Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton - EP:47 - The Israel Lobby Defeats Massie, with Dave Smith

Episode Date: May 23, 2026

Scott Horton, Darryl Cooper, and Dave Smith discuss Thomas Massie being ousted by the Israel Lobby, the corruption of the Trump administration, the state of the Iran war, Israel's ongoing aggressive expansion into Lebanon, and more. Chapters: 0:38 Opening Remarks 2:23 Massey, Lobby, and Realignment 8:53 Presidential Possibilities 12:43 Podhoretz and Jewish Power 20:35 Paranoia and Identity 33:57 Ben-Gvir’s Public Humiliation 43:08 Mearsheimer, Walt, and China 1:00:29 War, Terror, and Cuba (Cleaned up w/ the Podsworth app. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podsworth.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Provoked show site: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://provoked.show⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Darryl's links: X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@martyrmade⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.martyrmade.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Scott's links: X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@scotthortonshow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://scotthortonacademy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://libertarianinstitute.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://antiwar.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://scotthorton.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://scotthorton.org/books⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.scotthortonshow.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor.

Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. All right. Tonight on the show, we got Dave sitting in with us here. All humans break. The difference between humans and gods is that gods can break humans. Negotiate now. End this war.

You're watching Provoked with Daryl Cooper and Scott Horton, debunking the propaganda lies of the past, present, and future. This is provoked. All right. Cheers, everybody. Welcome to the show. It's what up. Sorry, not live, so we won't be taking your chats tonight, but pre-recorded here.

Got to travel this weekend for Libertarian Party reasons. Sorry, but anyway, this episode of Provoked, brought to you by Libertarian Institute Publishing. Our 20th book has just come out, The Trump Assassination Plots by the heroic investigative journalist Ken Silva. Get your hot copy today. It's available on Kindle now as well over there on your Amazon.com. And, of course, as you can tell, we got the mildly humorous comedian Dave Smith on with us and

good old martyr made as well. Darrell Cooper co-host of the show here. So welcome, guys, both you. What's up, guys? What's? One small piece of news, which is I'm hitting refresh because I was on Pierce Morgan yesterday about the airstrikes against that killed the civilians, that killed the children in the initial stage of the war there. They had me on with two New York Times reporters and this guy, Max after burner, the airplanes are cool kind of podcast YouTuber guy, which everybody just ignored him basically. And I had a good little discussion with the New York Times reporters and Pierce Morgan about those airstrikes and all that. So that would be coming out here pretty soon, I guess. I guess, well, by the time this has hit, it'll have been out yesterday.

So, yeah. And then, yeah, and I am on my way to Grand Rapids to do Libertarian Party things. So if anyone is nearby and a delegate and a straggler make sure and show up because we got some voting to do there to make sure that things aren't worse for those interested in that. But then also we have a lot of news to cover. I guess I want to start with our guest, Dave Smith. What's your initial take on the Israel Lobby's defeat of Thomas Massey there in the house in Kentucky in that primary there? Oh, well, I don't know. I mean, I guess I'd imagine like both of you guys, certainly I was, I was bummed out about it. I was, I think I'm too like, I'm, I don't know, I'm, I've been burned too many times to get really heartbroken about politics anymore. Like I was thinking about, if you, you remember

Scott in, in 2012 when Ron Paul was running for president and he was, he was polling, like, basically tied for first in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I remember just thinking, like, dude, if Ron Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire, we're off to the races here. Like, The media was blacking them out, and that was the big issue in those days because we didn't have podcasts and stuff, or they weren't big. But you were like, hey, if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, there's no way he's not the number one story in the country. They got to talk about him. And then people are going to hear his stuff. And then we're going to blow this.

And Romney was so vulnerable, you know, amongst like the conservative base. I don't know. I was like, we're going to do this. And then, you know, if you remember Scott, they screwed him out of Iowa. And he did win. He ultimately, when they corrected the record, like he got the most delegates, but it didn't matter because that's not what the newspapers said for the days leading into New Hampshire, and then it just the whole thing fell apart. So anyway, I'm rambling, but that really broke my heart, and I don't think I'm capable of having my heart broken like that anymore. But it was very, it was a bummer because I love Thomas Massey and he's a good man and I felt bad for him.

But in some other way, I was kind of left with this feeling of like, you know, there's a whole realignment that just happened here. like new battlegrounds have kind of been drawn. It was kind of like if there was any experiment with the libertarians teaming up with Donald Trump and supporting him in 24. I mean, really, that ended last summer with the 12-day war. But this was kind of like made it official. I think it made Thomas Massey kind of the official leader of something. And I don't know what that's going to turn into.

But also, I mean, I'm sure like you guys, I was in a weird way a little encouraged that it really did take them pulling out all this. stops. I opened my podcast yesterday by saying, I don't know if anyone except you listening probably got it, Scott, but when I said they finally got Thomas Massey, but he sure scared the bejesus out of them,

which is a reference to an old Murray Rothbard line that he wrote about David Duke. But anyway, I don't know. I found that to be a very interesting dynamic. And the way the corporate media and then like the kind of Israel lobby podcast, that Daily Wire guys, they're all trying to.

spin it is, look, Trump just had so much juice. But to anyone actually paying attention, to anyone who's not a boomer who just watches Fox News, that line's not going to work, dude. We all saw, Donald Trump turned on Thomas Massey in 2020 and, you know, endorsed

his opponent, I believe, in his primary that year. He went with 82% of the vote. It wasn't Trump's appeal. It was $32 million from the Israel lobby and Fox News blacking him out, you know? Yeah, so, I mean, I think, I have, I guess I have a few

takes on it. Like one is, you know, just the nature of congressional service, quote unquote, service has changed so much in the last 15 or 20 years even where I can't remember, I think it was just maybe 15 years ago. I can't remember exactly, but they passed a law basically making, you know, what's always been referred to as pork barrel spending, like sort of much less of what Congress people do. And, you know, it really changed the nature of having these guys from local districts who were going in and kind of saw it as their job to get their piece of the pie for their people back into now it's really like it's a it's a it's a way to give somebody like a national platform to speak on larger issues like really is what it is nobody's really even talking about

even at the senatorial level they barely even talk about their states or anything like that it's all just a platform for trying to address these these larger issues that are really national and scale and aren't local like that. And so when I look at somebody like Massey, I mean, he's somebody who took full advantage of that. And, you know, not to say, I don't know the ins and outs of what he was doing for his district. So I'm not saying he wasn't doing anything.

But in terms of, you know, using it as a platform to speak on something that he thought was important and right. He sort of really showed the way for that. And by the time we get to hear, like the way I really think about, like, there's, well, two thoughts on it. One is, you know, you got to see. that the lobby is still, they can still flex, but it took them, as you said,

literally everything they had, every resource they had to take out, you know, a Kentucky House of Representatives guy who, you know, he's popular, like he's got a big following nationally and stuff, but they're in Kentucky in his district. I mean, you know,

he's another guy who's got, you know, his policy, and it took everything they had to get him out of there, even with Trump himself, just coming out of it. after this guy as hard as possible. The lobby still had to throw the kitchen sink just for this one little guy. So that is encouraging, even if it did show that they still have some residual strength.

But then the other side of it, and I mentioned this to you guys yesterday, it's like, I mean, what do we get out of Thomas Massey having two more years in Congress? It's like another, he's going to be a backbencher pushed to the sides by the Republican leadership and, you know, not given any important committee assignments. He's going to be able to use that platform to continue to be a gabberts. flight, but I don't think that's going to go away. He's already got that. He's built that. He's built a loyal following. And in a way, him sort of being the sacrificial lamb that really put the capstone on this whole argument of the influence of the Israel lobby and the

Zionist lobby in U.S. politics, you know, them taking him down really kind of put the cherry on the cake there. So I don't want to say it went, you know, as well as possible. I would have preferred that he won, but I really do think maybe he kind of reached the limit of what he could accomplish in Congress. You know, two more years of him being up there calling out the Israel lobby and everything, it would be certainly like useful. It would be emotionally satisfying and all that. But I think we're at the point now where, you know, it's probably diminishing returns. And so I look forward to seeing what he does in the future. All right. Now, Dave, you're saying on your show, you think that there's a real chance that he's going to go ahead and run or you certainly would encourage him to run for

president. I saw actually the lady that they're talking about making the attorney general, who I don't know a lot about Dylan, I think is her name. She seemed to be a very compromised that guy. But anyway, somebody had tweeted that, you know, this opens up the possibility of Thomas Massey running for president. And she said, of what? So like, that's just the most absurd thing in the world ever. He just lost a house primary. So tell us about your thinking there. Yeah, you know, I saw, and I mentioned this on my show, but I saw Orrin McIntosh. had tweeted to our Liam McCollum, our young, beautiful Liam,

whose show I had to cancel today because I got some family stuff that came up. But he, so essentially he was saying the same thing. He was, you know, like Liam was like, oh, Thomas Massey 2028 and then Orrin, who I like very much, you know, but he, and understandably his response was, like, you just lost a primary.

Now you think you're going to, you know, you just lost a primary for a little Kentucky. And like that, okay, that does, like, that has a nice ring to it. and sounds like it makes sense. But I don't know. I mean, you know, the fact is that the issues that Thomas Massey got the Israel lobby, you know, sicked on him for are things that are wildly popular with the American people

and with, even with the Republican Party base. And, you know, I think that the big question going into 28, I mean, it's hard to predict because it's far off in the future, but at least as of right now, is like who could pick up that Trump winning coalition. And I don't think anyone who's in this administration really has an opportunity to do that. And I will say, you know, look, it was, I mean, he openly kind of flirted with it,

Thomas Massey did at his concession speech there. I'll say that I really, I love the demeanor and the attitude he had at that thing. It was very like happy warrior. I think also the other thing that we just didn't mention about this is that the, you know, The generational lines that were drawn in this race were really something. It really was as simple as just the boomers got convinced by Fox News to go against Massey.

And I don't know. I mean, I look at it and I think it would be great if he ran. I mean, I think not only would he, this isn't just like a Ron Paul or a Pat Buchanan type situation where he could insert some really important issues and get people thinking about them. Like, I think he could win. And don't get me wrong, I mean, it would be a fight, and part of it would be, because we've already seen how angered all the most powerful interests are by this guy. But, I mean, I don't know. Look at what Donald Trump was able to do in 2016. Now, that did include partnering with the Israel lobby, and Massey is not going to do that. And I don't think we'd be able to do that. But I don't know. I'm open to like, I think there's a real possibility. And I think if he does it, I think if he ran for president, it would be massive. you know, like it would really be something much, much bigger than,

it would be closer to Bernie Sanders in terms of size than it would to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan or something like that. Yeah. Well, I am enjoying the great crackup, but it's going to be long and ugly and difficult. I mean, the wins have turned against Israel so hard on the Democratic side already. And yet you still have the leadership and the ownership and the donors of that party are lockstep Biden. nights when it comes to Israel and no matter what they do. And so there's a real point of attention there that it's going to be fun to watch how it breaks. And the same thing is happening more and more on the right. And yeah, they're not going to give up without a fight at all.

So I wanted to share this clip that you had actually sent me, Dave, of John Podhorst. This is Norman Podhorst's fun. Norman Podhoritz being one of the founding. leaders of the neo-conservative movement in America. And this is his Nepo Baby, the editor of Commentary Magazine, who blocked me on Twitter like 15 years ago or something, just because I quoted him saying that we needed to kill all Sunni males in Iraq, and that'll solve the insurgency problem. I guess maybe he's an Iranian agent.

He doesn't look that bright, does he? He's the guy that Tucker Carlson told the story on Joe Rogan, He sat there and watched him eat the entire watermelon, and then the watermelon ride as he sat there and explained why he was so smart and everybody else wasn't. Dude, Tucker's got some good stories about him that he hasn't said on air, too. I can't reveal any more than that, but I think Darrell probably knows what I'm talking about.

I can think of one. I'm not allowed to repeat. Yeah, I know. They're bad, dude. We might be thinking of the same thing. I think so. Well, I'm sworn to not compare notes with anyone, but yeah, this guy. Anyway, so here's good old J-Pod.

I think it is a good thing. If Massey and the people like him and others believe that if you cross, if you cross the line into anti-Semitism, Jews are going to use the power that we have openly to go for you. Because what other recourse is there? Are we just going to sit here and take it? beg for scraps, hope that nice people are nice to us. The Democratic Party is going explicitly anti-Semitic.

We can see it happening. People are getting benefits, as Seth says, for being anti-Semites, that seems to be part of an appeal in primaries to the left and the party. We have to use what means there are at our disposal. And in my view, I'm going to put it blank, that is Jewish money. There is an enormous amount of Jewish money.

money in politics, by which I mean Jewish donors wildly disproportionate, not only charitably, but politically. When I say charitably, I mean, nobody really knows the numbers. Jews make up 2% of the population, according to some studies, Jews make up 20% of the charitable contributions made in the United States annually. That is a 10-fold. Think about that. Think about the disproportion of that. And in politics, it's pretty close also. And if that money isn't used, what, why do people give money? Because they want to influence elections to get people elected who reflect their views. Well, this is an existential issue for Jews. And the Jews who explicitly give money because they want to make it clear to anti-Semitic candidates that they are going to have to go through a buzzsaw

and that they are not going to simply waltz in and be, you know, be, if they're treated with kid gloves by the New York Times, we are double time going to do what we can to expose who they are, to find out what we can find out about them that will harm them, and that we will do what we can to prevent them from taking office. What other choice does American Jewry have? Okay. So now I'll turn it over to our Jewish comedian and most honest historian in the world to parse all of that. Go ahead, boys. Well, first, I think you should cut that whole clip out

because you're going to get us banned from YouTube for anti-Semitism for playing it stuff. He's a terrible conspiracy cooks. Well, isn't there something, I'm real curious, like, Darrell, your take on this, but there's something, I mean, look, there's a lot there to pick apart. And he is such a weird guy, John Putthardt.

You know, I've read, I was talking to Scott about this earlier, but like, I read it, I read a couple of his dad's books that I actually really liked. Yeah, there was the book called Old Friends or something like that, which was really interesting. It was just like about how he was buddies with like Alan Ginsberg in the 60s, but then they had this big falling out when he stopped being a left winger. I don't know, I remember really liking it.

It was a while ago that way. But anyway, I don't know why I'm rambling about that. But isn't there something so interesting that like, okay, on the, like maybe this is kind of changed now because on the online right wingers do very much talk about this. Even though more left-winger's, like, broadly speaking, the left has turned on Israel

more than the right has, but this conversation is only really happening on the right. Like, the lefties don't really like getting into the conversation about, like, Jewish money and stuff like that. But there's these kind of like phrases.

I was thinking about this when I just had Fuentes the show the other day. But there's this thing where like, I'll say like the Israel lobby or Israel or whatever. And then maybe like more right-wingers will say something like, like organized jewelry or Jewish money.

And like if you hear that term come out of their, you're almost like trained to be like, oh, but now you're, you're floating up against the line of something. Like, it's okay when you say the lobby, but it's not okay when you, but then it's so interesting that these guys, like to your point that this would get us flag for anti-Semitism,

these guys are actually very comfortable using that same language. Like, I mean, you don't say, right? That's the whole thing is they'll always, that was the Caitlin Johnstone tweet this morning, was I'm against what Israel is doing and they go, you hate Jews. Yeah, but no, I just am critical of what's going on here. Just say Jews.

Jews is what you're trying to say. Why don't you just say that? And then she insists on saying what she's actually trying to say. And then how she's saying, no, it's anti-Semitic to conflate Jews with what Israel does and it's also anti-Semitic

to not conflate all Jews with what Israel does, depending on whether the Zionist in question is trying to hide behind their Judaism or not. basically. Yeah. And I'll just, and then just quickly, because I'm curious

for you, to listen to you guys on this, but like the other thing that I think, and maybe this is because I'm of Jewish descent and this is where I see things like a little bit differently. But I guess my other, you know, which is like a major takeaway,

just from the last like two and a half years, particularly, is that, you know, it's like the people like John Pudharitz are, as Daryl has really described, they do have this like, paranoia, this intense paranoia that really is prevalent in the Jewish community, particularly

of my parents and grandparents generation. I think not so much with my generation and the younger one, where there is this like real severe paranoia about anti-Semitism and like, you know, even as he says there, right, he says this is existential for Jews. Like that's the mindset that there's an existential threat of Thomas Massey winning his primary to, I don't know, Jewish survival or something. But there is this thing that just gets me is that like if you're so concerned about that and like I'm not that level of

concerned but I also do like yeah I see that there is like a growing trend of people being very suspicious and maybe even hostile toward Jews. Then like you don't have like for a thought like my God man look at this videotape you're getting. Look at this advertisement

that you're cutting for them like you are you are you are like embodying the person sonification of the stereotype of what would get a lot of people. Because what are we going to do? Just let the people of Kentucky decide who they want to represent them. Why no? We'll poison your democracy with our Jewish money.

Do you not hear yourself saying this out loud? I'm still kind of floored by it. But yeah, that's all. Yeah, I mean, the thing about the paranoid complex, whether it's in individuals or groups, is that their worldview and really their sense of identity on a very deep level starts to fall apart with any disconfirming evidence. And so in the absence of it, you'll find that, you know, you see this with paranoid individuals

very much, even on a small scale with like, you know, somebody who thinks everybody at works always out to get them or something, even if it's not a real pathological, the CIA is coming for me kind of thing. You'll still see that, you know, people who think that way tend to find ways to manifest the thing that they're afraid of and to bring, you know, make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I mean, because as you said, if he really does believe that, then this is a totally insane thing to do until you realize that there really is kind of a pathology, you know, that ties into their, like, somebody like Pot Horitz is like a deep sense of like who he is, you know, as a person, as a Jewish person. And, you know, I think that you run into, you know, you run into a problem where when you have, I was reading a, I was reading a book for, the current podcast, the World War II series I'm doing right now,

because I'm going to start to address some of the, you know, the Jewish question stuff starts to really kind of manifest in this part of the story. And so I'm doing some research. And of course, because, you know, it's martyr made. I'm doing a World War II podcast. And I'm reading an academic book on early medieval Jewish policy in Western Europe, I believe is the title of the book. And it's about like Visigothic Jewish policy back in Spain before the Muslims took

kind of thing. And one of the things that the guy talks about in the beginning, a Jewish academic who wrote it, is he said that you go back through Jewish history since the medieval period in Europe, and you read through all the stuff, and a whole ton of it is written by Jews. Most of it actually went through the numbers, is written by Jewish academics. And he says that the problem with it is that if you read through it, you get the impression that it was just one circle of hell after another for a thousand years until, you know, the modern age kind of came about in the last century. And it's because a lot of these academics, they're like, they take on a project to sort of further the larger project of cataloging the history of Jewish suffering.

So when they go to find out about, you know, medieval Jewish policy in Pomerania in, you know, 1258 to 1332 AD or something, they're going in there to see like what bad things happen. and like to, you know, sort of illustrate and sort of put those into the record. And not that those things are, you know, obviously not that those things are not important, but it's kind of akin to what we've done a bit with World War II, where you have this gigantic world conflagration. I mean, that is not only the most important thing that ever, at least in modern history, happened to Germany or Jews or, but really like 100 countries around the world.

World War II is like the biggest thing that's happened in the last thousand years to them. And yet so much of at least the Western war history has been just really focused on Hitler and the Third Reich's anti-Semitism and the build toward the Holocaust and sort of cataloging the atrocities and everything, not to the exclusion of everything else, like to a complete degree, obviously, but sort of overweighted in that direction so that when people think of this gigantic world war today, they really do kind of like their intuition narrows it down to like this very small. specific, you know, area. And so, you know, I, I don't know. Like, I really wish that people like Potthoritz. And I mean, his, you know, his function is to make sure this doesn't happen. So maybe not people like him, but the people who listen to him, you know, would just come to understand that the way to, the way to address, if they're really, if they really are concerned with this, rather than, you know, you know, like, you know, it's like, it's like you have like, like, like white nationalist types who, you know, they, they think that black people or this group or that

group is like not compatible in America and, you know, blah, blah, blah. You can't even bring up to them. Well, maybe we should like reach out. Maybe we should sort of like reestablish like lines of communication and like really try to like, you know, make this work. They don't really want that. What they want is to fight. That's what they want. They want to go into a fight with somebody and to be in that mode. And somebody like Pod Horitz is like, Like that's where he's at. You know, he's approaching it in that sense. And, you know, for the people that aren't that are really like looking at it, it's a problem that we would like to, that we would like to solve.

So normal Jewish families can go about their business, you know, in America. You know, the message you get across to them is that what you want for that to happen. The only way, really, for that to happen is for people to be able to talk about all these things openly. And not in a way of like, look at what these scheming, dirty Jews are doing. everybody should call that person out and throw them out of the room if that happens. But to say, like, well, as you're just saying, like, to be able to say what he just said in a normal conversation, but in a critical way, you know, did it treat it just like anything else? Like, you know, American democracy is this system, right, where I've commented on this many times,

where there was this big break in the late 60s, early 70s, where the old WASP power structure that really stretched back all the way to the American Revolution and before that, And, you know, integrated new people as they got to be super rich, like the Rockefellers and stuff over time. But it was this one thing. You know, you could be integrated into it. But it wasn't, there was never a regime change behind the scenes. And when you get up to like the 60s and 70s with the Vietnam War and the cultural revolution, that class sort of became deal with their own power became delegitimized with their own children. And so none of their kids wanted to pick up the torch and sort of, you know, continue on. I always, you know, point out, I think Nelson Rockefeller died in 1978. And does anybody even know a Rockefeller after him? They exist, but nobody knows. Nobody cares, you know?

There was the guy that got eaten on, like, the Andaman Islands by those cannibals or whatever. But, like, that was but it. Yeah, Michael. And so after that happens, what do you have? You have this system in America, this governmental system that is basically this, it's an open system. You can, if you know how to work the controls, you know, then you can come up and you can drive to ship a state, wherever you wanted to go. For a couple hundred years, there was this, like, overarching power structure that stretched

back that sort of kept things within a certain range and, you know, kept special interests from being able to, because it was their country. That's how they looked at it. This is our country. This is going to be my great grandkids, you know, proprietary, like, possession. And no, you're not going to come in here and hijack it. Well, that's gone. And ever since the 70s, it's really just left the field open to, like, who's the best-funded

most well-organized interest group out there, you can come in and do which you want. And going back long, long before that, and not just in the United States, go back 100, 150 years, nobody's more organized and just as a community politically than Jews in any country you go to.

They're extremely well-organized. They know how to, even in political systems that aren't democratic, where you have an autocrat, you know, an emperor or something. They tend to know how to organize in a way to make sure that their voice is heard at the highest level of government, you know?

And that's a huge strength that comes from being of people who lived in diaspora very often under hostile governments for a long, long time. You have to kind of learn to be organized and look after yourselves like that. But when you insert that then into a thing that, you know, is supposed to be this one man, one vote,

you know, we all get together and sort of debate our positions and decide what's best and then vote on it. Then, you know, you start to run into these. these things where people kind of ask what's going on here. And if you just attack those people when they do that, then you're going to invite counterattacks and hostility. And it's a really hard thing to figure out how to sort of how to turn around. Yeah, it is so, isn't it so strange just that like, even as you said that, like, that the ask is just to be allowed to say the same thing that they're allowed to say, but maybe being critical of it. And there's several different examples of this.

You remember when the progressives used to always talk about the browning of America, and you were allowed to talk about it, but only if you were for it. And you could even talk about how it's going to give Democrats permanent majorities. But then as soon as you are opposed to it and maybe call it replacement instead of the browning of America, well, that now you're a horrible. And there's this weird one-two punch where, like, people like say, like Ben Shapiro will come out and say, this had nothing to do with the Israel lobby and only anti-Semites. think it did. But then John Podharitz comes out behind him and goes, well, yeah, obviously,

we did this. It's just, I don't know, it's a very strange, unsustainable dynamic. Well, and also it's kind of crucial, right, that this is J-Pod talking, right? This is card-carrying son of the neocon godfather speaking for the cult of power, which is not the same as all American Jews. He just wants to call it that because that's what's good for him. And I don't have all the latest polls. I don't know if anybody's really asking. But, you know, I don't even think it's cynical on his part. He's just an idiot.

And he wants to go, yeah, come on. It's us 2% of the population versus everybody else. Let's get them. Because he just thinks that's the smartest thing to do. But I don't know. Every Jew I know hates Israel. And I know that's not a random sample or anything. But it's, you know, far from consensus that, yeah,

whatever John Pot Horitz thinks, that's what we're all doing here, according to, you know, whatever Jewish communities throughout the country. I highly doubt that. And I know that, at least going back to the Iraq war in the polls, they were, you know, as divided by ethnic or religious group or however they did it, Jews were the most opposed to the Iraq war than any other group. And you could say, I've said this before, because it makes sense. You say, well, that's just because they're liberal Democrats and it was W. Bush's war. But fine, they're still weren't Lakudniks doing what Ariel Sharon wanted, which would have been to support it, you know, so.

Or even, even Israeli, like the Labor Party, which totally supported it, like Ehud Barak and those guys were totally for the war. So, you know, like even the liberal representatives of Israel were still Lakudniks when it came down to the war. Anyway, you know what? It sucks that we got to talk about this all the time because anybody who's not like a ninth grader or is, you know, obviously just means well and is trying to figure. out what's going on here.

Anyone can say, like, you know, the discrepancies here in these definitions. It's just the only real rub to me is that, and this was, came up in Tucker Carlson's interview with the pollster that he did last night, where the pollster guy said, look, these people really do believe. And I guess he's talking here about the accusers, the people who we would think of just being, you know, the most malignant kind of smear artists that, no, they also are, you know, know, in a sense, victims of their own propaganda, I guess, that they really have convinced themselves. Anyone who says anything against them hates Jews, otherwise they would never

criticize them for anything. And they just have this magic, you know, self-reinforcing shield of you wouldn't be against me if I wasn't so great. You wouldn't have said anything about me unless you woke up this morning wanting to kill me for no reason whatsoever. And then once you talk yourself into that, well, like, you're basically, you know, it's like just putting your fingers in your ears and singing, la, la, la, la, you don't have to try to understand what's going on. And then, so that's the real problem is, I mean, I presume the smear artists are mostly dishonest, but there are a lot of people who believe them. There are a lot of people who honestly can't see a way to understand this issue other than, well, this guy's criticizing Israel.

Obviously, that's just a way to get away with criticizing Jews and polite society these days. But even that divide is so, it's so generational, though. You know, like, just like with this Thomas Massey campaign, I mean, you know, in a weird way, like, like Israel going so genocidal might have solved the Jewish question for the next generation. Because it is much like there's a real parallel to what Daryl was saying with the Wasps kids after Vietnam. And the young Jews in this country are just totally rejecting this, like, identifying with Israel and even really identifying with the, Holocaust and with the concept that like another Holocaust is a few moments away, if not for the state of Israel existing, is something that is so subliminally baked into the cake of like my parents' generation of Jews. And now looking at like the younger generation of Jews,

but if you bring up genocide, they're thinking Gaza, they're not thinking World War II. And they want nothing to do with the identity that they're attached to this at all. So that'll be interesting to see like where that goes. Yep. All right. Well, look, hey, let's change the subject to Ben Gavir in the actual talking about it. Yeah. So that's what he calls it, for sure.

And he's the minister of national security over there. And what happened was they intercepted another flotilla of humanitarian aid delivery, you know, attempted, failed, as they've done many times. And they intercept them all. And then they released the footage of him, Frog March, all of the captives and the way he's mocking. He's the minister of national security himself,

standing there mocking them and saying, welcome to hell and welcome to Israel, as they're all being frog marsh around and bullied and beat up and whatever. And so this has caused a public relations scandal over there where Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett have both said that, hey, you're not supposed to act that way on camera. It looks bad for the Americans

who've got to pay our way in the world, so knock it off. Bennett, I thought, kind of humorously, wrote this long tweet about how next time I'm in charge, we're going to revamp our entire Hasbara game. And then the whole tweet is just about how we're going to lie better. We had nothing to do with, you know, because we're going to back off our cruelty by the slightest degree. But anyway, it seems like that to really make the difference because these aren't Palestinians. They're people, you know, in many cases, people from the West.

I don't know the percentages or whatever, but it's, you know, a lot of different people there, you know, doing the right thing, taking a big risk in getting on those flotillas to go and try to bring aid to Gaza being treated that way. And so I don't know what all it means in terms of the consequences

for international politics in Europe or America or anything like that, but it seems like the kind of thing that can be even more meaningful than the actual bombing of the place is just showing somebody who, very well could be any political activist in America being treated the same way kind of thing. I don't know. I saw there was a lot of outcry about it and hell, the fact that Netanyahu and

Bennett both had to race to say this is not our fault kind of thing like that seemed to mean that was important or maybe. Yeah. The thing that's interesting to me about it and like maybe most telling is that, you know, Netanyahu can make a comment, Bennett can make a comment, but that there's nobody in the Israeli power structure, no senior bondholders somewhere, not Netanyahu himself, that can reign a guy like Ben Gavir in. It kind of shows you where the state of their politics is, you know, where just nobody has the power to tell that guy like, dude, like, yeah, we get it. Like, we're with you. We agree. But you can't do that, like on camera. Like, just that nobody can make him do that. Nobody can, like, push him back into line is, you know, it's kind of, it's, yeah,

I think it's kind of alarming and very telling about where, just, politics is in general over there. Yeah. For like people who are over there, because I know they exist, I know a few of them who, yeah, you know, they'd be Republicans in America maybe

in terms of their right-left orientation, but they're just liberals, you know? And they don't like Netanyahu and all that kind of stuff. It's got to be a weird experience, man. Like, for me, it would be like being a liberal in the United States. I always, you know, make the,

just to sort of put it and translate it into terms everybody understands, you know. Ben-Gavir. So what is he? He's a minister of national security, so he's like Secretary of Defense or something, Secretary of State, whatever. And imagine somebody at that level being the head of the White Power Party, like he's the head of the Jewish Power Party,

and who has said that, so Secretary of State is the head of the White Power Party, and he's gone on record many times saying that one of his great heroes is Dylan Roof, just like Ben Gavir said that Baruch-Goldstein, the mass shooter back in the 90s, was one of his heroes. And you look at that and you say, you know, on one level, it's, wow, that guy is crazy. It's like, yeah, but think about, like, how things have to be in order for a guy

to get into that position and really be apparently, like, kind of unassailable, where he can go and act like that guy. It's not like, David Duke gets up into office and now he's like, all right, I'm going to put some of that stuff aside and, like, try to maintain respect with. No, I'm going to go up and be David Duke. Like, let's go.

Like, right up we're on the Senate floor or whatever. and nobody having the ability, having the power to like pull that guy back. And, you know, it's just, yeah, it's got to be just a very toxic political environment in general for that to happen. Yeah. Well, good. And in terms of the images as far as, you know, that getting through to more people that, man, this is becoming something harder and harder to stand behind. But just like with the crack up in the political parties, there's a crack up coming on all of this debating over the uses of the term. Jews and Jewish and Zionist and Zionism and the lobby and all of that.

People are just sick and tired of being bossed around over unfair accusations. I mean, people still in my mentions say, oh, well, you're a racist when the clip is not me discussing race at all. I don't know what you're talking about. You know what I mean? It's just, it's such a hollow thing. And I think there's a big change coming there. And then when people are no longer afraid to talk about it, then things can either, you know,

will almost certainly get better in some ways, but it could get worse, too. But that's the position that the Pot Horowitz has so long been putting us in here. I mean, what the hell are you going to do? I mean, one of the projects I think of people, like certainly me, that I, some might think about a lot. And I think all of us, like, kind of in our,

you know, people who approach this issue and this collection of issues the way we do, it's really a task that we have right now is trying to help articulate a language for people to talk about it that isn't just, like, profoundly anti-social and, you know, leads down the same bad roads that, you know, got us here. And, like, trying to figure out what that language is and offering it to people so that they can use it, you know, without fear and without, not just without fear of, like, social reproval, but also, you know, without triggering all of those alarm systems that have been embedded in their heads since elementary school, that they're a terrible person if they think these things or say these things, you know, those are very powerful.

And they're really deep in there. And so, you know, one of those, like an example, that's what you guys were talking about earlier. Like, you got to have a way to, you know, distinguish between the Jewish accountant who lives down the block and the network of like multi-billion dollar funded international Jewish organizations that lobbies governments and does all these things and stuff. Those are rightly said, two separate things. and you need a way to talk about them as separate things, you know, and organized Jewry obviously has some like historical baggage, you know, attached to it. But, I mean, that's what people are getting at when they say that, you know.

And the people who do use that term, some of them do it because they know it has historical baggage and they're sort of picking that scab. But also it's that, you know, they say, you say the Zionist lobby or the Israel lobby, and that just, it doesn't go far enough. Like it doesn't encompass like the whole, the whole, you know, network that we're looking at here and that's, you know, that's sort of visible. So figuring out the right ways to talk about that is so that people who aren't, you know, like the problem with any of this stuff, right, whenever you have an issue where, like, everybody's wrong about it, you know, the sort of the social

consensus that's imposed on everybody is, is wrong. But there are going to be consequences if you speak out against it or come out in another way. What you tend to get, in this is a really hard problem to overcome. I mean, the online right and just sort of the dissident right in general has been struggling with this for years is the people who are going to be the ones, especially early on, who say, I don't care, like, I'll say it. Yeah, those are very often going to be like antisocial personalities, people who like to fight. And so that, they start to collect.

And then after a little while, people look over at all the people who are asking these questions, and it's a bunch of those people, you know, and then good people, you know, and then good people kind of come in there and they look around they're like, yeah, I don't know about this. Maybe what people are saying about this whole scene is right. You know, I think I'm just going to not ask these questions anymore. And so like, you know, getting past that and just getting to a place where, you know, you can address these questions without hostility and without, you know, feeling like you're trying to, you know, get one over on whatever group you're criticizing or something, but just talking about these things in a straightforward way, part of that means you have to just sort of

ignore the Podhoritz is the world, you know, because you just, you get into it with them, and it's just an argument over whether you're an anti-Semite and how bad of one you are. It's just kind of pointless. Just say the things and talk about the things and do it openly without malice and put it out there, and Podhoritz will scream and shout and let them scream and shout. Don't even address it. Just keep talking. And then you start to build that alternative culture, you know, dissident culture,

from the one that's just, that's really antisocial and looking for a fight, you know? Yeah. All right. So speaking of the worst being full of passionate intensity, here is a couple of the best with conviction, actually. Walt and Mearsheimer there featured on the left side. Someone sent me the link. It's not supposed to be out yet. I don't think. But this is the monk debate up there in Canada, I guess. And so it's Walt and Mearsheimer versus Victoria Newland. That's Robert Kagan's wife. And Mike Pompeo, former CIA director.

and then Secretary of State, unfortunately, for everyone. And so they're debating monsters to destroy the famous clip from, or a quote from John Quincy Adams in his Fourth of July speech from 1821, where he said that we should not go around in search of monsters to destroy. In that case, he was talking about a revolution going on in Greece and whether we should intervene or not. And he said that we betray our own spirit.

If we did that, we become the dickatrous of the world and stop being what we were supposed to be for our own damn selves, so let's not do it. So they have this big debate, and the reason I wanted to bring it up here, I didn't have it queued up to a good clip. I just had it queued up to a place where they're all on the stage together. But just to show you.

But I wasn't quite through it. But it reminded me of a story of Dave Smith from, I don't know, what a year or two ago, when you debated Dennis Prager there. You were just telling me this story recently about how he made his over opening statement and you were like, ah, what a relief. This is going to be there was.

These people, they got nothing, man. They just sit there the whole time. They just pretend that everybody's Hitler and everything's World War II. And Walt Mearsheimer, like, no, man. The whole thing about Monsters Destroy is going around, you know, messing around countries where we've got no business at all. They both are, you know, realist, real polity, Kissingerite types. Not that bloody, but like they're not libertary, non-interventionist.

But they're both agreed point is that we should have been this whole time husbanding our resources for the challenge of the rise of China. And instead, listening to you guys, we went and blew it all fighting a war against the Taliban and against Saddam Hussein and against MoMarc Gaddafi and all these things that led to nothing but chaos and spent all our resources.

Got us bogged down in Ukraine, fighting against Russia that was already, you know, weak and getting weaker anyways. What the hell are you doing? And then they're saying, oh, you don't even want to confront the rise of China. And they're going, no, the whole point of the debate was about whether we should be doing all these Libya's and stuff. You know, and they just, all they can do is obfuscate on even the question of the damn debate. And they just get their asses handed to them.

And, you know, I'm all very dubious about the threat of the rise of China. But certainly Walt and Mearsheimer are right about the, the absolute wasted expenditure over there. And I just thought, you didn't done as well as them up there, Dave, listening to Newland and Pompeo Prattel on with all of their false little factoids that they base their arguments on and all of their sophistries.

Really unimpressive, quite frankly. Well, I mean, I don't know if I would have done as good. I mean, I haven't seen any of it yet, but I doubt I could do as good as Mirosheimer or Walt when it comes to, like, being as smart as them or having as much information, but I could probably be more vicious toward the other two

than they're willing to be. And so that would be fun. They wouldn't have done any better against you. Well, the thing, yeah, yeah. The thing is... Two geniuses, you know? It's not just... I mean, look, the truth is,

I was really... I heard that this was happening, I think, on the judges show. I think he, like, was promoting it when he was interviewing Meersheimer. And I was kind of shocked when I... That they agreed to do it.

Just like, if nothing else, kind of just objectively, intellectually, Mearsheimer and Walt are so much more impressive than Pompeo. And I mean, she's like I've, you know, like, I mean, I know more about Victoria Newland than I know, like, you know, have read, I haven't read her book or, but I've listened to, like, her congressional testimony and stuff. And she's just not like a particularly impressive thinker,

let's just say. And then on top of that, their argument is just so weak, You know, like, so I was almost like, I don't see how this debate could go in any other direction. I mean, obviously, I guess that resolution is a very loose kind of strange debate resolution. It's not like a tight one. But, you know, the interesting thing is that none of these guys can defend any of the previous wars. Like, you know, and that's kind of the reason why I have a big advantage in these debates. It's really, I'm not particularly good at the sport of debating.

I'm good, I guess, from being a comedian, I kind of get how to do a show or kind of how to, like, perform. But it's just, I mean, you got a really overwhelming hand when your argument is that we shouldn't have done the last 10 catastrophes. Yeah. Real quick, I just wanted to make comment, like,

in support of what you said. Like, the whole China thing, like, look, there's some trade practices, the spying, like, there's a lot of things that we've got to address and deal with, like, as far as, you know, espionage and economic stuff goes and all that. But the idea of, like, that the way to address the rising threat of China is to build up the Navy and build more missiles. And it's so stupid. Like, we're not going to war with China. And if we do,

we are going to get our asses kicked. Like, that is just, I mean, look at just this Saran War, if it's made nothing else clear, it's made that clear. Like, we can't send an entire carrier strike group with all of the air support that we can bring to bear from the land bases and everything around within four or five hundred miles of Iran without getting chased off. And we're going to defend Taiwan from China, which can set a picket 200 miles past Taiwan without ever leaving Chinese mainland airspace. I mean, it's just so ridiculous. It's so stupid.

It's really just a giant boondoggle, you know? And like, you know, just sort of the next level of that. and I'll wrap it up is that I just don't think there's any reason for us to really have a problem with China. I don't think they really want anything we have. You know, I mean, yeah, they want us to not be telling them they can't fish in this part of the South China Sea or whatever it is, like some of the stuff around their littoral and near abroad. And they want their own, you know, trade security and all they're trying to build up like alternative alternatives for the rest of the world to the American-led trade system for their own economically. benefit. That's fine. We can compete on that level. But in terms of like, this is not a kind of country, like, you know, even as you might have said, like, when under Mao, where it really was, like, this sort of like, you know, thinking of itself as a hub of the global revolution. And even,

you know, the Soviets under Khrushchev betrayed the revolution. And we got to take the mantle and keep, they're not like that. Like, there's no, there's no sense of that at all, you know. And given that like, you know, it's really transformed from like a Soviet communist model to even though they call themselves communist, it's really more of a national socialist model, except without a Versailles Treaty and a bunch of territories all around them that they think rightfully belong to them and, you know, they need to revise the global order together. Like, they don't, they don't have any of that. Like, I just, I just don't see any real reason why we need to even remotely be edging up against military

pressure and military conflict with China. It makes no sense to me. Yeah, and Scott, Scott, tell me, is this, right? Because, just tell me if I'm remembering this wrong or not, because, and I bet Meersheimer and Walt didn't press him on this, but I wish they had, if he was making that point about China, that didn't he, when

he declared, what was his final thing as Secretary of State, where he, like, he declared, if I'm remembering, he declared that they were committing a genocide and cited Adrian Zenz as the source. There was like one of his last acts. I think, as Secretary of State.

Yeah, he says in there, he argues. He goes, how dare you call what Israel did in Gaza genocide? So not I'll tell you what a genocide is. I'll tell you what it looks like, I label what China did in Xinjiang a genocide. And the whole place should have busted out laughing at that point. You don't have 70,000 people blown to bits in the Xinjiang world. You wouldn't even pretend to really claim that, dude.

And of course, are I, do you remember that detail? He cited Adrian Zins himself, who just clearly got the math wrong, and I believe even acknowledged that he got the numbers wrong. Yeah, it was so funny. I was hoping that maybe it would come up when I did the Rogan show

last week. I was going to make a joke out of it that it was Josh Rogan, spell with an I-N, on Joe Rogan's podcast. He did this funny little thing with his fingers, and he goes,

well, you know, they quibble about the numbers. And I was, oh, yeah, yeah, they quibble about the decimal points there and whether you go from genocide, to completely meaningless number of, oh, get it, IUD insertion. You're supposed to imagine that they're holding down

and putting IUDs forcibly in the womb of every Muslim woman in East Turkestan out there. Yeah, sure, dude. Just, yeah, but Dave, imagine it, though, dude. Imagine it. And so I was going to make the joke to Rogan that, well, look, I don't want to name names or anything, but let's just say the guy's name rhymed with yours.

Gary did this funny little thing about the numbers. Oh, the numbers until you let Gareth Porter, who went to college, actually look at the numbers and go in the house and write. Give me a break, dude. Anyway. Yes. But for anyone, for anyone listening who doesn't know,

sorry, but just for anyone listening who doesn't know what you've got, like Adrian Zin put out these numbers of how many Uyghurs had been killed and just completely miscalculated them. And just literally was just passing out bad information about what the numbers were. And it was literally as simple as you didn't carry the one. You're wrong. Yeah. Well, it was, it was, I mean, what it was this is he said that 87% of all the IUDs that were given out by the centralized socialist commie government of China,

87% of them were in the Xinjiang province, which, again, just to use your imagination, dude, and think about what that must mean. It must mean that they sterilized all of them, right? But then you realize that, yeah, no, when you carry the one, then you got to move the decimal over. So now is 8.7%, which since the women of the Xinjiang province would make up roughly 8.7% of the population of China, whatever it is, close, then you go from mass sterilization campaign

against the helpless to, yes, whenever any person gets health care in China, they get it from their government instead of the local free market. That's how it goes, including IUD insertions, which are not forced abortions. In fact, they're just birth control. So, anyway, yeah, pretty big quibble when you go from 7% to 8.7%. And so it's a mix of, it's a mix of the point that Darrell was making, which is just like the military realities of a confrontation with China and how all of these guys are just in la la land if they think there's any conventional war happening between the U.S. and China. But then also, you know, our government just making up reasons that we have to have some type of conflict with them. And so even if you are like concerned with the rise of China or there's some degree of something we have to do about that, well, it's definitely not either of these two options. It's not just make up genocides or just like, pretend that we're building up to some imaginary war that we know we can't possibly fight. And especially when, you know, I always leave this out when I'm rattling them off and whatever. I get sort of married to the way I said it before.

But I always leave out, except in my books, it's in there, that America was training the Uyghurs under the influence of the Taliban in Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for use against China. And I have Graham Fuller and what's his name talking. I got the footnotes. I got the books where these guys admit that, man, these bin Ladenite types are great for use against Russia and China. Like, this is our policy in the 1990s. And so a great part of China's crackdown against the Islamist insurgency in the Xinjiang province is because of America in the first place. And my buddy, Eric Margulies, saw him there, saw the Uyghurs being trained by al-Qaeda and, you know, bin Ladenites, you know, Arabs and Pakistan.

He's there under, with the approval of the CIA and Pakistani ISI working together to use these guys against China. And it was. We were supposed to be friends. This is the same time Bill Clinton's backing them in Bosnia, Kosovo and Cheshina, you know? Yeah. And it was really kind of doubly caused by the United States in a way where we train those people and a lot of the separatists that Russia was dealing with and, you know, the Mujahideen in southern

Russia there. So that's like one layer of cause. But then the next one is, you know, us going ham and the war on terror in the early 2000s is what gave Russia and China sort of the green light to be like, all right, we can go in and go as hard as we want on these people and take care of this problem that's been festering, you know? And so it's a, yeah, I mean, people don't even know this stuff. Even people who know that there's something going on, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and all,

they have some idea of what's, they don't even understand that, like, this was a hub of terrorist activity. people in China have been killed by, you know, terrorist acts that have come out of there. And the people who were doing these things from organizations that were, that were funded and trained up by the United States. And it's like, you know, it leads to one of the, one of the real problems, I think, in our, in our controlled information system where, you know, I made this comment to my wife the other day about how I've just stopped listening to, like, government, our government statements about the Iran situation, because I really feel like the more news you read about it at this point, the less you know about what's going on. Because there's just

so much, you know, like just so much nonsense that once you put it in your head, it's competing with like, you know, just common sense, which, you know, may not have information behind it, but is at least common sense. And with this kind of stuff, it's like, you know, I bring this one up all the time, Scott, but like, you know, the fact that we, that the Bessalon School Massacre in Russia was carried out by an organization that just a few years before, you know, I'm going to and who knows, maybe up to that point, I don't have any information on that, but certainly just a couple years before

was being funded and trained by the United States. And I mean directly. Armed, funded, trained. And then they went and did this thing. It was like 350 school kids got massacred or something. And, you know, it really is the equivalent of, you know, finding out that the specific al-Qaeda cells that were, that did 9-11 were being actively funded.

trained and directed by China or Russia, you know, and how we would feel about that. But how they might feel about these things, how China might feel about it. I mean, just think about what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who walk onto city buses and blow themselves up or get into big rigs and drive-through parades mowing people down. Like, these are the kind of people we're talking about.

And we're over there empowering, training, organizing, arming these people in somebody else's country. I mean, just wrap your head around that. You know, it's like there's so many things now that, unfortunately, over the last 25 years, and it probably started before that with a lot of the stuff Reagan was into and we got into in the Cold War, but information was maybe more tightly controlled back then.

These days, like information gets out there, but all it's done is in near us to things and totally desensitize us to things that really should be incredibly shocking. You know, I mean, when you say, for example, you know, we're killing people in Chad. We're killing people in Yemen or whatever. Everybody's like, oh, okay, yeah, like what's going on over there? It's like, the correct response to us be like, what the fuck are you talking about? Like, what do you mean we're killing people in Chad?

Like, what could that possibly have to do with us? But that's just not the response, you know? We've kind of been, we've kind of been desensitized to all of it. and a big part we've been desensitize, or that desensitization makes it so that we just can't put ourselves in the mindset of, of, you know, how do other parties out there feel about these things

that we would go absolutely insane over. By the way, in that debate, Nolan says that she was there in the 90s when she worked for Strobe Talbot before she worked for Dick Cheney. She says she was there in the 90s. She gives the Russians credit for repeatedly warning about bin Laden and his friends in Afghanistan and the threat that they posed to all of us.

And she says, but the American spies just discounted it. What are they going to do? They can't do anything. And all of that. And so she actually, she invokes that as a monster that we should have destroyed.

You know, and that Walton Mearsheimer wouldn't have face. And then they don't counter with, come on, it's because we were bombing Iraq from bases in Saudi that our own terrorists turned on us anyway, kind of thing, which is what they should have said. But she did give

the Russians credit for warning. And of course, the real answer is, come on, we're the ones behind them. Of course, you know, we know how dangerous they are, but they're just pointed at you to paraphrase Prince Bandar from the redirection. It's not that the solopies are throwing bombs. It's who they're throwing them at.

And as long as it's you Ruskis, we think it's funny, so tough. And then, by the way, you know how I like to cite in Provoked especially all of the State Department documents released by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

And they have that whole great presentation called what Gorbuchar. What did Gorbuchar hear or something like that? And then there's a new one what Putin heard, I think is what it's called. But it's about George W. Bush. And it's the secret minutes of George W. Bush

and Vladimir Putin that they're starting to publish. I was going to write a thing, but I got too many projects moving and everything. I put it all. And then I actually emailed Tom Blanton there and he said that they were still working on getting some more documents published. They weren't done yet.

Some of the original, pardon me, the initial documents that they leaked or that they posted there. It's not really leaked, but they published, you know, FOIA didn't publish. It's from July 2001, Vladimir Putin telling George W. Bush about the danger of Osama bin Laden and Bush changing the subject. Not interested at all. And Putin is going, look, man, I got to tell you,

this is, it ain't just the Taliban. and it's these A-Rabs, you know, and like, no, don't want to hear it. So, yeah, little anecdotal footnotes. But wait, before we're done here, Dave, you can say whatever you want, but let me just bring this up, and then I'll be quiet. I want to hear what you guys think about this. They indicted Raul Castro for the shootdown of this plane in 1996, which I vaguely remember the background there,

but I saw Max Blumenthal already was saying that these were the same right-wing Cuban exiles who had already bombed some things, before. It was a terrorist group supported by the CIA. So I don't know if you know the history behind that or what. But anyway, that's what they indicted them for. And now they pulled the American Star Destroyer, USS Nimitz, into orbit off the coast of Florida, or at least they say it's entered the Caribbean. And Donald Trump has been making bold promises about regime change. I don't know if he used that exact phrase, but change coming very soon to Cuba next. So Dave, you can wrap on whatever we're talking about terrorism and then I want to hear both of y'all on Cuba.

Yeah, well, I mean, you know, as as Darrell was talking about, you know, making his last point, I was thinking about Cuba. I was just talking about, I had, I interviewed Ryan Grimm the other day, who's done like really good reporting on, yeah, he's done really good reporting on, he went to Cuba for a little bit and just like, you know, the, the effect of the oil blockade that we've had around them since we took out Maduro. And it is really amazing, like just, it, it's amazing how. the effect of living in like a permanent warfare state has on regular people and the

dissensitized to that as Darrell was talking about. I'm like, yeah, this just, I mean, I think, I think the war, like some type of regime change is coming. I mean, they seem to be telegraphing that. Donald Trump is clearly in his kind of military adventurism, great man mode. And I, you know, they've been building up toward this. So that seems to be where it's going. And it really is, I don't know, it's really just crazy to think about the fact that there's this little impoverished island that nobody can even really credibly pretend poses any threat to anyone. And we're just in, essentially, we've been in an all-out war against the civilian population there for months now. And this barely even reported. Like, Brian Grimm's one of the only people.

I mean, I guess there's a few journalists who have written an article or two about it. But it's certainly not like a major news story. Kind of remind you, the way Dave DeCamp. like the only one writing about Somalia anymore. Like we're just at this war and almost nobody cares about it. But yeah, I don't know. I mean, I don't know, Scott, you or Darrell, you guys probably know this better than me,

but it does seem that, you know, essentially we've been trying to get Cuba to capitulate for, you know, a lot longer than I've been alive. And it hasn't worked so far. It's caused nothing but misery for the people there. And I just don't, I don't know. It seems like a crazy thing to do. That being said, it's not Iran, and it's very close to us.

And if we want to, I suppose we could just take the thing. I don't know what Trump's going to do. Yeah, well, is it relevant at all that Jack Kennedy promised not to do this in order to get the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear missiles back in 1962? Not really. No, come on. I mean, like no one cares, dude. I mean, there have been a lot of people who would have been very happy to see this regime change all along, and they didn't do it.

Am I a fool to think that Kennedy's promise had anything to do with them refraining from doing it all this time? No one seems to talk about it now, but does it matter? It's worthless going forward for future diplomatic reasons, you know? Yeah, I think that ship is sailed. Yeah. You know, I think during the Cold War, there was, you know, there was reluctance to renego in that. promise and provoke the Soviets. But once the Cold War ended, I mean, I think most people, other than, you know, the Cubans in Southern Florida and their supporters, it came to the natural

and obvious conclusion, which is that, you know, the Cold War is over. Then Cuba is, it's like Cuba was ever going to invade Florida. The problem with Cuba is that the Soviet Union might put their missiles there, you know, and that they're exporting revolution and supporting revolution and supporting revolution all over the Caribbean and in Central America and so forth. None of that stuff exists anymore. And so like this is really like, why are we doing this? We're doing it. It's a perfect example of we're doing it because we can.

You know? And I said immediately as soon as this Iran war in the first few days when it was obvious that this thing was not going the way Donald Trump hoped it would, I was like, this is bad news for Cuba. I mean, he's going to take this out on somebody. They're the obvious one. And that's too bad. like I don't know what to do about it.

I don't think there's nearly enough time to get enough people to care. I think if people did care, it wouldn't matter. And so, you know, hopefully we don't do too much damage. And it turns out like Venezuela and they can just kidnap their top few leaders. Yeah, and do something. Look, the one thing you can say about the Cubans man is they have a lot of, not that Venezuelans don't, but I mean, Maduro was really ahead of like a failed state already, basically. Whereas the Cubans, they have a lot of pride, man.

And if I think they would be a lot more, there'd be a lot more problems if somebody was put in power there who was just very, very obviously a U.S. puppet. Like we have in Venezuela. Like I think you'd have a lot of unrest result from that. And so hopefully, you know, without us doing too much damage, some kind of government can get in control there that has enough legitimacy with the people to head off, you know, insurgencies or other kinds of unrest or whatever. and we can just get this thing over with because man, like, it's ridiculous in 2026 that we're still acting like we have this, you know, hostile relationship to the point of like

we might kill a bunch of your kids' relationship with Cuba. It's so stupid. Like, I should be able to get on a plane and fly to Cuba for a couple weeks this summer to go chill on the beach, you know, and smoke some cigars. Like, it's so stupid that we're even in this mode with them. And there's no way to pretend that it's not, all us, you know? I mean, like, even China, like, even the countries that call themselves openly

communists these days are not even really communist, and they certainly don't act communist with respect to us, and they're not international communist. If Cuba, with their current government, if we just went to them, we were like, you know, this is kind of, can we all agree that this is kind of over, you know, and we should just hit the reset button? They would do it. I mean, they would have done it a long time ago, and it's just so stupid. Like, it's very disheartening, you know? Well, they hosted Obama. I mean, they had no problem with it when he was at least signaling to or we want to open things up. Sure.

But I'm just saying, if they would do that for Obama, there's no way Donald Trump couldn't make that happen, dude. It's amazing how much, how many so many of these things from the American, at least from the American people's perspective, could just be solved with diplomacy. You just don't need to do any of this. That's what I'm saying. All right. That's it. See you all next time. Thanks for having me, guys.

Oh, yeah, my bad. Matt Sersely. agoristtaxadvice.com. Agarist tax advice. You want a small business? You're trying to not go broke? Get yourself a good libertarian lawyer to reduce your tax bills.

Agaristaxadvice.com. This has been Provoked with Daryl Cooper and Scott Horton. Be sure to like and subscribe to help us beat the propaganda algorithm. Go follow at Provoked underscore show on Ex and YouTube and tune in next time for more provoked.