Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton - EP4: Power, Justice, and the Fragile Nature of TRUTH

Episode Date: July 19, 2025

The Jeffrey Epstein story refuses to fade away, despite powerful efforts to suppress it. As Daryl Cooper prepares for his appearance on Tucker Carlson's show, he and Scott Horton discuss breaking news about a major newspaper reportedly set to release an exposé on Trump's relationship with Epstein - potentially explaining the former president's recent characterization of the entire investigation as "another Russiagate hoax." We explore how the Epstein case has transcended its specific horrors to become a litmus test for elite accountability in America. When a convicted sex trafficker with connections to presidents, prime ministers, and other people of power can operate with impunity for decades, it raises profound questions about our institutions. As Cooper notes, "If we can't draw a line in the sand here, then people question whether we can draw it anywhere." The conversation takes a fascinating turn as we examine how modern information ecosystems contribute to our fractured understanding of reality. Algorithmic content curation creates self-reinforcing bubbles that resemble cult dynamics, where consensus within groups diverges dramatically from objective truth. With AI-generated content becoming increasingly convincing, these information silos will only grow more impenetrable - making shared understanding of cases like Epstein's even more difficult to achieve. Our wide-ranging discussion ultimately connects the dots between information manipulation, geopolitical conflicts, and accountability for the powerful. From Trump's evolving position on Ukraine to the devastating situation in Gaza (where a Holocaust studies professor has recently accused Israel of genocide), we confront how those in positions of authority often escape the consequences of their actions while ordinary people suffer. Listen/Watch now for a thought-provoking exploration of power, justice, and the fragile nature of truth in our increasingly complex world. How do we maintain our grip on reality when everything from cell phone location data to historical analysis points to uncomfortable truths about those who lead us? Chapters: 0:00 Intro and Epstein News Developing 9:51 Daryl Cooper's Upcoming Tucker Interview 23:45 Media Accusations and Historical Context 42:35 Echo Chambers and Information Reliability 52:45 Trump's Ukraine Flip-Flop 59:54 Gaza Crisis and Accusations of Genocide Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thank you. All right. I love that H-bomb at the end there. You and me someday, buddy. All right. Hey, it's provoked. The number one new show on all of Apple. How do you like that?

With me, your host, Scott Horton, and him, your host, the great martyr-made, Daryl Cooper. Hey, how are you doing? Good, good. I am running a little bit low on sleep. I've been up for about 32 hours, but I am ready to go. Great.

So the big news is you are doing the first live episode of the new Tucker Carlson show tonight. And the special subject, everybody's waiting on the edge of their seats, is Jeffrey Epstein. And you're a deep dive. Now you did, I thought it was three. turns out as what closer to five-hour podcast it's just three parts is what i was thinking of um deep deep dive into the geoffrey epstein story we talked about it in some depth here last week and so um but this is the big one this is the one that really counts and is absolutely certain to get more than a million views on just youtube alone never mind on x and the rest so my first question

for you sir is do you have your shit together and are you ready to do a good job I'm ready. I think my IQ is about 84 right now due to my lack of sleep and I still think I've prepared enough to get the job done. Honestly, there's a lot of people out there who would be better at this than I am like this particular topic. But, you know, I did a good podcast series on it and so they wanted me and I'm going to go out there and do my best trying not to let people down. Yeah, I'm sure you can do great, man. I know from anyone who's listened to your podcast, we know what a good story you can tell when you have your notes and have your wits about you there um yeah i mean it's interesting right because the universe has just been conspiring basically over the last

couple weeks to make this show as big as it can possibly be i mean i'm sitting there just praying please mr president please don't stop the schizophrenic text wall posts on true social just keep it up for another week yeah boy it really is something else the way that he's uh done that i guess the last one that i so he's really essentially saying to paraphrase you either love me or you want to know more about this story but you can't have it both ways and and and if you do want to know more about this story then you're my former supporter and burn in hell too basically don't don't want to know you that doesn't seem like it can last and and then you were telling me right before we went on that there's i don't know breaking news maybe it will be breaking by the time this post

I guess the Tucker interview will be already over, and it'll be the aftermath, so we'll see about that. But there is news supposedly coming, I guess, as we're recording this on Thursday afternoon. Yeah, Mark Halpern, who, you know, like you said, it's not exactly news yet. It's just him talking, but Mark Halpern's one of those guys that when he says it, it's usually, there's usually some fire behind the smoke. And he says that a major newspaper, one of the top three in the country, so I say, assume New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal are going to do an expose on Trump's relationship with Epstein and that he thinks, and he's hearing that that has something to do with

how the White House has been handling this issue over the last couple weeks. And so we'll see if that pans out. You know, it might just be a rehash of known information. But we'll see because it's really strange, man. It's like, I'm, you know, I've been racking my brain. trying to figure out, like, what are the explanations for this particular turn in the narrative, you know? It would be one thing for him to, for them to be coming out and saying, okay, look, you know, there's just, there's stuff in here that there's, there's people who met with Epstein, who, you know, who weren't, they didn't do anything bad, but we don't want to put their names out there because now they're, you know, a pedophile for the rest of their life

to at least some people and they didn't do anything. We don't want to do. do that. If they were pushing a line kind of like that, I think people could at least understand where they were coming from or try to figure out what they were about. But this, you know, where they're coming out all of a sudden, after never, ever taking this approach before, saying that this is another Russia gate hoax, that the files were created by Obama and Biden and Comey and all these people who hate Trump and everything is, and for that to happen so abruptly, very hard. hard to understand how or why that would happen you know yeah i mean they're clearly reaching there i mean that one even sounds like trump just came up with that line on the fly because nobody

understands i'm sorry i don't think i've heard anybody else say it i could have no because the the russian gate hoax clearly was manufactured by first of all the cia and the fbi and then in collusion with the Democrats and the media and the whole thing was about parsing out all of these kind of rumors that just wait once all this is confirmed it's really going to be meaningful you're just going to have to wait a few years and we promise we're going to get there someday kind of a thing

and it was clearly them doing it to him but yeah and then you know that's the Epstein story that that's where this comes from that the CIA made this up just to try to hurt the Republicans or something everybody knows bill Clinton was the guy's best friend and all all that you know yeah you know um the russia gate story you know there there was like a flip side to that too and i and this ties in very indirectly to the epstein thing where and it's something

that it seems to me at least that a lot of people you know maybe just trump himself some of the people around him might get it but he's the boss just don't fully understand is uh you know like you said it was the russia gate thing was always just wait a little bit longer it's coming it's coming there's a huge thing here. We're going to get to it. And it never came. And everybody remembers when they finally pulled Robert Mueller into Congress and sat him down and had him answer questions. And it became clear immediately. Even you had you had David Axelrod saying, you know, this is a total disaster. You had Democrats panicking because they had just spent the last two years promoting this guy as the savior of the republic and the Russia collusion thing as the greatest crime since Benedict Arnold. And it

became very obvious playing on live national TV that the guy that is in charge of it has no idea what's going on. He has no answers to basic questions. And for those of us who had been following it, you know, really closely up to that point, it was very cathartic because we knew that this whole thing was ridiculous. It didn't make sense on its face, you know. And when that finally happened, a lot of us, naive morons like me, who, you know, no matter how many, times, you know, our faith is kicked down in the dirt and like stomped on, you know, by the U.S. government in the media. We still come back up and, you know, hopeful and naive for the next time it comes around. We were like, okay, now this, there's going to be a reckoning here. Okay, after this

Mueller disaster, and now it's clear to everybody that this thing is a big joke and there's nothing here. Man, the media, there's going to be a reckoning. All these politicians, the Adam shifts to the world, they're not going to survive this. I mean, this is, and then it was just, just, no, actually, it's fine. It's no big deal. They just got caught framing the president for treason and not just like a little cabal of people, but the intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, congressional Democrats, some Republicans, the entire mainstream media basically got caught, I mean, red-handed what they were doing, and nothing happened. And so, you know, Epstein, the way this ties into Epstein, and the thing I don't, it seems to me like Trump

just doesn't fully understand is that, you know, Epstein has kind of become a proxy for just elite and deep state lack of accountability overall, you know, and he's sort of like whether we can hold him, well, he's been held accountable, obviously, but like whether we can put that story out there and get just all the information on all the people who are involved and all the agencies that may have been And until we can get a full accounting on that, people take it as, you know, all the rhetoric about holding, you know, the deep state accountable and all this that goes all the way back to Russia Gate and long before, obviously, that that's all really just a joke.

That's not going to happen. If you can't do it here on an issue where we're not talking about, you know, they'll talk, they'll invoke national security reasons for, it was shocking. that they even pulled that line, you know, you want to know like, okay, so you're telling us this guy has nothing to do with intelligence agencies. There's nothing to see here. And yet, if we tell you any more about them, it'll compromise national security. It makes no sense on its face. But, you know, that if we can't do this for a guy who was a predator of children, you know, this isn't something about something the CIA did in some other country trying to overthrow a government. We need to maintain relations. I mean, this is something that is so fundamentally,

evil to the vast majority of people in the country that if we if we can't draw a line in the sand here then people question whether we can draw it anywhere yeah well yeah you're right it is it's going to come to a head and we do know that donald trump was friends with this guy for a very long time until they had a falling out and i know that part of the story was it was supposedly that epstein was hitting on a girl at mara lago that worked there but then it was also a fight over a piece real estate or something i don't know exactly the whole story there but they were friends for a long time um trump obviously is a womanizer that doesn't necessarily mean he's willing to cross those kind of lines with this guy or that there would be necessarily that there would still be proof

that he ever did after all this time in the time since they were buddies or whatever but he does seem to be really worried about it and yeah my interpretation was yeah it's obviously he's covering for Israel. But then again, I wanted to bring this up because this is, and we shouldn't spend the whole day on Epstein here today because you're going to kill it tonight on Tucker and we covered it last week. But I did want to bring up to you and I sent you this link was a story at Wired where they got the cell phone location data from, I'm not exactly sure, a couple of years worth, I think, in a row and showing all the thousands of people going in and out of that island and people from all over the country including people from austin texas including a lot of fancy pants places like

aspen colorado and martha's vineyard and all of these kinds of things and these and showing they have a little thing they show here's where they would get off at the dock they would either take the boat over there they would take the helicopter over there and then you see all of these people and then you just show here's the people at the temple here are the people just hanging out at the beach and whatever so i mean to it's just an open question to me i'm not the expert on this story i wish i had spent some time learning this stuff but the obvious question is like just how widespread was the reputation of this island as get away with murder island versus oh yeah just this guy has a nice place with a nice beach or what you know what i mean but you have a lot of elite people going there

and as you said on the show last week his plane was called the lolita express and everybody knew what that meant and all of that, it's easy for me to just assume the worst. Bill Clinton was seen there by people. They must have been raping children. I don't know. But obviously, you could see from there, Israel aside, just you would have some major proportion of what we call our ruling classes in this country, politicians and business and banking and media and whoever implicated in some way with this. And including even hanging out with a guy who already have been convicted. right and was already should have been you know having a scarlet letter around his neck and instead people are still partying with this guy all over the place so raises real questions

and the volume of people I was a bit surprised by the volume of people in and out of that place I didn't really realize you know yeah it's amazing honestly I mean you know you can you can understand like maybe you know when he's bringing in some some rando celebrity or or MIT physics professor or something. And, you know, they're not doing background checks on this guy. Like, they were recommended by somebody else. Hey, this guy wants to meet you. He's a billionaire.

He funds a lot of, like, research and stuff. You should go meet him. And they're like, oh, cool. And they go meet him. That's fine. But the idea of people like, you know, Ehud Barak claimed he had no idea what Epstein had done, nothing. He didn't know anything about his past or anything about his crimes.

He heard that he got, like, busted for prostitution. That was about it. It's like, dude, you're the former head of Israeli defense intelligence. Like, what are you talking about? Come on. Or Bill Clinton's people, you know, like if I requested a meeting with Bill Clinton, I'm pretty sure someone on his staff is going to say, you can't meet with that guy boss.

We did a Google search, you know. Right. And I mean, you know, I like, oh, no, I like what came up in that Google search. He's a friend of ours, yeah. Yeah, the, you know, so it's just totally implausible. And I think it's, again, ridiculous. its face when, you know, somebody like Ahud Barak or Clinton tries to take that line. They just had no idea. Because, you know, for people who are younger or who were just not kind of following this

story back then, this was a big story. You know, it wasn't a big story like it was on the front page of the New York Times kind of thing, but it was on the society pages. Like people knew who Jeffrey Epstein was. He'd had profiles written up of them in magazines and newspapers before for a long time. And then this happens. And it was a big story, huge story in Florida, but big story in New York and people across the country and in those circles, everybody knew. Everybody knew what happened. It was not, again, you know, to go back to what I said last week, he didn't give his playing the nickname the Lodley to Express. Other people gave it that nickname because everybody knew it was going on. And so, you know, there's something to be said.

I mean, so last thing, maybe, and we'll move on to something else. But the thing with Trump, like from what I understand is his relationship with him ended in like the late 1990s, basically, when they had that incident that everybody talks about where he supposedly had him banned from Mar-a-Lago for flirting with one of the regulars' daughters or something like that. And they had that real estate dispute. Wexner wanted a piece of property that was next to Mar-a-Lago, and he had Epstein sort of on that job getting it for him, and Trump won that battle to get it for himself and expand Mar-a-Lago, and so they had a falling out.

But from what I understand, this is all long before, years before any of the really bad stuff came out. You have that quote from Trump saying that Epstein likes them young, but, you know, that could mean anything. You know, Bruce Wayne likes them young too. So, you know, it doesn't necessarily mean he knew he was committing crimes. But, you know, I don't know, man. I find it very hard to believe that Trump would be, you know, it's kind of the same thing with Clinton. Like, they kind of both strike me as the type that, yeah, okay, maybe, you know, you could rope him in to a place and tell him she's 19, but she's actually 16, and now we got you, the kind of thing.

But, you know, a lot of the stuff that Epstein was doing with these 14, 13, 12-year-olds, like, they just, you know, I have trouble believing that that fits, you know, the personality type, but, you know, people are surprised sometimes. But anyway, we'll see, man. I mean, I'll tell you this, that if it would have, if there was, you know, if there was something serious out there about. Trump, you really do think it would have come out before now. You know, the idea that they went all through the body.

It could have been in his FBI file without being in Epstein's or, you know, without even having to be relying on Epstein's evidence. You just go to what they already would have had on Trump that subject was seen doing this or that in 1987 or 1994 or whatever, right? Right. And people say like, oh, well, you know, but that would incriminate other people. It's like, dude, in the first Trump administration and during the Biden administration, they had control of what got released, how it got released, how it was reported on, everything.

They had total lockdown. Oh, a thousand of the FBI leaks against him. They leaked against him over and over again. They wouldn't stop. So they could have selectively done that in a way. I mean, so I don't know. I find it very hard to believe that there's something really, really bad and incriminating in there. You know what?

Even when Maxwell was sentenced, he was like, well, I wish her well, good luck lady. and please don't say anything bad about, you know what I mean? Like, there's seems to be, you know, and he's not a drinker. So, you know, seems like he would remember pretty clearly. I don't know. Yeah. And who knows. There was a lawyer for the victims who was trying to talk to a lot of different people

related to the case and who knew about the case around West Palm Beach and people who knew Epstein. Trump was one of the few people who agreed to talk to him. gave him, apparently, according to the attorney, as much time as the guy wanted, was very open, forthcoming, very helpful. Right. And read that. You know, and so, you know, we'll see about the Trump connection. I mean, some people have been suggesting out there.

I think I saw Glenn Beck put this out there. Jesse Kelly talked about it yesterday is, you know, they're floating this theory that the reason for the abrupt 180 on Trump's rhetoric about this issue is that there is actually something in there about him. But it was planted in there as a poison pill, basically, to keep him from releasing the file or to incriminate him for failing to release it. Who knows? It's all speculation, obviously. But the story is not going away. As much as they wanted to, the story, they cannot push this story down, I don't think.

There's too much public interest in it. And we're going to see how it develops. Well, listen, especially because this episode is going to come out on Friday, even though we're recording this before the Tucker interview the Tucker interview itself is going to be the news on Friday so enough about Epstein let's talk about you is it true that you are to the right of Elmo you know I've seen the Elmo thing mentioned

I don't know the context of that I've been kind of out of action but I said anti-Semitic stuff it was a joke for people who get it but listen It wasn't that funny because I didn't deliver it well. But the point is this, that Eric Wemple, who's the media critic and corrector of falsity over there at the Washington Post, I've got to give him some credit. He's done decent things in some circumstances is after the fact recap of Russia Gate is worth looking at over there. But anyway, he had a piece why Tucker Carlson is still relevant where, hey, my name got in there as an example of the kind of

Cooke's interview in nowadays. And then in the link to, and also is, I think he used the word flirting with or whatever, is Tucker's somehow connection and association with Holocaust denial was a link to an article about your last appearance on that show. Now, my last appearance on that show was a week or two ago there. And you were brought up and I tried to defend you as you told me someone mentioned to you. I threw you under the bus a little bit because I said that possibly the way that you phrased it, you left yourself open to misunderstanding.

And I tried to defend you best I could as far as what I understood what you meant by all of that. So I'm sure this will come up during the Tucker interview tonight because they are going to try to make this about you in whatever ways. So I just wondered whether you thought the media critic over there, the media correct or the, the fact checker over there. No, that's Glenn Kessler. This is the fact checker of the fact checker, Eric Wemple at the Washington Post. Is he

right about you? What do people need to know about who you are and what you are and why you say and do the things that you do, Mr. Cooper? Well, I have to confess, I haven't read it. I don't read negative stuff about myself on the internet. I just ignore it.

Well, you remember what happened last October. Yeah. But, you know, no, so I'm not a Holocaust denier, and he has no basis for saying that. You know, I have been, I've been urged by people who, who know a little bit about this, the topic to pursue court cases against a lot of these publications that have said that, just because, you know, they cannot, if they want to call me an anti-Semite, a racist, a bigot, just pick your kind of, you know, your, your evil noun. then you can get into court and that's kind of a, well, this is how we interpreted like what he said here. Like to us, this is racist. This is anti-Semitic. And that's really hard to prove.

But they say you're a holocaust denier. They're accusing you of a crime in several countries, you know. And those have legal definitions that are consistent enough across many countries that you can actually pull those up and use them in court as a reference point. And they can't find anything anywhere where I've ever denied. or downplayed the Holocaust because I never have done that because I don't I don't think that. And in fact, you can go to my podcast and there's hours and hours of me describing the Holocaust in gory detail and how horrible and off of it was. So, you know, it's, it's, it's slander sometimes. Other times it's probably, it's just ignorance. I'm sure, Wemple, you know,

like I don't blame a lot of these people like, you know, some of the historians who came out, the Neil Ferguson's and Victor Davis Hansons and stuff, the guys who are probably perfectly nice men who, you know, they're a historian. They get handed something about somebody they've never heard of before and they're like, hey, this guy just said X about Churchill and he's a Holocaust denier, write up an article, you know, debunking him and attacking him. And they do it because that's what you're supposed to do to a Holocaust denier, you know. And that's fine. I mean, they're, you know, I would probably have believed a lot of the stuff about me too if it wasn't happening to me. So I don't really hold a grudge on that. But, you know, to go back,

to like what I was actually talking about in that interview last year, you know, my whole point on that, Tucker wanted to talk about Churchill. You didn't want to talk about the Holocaust. You didn't want to talk about like the overall narrative of World War II. He wanted to specifically talk about Churchill. And it came up at dinner the night before. And I told him, but basically my point with Churchill was that I held him responsible, partly responsible, not obviously not entirely responsible, but partly responsible for escalating the war from a German-Polish war that was more or less wrapped up before it even got started to a continent-wide global war that destroyed Europe and left half of it taken over with by the Soviet Union. And my point with it

was that, you know, the answer that people always give on this is where you can't trust anything that Hitler or the Germans were saying they're liars. They'd lied before and all that stuff is true. They had lied before. They'd humiliated Chamberlain, you know, when Hitler went into Prague after promising Chamberlain, he wasn't going to do it and he did it anyway. It made him look like an absolute fool, like just humiliated. The only person in Europe who was like trying to actively avoid going to war with Germany, you know, and he just humiliated them. And so those people are right that there's reason to doubt it. My whole point was just that there were potential off-ramps to the greatest catastrophe that has hit Europe and the world ever in history.

And so if there were potential off-ramps and Churchill and the British establishment in general, like it's, you know, personalizing it a little too much by just blaming Churchill, you know, if they actively avoided those off-ramps rather than exploring them, then you have to hold them at least partially responsible for that, you know? And the second point I was making was about just the tactics that he employed, even very early in the war with the hunger blockade and the firebombing of civilian sites, of natural sites, the black forest, places like this in Germany, essentially terror attacks that we know from declassified now declassified conversations between Churchill and the rest of the British

cabinet that they were specifically doing things to try to provoke Germany to commit atrocities against the British in London and other places to inflame public opinion in the United States because they understood perfectly well that they were never going to re-invade Europe and go conquer Berlin themselves. They needed the Soviets and the Americans and or the Americans to come do it for them. And so their whole war strategy after the summer in 1940 was how do we get the USSR and America into this war? Which when you think about it is really, you know, how do we take a war that is basically wrapped up right now? You know, it's wrapped up in a way that we don't like, but nobody's not. No armies are in the field getting shot right now.

Northern Europe, Western Europe is bagged up. There's still a non-aggression pact in the east with the Soviet Union. All that's bagged up. The British have been thrown off the continent. There's some fighting in Greece. There's some fighting in North Africa. But in general, like the large-scale fighting in Europe is mostly over. And the Germans are saying, at least, that they want to put a pin in this thing.

And so to refuse to do that and then to engage in, And, you know, again, terror bombing, starvation blockade, doing things when you have no path to victory, except for luring these other two superpowers onto the continent that will inevitably lead to the destruction of Europe. I mean, the U.S. and USSR get involved. You're talking about the destruction of Europe at that point, and that's what happened. And I just think that, you know, that's kind of an indefensible, it's an indefensible and dishonorable thing to do.

And so talking about the starvation blockade, the second, the second. The second thing I said that people got really upset about, and this is where the Holocaust denial part comes in. And this is also the part that, you know, when you were talking about, like, I could have been more, I could have been clearer. And you're definitely right. I definitely cut up. You know, I was making the point that Churchill was being told by international relief organizations, neutral country aid organizations, his own people. Herbert Hoover was over there screaming in his ear telling them that the continent is on the brink of starvation as a result of this. Germans are not going to starve. The German army is not going to starve. They're going to be the first ones in line to get food. And it's going to going to be the people that the Germans think the absolute least of, people like the Jews, the gypsies, et cetera, that when there's no food left, guess who's not getting fed? It's going to be the most vulnerable people, the people they can't get work out of, and the people that, you know, they have a grudge against or have, you know, just a negative

racial opinion of. And so he was being told this, and he refused, you know, just, you had, I mean, international relief organizations, Hoover is great about this in his book. talks about how they're telling them, look, we've got it arranged with neutral countries with the Germans' approval that they're going to let neutral Sweden or other neutral countries manage the distribution of food to the conquered populations here to make sure that all this kind of stuff. And they just refuse to do it. And so I mentioned how in August of 1941, shortly after Barbarossa, when the Germans had moved into the Soviet Union and they're just taking millions. of prisoners. I mean, really, really fast. They're overrunning the Soviet positions, taking prisoners, taking POWs, but also a lot of civilian prisoners, people they think are potential subversives, either racially or politically. And they get in there and they don't have, they never even thought about how are we going to feed and clothe and look after and take care of all of the prisoners we take. I made the point, and I actually said this explicitly right

at the beginning of it, that look, even if you take the most generous possible interpret of the German's actions. If you are, if you are a Holocaust denier, if you're the dude who's wearing the Iron Cross logo on your leather jacket as you like, you know, walk down the street and you don't give, you don't care. Like, you're that guy. Even you have to admit that when you go into a country, you invade a country by choice. They didn't attack you first. You attack them by surprise. You end up taking millions of prisoners and you hold them in there and you have no food. for them, you have no clothes to them, you have no nothing for them, and they all die, you murdered those people. The most generous possible interpretation of it, the Germans

murdered all those people. So that was part of the point I was trying to make. And the second part of that, though, was there was this, I mentioned this letter that was written by an SS officer at the concentration camp near Posen. And he wrote back to the High Command in Berlin and said, this is August 1941, so two months after the invasion of the Soviet Union. And he says, look, we've got all these people here. We don't have food to feed these people. Wouldn't it be, and these are his words, wouldn't it be more humane to finish them off quickly now

rather than wait until winter and let them all starve to death slowly in the winter? And so people took that as like, oh, the Holocaust was just one big, oopsie, oopsie daisy. We asked, you know, the logistics didn't work out. Yeah, or that it was, yeah, that it was a big mercy killing or something. And like my point with that really, and I didn't develop this properly enough in, in, I didn't plan on talking about any of this stuff in the interview.

I didn't know we were going here. And so I wasn't prepared for it. My point with it was, you know, Hitler, Himmler, people at the top, some of his, like some people, they were probably just murderous, kill all the people. Like they don't, they're just like that. But you still have to get guys like that SS officer imposing to carry it out for you. you know you have to go get these guys who you know uh a couple years ago or or just you know maybe two years ago we're working at a factory or something or they were school teachers and you got to get them to actually go do it right and so if you can tell them hey there's no food we can't

feed these people you know it it makes it easier for a guy like that to justify what he's doing to himself just to rationalize what he's doing and i you know and so because i just find hunger blockade I just, you know, maybe it's one thing, if you're talking about medieval Europe and you're like besieging a castle or something like that, you know, but I just think it's an indefensible tactic. And maybe it hits me like viscerally because, you know, something I told you before, I think you've mentioned your audience before, being on one of the things that drove me to, to stop working for the Department of Defense was being on U.S. Navy ships interdicting smugglers going into Yemen during the Saudi assault on that country

when you're reading news stories every day of children dying from starvation, from easily curable diseases, and watching the crews of these ships I was working on interdict these dows and other small boats. And, you know, some of them were bringing in weapons. Some of them were bringing in other supplies. Some of them were bringing in a lot of hashis,

like we would cross over from Balochistan, places like that, but a hell of a lot of times we find a bunch of food. and medicine. And you know what we do with it? We would just dump it in the ocean while kids like 50 miles that way are dying of just the very diseases that that medicine would cure and just watching it happen. And then watching, you know, and I don't blame the guys just like when you're in the culture, it's just, you know, it's just the culture. But then watching the crew and the command celebrate like we just was so big victory. We just interdicted, you know, another smuggler trying to bring supplies into uh into uh into yemen to help these terrorists and um you know and

it's medicine and food that could have saved a bunch of kids lives and we're just dumping dumping it in the ocean and it was one of the big reasons i walked away from the job you know i just i couldn't justify it to myself anymore to you know um or i just yeah i couldn't justify it anymore it was just it was keeping me up at night and so i just think that a hunger blockade's indefensible man you know it hits the civilians. It hits the most vulnerable civilians specifically. Churchill was being warned. He was being told. And I just, you know, especially given the experience of the Germans in the First World War, having that happened to them again, that this was going to go down. I mean, it's one of the things that really threw people into complete total war mode, where they were just like, we have to do anything possible, no matter what it is, no matter how ruthless, no matter how just you have to put all that side because we all remember what happened last time. And that, you know, and so that's it. And people can disagree with all that. But, you know, it's not a holocaust in now.

Yeah. No, and look, I was not trying to throw you under the bus on the, on the Carlson show. I didn't take it out of all. Other than. I agree with you. I agree with you 100%. Well, and look, and I'm trying to give due respect to people who honestly misunderstood and mostly probably because they read or heard what they were told by somebody else's interpretation

or selective quotation may or may not have actually seen. the original thing but even if they had seen the original thing i think they could have legitimately you know honestly misunderstood you because here on one hand you're trashing churchill instead of hitler which is how this conversation is supposed to go as far as anybody's ever heard before right so what the hell is up with this guy already and then again the starvation thing the way you explained it there was room there for them to i think misunderstand that you you were saying no even if you were a holocaust denier even you would have to concede this much they didn't get that part of it they thought that you were minimizing it to well what happened was they

invaded the east and then they didn't really have a plan to feed the people so then they just put them out of their misery kind of thing and they thought that that was your point was yeah poor germans are just misunderstood rather when that wasn't what you were even getting at at all but that was what they thought that you meant so that's the only reason i even bring it up here again today is not for whatever dishonest accusers with agendas, but for regular people with honest opinion so they can just hear you describe your own beliefs instead of other people describing them.

Yeah, and it's similar in a way to, you know, like you said, the fact that we're talking about Churchill instead of Hitler, like what are you even doing talking, you know, about it in that way? To me, it's very similar to when people, when you, you know, get upset about Israel bombing a Catholic church today in Gaza and you complain about it and you say oh well why don't you talk about what Hamas does why don't you condemn Hamas it's like why do I need to do Hamas is like marked for death like if if a Hamas member is seen anywhere that a satellite or a camera or anything can see them like they are

killed immediately and pretty much everybody thinks that that's perfectly fine like why do I have to harp on Hamas being bad or like whatever like that's you know it's like I like like I like Like when Abu Ghraib came out, I didn't, you know, say, well, yeah, but why don't, why aren't you talking about what Al Qaeda and Iraq's doing? How about that, huh? It's like, because, man, like, I'm not paying their bills. I'm not, like, responsible in a lot of ways for, for their behavior, you know, I'm not co-signing on it politically and, and, and taking blowback due to what they're doing. I have nothing to do with that. And Al Qaeda and Hamas are not interested in my opinion on their behavior, you know. And so, but what the U.S. Army is doing or what the

CIA is doing what the Israelis are doing when we're giving them our full support, financial, political, and otherwise, that does concern me. And that is like, and these are people that I expect on some level, you know, ought to be, ought to be speaking enough of the same language as me that me criticizing and complaining, like, actually means something. And so when I'm, you know, when you criticize Churchill for the off-ramps he avoided or the tactics that he employed, and you're not talking about Hitler, it's like, dude, what else is there to say about how bad Hitler was? Like, you know, do you really need another podcast about that? Like, that's something that, you know, but, you know, it's a ritual, though.

If you're going to talk about World War II, you have to go through, like, a certain historical... Well, and you know what, it's just with every subject now. Like, no matter what you say, immediately the job of everyone listening is to decipher the real agenda, behind what you're saying and why you would try to misleadingly lead them to believe the thing that you're trying to get them to believe. And that's the thing about everything. So, whereas you're saying, yeah, but I thought it already went without saying that we're against murder. And I thought it already went without saying that we're against Hamas. And I thought it already went without saying that we're against Hitler. Hitler of all, yes, we're against

Hitler. Are you really got to say that? But then the thing is, is, yeah, no, exactly. because everybody is filling in the gaps making up all of what they think you mean to say when you say the thing that you say. And it's just unavoidable now. It's how everything is. And of course, part of it is because of all the official dishonesty where people see all the lies and they don't know where the truth begins. You know what I mean?

They have no idea who to judge would even try to shoot straight with them. Everything's got to be for one agenda or another. You're part of one set or another. We all know what those people are like and what they're about and that kind of deal. So, um, yeah, there was a, especially on things like that, you do have to just say up front. Look, man, don't misunderstand. I say this all time and it sucks. I don't want to pander, but it is like a decent respect to people who would misunderstand me.

I don't care about Iran as such. I'm just telling you that Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Donald Trump are lying about what's going on over there. You know what I mean? Bush before them. That's all. I'm not, I'm just defending the truth. I'm not defending the Ayatollah out of law. loyalty to the Ayatollah. But the thing is, I feel like I do have to say that because people are like,

geez, why does this guy love the Ayatollah so much? It must be for a reason, because that's where they start from. Otherwise, why would I be explaining the truth about why our government or what our government's lies about Iran even are, you know? Yeah, there's a, you know, there's a, this is something that's kind of an indefensible statement in a democracy, I guess. But, you know, one of the things, I think we're kind of learning these days. Ever since politics became like a 24-7 vocation of such a massive part of the population due to the internet and smartphones coming along,

just being something that they're engaged with all the time, you start to realize after a while that politics, you know, it's something that even in its mild forms tends to induce like very strong us versus them thinking. It very often leads to paranoia of various intensity. you know and that it's not for everybody man like you know you have sometimes you know there've been stories guys like you know James Forrestall other people who they're in the game they were bred for this stuff and they get in there and they you know it's a little too much for them to handle psychologically because it's a lot of you know again like you're putting yourself into a

combative environment by by nature where people are trying to take from you and do things you don't want them to do and you're trying to do things they don't want to do and you're trying to do things they don't want to do and you're competing over the same resources. And to just take, like, the mass population and politicize them to the extent that we've all been politicized today, it's just not for everybody. You know, not everybody is psychologically cut out to be able to stay in that space and maintain a healthy balance. And, you know, one of the things, it's kind of related to what you were talking about,

and I don't know how we get around this, but I don't know how we get around this, I feel like somehow it's really at the core of like the problems we have to solve if we're, if we're going to improve any of the things that, you know, you and I and a lot of people watching us are concerned about is it just seems impossible these days. Like to have a, just have a serious conversation about any issue that is important to like the establishment, right? So when we talk about Russia, Ukraine, perfect example, right? you wrote a whole book called provoked and the point of that was the whole the whole thing is

unprovoked unprovoked you know aggressive war against ukraine unprovoked and you said well wait a second here like not saying he should have invaded um but let's be a little bit let's just at least talk like adults about this right like we all remember the Cuban missile crisis we all know what the Monroe doctrine is we all know how we would respond if this was happening in Mexico to us instead of Ukraine to them. We all in this room know that. So why is it that this person who was educated at Harvard sitting across the debate stage from me is going to sit there and pretend like they don't know any of that? And that to say that is repeating like Putin talking points when even the people on their side who are in favor of them rooting for them in the debate, even they know it.

Everybody knows it. And yet we engage in this fake conversation off to the side here that just doesn't address anything real that again even the people on that side know is the truth and so you know it prevents you from being able to have a real discussion about anything you know and that we have to figure out a way to fix that because um yeah you're going to get worse man you got AI photographs are right on the edge of completely believable and in many cases I guess even are believable uh you just bake anything now and you know yeah I've got You've seen words that people have used, have made of me for, like, articles about me and stuff. They've used AI to make pictures of me.

And fortunately, so far, they're not great. They still don't quite look like me. But give it another year, man. And they're going to be able to replicate this podcast and put whatever words they want in our mouths. Yeah. I think they probably already can, you know. And then so, yeah, then it's going to be you actually, before it got that bad, you already decided who you can trust. Well, I know I could trust Tom Woods.

He'd never lie to me. You know what I mean? But then you turn into the Tom Woods channel and you don't know if that's even really him anymore. You don't know if he's completely hacked and hijacked. I've got a friend who runs a company that is dedicated to putting, you know, digital content from music, books, podcasts, things like that, putting it on to the blockchain.

And because then now you have a record of like, this is what I made, when I made it, and if it was ever changed or altered or if it's not on there, then it ain't me. And it kind of gives you like a permanent record. And I think we're going to have to start resort into stuff like that. I mean, because it's scary how good all that stuff's getting, man. I mean, they're going to be, you talk about like, you know, in the past, like they would just have to plant fake news stories, exaggerating atrocities or accusing Assad of, you know, dropping chemical weapons or something like they had to man pretty soon they're going to be able to give you like all the pictures of the children crying and describing it in detail what it was like to be there and they

killed my mommy please save us mr trump or whatever they're going to be able to do that pretty soon like really convincing and we're already there and we're not ready for that at all yeah and we're already there with the algorithm man i mean when i look at youtube it's all just war and stand-up comedy and Burt skateboard contests and there's just the same stuff over and over and over again because that's what I'll click on. But man, there's a whole universe of stuff on there

that if I'm not thinking of it to search it, it ain't ever going to show me, you know what I mean? And the same for everybody else too. So they're living in their world where they're just getting what they want to see, what they've already shown. This is what pissed me off about,

like, Twitter especially, is there's the thing for, you know, for you and then there's the out the just following but following is also for you like it's also the same manipulated algorithm when for you or the following should just be everybody you're following in chronological order of their tweets man just hit me with the blast and because just as i don't like and retweet something doesn't mean i never want to see something by this guy ever again you know what i mean i don't know yeah i hate the way it is i mean it's one of those things that I get that I get the logic behind it, you know, they're trying to design ways that provide you with the content that you want to see. And the way that they know what you want

to see is what you've already engaged with. And so, you know, that's, that's fine. Like, I get it. But what it does, just what you're saying, creates these sort of self-referential loops that lock people into narratives and put them in ideological silos with other people who were just like them. And what you end up with are like cult situations, basically, you know, where, like when I was doing my Jonestown series, I did a ton of research just on cult behavior and cult in general. And one of the interesting things about it was how you take a guy like Jim Jones, right? Jim Jones was showing signs of serious destabilization very early in his life.

Like when he was just getting his movement started, first opening his church, you know, he would be talking about alien invasions and how he's getting messages. from God telling them there's going to be an alien invasion and they need to burn nuclear war and they need to prepare for that and all these things now if I do that I'm like Scott you got you got to listen to me dude I had this dream last night God came to me it's going to be nuclear war it's going to be aliens just we got to prepare like we got to build an arc you're going to be like all right take a breath buddy you know let's bring it down a notch you know should I come visit you need to get

let me I'm going to give you a call and like that's what would normally happen but you take Jim Jones and you put him into this environment where there's a cult personality built around him already and every single person around him when he says something like that is like totally wow I mean we we got to do something Mr. John then it just reinforces that you know because we're so circles of people out from there then everybody around them they see the consensus and go okay well I'm on I don't want to be on the outside of that this is what we all believe huh yeah and when everybody you know is agreeing about the same thing.

You know, that's where we're really going to take our primary reality reference from. And so then when you meet somebody from outside the circle who they're just like, what, alien? What are you talking about? It's like, oh, okay, I see. You're part of the problem. You're part of it, aren't you?

And it just really becomes like that. And that's really the effect that this siloing online is really having on people. It's creating like little miniature cults around all kinds of different things. I mean, it could be, you know, you see them building up around celebrities and sports figures where there's, you know, people who are just, there's whole, like, whole Twitter feeds that are just dedicated to hating, like, this celebrity.

So, listen, we only got a few minutes left. And I want to keep it out of an hour because I want you to, I hope, get some rest before you have to head over there and do this thing. I know you've had rough travels getting there. And first things first, as they say. But we got to at least mention that Trump is. flip a floppin on Ukraine and sending arms there and threatening sanctions when it's clearly way too little too late. We're at the point now where essentially he's at the acceptance part of

grief, I guess, or the bargaining part or whatever, you know, in the thing, but he's learning that he can't end this war. The Russians are obviously still on the ascent and yet still far from completing their goals, which may expand as soon as they do complete them in completing the takeover of the four provinces they've already officially annexed. We'll see how much further they want to go after that, if any. We really don't know for sure. But they're not going to deal with Trump and they're not afraid of his new sanctions regime, which, as we've already stipulated in months and years past here, Biden already tried sending more missiles and adding more sanctions. And there's not much more they can do. And if they just do this thing with this 100% or 500% tariff on

anybody who trades with Russia, they're just, America's just going to kick themselves out of the old world. They're not going to succeed in forcing China and India and everybody else to cease all trade with this country. They're just not going to. So, but then what's Trump going to do? Because he might get real upset. And then at the same time, and you can just say whatever you want about these things. And if we don't have time and we leave some on the table for next week, that's okay too. But we got major problems still going on

in Syria as well with the Israelis siding with some Druze against the bin Ladenites who are backing the Bedouins against them. And so that's an ongoing thing with ceasefires with explosions. I don't know what you call that, but still

going on. And then of course, Gaza. And, you know, there's an article that was in the new york times that's on antiwar dot com today that would be uh you know thursday yesterday is antiwar dot com by the time people see this um but it's a column by omer bartov or bartov who i already knew him because i quote him in my book uh talking all about the holocaust in ukraine and world war two and how he had covered part of that and also some of the aftermath and and um the erasure of the memory of the former jewish culture there and that kind of thing

and he has this piece accusing Israel of genocide. He was born in Israel, raised there, spent half his life there. He's a professor of Holocaust studies at Brown University. And he says he was reluctant to say this. He's not Mr. Hyperbole left-wing activist in the street here. He's a professor, and he's saying, no, this may be crimes against humanity, but I'm not prepared to call it a genocide yet. And then he got to the point where, yeah, no, it is.

Because the whole thing of it is, is it's not just killing people. It's the attempt to completely erase or destroy their civilization, their society, their country, their status as a people and remove them. And that's what they've done by essentially destroying the entire Gaza Strip and attempting now to force them all the way out. And so it's a kind of thing where people aren't there yet, here's your whole pass, okay? Here's an Israeli-born professor of Holocaust studies saying, look, man, I do this for a living. yes we're over that line now this is exactly what happened to us and we are not supposed to be doing it must come to an end right now and so it goes along with some of those top headlines where you see on anti-war dot com which everyone should be reading every single day davidicamp and

eric garrison all the great work they're doing over there that every single day the Israelis kill right around a hundred Palestinians sometimes 80 sometimes 130 whatever it is. But it's a Waco or two Waco's every single day they're in the Gaza Strip still. Yeah. In October 7th, every two weeks, you know, and doing this at a time where, you know, I think I mentioned this last time we talked about it, that there hasn't been a rocket fired out of Gaza since like April. And before that, it was rare for quite a while before that, you know. There's not, this is not like, these aren't people who are being killed because there's heavy combat and there's collateral damage. I mean, that's not what's going on.

over there anymore. There is no heavy combat. Like you occasionally have like a lone gunman or a small squad of Hamas guys that tries to ambush, you know, an armored vehicle or something like that. But that's not what the vast majority of this stuff is from. There's no heavy combat going on. There hasn't been for some time. And so I mean, you know, people have this idea, I think, of like how ethnic cleansing works and even genocide where they think that like, just to talk about ethnic cleansing that that means like you're sending your forces door to door through every neighborhood and rounding the people up and putting them on trucks and dumping them on the other side of the border or something or you're taking them all out to a pit and shooting them that's not how it usually that's

that kind of thing that takes a lot of manpower it takes a hell of a lot of dedication it's hard it's going to be violent you're going to take casualties like what it usually means and you can see this certainly at play here is you know you do a couple high profile atrocities you put it out there there that you could be next, your kids could be next, you burn down a lot of homes, you cut off the food and other resources people need to live, and you just harass and terrorize the people until they finally decide to leave. And even genocides, you know, we're all sort of very used to the, you know, the story of gas chambers and, you know, big pits full of people getting shot by the thousands in World War II. Even most genocides, like things when you hear about,

like in the Congo and, you know, two million people killed or something in a war. Like the way a lot of that happens is very similar to what I just said. You know, you go into a village, you torture and murder all the adults there. You kill all the boys who are big enough to hold a gun. You take all the girls and young boys off with you. And then you make sure that a few people escape to go tell the next village what just happened. And those people, when they hear you're coming, they all flee out into the bush. And guess what? Women and pregnant women and kids and old people, they all die the first couple days out there. And the men, you know, are probably already in some militia or whatever. But even the men like will end up alone and dying, you know, in the bush somewhere, either a human hand or environmental. That's how most of these genocides work. It's not even the Nakhba, you know, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 48 worked this way. It's why the Israelis, for example, you know, they didn't, you

about like today you hear about like there yesine the massacre there and it was like a mili massacre basically style thing that happened in um in uh in in 1948 carried out by israeli militias that were commanded by two future prime ministers of israel by the way um and today you'll get people and you even see this in some books and stuff you know that oh it's just it's totally exaggerated and or it didn't even really happen it's all made up like uh by the gauze health ministry or whatever, you know. But back then, the Israelis, they were not, or the Zionists, I guess they were still at that point, they weren't shy about it.

In fact, they, when they got to Lita and Romley to clear out the 50,000 residents of those cities and send the residents of Romle out into the desert where hundreds of them died along the side of the road because they had nowhere to go, no food, no water. When they were coming in and about to go into those cities, they were driving around trucks around the towns with speaker systems. where they were telling everybody what happened in Deere Yassine and you're next if you try to resist us and if you don't do what we say and get out of here. And so that's, this is how ethnic cleansings usually work. You know, they advertise the atrocities because they want you to leave.

And I mean, gosh, man, you know, I really have to think that the, even the Israelis have to be looking at each other just amazed at what they're getting away with right now. I mean, you're talking about, I mean, we've got daily massacres of crowds of civilians on camera. We've got soldiers giving interviews to major newspapers, commanders giving interviews to major newspapers. You've got international organizations, totally apolitical, you know, like relief organizations. Former prime ministers. A homeowner. Yeah, that's right.

That's right. And when you think back to like the early part of the war when I can't remember the name of it, but they they bombed those people in that hospital. And there was a like a full spectrum propaganda effort to deny that that had happened or that it was a mistake or whatever. There are no hospitals left in Gaza anymore. And they don't even, I mean, just it's fine. You know, I think there's there's no consequences at least immediately. But, you know, I'm a firm believer.

call it karma call it god's justice whatever you want but uh nobody ever really gets away with anything and everything uh has a price and um you know you just hope because there are a lot of great people in israel um you know you just hope that that price doesn't doesn't fall on a lot of people who don't deserve it because you know they they have crossed they've crossed several red lines into a zone that you know especially i can't imagine as a jewish person looking back on your history of persecution leading up to the to the genocide and then and then seeing this happen and having to sort of reconcile those two things in your mind. I mean, you know, we know how it gets done. It's the way that everybody always does it in those situations where you

have these two irreconcilable things, you know, is you just have to brutally dehumanize the other people, you know, and that's how you can go to bed at night knowing that you're committing a Holocaust against a bunch of helpless people, you know, and when it happened to you and your grandparents. And so it's, you know, I talk a little bit about a real quick about the Russia thing, too. I, you know, I think there's this thing about Trump that is like, sometimes it's kind of charming, you know, where I guess just probably because, you know, of his days as a Manhattan real estate dealmaker guy, he thinks that everything can be kind of boiled down to personal relationships, you know? I just got to talk to Putin, sit down across the table, look him in the

eye, and then we sit down and we can just work this out. We can talk about it because I know him. He'll know me. And, you know, when he goes over to North Korea and he's shaking hands with Kim Jong-un and they're walking across that line back and forth, that's good. It actually works there. You know, that was actually an improvement in our relations and it brought things down, you know, to a lower temperature. But when you're talking about Russia, you're talking about a major power, you know, that has been led, like, just strung along and drawn into a conflict that they didn't want and didn't plan for, that has cost them, I mean, who knows how many casualties they've actually taken, but it's a lot. And it's way more than anything we've experienced, at least since World War II.

before that. And that at this point, like, they're not, they're not conducting foreign policy based on Vladimir Putin's personal relationship with Donald Trump. They're done with all that shit. And they're like, we're this, these decisions have already been made. The way this war ends is we win and we put ourselves in a position where we feel confident that you can't decide in 28 when whoever gets elected, that you want to restart this thing again.

you know we just is just our only option it really is just unfortunate the time you and the way they're fighting this war of attrition if they had finished takings of proje and kurson last november this wouldn't be an issue right but trump just got sworn in for his second term at the wrong time and i think he really was sincere but you're right there's just no way that he's going to talk Putin into stopping short of those lines where he's not at and Putin says oh yeah no we can make peace that's fine but the ukrainians have to withdraw their forces from the entire areas of zeprosion kurson which is like a half to a third of of those territories um or a third to a half i should say which they're not going to do of course

they're not going to give in and leave so it's just but then that real the the problem is trump's just going to get mad then if he can't get what he wants here now he's going to try to escalate and send in weapons which is just going to make matters worse maybe not even prolong it maybe not even make that much of a difference other than just helping to sour the relationship with Russia even further and as you say he ain't going to last anyway he's only got three more years and then it's going to be somebody else it could be a democrat or lindsay graham's choice you know to replace him and so we don't know it can be marco rubio be the president so um why you know if you're the russians and you got to place your bets

you're going to place your bets on the permanent establishment, not the rogue who sometimes means well, you know. Yeah, exactly. And, you know, that's the worst part probably about it is the Russians, man, they're not going to forgive us for 100 years for this. And it's really, it's too bad because this is not some joke of a country that you can push around. And we found that out, you know, with the sanctions, with the military situation, it's just not. so same thing with iran and we don't have time to talk about this but maybe we'll put this off for next time but i keep hearing everybody talk about the short and successful uh war with iran there led by israel where america chipped in at the end and yet i think

all of the issues outstanding there remain unresolved whatever damage was inflicted on those sites and so you know they said iraq war one was short and sweet too but we've been fighting bomb in iraq for 34 years since then So Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen is that same one that you were talking about in year aid of it. You're over there watching guys dump their medicine in the water. So we'll see how that goes. And I don't know the very latest updates from, you know, the progress there. Jesus Christ, I'm live on the thing here.

Thanks very much. we've got to wrap it up here in a second i got to piss i was just trying to finish that sentence and i was going to be done whatever the hell i was talking about um uh oh you could splice this shit chris i hope i don't know exactly what is the status of what they do have left at natanzin fordo and the rest or how quickly they'll be able to get their nuclear program back up and running again but it's clearly not all the way over yet and so yeah let's put a pin in

that one and pick that up next week yeah absolutely all right get some rest and have a great time and don't go too far off on too many tangents now and uh you stick to your story there and i know you'll be great and uh can't wait to watch we'll all be uh all right see you buddy thanks all right You know, Yeah, and Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.