're shipping weapons and we're taking more hawkish views than Biden. On the other, we're now meeting with Putin. But listen, I agree. I agree.

I'm all for meeting, but all of the concrete policy has drifted in the wrong direction. We're shipping weapons, we're doing more sanctions, and we're basically demanding that Russia pull back, you know, from whatever it's Dynetsk or whatever province exactly that they want to fully control, along with the two capitals, which they say the Ukrainians need to withdraw from. At the same time, you know, we are not really doing much to quell the European and Ukrainian delusions that all their territory is ever coming back. Every day that the war continues, lose territory. This is an empirical fact. And you can look at the realities of the battlefield on the ground. We could ship them everything that we don't have strapped to the ground that

isn't going to start a nuclear war, and they would still lose. They would just lose slower. And so that's the question of like, why, what material interests does the United States have in all this? Well, and not only that, so the territory is one piece and one gigantic stumbling block. But then you also have to ask, okay, well, what were the underlying conditions that led to Russia's invasion? Of course. And this is, again, not to deny, Russia's agency. And that they shouldn't have done it and all of those sorts of things. But you also have to understand their perspective and what led to this aggressive action. And, you know, the NATO eastward expansion, the idea that Ukraine could be part of NATO,

our efforts to pull Ukraine into a European sphere versus having Ukraine be a neutral party. Those are the underlying conditions that led to this provocative and, yes, illegal action from Russia. So is the Trump administration going to be serious about dealing with this? those underlying conditions. You also, you know, we talk a lot about, and understandably so, okay, if we made a deal with Putin, can we trust Putin? They have to be asking the same question. Can they trust us? Yeah, of course. I mean, look at the way our country in general operates, not just under Donald Trump, but look specifically at how Donald Trump operates. There's no reason for them to trust us and our good faith in any negotiations. Just look at how

we've acted with, again, Israel. I was going to say with Iran also. In Iran, exactly. We used the pretext of diplomatic negotiations to launch an offensive, aggressive war against the Iranians. So why would any country in the world, and certainly not an adversarial, one like Russia, trust that we're coming to the table in good faith? So when we were talking about how much of a problem that was, that we used the pretext of diplomatic negotiations, it wasn't just about what the fallout would be with regard to Iran. It was also about how will we be able to approach these other high-stakes diplomatic negotiations and have anyone take our word for anything. So that also remains, you know, a major issue going into this TED attack with Trump's the

Putin. I said that so much at the time. I was like, does anybody understand what it means to use diplomatic negotiations as a ruse? I was like, by the way, Iran is smallball compared to Russia and to Ukraine. And I don't think that there's any mistake that Putin at every turn when Trump is like 50 days. He's like, yeah, okay, I'm just going to keep bombing Kiev. And then the next day, they're like 12 days. He's like, yeah, okay, I'm just going to keep bombing. He's like, what are you going to do about it? I'm a nuclear armed state with 9,500 nuclear war. warheads, go for it. You can put all the, you know, deals or whatever you want on the table. Here's the vice president talking about the issue recently in an interview. Let's take a listen.

Fundamentally, this is something where the president needs to force President Putin and President Zelensky, really to sit down to figure out their differences. We have a lot of economic points of leverage, and we're willing to use those to bring about peace. And that was a big thing that happened. To your point about weapons, what we said to the Europeans is simply, first of all, This is in your neck of the woods. This is in your back door. You guys have got to step up and take a bigger role in this thing. We're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business. We want to bring about a peaceful settlement to this thing. We want to stop the killing. But Americans, I think, are sick of continuing to send their money, their tax dollars to this particular conflict. But if the Europeans want to step up and actually buy the weapons from American producers, we're okay with that, but we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore. Great respect. That's the Biden policy, right? I mean, the Biden policy was just U.S. and Europeans. You know, remember the talking point of like, oh, it's going to be great for the U.S. economy? I'm like, oh, really? The defense dollars, of course, are widely distributed across our economy.

So we're dealing with that. We've also got Zelensky sounding off here. And look, I understand, you know, it's an emotional thing for the Ukrainians and for a lot of Ukraine supporters here in America. But you need to deal with reality. You're a small country. You're up against a nuclear-armed power. It's a non-NATO nation. There's no obligation for the United States to defend you. And you're drawing lines in the sand, which were ridiculous on the day that the war started and Crimea was already overtaken. And frankly, like, delusional in the year 2025.

But here's what Zelensky had to say in response. He says, quote, Ukraine is ready for final decisions that can bring peace. Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not achieve anything. These are still-born decisions. They are unworkable decisions. And we all need real and genuine peace.

that the people will respect, basically saying that anything that Ukraine does not sign off on is one that is completely bunk and will, of course, not stand up. Now, here's the issue, you know, with that is that, is that, again, I mean, it is completely delusional. Let me read here specifically from the Ukrainian and European counter-seas fire proposal. What they say is that in a joint statement from the Europeans, as well, from, you know, Germany, the UK, and France is all that any diplomatic end must protect Ukraine and Europe's security interests, but that specifically their ceasefire proposal, quote, crucially a European plan, which presented to all of the Americans, stipulates that any territorial concession by Kiev must

then be safeguarded by ironclad security guarantees, including, quote, potential NATO membership for Ukraine. And it just doesn't make any sense to give NATO membership for Ukraine in a war that started at least in part because of a NATO invitation for Ukraine to join. NATO. I already know, you know, the neocons and all these other people will get very upset about this. But like, look at the history of it. Ukraine has always been a linchpin of Russia's security strategy. I'm not saying it's legitimate. It just has been. It has been recognized from the beginning of the expansion of NATO by George Kennan, by Bill Burns, who was a previous CIA director under Joe Biden. They all said in writing, they're like, look, even expanding into the Baltics

is a problem. But Ukraine must always remain off the table. And then, If we look at the exact moment that U.S.-Russia relations completely flipped on a dime was when, the Munich Security Conference of 2007, that is very around the time that we invite Georgia and Ukraine to enter NATO. And what does Putin do in 2008? Does everybody remember who's like, what was it, Putin at the Beijing Olympics? I think in 2008, while the Russians march into Georgia. And now similarly here with Ukraine, where the Kamala and the Kamala and the Biden administration

were making a lot of steps towards actually formalizing Ukraine. train into NATO and then lo and behold, we got to find ourselves in a war. Not just justify the war, it's just reality. Hey guys, it's AZ Fud. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a people's princess, but now you're also going to know me as your favorite host.

Every week on my new podcast, Fud around and find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy light as I try to balance it all. from my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time. You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the fud family. So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV, you may think you know me. But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out. Listen to fud around and find out, a production of

Iheart women's sports and partnership with unanimous media on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Have you ever looked at a piece of abstract art or music or poetry and thought, that's just a bunch of pretentious nonsense? Well, that's exactly what two bored Australian soldiers set out to prove during World War II. When they pulled off what was either a bold literary hoax or a grand poetic experiment, publishing over a dozen intentionally bad but highly acclaimed works of expression. poetry under the name Earn Malley in an incident that caused a media firestorm and even a criminal trial. The Earn Malley episode made fools of believers and critics alike and still fascinates poetry lovers to this day. We break down the truth, the lies, and the poetry in between on hoax, a new podcast hosted by me, Lizzie Logan, and me, Dana Schwartz. Every episode, hoax explores

an audacious fraud or ruse from history, from forged artworks to the original fake news, to try an answer why we believe. Listen to hoax on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Stuff You Should Know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must listen podcasts on movies.

It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie Playlists. What Screamed Summer more than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater, and a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change

filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the stuff you should know summer movie playlist on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I understand the Ukrainians are like, well, how can we ever, you know, want peace? I'm like, listen, your victory is you get to live. You get to live to fight another. You get to keep 80% of your country. That's a decent deal considering all the amount of money and, you know, the amount of lives that everybody has expended. Yes, it's easy for me to say here from Washington, but we're the global superpower. We're the ones at the end of the day, you get to decide how the conflict ends. And, you know, if you want, otherwise, well, you know, get some nuclear weapons. I don't really know what else to say to you.

Zelensky, he's a serious problem. Yeah. No, he is a problem at this point. I mean, I think he has this Hollywood conception of like, you know, he's the main character and there's a glorious happy ending in which all the, you know, evil is vanquished and good prevails and he doesn't have to budge a single inch off his position. And, you know, Biden certainly fed into that delusion. Now, Trump has as well. You know, after the whole, like, bullying in the Oval Office, then Zelensky ends up getting all of the things that he ultimately wanted. And I think it speaks, too, to Trump's persona and the way he approaches these things. Like, I think he believed, you know, he thinks everything's like a freaking real estate negotiation.

And then you can just get in a room and you can, you know, get some rapport with the various players and figure out some kind of a deal that's going to work. And so he used his typical tactics of, like, public bluster. and, you know, the theatrical display in the Oval Office. And when that didn't work, now it's just kind of a mess. Like, it's hard to even say what the administration's position is. Remember the whole minerals deal? Like, whatever came of that.

What does that even mean in all of this going forward? Is that even a real thing? Who knows? So, yeah, I think it's a real wildcard. What could come out of this? But I'm not particularly hopeful, you know, just to set expectations. And I would love to be proven wrong. We'll see.

But the other piece is that it is very difficult to end worse. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. We saw what happened with Biden in the poloan of Afghanistan. It's a very difficult political thing to do. And you really have to lay a lot of groundwork, narrative groundwork, for the public to understand why the state of position of the American government of both administrations are basically like Ukraine's going to get everything and we're not going to give an inch, why you're going to end up with a result that is significantly different than that, why there are going to be so

many concessions after all of the support that we've given Ukraine over the years. And there also hasn't really been any narrative built to prepare people for that eventuality. I think Trump is intelligent enough to know that there are many likely deals that could be done with Russia that would be pretty unpalatable to the American public. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, you're absolutely right. This is a propagandistic thing, too, where you have to look at mass media. And this explains the Israel situation as well. If you watch Fox News, you know, Churchill and Zelensky are of the same ilk as like there's no difference between them. The Ukrainians are freedom fighters. The Russians are committing genocide. I mean, I'm not joking. This is literally what they say over there. And the most

politically palatable thing to do is to do exactly what we did with Afghanistan, which is just chunk as much money into the war for as long as humanly possible, slowly erode and the mission continues to fail, but everybody just kind of moves on with their life because I don't want to deal with reality. And, you know, that, by the way, includes many of the Ukrainians. Let's go and put A7, please, up on the screen, because this is very important, and this is from very recently, Ukraine's support for its own war effort is collapsing. And this is very similar to the Afghan situation where the people who actually have to do the fighting are like, yeah, I'm not so sure about this. Like, look, we'll take your money, you know, that pays for a lot of nice condos in

Dubai, but for the rest of it, not so sure. So check this out. Ukraine's appetite for the war and support of a negotiated peace. Back in 2022, some 22% said that Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible, just 22%. Today, that is 69% of Ukrainians. This is the Gallup poll. And only 24% said, quote, Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war, whereas in 2022, it was some 73%. And that's because the reality of combat and also of what the war is setting in. 60-year-olds are now being allowed

to join the Ukrainian war effort. 60-year-olds are now with no age limit whatsoever on the number of people in. Millions of the country have fled. The richest and most powerful Ukrainians are not fighting in this war. They're long gone. I saw them in the hotels in Budapest

and in Vienna. They're living in the high life. Don't worry. And a lot of them still. are actually printed money off of the corruption from the U.S. money that continues to flow into the country. By the way, if you want to find out about that corruption, good luck to you. Let's go ahead and put A9, please, on the screen. You know, again, the Western media basically ignored it. You know, there are a few stories here every once in a while, but Ukraine's, quote,

new anti-corruption law led to the biggest protests in Ukraine since the beginning of the war. Why? Because the parliament and Zelensky both approved legislation, quote, restoring the independence of the country's two main anti-corruption bodies, but in reality, what it did is that inside Zelensky and others basically allowed the, they basically allowed new laws to go into place where you had the anti-corruption watchdogs come under attack. They've reversed some of them, but the point is that it was seen as a widely authoritarian law to cover up much of the corruption for allegedly this democratic, haven, you know, in Europe, which, you know, not only was the most corrupt country in all of Europe

before the outbreak of the war, but Zelensky himself, of course, has canceled elections. He has huge opposition, actually, inside of the country. And worst of all, actually, is that if you did want some sort of end to the war, is that back in 2022, Ukraine passed a piece of legislation through its parliament, basically saying that any, you know, quote, negotiation or surrender or whatever has to be approved by referendum. But of course, the circumstances of the referendum are up to the government and, of course, in the warning in the way that it would all go out. So the government and all of them have plenty of tools available to them to nix any sort of deal. And then what can they say? They're like, oh, we tried. Our people won't go for it. And then what's America

going to do? Trump at the end of the day, like you said, he's not going to cut them off. He just thinks it'll be politically unpalatable. It probably will be, to be, to be honest. And so that leads to what? You know, just the continuation of the war. And, you know, if you're actually horrified by the violence and the killing, well, then you actually want to bring it to an end, and that will require something actually quite unpalatable. We could get there if media had reported it properly, and also if the government had had a consistent narrative from day one on Ukraine, but they haven't. They're all over the place. They are all over the place. So we'll watch it closely, see, you know, if there are any positive indications out of this. But, you know,

there's not a lot of, not a lot of groundwork that has been laid to create the likelihood of a positive outcome is how I would put it. Afghanistan was the same way. I mean, it's like it snuck up on everybody because nobody was paying attention. And everybody just assumed, ah, they'll kick the can down the road and they're not actually going to do it. Biden finally was like, no, I'm not going to do it. We're out. And, you know, you all saw how that worked. So it's not good. It's not good the way that this all works. And of course, you know that if they have to give, if Ukraine has to give up even one scrap of eastern Ukraine, Fox News, CNN and all these other people are going to be united and how this is the greatest travesty since Munich. And then what will that lead to? More boomer

support and, of course, more pressure over at the White House from the guy who only watches Fox News to get his feeling on the pulse. And who put way too many neocons in his administration also. And who has no ideological core himself and is very much buffeted by whoever is in his ear at that moment. Absolutely. Hey, guys, it's AZ Fudd. You may know me as a gold medalist.

You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a people's princess, but now you're also going to know me as your favorite host. Every week on my new podcast, fud around and find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy light as I try to balance it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time. You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the FUD family. So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV,

you may think you know me. But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out. Listen to Fud Around and Find Out, a production of IHart Women's Sports and partnership with Unanimous Media on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Have you ever looked at a piece of abstract art or music or poetry and thought, that's just a bunch of pretentious nonsense? Well, that's exactly what two bored Australian soldiers set out to prove during World War II

when they pulled off what was either a bold literary hoax or a grand poetic experiment, publishing over a dozen intentionally bad but highly acclaimed works of expressionist poetry under the name Earn Malley in an incident that caused a media firestorm and even a criminal trial. The Earn Malley episode made fools of believers and critics alike and still fascinates poetry lovers to this day. We break down the truth, the lies, and the poetry in between on hoax, a new podcast hosted by me, Lizzie Logan, and me, Dana Schwartz. Every episode, hoax explores an audacious fraud or ruse from history, from forged artworks to the original fake news, to try and answer why we believe. Listen to hoax on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The stuff you should know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must listen podcasts, on movies. It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know Summer movie playlist. What Screams Summer? More than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater, and a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie playlist on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Let's get to society. So this is one we've been wanting to talk about for a while.

a meme online, we live in a society. And so the question is, what kind of society do we live in? Seems like an important question to ponder. John Byrne Murdoch, who is one of the best journalists out there. He's like the data correspondent over at the Financial Times. What he does is he goes deep into survey data from all across the world and also here in America. And he's like, all right, well, how do people feel or have views about different things? He's talked about gender. This time he's talking about conscientiousness. So let's go and put this up there on the screen. This is how, quote, how young adults' personalities are changing with conscientiousness in freefall, quote, values as expressed at percentiles of the full population distribution from how it

stood in 2014 to today. So what he demonstrates is that younger Americans, and specifically people 16 to 39, have had a drop in conscientiousness from 2014, which was hovering around like 45 percent or so, to sub 30, a dramatic and precipitous decline that includes both younger. Americans and also 40 to 59-year-olds, so older millennials and Gen X. Boomers seem relatively flat. Neuroticism, however, has skyrocketed from above baseline in 2014 for younger Americans to sky-high levels of some 70%. Agreeableness has actually, again, amongst younger Americans, was already below baseline, continues to go down. And then similar dramatic drop in

extraversion, actually amongst all three age groups. So that is the COVID effect. That's technology. All of this together really just shows the consequences of people increasingly spending the vast majority of their time on the internet. And let's go to the next one, please, shall we? Because you see this actually in the way that it's expressed in social outcomes. So here, for example, you have people making plans and following through. Massive drop in the 16 to 39 demographic. Perseverees until finished. Massive drop in the 16 to 39.

Quote is easily distracted. lo and behold, massive increase amongst the 1639 demographic, and then, quote, can be careless a similar increase. Now, people might ask, like, how exactly you measure these things. It's a fair question. We'll get to that here in a second. But the very last part here about extroversion and about personality traits is fascinating. So this is about extroversion and trust are in major decline. If you classify outgoing, you actually see a massive drop amongst all three age demographics. you see a especially precipitous drop in, quote, is helpful to others, is trusting, massive decline, and then starts arguments, actually a major increase there for everybody.

So the personality, basically, that is being encouraged by the internet, by COVID, by our economy, etc. It all comes together. It is one that is largely, you know, singular, alone, spending a lot of time on the internet. In the neuroticism, you can see, you know, getting things that are kind of bad for your psychology and for your worldview serve to you in an algorithmic basis. And then one which does not encourage social contact and specifically like good relations interpersonally. And I think that's probably the most important social story of the 2020s. Gasoline poured on the fire by COVID and the social isolation. Yeah, I think that's right. I think to me, the internet is an accelerator

of trends that were already pre-exist. Because if you look back, I mean, bowling alone. Right, is the perfect example. Was I written in 94? Early 90s. Yeah, and Robert Putnam took a look at all of these metrics. I really still recommend that people read that book. That was a great book. Because it documents pre-internet how we were already coming apart in these ways

where civic associations and community participation and the way we participate in politics went from being, you know, in-person collective to individualize and increasingly sort of on the sidelines, right? So that trend has just been accelerated and lit on fire by the social media age and our ability to, you know, be completely alone and still have this semblance of like we're doing something like we're connecting with people, but we're not really connecting with people. And there's some more stats to back that up that we'll get to in just a moment. I think it speaks to a lot of things. I mean, I think it speaks to that is sort of the underlying ideology. I mean, not sort of.

It is the underlying ideology, really, of our entire system, this very individualistic, neoliberal era view of, like, yourself and your rights and, you know, your aspirations and your goals first. And so when you have that in the bloodstream of society for years and years and years and years, no one should be surprised when it's expressed in these sorts of outcomes. I think it also is a reflection of people's sense that the collective projects we've tried to engage in have sort of failed. Ryan and I've talked before, I think we've talked before too, about how there are echoes of the early 70s. When you had these big social movements in the 60s, there's the sense that they don't amount to what they wanted them to amount to, and everybody, instead of continuing to engage in these collective projects, then a lot of the counterculture gets subsumed by mass media, by mass.

advertisements, and people go back to the land into these little individualistic, like, let's go live on a commune project. And you can see echoes of this and, like, you know, they're similar sort of like back to the land, mostly on the right actually movements. Maha is kind of, Maha is like an expression of that instead of we're not going for Medicare for all anymore. Now we're just going to try to, we're going to like try to do these little individual changes.

We're going to go into the like health influencer culture and make it all about the individual pursuit of, okay, well, what can I do since these collective pursuits have largely failed? So I think that sort of dovetails into these statistics as well. But, you know, it's not good. No, it's bad. Trying to raise kids and you being a new dad, you look at these trends. And, you know, I listen to like some of the content that, you know, my son in particular is consuming on YouTube. And it's like, this is, this is really, this is really pushing us in a very atomized, divided direction where you really don't even end up with a society at the end of the day. It's crazy. So I read a lot of books about early Washington and about how it all worked

and even early social life. The amount of socialization that people did back in the day is crazy. I'm talking about five to six nights a week, which I can't even imagine right now. I mean, that was the show. But apparently the predecessors of the 1950s and 60s, they were hanging out all the time, all the time. And in fact, what you had, was a scenario where the television, yes, it existed, but it was just three networks and the nightly news was only 30. Can you imagine all of the news in the world delivered in 30 minutes? So you had a lot of time to fill your day.

People read a lot more, and they also just talked a lot more. They would come together. People played cards, bowling alone is a perfect example. But socialization was massive and also intra-socialization in different neighborhoods. I literally don't even know my neighbor's name. I don't know him. But, I mean, he doesn't have any children. So it's like, well, do I even particularly need to know who he is?

And then most of them are actually older. They're all like 65 plus. But my point broadly is just that you don't really have a scenario where the, you have like either forced or encouraged social norms around polite conversation around getting people to know each other. This is a painting with a very broad brush. I live in one of the most urban environments in the United States. That's going to be very different than a suburb in, you know, Illinois or something like that. I'm sure some of it still exists. But broadly, you see it on the decline.

Internet is an accelerant to it, like you said. Television was kind of gen 1 of all of this. I remember reading a study. I think it's like in 98 people were watching 6 to 8 hours of TV per day. I mean, it's the same thing, though, is that anything that kind of keeps you from distraction or keeps you from going outside or engaging in different things is broadly going to encourage atomization. You know, another thing, I saw this fascinating new discussion around houses about how, you know, if you look at the houses most fetishized today, they're kind of the 2000s and, you know,

MTV, you know, what was it like, what the crib show? I forget exactly. Oh, yeah. It was called. Cribs. All right. So at that time, though, these are the new McMansions, 5,500 square feet with a movie theater and all a bar, backyard. And the point that somebody made was, is that as America becomes more isolated, people take all the old social experiences and then want to put them in their own home so they never have to leave. I was like, wow, I never thought about that, but it actually seems very true, is that we're taking all the stuff that people used to do on the outside and basically trying to put it on the inside. I understand on an interpersonal level why you may want all that because you don't want to leave. It's kind of annoying, especially it's also very expensive. But that's my point is just that, like, the culture is moving to, moving much more away from polite conversation, from engaging in society. And of course, the economy has a huge part to play in it. I was actually looking at movie ticket prices. It used to be quite affordable back in the 70s and in the 80s. Yeah. And in the 80s, nowadays, forget about it. What is it? You know, $15, $20 just to see a single movie on top of popcorn or any of those other things. And the luxury movie experience. Yeah, oh, man. You know, a little draft house and all that's nice. Yeah, oh, it's nice. Also very expensive. Exactly. Yeah, when I was a kid growing up, we actually had a dollar movie theater, maybe 30 minutes for my house. And it wasn't the new movies, but it was like, you know, ones that were like a season behind. And that's where we always went. And, you know, family of five and pay five bucks for tickets plus tax, sneak in your, my car. can I extend your purse from the Dollar General store and you're good to go. And that, you know,

that opportunity does not exist. In fact, the trend is all in the other direction because the people who have money are, you know, where advertisers or where companies want to serve to. And so increasingly, you know, it's consolidating the luxury end of the market because you want to tap the people who have the largest amount of wealth. You know, I think, too, about in terms of public policy because some of this is culture, but a lot of culture is driven from the top. And, you know, in the New Deal era, you did have this, you had a collective project going on, and you had so much building of, like, public parks. I mean, the parks that you and I still love and use, the national parks, you know,

the state parks that were built out, Virginia, has some fantastic state parks. Like, so many of those public communal amenities were built in a previous era. And so, of course, if those, like, public facilities are not going to be, you know, provided for you in the community, then increasingly you're going to be turning to, okay, well, then I have to pay to go to this private, you know, private pool or I have to have it in my own house and, you know, bring people in to my own or just engage in that on my own time. So I think those sorts of public policy choices also make a big difference. Actually went down a weird rabbit hole. They're building in Manhattan, I think it's in Manhattan, a pool that, like, is all. on the river uses river the river water. It looks amazing.

It's like an Olympic-sized pool. It's a really cool design. And they have this filtration system to clean the river water. So not only are you filling the pool, but then that clean water goes into the river to refurbish the river as well. And I went down this deep dive of they used to have tons

of these pools in New York City. It was like a whole thing in the early 1900s of building pools in the river and building pools in general like bath houses. And there was this whole citywide project of we need to make sure we have public facilities for people to be able to use. And, you know, it was, it was very successful in terms of providing people with resources. And again, we're still sort of like drawing on those resources to this day.

And, you know, that's one area where I think we really need to reinvest in those sorts of publicly available facilities that actually do bring people together and that aren't expensive. In our town, the YMCA, which is, you know, it's not a state-funded institution, but it's made to be lower cost and supported by donations and whatever, sort of serves that purpose, but there needs to be so much more of that to try to get people out of their homes and try to bring communities back together because it makes a big difference. I mean, I live in the same town where I grew up, and just over the course of that time, it still has that small town vibe of you see, you know, the parents that are, you know, at your kid's school, and the school certainly serves as like a hubble. of activity. But it isn't, it's larger. That's one thing. But it also, it doesn't have the same level of cohesiveness that it did when I was a kid where I literally knew like, this person's in that house, this person's that. I know the kid. I know their brother. I know their parents. Like the whole bit. It's just not quite the same as it was. It makes sense. I mean, that's where

public safety also comes in, where bigger cities, you know, if you don't feel safe, then you're going to exit from a lot of these public spaces. They get taken over by the bottom 1%. So that's a big problem, you need higher trust in society. Let's go ahead and put this B5 please up on the screen because this is indicative of the internet portion of all of this. This is by far the biggest social internet transformation of my lifetime, is that meta says that most of the time on Facebook and Instagram is just spent watching videos. Only 7% of the time on Instagram and 17% of time on Facebook involves consuming content from friends. Now if you're old, like me, and you're 33, Well, the Facebook of my youth was the news feed, which was just of your friends, the idea that anything not involving your friends on there, it would be preposterous.

You would spend 100% of your time engaging with your friends' content, same with the early Instagram. It was just a way to share photos, the photo dumps on early Facebook, you know, where people would upload hundreds of photos from the night before people would tag each other. It was actually like a real game. Even photo, Facebook events and groups and other types of things were used as like social things. you start parties, whatever. That is just not how people engage with social media anymore. It's not about content developed by your friends. It's about content developed by others, hence the rise of the so-called influencer culture.

In some ways, it makes sense, is that your friends are probably not very good at making engaging content. But if you take the entire world and you have them create content, the top 1% will be consumed by the bottom 99%. That makes sense at an engagement level. It doesn't mean that it's good in terms of engaging with other. other people. It used to be a way to see what your friends are up to. And now it's just a way to continue watching short form video on whatever platform of your choice. Or creating your own personal brand that you can monetize. Yeah, I mean, I'm guilty of this, right? My Instagram account. Yeah. This is our job. Exactly. My Instagram account used to be like my personal Instagram account

and now it's, you know, basically just for professional purposes. What do you got to do? You got to exist in the world. But it's still one of those watching the way that that has shifted over time is one, which at a societal-wide level is really bad for just encouraging intrapersonal engagement. I don't really know how it looks, but what it actually just tells me, and I don't know which way is causal, is whether the social media use reflects personal preferences or personal preferences shaped by that, is that at the end of the day, it discourages socialization. And that's bad. Yeah.

No, I mean, there's a literal monetary incentive to creating content that's not for, not just like interacting with friends, but it's for the world. And, you know, those incentives are created by the platform, but I think also as an expression of this increasingly individualized society and the obsession with individual pursuits that, you know, the personality trends reflect as well. Totally agree. All right. Let's get to the next part. Hey, guys, it's AZ Fudd. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a people's princess. But now, you're all right. also going to know me as your favorite host. Every week on my new podcast, Fud Around and Find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy life as I try to balance

it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time. You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the Fudd family. So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV, you may think you know me. But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out. Listen to fud around and find out, a production of IHeart women's sports and partnership with unanimous media. On the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

In 1920, a magazine article announced something incredible. Two young girls had photographed real fairy. But even more extraordinary than the magazine article's claim was the identity of the man who wrote the article, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the man who wrote Sherlock Holmes. Yes, the man who invented literature's most brilliant detective was fooled by two girls into thinking fairies were real. How did they do it? And why does it seem like so many smart people keep falling for outlandish tricks? These are the questions we explore in hoax, a new podcast from me, Dana Schwartz, the host of Noble Blood. And me, Lizzie Logan.

Every episode will explore one of the most audacious and ambitious tricks in history, from the fake Shakespeare's to balloon boys, and try to answer the question of why we believe what we believe. Listen to hoax on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Stuff You Should Know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must listen podcasts on movies. It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie Playlist. What Screams Summer? More than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater, and a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie playlist on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast,

or wherever you listen to podcasts. So we recently received the news that Israel murdered five Al Jazeera journalists, among them Anas al-Sharif, who was a very well-known correspondent for Al Jazeera. Joining us now to discuss his work and this all-out assault on journalists is Sharif Abd al-Qudas. He is the Mina editor for DropSight News. Great to see you, Sharif. Good to see you. Thank you for having me.

Yeah, of course. So you interviewed Anas back several. months back, I remember reading this piece, we can put this up on the screen actually about what it had been like for him covering this genocide. You say Israel's genocide in Gaza every day for 11 straight months. What was it like interacting with him? And what did you make of the comments he made at that time in his legacy that he's left behind? You know, there are no words. I don't know what to say anymore. You know, words aren't enough at this point. Action is required. words did not save Anna Sashidif and his colleagues.

And there's a certain level of brazenness now that how Israel is killing these journalists. And I just want to tell people the other journalists' names. So Israel bombed the media tent opposite, just outside of Shafah Hospital, intentionally killing Annesa Shedif. And Mohamed Kareka, who was also a correspondent for Al Jazeera,

and camera operators, Ibrahim Zohar, Moukman Alewa, and Mohamed Nufal. And there was a sixth journalist also killed who worked for an outlet called Sahat, who's Mohamed al-Khaladi. You know, Enos, he was at just 28 years old, he was probably the most prominent Palestinian journalist who was still alive and still in Gaza reporting, a face recognizable across the Arab world and internationally. He remained in the north throughout the entire 22-month genocidal assault, one of just a handful of journalists who never left the north.

And he was a near constant presence on television, online, reporting almost every day on airstrikes, shelling, massacres, displacement, famine, death, dismemberment. And whenever he could, on glimpses of hope and resilience, Palestinian resilience. And Israel assassinated him. Anas's last tweet to his more than 560,000 followers just before he was killed. He said, relentless bombardment for two hours, the Israeli aggression has intensified on Gaza City. And we know that Israel's security cabinet approved Netanyahu's plan to take control of Gaza City. In the latest escalation of this genocide. Barely an hour earlier before he was killed, he warned about this. He said,

Israel's planning a full-scale invasion of Gaza City. And I'm just going to quote, he said, if this madness does not end, Gaza will be reduced to ruins. Its people's voices silenced, their faces erased, and history will remember you as silent witnesses to a genocide you chose not to stop. And he said silence as complicity. And barely an hour later, he's killed. And it's not just silence. I mean, the world's governments, corporations, media elites have not just stood by as Israel is committing these acts of genocide. They have enabled it. You know, there's now 238 journalists killed, according to the government media office in Gaza, 238. These journalists have been bombed. They've been shot. They've been burned alive. They've been decapitated. They've been taunted and targeted. And that's not to mention the journalists wounded, the journalists in prison, the journalists who made this impossible decision to leave Gaza because life was no longer sustainable there. And in a very, very real way, the only reason we know about what is happening in Gaza is because of Palestinian reporters.

Yeah. Who are performing the most heroic act of journalism we will see in our lifetimes. Yeah. And they're being intentionally slaughtered and intentionally targeted for this. And the Israeli military, I have to remind people, Israeli military was openly and publicly threatening. And he said this in the interview, I did with him, openly and publicly threatening Anasashirif for months.

Back in November of 2023, he reported receiving calls from Israeli officers, telling him to seize his coverage, telling him to leave the north and go south, getting location messages on his WhatsApp as threats you know they bombed his after he got those location threats they bombed his house in Jabalya killing his 90-year-old father and the threats only escalated from there last October

he was one of six Al Jazeera journalists that Israel put on what is essentially a hit list saying that they're all militants and taunting them online one of them was Hossam Shabbat, who used to report for drop site, and he was assassinated in March. And the Israeli military boasted about his killing and said, quote, don't let the press vest fool you. And then the Israeli military continued

to openly threaten Ennis, especially in the last couple of weeks, Ennis himself repeatedly called on the world to do something. Just a couple of weeks ago, he posted that he was being threatened and he said this is an attempt to silence us to cover up a genocide unfolding in real time. And he said, quote, I call on international officials, human rights defenders, and global media

to speak out and share this message. Your voice can help stop the targeting of journalists and protect the truth. Wow. Shereem, I mean, one of the things that has been hypothesized here is that Anas was killed largely because right now is when Israel is moving into Gaza City.

And we also want to highlight, you know, what you said there, about the number of journalists who have actually been killed. Can we put C4, please, up on the screen just to show everybody the context and the number of journalists who have been killed here in this conflict? And you can just see it's overwhelming, you know, in terms of the Gaza war compared to Ukraine, the war in Afghanistan, the Yugoslav wars in Vietnam. It's unprecedented in modern history and particularly, you know, by a so-called civilized nation. Yeah, I mean, I think Israel essentially yesterday wiped out Al Jazeera's Gaza City correspondent. and crew and journalistic crew ahead of this, what is expected to be a horrific invasion of Gaza City to ethnically cleanse Gaza City and displace, forcibly displace everyone there again to the south.

And, you know, losing Ennis and losing these other journalists, we are going to know less about what is happening as this is unfolding. And, yeah, there's something also just so horrific that journalists like Enas and Hussam Shabbat, who used to report for drop site, he pre-wrote a message anticipating his death that he knew would be published after he was killed. Can you imagine working in these circumstances? He's 28 years old. Knowing you're going to be killed and knowing that the world is likely not going to stop it. And in his message, he says some very important things. He says that he was born in Jabalia, the refugee camp. He reminds people that he dreamed that his family could return to their land and home

that they were expelled from in 1948 in what is now at the Israeli town of Ashkelon or al-Majdal. He reminds people that most Palestinians in Gaza are not from Gaza, the refugees. And then he writes of the suffering that he bore witness to and that he also in endured. And he again, you know, kind of points the finger at the world that watched this happen and is watching this happen and is allowing it to happen. And those were those were his final words to the world. And he said, you know, don't forget us. And when I spoke to him and asked him, you know, he sent like a 10-minute voice note response. His voice was wary but firm. And, you know, I asked him, why did you keep doing this?

And he said, I'll also quote from him, I'm sorry I'm quoting so much from him, but I think his words are important. He said, maybe the world won't act, maybe the world won't help us, but there might be a motive to stop this war. Every time I document a massacre or event or bombing, I think that maybe through this bombing or this image that the war could stop and this war could end, this drives us to continue in our coverage to our last breath. And he did it to his last breath. Well, and we know Israel considered him dangerous. That's why they, and the information he was sharing with the world dangerous. That's why they assassinated him and his four colleagues working for Al Jazeera. And the other thing that's really discussed to me, Sharif, is the way that Western media has given Israel a pass.

They have not stood in solidarity with these Palestinian journalists. There have been pieces, you know, think pieces written about, well, do they even really count as journalists? You know, so much credence given to consistent Israeli claims that, oh, Well, they're really Hamas, which is preposterous. Like, you can see this guy out there doing his job literally every single day. At what point does he have time to go and be a Hamas militant alongside live streaming his own, you know, genocide and ultimately murder at the hands of the Israelis every single day? So that's been one of the things that's really disgusted me. And there's been a consistent drumbeat, too, of Israel needs to let in the Western journalists.

And unfortunately, I think because of, you know, anti-Iraim and anti-Palestinian racist. I do think that those images being shared by Western journalists may have more of an impact, but it shouldn't be that way. There are journalists in Palestine. There are journalists in Gaza. It just happens that most of them are Palestinian. So they're dismissed and their work is minimized or called into question as to their motives by oftentimes by liberal Western media figures.

Look, I mean, I think international journalists should absolutely be allowed into Gaza, not because we can question at all the veracity and the strength of reporters in Palestine in Gaza who are doing this. But for two reasons. One is to shoulder the labor of covering this war. They are covering this genocide absolutely by themselves. And I think it's incumbent on international journalists. help them in this coverage. The second thing is, because of this racism, because of the way that Western media institutions and Western governments see Palestinian journalists, foreign journalists going in will act as a shield in a certain way, as a shield to people

in Gaza, as a shield to Palestinian journalists. And I think that's why they need to go in. The reaction to Ennis's killing, I am still somehow shocked by it, even though I shouldn't be after so long by Western media institutions. The National Press Club called for a thorough and transparent examination of the circumstances surrounding Ennis's death. What on earth does that mean? They're putting out a boilerplate statement calling for an investigation. Israel openly, publicly threatened him for months.

They bombed the tent he was in, and then they took credit for it and bragged about it. What investigation are you talking about? Reuters, the headline of Reuters, is Israel kills Al Jazeera journalist, it says, was Hamas leader. And then it goes on to quote, to quote the Israeli military saying, you know, he was responsible for advancing rocket attacks or some of this, you know, preposterous claims. This is making this, it's enabling Israel to do this.

And if we look, there's been a progression of brazenness of how Israel kills journalists in Palestine. In the beginning, they would deny that they killed them or they would say it's collateral damage or that there was some mistake. Then they started claiming that the journalists were in fact militants after they killed them. They did this with Hamzah Dhaboah in January 24. They produced some ridiculous documents claiming he's a Hamas militant or Islamic Jihad, I don't remember. Then they continued to step it up. They created this hit list in October. And they put six Al Jazeera journalists and basically saying openly we're going to kill them and now they've killed two of them. You know, they went even further in April. They targeted one of the most

prominent journalists in Gaza. His name was Hassan Islayer. They bombed him in a very similar way to the bombing they did yesterday. They bombed a media tent, but this one outside of Nassar Hospital and Khan Yunus. They killed two journalists. One was burned alive and the other died. But the journalists they were trying to kill, Hassan, he was wounded. Very badly, he was burned. He lost two of his fingers. He was recovering inside the hospital. They bombed the hospital and killed him. They bombed an injured journalist a month later, barely a month later, and killed him. Wow. And then openly admitted to it. So they're becoming more brazen about it, openly admitted to it because they know there will be zero consequences. No, that's what they do. They push the limit. They might get some

words of condemnation, but the money, the weapons, the support, and the coverage by most Western media outlets will allow this to happen. That's right. That's right. No, that's what they do. They test the limits and every time what they found is they can get away with literally anything. Shereef, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it. Appreciate it, ma'am. Thank you for having me. Hey, guys, it's AZ Fudd. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a People's Princess, but now You're also going to know me as your favorite host.

Every week on my new podcast, Fud around and find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy life as I try to balance it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time.

You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the Fud family. So if you follow me on social news, or watch me on TV, you may think you know me.

But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out. Listen to fud around and find out, a production of IHeart women's sports and partnership with unanimous media on the IHartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. In 1920, a magazine article announced something incredible. Two young girls had photographed real fairies. But even more extraordinary than the magazine article's claim was the identity of the man who wrote the article, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the man who wrote Sherlock Holmes. Yes, the man who invented literature's most brilliant detective was fooled by two girls into thinking fairies were real. How did they do it?

And why does it seem like so many smart people keep falling for outlandish tricks? These are the questions we explore in hoax, a new podcast from me, Dana Schwartz, the host of Noble Blood. And me, Lizzie Logan. Every episode will explore one of the most audacious and ambitious tricks in history, from the fake Shakespeare's to balloon boys, and try to answer the question of why we believe what we believe. Listen to hoax on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Stuff You Should Know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must listen podcasts on movies. It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know Summer movie playlist. What Screams Summer?

More than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater, and a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie playlist on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. So the head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, gave a couple of interviews, a long one with the New York Times, which caught a lot of attention.

But the first clip we want to start with was actually from a different interview where he expresses concern over intermarriage. Let's take a listen to that. But like this is why we need a revolution in our community on so many levels. So look, the reality is that intermarriage rates continue to go up,

assimilation continues apace. And look, I fight anti-semitism. That is my job. But I worry a great deal about broader questions of Jewish identity, as I think we talked about over lunch. So concerned about intermarriage, which is interesting, because if we put this next piece up on the screen,

remember, ADL is supposed to be a civil rights organization. This is from their website concerning over white supremacists who fear and hate the concept of multiracial couples, relationships, or families believe that such relationships pollute the pure white race. As a result, a fairly common white supremacist symbol depicts a multiracial couple or family with a red circle or bar superimposed over the depiction,

indicating that such relationships ought to be prohibited. So, yeah, I don't know what to tell you. My commentary on this was, I think it just should be abundantly clear at this point that if you are committed to sort of like basic liberal, classical liberal values, Zionism and classical liberal values cannot coexist, and that relationship has become increasingly untenable. And when you see comments like this, I think it underscores that fact.

Well, I mean, there's so much to say about it, which is fascinating. So first of all, is it okay to say? That's actually a very interesting debate. And so I was talking about it with some Jewish friends. And they're like, listen, even though it's green, black, this is a very common sentiment in the Jewish community. And I was like, okay, so let's talk about that. Why? And it's like, well, we're concerned about Jewish identity, and we'd want to make sure that the Jewish story of the last 6,000 years gets carried on. I said, okay, I think that's entirely reasonable for, let's say, a Jewish rabbi or others to talk about. Now, even in terms of actualizing it in America, I think it's a big problem, but I'll return to that. But John Greenblatt is

talking about this in the context of support for Israel. And actually, really what he's saying is that people who are half-Jews or people who marry outside of their religion are not real Jews, and thus they are polluting support for Israel in America. And that's what I find actually deeply distasteful and really gross. This is, let's all be honest, this is a common sentiment amongst recent immigrant arrival communities in the United States. It was common amongst the Irish back in the 1900s, common amongst the Italians. Intermarriage between the two was seen as sacrilegious, especially with the Protestants, Lithuanian, Slovenians, Eastern Europeans, et cetera.

Obviously, it took a while and everybody pretty much got over it. It's common today amongst the Indian community. It's common amongst the Muslim community. It's common. Any ethnic subgroup, especially one which is like tightly controlled value, Chinese Americans, I'm sure Japanese Americans, I'm sure had the same story. And then, of course, over five, six generations, then he's kind of peter out. The problem that I find in it, and this is returning to your liberal story, is that it is one fundamentally,

which is talking about the preservation of like Jewish identity. In his particular case, Zionism and support for Israel in the United States and not wanting to basically, quote, assimilate, which he says is a bad thing, into the broader American project and story. I think that's really bad. People have the right to do what they want. But in terms of what we should say is part of the so-called melting pot, et cetera, is not one which actively goes out of its way to say that ethnic subgroups,

And in this particular one, one which he wants to preserve for loyalty and support for a foreign state, is quite literally the subversion that Theodore Roosevelt talked about, hyphenated American in his speech on hyphenated Americanism back in the early 1900s. And that's the big problem that I have broadly with what he's saying. Because he is talking about it in the context of support for Israel. And that is one where, by the way, if you're Jewish, you should be so insulted by this because you're basically saying, hey, don't go and marry some filthy goy, you know, and to make sure that your kids are going to grow up to be pro Hamas. You know, it's like, well, you know, last I checked, the passport says American. That's the only thing that's supposed to matter. But of course, and that's not

what they think. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is controversial at this point, but I am a big believer in the melting pot. And I think, like, intermarriage is actually a big part of that. Now, like, everybody can have their own individual preferences and desires and for their own family and what they want to do in their own lives. But again, what makes it a big issue is when this is the head of a civil rights organization, an American civil rights organization decrying intermarriage. That, to me, is problem. And again, exposes the tension between Zionist values and liberal values of equality.

Let's go ahead to the next one. And so this was as part of an interview with Lulu. I always forget her last name, but over at the New York Times, they did a lengthy interview. I actually would encourage you to go and listen to it because it is very interesting. In any case, she presses him a bit on, okay, what do you say to people who say that what Israel is doing is a genocide? What do you think about that? And he claims he doesn't really know about it. He doesn't really know the definition shortly after talking about how clarity of words is so important as the head of the ADL.

Let's go ahead and take a listen to that. I do feel that my job requires me to have a kind of moral clarity. And on the use of words? On the use of words? I do think what's happening in Gaza is a terrible, catastrophic situation. I don't think it's a genocide because that's a legal definition, which means an intentional effort. And I don't have the dictionary in front of me, but an intentional. Okay, what does it say?

I mean, it's a UN, right, we should say it's a legal definition. and it says any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups, such as killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. In fairness, I don't have that definition in front of me, right?

and I haven't read it like you have before this. But what I'll simply say is that I don't believe the Israeli government is committing genocide. I mean, it's just incredible. At first thing, I was like, well, I haven't looked at the definition. Okay, well, here's the definition. Well, I don't have it in front of me.

And I haven't really thought about it. It's like, yes, how could you have not thought about it? And then there's no, well, here's why I don't think the Israeli government. Here's why I don't, here's what the definition. Here's why I don't think it fits. It's just, nah, I don't believe that. Next question. Look, I mean, again, you know, it's one thing I think, you know, I've argued here before about the legitimacy of the international law.

I think it's fake, and that's part of why I think a lot of these terms are just, like, not particularly useful. But Greenblatt, if your entire worldview is that the genocide, the Holocaust of the Jewish people is the foundation for why you need the ADL in America and the existence of the state of Israel, then, yeah, you probably should think quite a lot about the term in genocide. and what is or is not a genocide. I actually should go and check their record on the, quote, Armenian genocide or any of these, Rwandan genocide, right? I mean, if you go, for example, if you go to the Holocaust Museum

here in Washington, D.C., they literally sell like never again merch, and they have stuff which highlights the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian genocide, like the mass murder of ethnic subgroups of people that's built in to the Holocaust Museum here in Washington, D.C.

So it's a ridiculous thing to say that the ADL or any of these prominent Jewish organizations have not thought about the term when they're the ones who invented the term basically used the term as some sort of legal architecture from the UN Genocide Conventions in 1948 inventing the never again

in the R2P doctrine of the 1990s, which was born of the Rwandan genocide. So my point is just like for him to just sit there now all of a sudden want to like part to every little word. It's like, dude, you just sound just like the people. It's like the Turks today who are arguing whether the Armenian genocide was a genocide or not. I'm like, okay, that's part of the reason, by the way. I find the term very tedious sometimes because it's like, okay, did you murder hundreds of thousands of them or not? Like, what are we talking about here?

You know, yes. The answer is yes, just so everybody is clear. I'm sure this will be clip by the Armenians. We should, we should, you guys can go when watchogger and I's disagreements about genocide and why I think that term is actually really important and very consequential specifically in this context. But Greenblatt's answer here really actually relates back to his stance on intermarriage because Zionism is an ideology of Jewish supremacism. That's what it is. It says it justifies the idea that Jewish people in Israel should have different rights,

should have more rights, should reign supreme in that state, and they should be able to directly oppress Palestinians both within their. the original Israeli borders, and, you know, they've completely now subjugated people in both the West Bank and in Gaza. It is a Jewish supremacist ideology. So, you know, the prohibition on race mixing makes tons of sense in the context of a Jewish supremacist ideology. And it also is the truly, if he's speaking honestly, it is the real reason why he and others

won't acknowledge that what Israel is doing is a genocide, because they believe. that they, as a Jewish supremacist, that they basically get a pass to do whatever they want to do and that nothing that they could do could ever constitute a genocide. And you hear this even, you know, in a more, I guess, diplomatic or more sort of liberal-coded answer from Jeremy Benamy when he was debating Medellin about the use of the term genocide. And it's basically like, well, it makes me feel bad. So I don't want to use that to her because I don't like the way it makes me think about like what Jewish Israelis are supporting and what this means for my whole ideology. And after the fact, apparently after reflection, to his credit, he put on a substack

basically saying like, you know what, I'm no longer going to object to the term. I'm not going to use the term because it still makes me feel bad. But I don't object to the term because I see that this is what is actually happening here. But I think that's truly where the denial comes from. It's because it couldn't be us because he's so steeped in this Jewish supremacist ideology of Zionism, that he thinks that it could never be that Israel is committing genocide, no matter, even if they nuked Gaza, he would still insist. No, I just don't believe that Israel is committing genocide in this instance. Well, let's talk about the intermarriage thing, too.

So in Israel, you cannot have interfaith marriage. It's not legal. Like, does anybody know that? For everybody all, for all of the, oh, it's an equal country with equal rights. You literally cannot have an interfaith marriage in the state of Israel unless both people convert to the same religion. I'm just telling you the facts. The compromise is they will recognize legal marriage from outside of the country, but they will not perform them inside of the country. Okay.

I mean, that's pretty crazy, don't we all think? And I'm not even talking about in the West Bank, where, like you just talked about, where we see this in action, where if you murder somebody and you're Israeli or you're a settler, then you're, you basically have two-tier systems of justice. And if you murder someone in your Palestinian, a soldier's going to cheat you in the face and there's no such thing to do process. And it's basically the opposite, where if you do murder a Palestinian,

you're an Israeli settler. Not only you get set free, you're basically a hero in the entire country, and you get free guns from the government. I'm just telling me what reality is. And so if you look at this, I mean, the fact that interfaith marriage is actually banned inside of the country

basically, you know, emphasizes a lot of the core points that he is talking about and a lot of this, like, liberal democracy stuff, which they love to trot out. It's a Jewish ethno state. And by the way, I think ethno states, you know, broadly, I would look at it as more value neutral in terms of whether it's, quote, good or not, and more in terms of should America tolerate ethno states? Like we have ethno states all over the world. Okay, so be it. All right. It's reality. But my point just about it is don't sit here and gaslight me about how you're just like us,

because you're actually not, you know. So in their country, I could not have, I could not married my wife. That's fucking crazy. Don't tell me you live in a Western country. You don't. All right? And I could do that in probably, I think every European democracy, and I have a lot of problems with them, but don't put yourself on the same tier as the rest of us. Yeah. No, my kid's dad is Jewish.

Yeah, there you go. And I was thinking about this. I was like, shit, my kid, typically, you know, the Jewish heritage comes from the mother in terms of most, you know, sex of Judaism, although reform is different. And so I was looking and was like, do my kids have some kind of like a right to be able to, like, right to return. And sure enough, they do. I'm like, that's, they have no connect.

That's insane. That they have more right to live there than the Palestinians who have been. Like, that just shows you how absolutely insane this state actually is. And what were, what our tax dollars are bolstering and supporting here. And it's been layered over with this idea that this is some liberal democracy, which is total and complete bullshit. Okay, speaking of total and complete bullshit, he also got pressed by, about his equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Doesn't have a lot of great responses here either. Let's take a listen. You have equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It is. And I will say that in preparation for this conversation, I talked to a lot of different people. And one of the things I heard is that anti-Zionism for them is a desire to have the rights of Palestinians be equal to.

to the rights of Jews in Israel and the Palestinian territories, the idea of sort of, I guess, the one-state solution, if you will. Is that definition of anti-Zionism to you, anti-Semitic? Well, look, if you believe that only Jewish people don't have the right to self-determination, that's anti-Semitic, because it's holding out Jews to double standard you don't accord to other people.

So if you believe my definition of Zionism, which is really not my definition, it's widely accepted, it's peculiar to me how anti-Zionism isn't the opposite of that, how people choose to interpret it, to embellish it, to sort of dress it up as something other than what it is. But the reality is if you believe how I laid out Zionism, then anti-Zionism is pretty simple. I think the challenge is if someone defines their view of anti-Zionism in a way that allows for Jews to exist in a state of Israel, but that grants Palestinians' rights, but you're seeing that as anti-Semitic. And she brings up in this exchange, which is longer, and I encourage you to read it. She actually brings up Ezra Klein's piece, which I think was an intelligent way to go about it, because Ezra's very, like, first of all, he's Jewish. He wrote this piece about the divine.

in the Jewish community and the way that Israel's genocide is, you know, sort of exercising Israel from being a really central focus of Jewish life in America. And he says, I hope I'm not butchering this quote, basically like, the question isn't, does Israel have a right to exist? Israel does exist? The question is, does Israel have a right to dominate? Yeah. And she puts that to him.

And again, he just sort of like, well, you know, I think they're denying Jewish ability of self-determination. And so my definition is the one that counts, therefore. That's how I'm defining it. Therefore, anyone who is anti-Zionist is also anti-Semitic. She also processed him at a certain point on like the statistics they compile of, you know, oh, anti-Semitic incidents are up a million percent year over a year. And it is sort of revealing because he makes this comment, he says, in the 10 years that I've

been head of the ADL, anti-Semitic incidents are up some thousand percent or whatever it is. It's like, well, then aren't you kind of failing at your job? Isn't that your whole job? It's to bring down anti-Semitism. So, you know, maybe your approach is not really particularly working here. Have you thought about that? Well, it turns out that screaming anti-Semite all the time doesn't particularly do anything about anti-Semitism. It turns out also that really it's about concrete policy action. Most of the things are branded as anti-Semitic or not anti-Semitic whatsoever and would be laughed at ridiculously, you know, in the context of any other country. But yeah,

in particular, his thing about the, I see, I love that point about it exists. And this again, I know people don't like this, but this is my assault on the liberal democratic framework is there's no such thing as right to exist. There is just existence. There's no such thing as, you know, a right to, it's like, we live in reality. Israel is a nation recognized by X number of states, thus it exists. So now what do we do about it? The Palestine was a state that was supposed to be exist. And now it, quote, doesn't exist. It's not about right to exist. It doesn't. And we probably should do something about it. There's no right or not in order to restore peace, which I think is good, right?

That's all really the way that we should talk about these things. And they try to gaslight you into this right to exist question. It's like, what are you bitching about? You won already. Not only do you have your own country, you have it beyond the borders

of which you originally set out and actually now you've annexed all this territory and quote, greater Israel. Yeah, does Syria have a right to exist? Does Lebanon have a right to exist? I mean, by the way. Apparently not, according to Israelis. That's my point.

And even those states are basically fake and drawn up on, you know, we could go on forever, but down this rabbit hole. So the point is, it's like, no, Syria exists as a polity. Now, does it make sense? Probably not. If you really look at it from the past, should we do anything about it? Yeah, it's kind of more up to them. Should we let Israel dictate its neighbor's politics and cause problems for us? Let's again center ourselves in that equation. No, that's ridiculous. And it's the same for the entire region. That's the point. And actually, it all comes back to the point around America and the way that we should think about this is it's not just the question about slaughtering of Palestinian. and the strategic goal. It's about do we want to be wholly responsible for

and alienate this entire region of which we are somewhat dependent on for oil and make it so that they can militarily dominate and conquer vast swaths around this? At the same time, we're going around the world preaching about how all borders are sacrosanct after World War II and we can't allow any domination

or violation of liberal norms. What ground do we? have to stand on with the Ukraine-Russia conflict, when Gaza is going on. Yeah. It's ridiculous. And there's that is so true. And there's another parallel with Russia, Ukraine, as well, which is both our undying commitment to Israel no matter what, which we'll talk more about in the next segment, the Israel first

segment, and our commitment to making Russia always and forever an enemy state. Both of these are like obsessive Cold War ideology. The reason we were so into Israel is because we saw them as an ally against Russia in the Cold War in an area where, you know, Russian communist like left-wing ideology was a Senate. So that's why we were in love with Israel. The Cold War is over. At least that Cold War is over. And yet we still are hanging on to this.

And so, you know, when you ask Alyssa Sluckin, like, why are they an ally? It's like, well, they just are. And it doesn't matter what they serve or how much trouble it costs. us or how much it costs us or how much it embroils this region. It's just they're an ally and that's it and now I'm going to shut my brain off and these ones are adversaries and that's it and that can never change or you know it's completely permanently immovable as well like who wants to view the world that way. I mean people should really go back and re-hist a major reason that the state of Israel was even recognized by Harry Truman is because at one point he had a business partner

in his haberdastery who was Jewish who connected him with a Zionist preacher who allowed to get himself in the oval. I'm not a business. joking. George Marshall, the architect of the Marshall plan of the modern American empire, literally told Truman that he would not vote for him in the upcoming election if he recognized Israel because he thought it was a terrible idea. General Eisenhower, the victor of World War II. Yeah, it was. General Eisenhower, the victor of World War II in the 1950s during the Suez crisis and all of that, was very willing to be like, who the fuck do you think you are going around here with the British and the French trying to, you know, basically have some conquest here

in Egypt? That's not happening. Like, this modern cult, it did not exist back in the day, to the point where many, many of the architects of the American Empire thought that the recognition of the state of Israel was a disastrous idea that would be counter to American interests in the Middle East. You can read a book if you want to. It's all public record. Now, of course, they don't want everybody to really know the truth. They think this special bond has existed since time. But I mean, yeah, if it weren't for Truman's Jewish haberdashery partner, we literally may not have the entire modern state. I wish I was joking. It's true.

Well, and, you know, it's one thing when Israel is screwing up our foreign policy, but I think part of why there has been such a revolt against Israel, you know, on the entire Democratic side and increasingly among young Republicans as well, is because of the way now Americans' rights and what we're allowed to say are being directly curtailed. And ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt gets asked about the censorship that this, this government is engaging in to quash any sort of pro-Palestine protests, you know, deporting anyone who wrote an op-ed that they didn't approve of, et cetera. And he acknowledges that he works with the Biden administration on those efforts and works now

with the Trump administration on those efforts as well. Let's take a listen to that. I have worked with the prior education secretary and I've worked with this education secretary. And I credit the Biden administration for their national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, a really important document. No one had done what the Biden administration had done before in elevating anti-semitzance to a federal priority, and ADL and full disclosure worked with them on that, and they get a lot of credit for adopting the plan.

And then I give credit to the Trump administration for actually implementing aspects of the plan and taking a strong view, again, in the face of real, not imagined, real acts of hate, real acts of discrimination. Again, we helped to write the national strategy to counter anti-Semitism. released by the Biden administration. We were deeply involved in that. So again, this head of a quote-unquote civil rights organization wants to trample on your rights in service of his Israel-first Jewish supremacist ideology

and is working aggressively with whatever bipartisan. Democrat, Republican Trump has certainly taken it beyond anyone's, his wildest ambitions. He is happy to work with them in service of trying to crutch your. your ability to speak out against your tax dollars going to fund genocide. Yep. It's totally crazy, but look, I mean, I think one good thing is that people are starting to see this organization for what it is. For years, it was a heroic organization amongst the left because it called out white supremacy. It just rings a little hollow when you're also talking about intermarriage for yourselves. So don't be telling us in warning with the boogeyman when the boogeyman may be amongst us the entire time.

Hey guys, it's AZ Fudd. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a people's princess. But now, you're also going to know me as your favorite host. Every week on my new podcast, Fud around and find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy life as I try to balance it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies,

to just try to make it to my midterms on time. You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the fud family. So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV, you may think you know me. But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out.

Listen to fud around and find out, a production of IHeart women's sports and partnership with unanimous media. on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. In 1920, a magazine article announced something incredible. Two young girls had photographed real fairies. But even more extraordinary than the magazine article's claim was the identity of the man who wrote the article, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the man who wrote Sherlock Holmes.

Yes, the man who invented. literature's most brilliant detective was fooled by two girls into thinking fairies were real. How did they do it? And why does it seem like so many smart people keep falling for outlandish tricks? These are the questions we explore in hoax, a new podcast from me, Dana Schwartz, the host of Noble Blood. And me, Lizzie Logan. Every episode will explore one of the most audacious and ambitious tricks in history. from the fake Shakespeare's to balloon boys

and try to answer the question of why we believe what we believe. Listen to hoax on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Stuff You Should Know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must listen podcasts on movies. It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know summer movie playlist.

What Screamed Summer? More than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater in a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the stuff you should know

summer movie playlist on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. All right, let's go ahead and get to, you know, like I said, dovetails well with what we were just talking about, the backlash to these Israel First policies and the continued pushing by politicians of, you know, making sure that we prioritize Israel above all else.

So let's start with this. There's a Wisconsin town hall, a Republican representative by the name of Brian Steele, who is just aggressively booed to the point, and people are outraged over his support for the genocide in Gaza to the point that he has to actually, like, leave the event, shut down the event, and leave. Let's go ahead and take a listen to a little bit of that. People have a right of free speech. What do you have to say about dead, Brian?

I hope to say, shut up. Two million people are starving. You're starving. Two million people are starving. Do you have a heart? Do you have a heart? I want to have you addressed the question that was shouted about the starving children in Gaza.

To me, the easy answer to address this crisis is for Hamas to surrender and release the hospital. That ends the war coming. Leave the children! Israel was unfairly unjustly attacked. Their civilians were killed and kidnapped by Hamas terrorists. Israel has a right to defend itself. It's genocide.

You believe in genocide? We don't know. Help us off. We may disagree on this. That's fine. Redis out! Redisard! Shut out!

Who is our place? Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for us coming tonight. We're going to close it off here because there's no point in continuing. I appreciate everybody coming out tonight. out tonight. That's the man that everyone following a great good thing. I know there's a lot of people. I'll thank you down here.

So, I look forward to seeing everybody. Food the kids! Everybody has an absolutely wonderful for that. Food the kids! So there you go. And I hope Senator Slotkin takes a look at that footage because she seemed to believe that people only protested

Democrats when it came to this issue. And I can tell you that's certainly not the case is evidenced by this town hall. But, you know, I hope all politicians are paying attention to this. Not that I think they're going to, like, you know, have a heart and have a soul and, like, decide suddenly that they're going to do what's right. But just in terms of a cynical political calculation, like, this issue has become much more important than ever, even I would have thought. And it's because if you are still in, you know, August 11th, 2025 out here just going through the Israel is a right to defend itself and release the hostages and, like, saying the same thing. that you've been saying for almost two years at this point, the public is not buying it. Democrats certainly aren't, independents certainly aren't, and increasingly Republicans

aren't either. And it has become a litmus test of whether you have a shred of integrity, whether you are willing to stand up to organize money, or whether you are just a stooge for donors. And that really is what it comes down to. Ryan is going to be in for soccer tomorrow. He and I are probably going to cover Pete Buttigieg's comments where, look, 8% of the Democratic Party, 8% supports what Israel is doing. And still, he can't find himself to have any answer. Yes, no, you know, up, down, should we recognize a Palestinian state, any answer whatsoever.

And you know why? It's clearly 100% about donor maintenance, because it is certainly not where the Democratic base is. And, you know, obviously this is a Republican and a Republican-leaning district. I have no idea what the demographics of this district are, how tough of a re-elect he has, or whatever. But it's obviously an animating issue for many people. And we saw this even in our focus groups of the AOC Trump voters that it came up much more often than we expected it to at that point in time. I wouldn't claim that this is all that representative. As you and I know, people who go to town halls are the most politically. Yeah, they're activists. The activist of the activist. But, you know, I remember in 2010, there was a lot of cope like what I just said.

Remember Arlen Spector and others were getting booed and shouted down by Republican. and the Democrats were like, that's just Republican Coke-planted activists. And then, boom, you have this gigantic GOP wave in 2010. So, like, we can't sit here and say that it isn't indicative of something, especially in midterms. Midterms are all about who's the most animated and enthusiastic to vote. And if Democrats are jazzed up around a variety of issues from Trump to Gaza to all that, well, then they're going to put pressure on their elected representatives. If you have a low turnout election, then of course you're going to have a big blowout for especially a lot of the Democrats. So the point remains that even if it is not representative, and I really

don't think that it is, that amongst the activist class, as Iraq was back in 06 as well, would be remiss. I mean, unfortunately, a big portion of the country still supported the war in Iraq in 2006. They agreed that the war was going badly, but the activist base of the anti-war people all came out to vote in 06, and they delivered big victories for the Democrats. Well, and think of why Barack Obama ended up getting the nomination. I mean, the Iraq War ended up being incredibly central to our politics. Number one, because everyone forgets this. Iowa, what Obama did in Iowa still remains like the blueprint for all modern politicians

because he changed the electorate. It was all college students. So, I mean, it's 2025. Look who's the most animated by Israel by the USA. Finally that, even just putting aside the horse race politics, so much of our political world that we exist on in now is downstream of the Iraq War. I mean, Trump also, in part, gets the nomination because he decides he's going to be opposed to the Iraq War.

So, you know, I do dispute this idea that foreign policy never ends up. Vietnam was obviously incredibly impactful in terms of American politics. The Iraq War ends up being incredibly central to the point that we're still dealing with the fall on it today. And I think that this is such an issue because it does. expose so much of the hypocrisy, the lies, the claims of concern about humanitarian issues, or on the right, the claims that, oh, it's America first and we're just looking out for American interests. It really exposes the lies and hypocrisy of both parties, which is why it's

such an explosive issue. Matt Gates, another thing people are becoming more aware of is the role of APAC, and more broadly, these Israel-aligned entities, with APAC being the sort of largest and most influential, I would say. Matt Gates revealed something pretty interesting. about his experience when he went on one of these A-PAC trips to Israel. Let's take a listen to what he had to say. I went on that A-PAC trip. I went on subsequent trips. And there is an actual downward pressure from the leadership and even the committee chairs.

Like if you're on the Foreign Affairs Committee, if you're on the Armed Services Committee, if you're on the Intelligence Committee, there's like an expectation that you go there in some sort of like congressional Hodge. And I remember being at the – I'll never go back. I was at the King David Hotel, and I rolled back to my room unexpectedly when the rest of the group was still on some planned activity. And there was some dude in my room. I'm like, hey, man, what are you doing here? And he acted like he was associated with the hotel and taking an inventory but had no clipboard.

And so, yeah, there's a lot of reasons why they want members of Congress over there. And it is ideologically to steep them in this notion that the protection of Israel is of great import to people in America, but it's really not that important to voters, and that is becoming more clear on the right and left. So, Sagar, Kyle and I interviewed Jamal Bowman, who A-PAC spent millions of dollars to get that man out of office. And, you know, and at that time, by the way, his critique of Israel was quite mild and moderate. Yeah, he didn't really go that hard, if I recall.

No, not at the time. And so, in any case, he shared with us that when he first was running for Congress, how aggressively Apex sought to get a meeting with him. And so first they called, and he was like, I'm not interested. You know, I know what they stand for. I'm not aligned. I'm not interested. Then they went through this respected in New York City organization, uplifting black men that was like well known and Jamal Bowman was familiar with their work, et cetera.

And went through them to sort of strong arm Jamal into taking this meeting and, you know, ends up like he goes to this coffee and it's like the APAC person and the person from this organization. But that's how aggressively they will seek to try to cultivate these relationships. And then, you know, there's all the propaganda that comes over. There's obviously the threat of millions of dollars, which Jamal Bowman did ultimately face and is probably the reason he is not in Congress now, the threat of all those millions of dollars being dropped on you. And then, Saucer, there's also just like the human sense of like, oh, but I know these people. And, like, Fred is going to be really disappointed in me if I vote against this anti-Semitism definition or whatever. And that can be very powerful as well for, you know, people who are.

who up to this point, there was no cost on the other side. You know, there was no cost to bear from just being lockstep with Israel every single step of the way. Well, also, you, I mean, you just laid it out well. And I will reference the Harry Truman thing I was just talking about. It's a lot of his personal relationships, and APAC knows that. Let's go ahead and put E3 up on the screen just to show you. This is all of the Republican congressmen in Israel with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The APAC trackers put all the money that they've received. lest you believe that this is a singular partisan phenomenon. Shall we go to the next slide? What do we see there? Oh, interesting. All of the House Democrats there who are, where are they, by the way? It's not like a military bunker, Hamas tunnel. Not sure what's going on there.

Look, you know, not to just cape too hard for Republicans, but at least Republicans are wearing suits. What are these people doing here, you know, on vacation in Israel? You're wearing your Aloha shirt while you're in Israel? Well, and let's just draw this out for one moment further. Okay, this is when they're on break, right? Congress, they're emergency break so that they could avoid voting on any Epstein stuff. Also ties back to Israel, by the way. And what you're supposed to do on those, you're supposed to actually go and do what Brian Steele was doing. You know, go to the town halls, hear from your

constituents, you know, hear that they hate you for your view on supporting a genocide in Gaza. That's what you're supposed to be doing right now. And instead, at a moment when Netanyahu's Security Cabinet just voted for the complete invasion of Gaza and destruction and occupation of Gaza City in particular as part of a plan to fully and completely displaced the population of the Gaza's trip. Here you are on an APAC sponsor trip having a little smiley happy time in whatever this weird tunnel is while this is all going on. And you dare say that you're representing the American people.

You dare say for the Democrat side that you care about human rights. rights. Like, no one should take these people seriously ever again. Every single one of them should be primaried. Every single one of them should be voted out of office because they do not care about you. Thanks for watching, guys. We'll see you all tomorrow. Ryan will be in for me, but then I'll be in for him on Wednesday. So we'll get an old switch to room here on the show. So I'll see you then. The Stuff You Should Know guys have made their own summer playlist of their must listen podcasts on movies. It's me, Josh, and I'd like to welcome you to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie Playlist. What Screams Summer?

More than a nice, darkened, air-conditioned theater, and a great movie playing right in front of you. Episodes on James Bond, special effects, stunt men and women, disaster films, even movies that change filmmaking, and many more. Listen to the Stuff You Should Know Summer Movie playlist on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you live. Listen to podcasts. Hey, guys, it's AZ Fud. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion. You may even know me as a people's princess.

Every week on my new podcast, Fud Around and Find Out, I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. Listen to Fud Around and Find Out, a production of IHart Women's Sports in partnership with unanimous media on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 1920, a magazine article announced something incredible. Two young girls had photographed real fairies.

But even more incredible, that article was written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the man who invented Sherlock Holmes. How did he fall for that? Hoax is a new podcast for me, Dana Schwartz, the host of Noble Blood. And me, Lizzie Logan. Every episode, we'll explore one of the most audacious and ambitious tricks in history. and try to answer the question why we believe, what we believe. Listen to hoax on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an IHeart podcast.