The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Expert Witness in Irving Trial Debunks Holocaust Deniers. Also, ICE Shooting, Dilbert Cartoonist Scott Adams and

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

Call ins, legal and civic positions on ICE shooting and Noam's take on Dilbert Cartoonist Scott Adams. Guest: Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt, the principal expert witness on Nazi gas chambers in the David Irving trial, joins. Robert Jan Van Pelt is one of the world’s leading experts on Auschwitz. An architectural historian who has taught at MIT and the University of Waterloo, he is best known for proving the reality of the gas chambers and crematoria. His work made him a central figure in the fight against Holocaust denial. He appeared in Errol Morris’s Mr. Death and served as a key expert witness in the landmark Irving v. Penguin & Lipstadt trial. He has received major honors, including a Guggenheim Fellowship and a National Jewish Book Award.

Live, should I hit it? Mm-hmm. All right. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to Live from the table. We're here live at 117 McDougall Street above the comedy seller. I'm here with my very good friend, Ms. Periel Ashen Brands. Say hello, Peril. Hello.

And, of course, we're going to be discussing legal matters today, so at the last minute, my partner and lawyer, Dan Natterman, has decided to call in sick. So I don't know how we're going to argue. Hey, Steve, play. Turn that up. This is best part. All right. So that's a little theme song that I recorded many years ago when I thought this was going to be a comedy podcast.

I think I think I have to write a new podcast now. Obviously, I was inspired by like Dixieland songs when I did that. So I think I'm going to listen to like the soundtrack from Schindler's list to maybe get some inspiration for our next theme song. In any case. So I don't know what we're going to take some calls. Later on, we have, what's the then Professor? Robert. Robert Jan Van Pelt.

Von Pelt, who was the gas chamber expert at the David Irving trial. So, you know, I figured like there's so much Holocaust denial going on now. And there's a whole thing about the cookies, you know, that guy wore, what's the name, Myron Gaines wore at Turning Point, which refers to a Nick Fuentes video we're going to play. So I figure, why don't we go to the, get the actual world expert on gas chambers? And I don't know what he's going to say. I hope he's going to say it happened. It would be nice if it didn't happen, but I hope he's going to say it happened. Anyway, but before we do that, Scott Adams died.

Dilbert Cartoonist. Dilbert cartoonist. And, you know, Scott Adams was a complicated figure who I had some, you know, interface with. And although he was a kind of conspiracy theorist at times. and there were areas where I disagreed with him. And even though I tweeted recently that you can't take certain people a la carte, I think Scott Adams is one of the people that you must take a la carte. There's like a, I always say there's a genius exception to everything.

Like in music, I always tell people, well, these are the rules. But of course, there's a genius exception to everything, because great geniuses, you know, rules are basically rules of thumb. They're the basic parameters that everybody agrees you should stick to through many years of experience, but, you know, great geniuses have to be reckoned with. And Scott Adams, I think, was actually a great genius. And I first met him, I knew of him. I met him when we did. our Phil Bump interview, our famous, infamous Phil Bump interview, he did a podcast about

our interview. And he complimented me, and he called me a star. And, like, you know, he was just gushing about me, lest you think I'm saying this to talk about myself, that's not how this story ends. And so I emailed him, I thanked him. I told him, I'd read, a few of his books. I was very influenced by them. I was. And I asked him when to come on the podcast. And he said, I'll be happy to do your podcast.

I'd be thrilled to do your podcast. So I interviewed him as one of these interviews. I did with Coleman, Coleman Hughes. And right around that time, he had gotten himself in trouble by saying some pretty ugly things about how white people shouldn't have any part of black people. And he got canceled and everybody dropped his cartoon and all that stuff. So we did our interview and I felt like, you know, the mission statement

of a podcast is to ask the questions that you have to ask. So I felt like I had to ask him about these things that he said and about, you know, I had also heard on a podcast where he described himself as having a bipolar disorder. And I thought, well, maybe you had a manic You said those things, and we got into Tucker Carlson. And it was, you know, it was, it was, it was one little section of the interview. I confronted him with some tough questions. Well, everybody in my life, what the hell is the matter with you? Why did you ask Scott Adams those tough questions?

How, you know, like, you leave him alone, like, because they love Scott Adams, right? So like because it's kind of like the Megan Kelly, Candice Owens thing, because they love Scott Adams, and because he's always kind of been on the team of the people that I was talking to, they were just outraged that I asked him these questions, and they made me question myself, like, was I boorish and stuff? Like, did I cross the line? Even though I didn't really see how I could have interviewed him without asking those questions. But anyway, so I emailed him, and I said, listen, you know, people are saying,

is to me, I hope you weren't bothered by the interview. And this is all leading up to, I'm going to read his interview, his email back to me, which shows what a classy guy he was. Hi, Noam, all great questions. The time went by fast. It's so easy to talk to smart people, the obvious exception being Sam Harris. Thanks for giving my book to your son. That's the best compliment an author could ever get.

Yes, let's get together in New York City would be fun. Scott. So this is a grown-up. He understood. I didn't have to explain it to him. Yeah, of course. I said these things. I got in trouble. You're interviewing me. Of course you're going to ask me about these things. You know, not a hint of animosity, unless one thinks that he was just bullshitting me. But I don't think that he was. And since then, we've had some interactions. He'd answered me on Twitter from time to time. We never did actually meet in person. So anyway, So that's my little interaction with Scott Adams. I would recommend his books, I think it's Win Bigley, Reframe Your Brain,

and then that epic interview that he did with Sam Harris. You can look up the interview that he did with us too, but really the interview he did with Sam Harris, where literally Sam Harris's head was going to explode because of the way, the ingenious way that Scott Adams managed to defend Trump at every single turn. And, you know, for times to time, I think he was right, but of course, I am partial often to Sam Harris's way of looking at things as well.

So anyway, rest in peace, Scott Adams. Oh, one more thing. You know, and it reminds me my father, you imagine that you can tell something about somebody when they know the end is imminent. Like when you know you're going to die in a week or two, why are you still putting on airs? And the reason reminds me of my father is because I might have told this, story before when he was a few days from death. It was a call from the olive tree.

The humus was sour. And, you know, and he was on the phone. He was screaming, you tell Toil, get the motherfucker. Like, like, like, scream. Like I was today, Liz, about the chicken. Like, like, screaming. Like, like, and he hangs out the phone. And he turned to me, my father didn't believe in God.

And he says to me, no, I thought, who cares what happens after? after you're dead. He says, but I do. I care. He cared about the homeless to his dying breath, you know, because this was him. It was just, this was his life's work. And so Scott Adams did his show to the very end. And he said basically the same things. He didn't unload as some kind of massive racist or massive anti-Semite, which indicates to me that what he had been saying, saying all along was the within the bounds of what he believed. He may not like it, but that's the way he felt.

He was honest. And he obviously, people say, like, Megan, she's doing her for the money. And I was, you know how I always tell you. It's not for the money. It's not for the money. Well, Scott Adams wasn't doing it for the money. When he got the diagnosis that he had X number of months to live, he could have just said, I mean, you know me.

That would be the last time you'd see me on the show. This is not my, you know, or maybe not, but, but, you know, he, he did not decide, well, this is a good time for me to spend time with my loved ones or whatever it is. He did his show to the very end because this was what he cared about. This was his life. This was what he would always rather be doing. And I think it's very important that people look at that Scott Adams example from every angle. when they want to write off Tucker Carlson as Katari money or Megan Kelly is this.

Those are people on the particular side, but on any side of this is not, you know, like, whenever you want to write off the person that you want to dismiss as doing it for venal reasons, for money, for this, you know, don't be so sure. Don't be so sure that people are doing things because it's hard to imagine people who have that much money doing things for money. Like this is not what motivates them, and it was clearly not what motivated Scott Adams. So, okay, rest in peace, Scott Adams.

I'm sorry we never got to meet in person. Your books will live on in my mind. All right, that's number one. Number two, I wanted to argue with Dan about this ice shooting in Minnesota. I don't know if you have any opinion. I don't know. I'm sure the world would like to know your legal analysis.

We'll take some calls on it too. I mean, and I'm going to show a video. I have a feeling that I know what you're going to say, but why don't you say? No, no. Tell you're like the every person. I don't like being like put into like some like crappy fucking category by you. Like I'm going to have some like dumb opinion about it. Can ask you a question though?

When you decided to get dressed to come to work today. Yeah. Did you think that we wanted you here to not give your opinion? Like what the hell do you think you're doing in that chair? Listen, I think what's going on with ICE? is terrible and I think that what happened to that woman is horrible and I can't give you some like deep legal analysis but I don't think you need to be able to give like a deep legal analysis to know that like maybe shooting you're right that maybe it's like shooting somebody through the at like a point blank range like through the through your windshield is like not the way to handle like was that necessary well that's that is the question isn't it it wasn't necessary okay

so let's just introduce into the record and we'll get we'll take calls we have any calls already liz yeah we have a few people so i'm gonna i'm gonna play is it kevin brennan oh god so i'm gonna play so i didn't have time to do the heavy work myself so i'm gonna piggyback on the on the work of my excuse me i have like a water bubble can can you hit the hit the new button um i'm kidding i'm kidding Mark Halperin, a friend of mine, on his very good morning show, two-way, the morning meeting, he collected a bunch of the videos. I added one more video at the end. I think this pretty much will cover all the angles,

and then we can talk about the videos, why I think the videos don't really matter so much, what I think, and it will take call. So go ahead. Hit it, Mark. I'm going to do my best to describe it here as it happens, so you can understand what we're all looking at and what we're using a basis. So freeze it right there, Kevin. Oh, my thing is working?

Yeah. If you would. Okay. Okay. Yeah, good. So this is after the officers have approached the vehicle and they've asked her to get out of the vehicle. Okay, let me just stop there. So as best as I can tell, and I haven't been reading about it, but I tried to little research, they do have the right to ask her to get out of the vehicle.

I was wondering about that because they're iced. They don't have the right to arrest people for crimes, but for some reason, as I was reading about it, at least a call. right if they have the proper circumstances to ask somebody to get out of a vehicle. That's neither here nor there in the end of the story. But in case anybody's wondering about that, or if we have any experts, if you have any experts, would want to call in. But okay, so go ahead. And she backs up and then she starts going forward.

Now, you'll see three officers, the two closest to the vehicle are the most germane. One of them is asked her to get out. She's declined. The other officers, the officer who shoots. You see him obscure it in the background. And I think the critical question for us here, as we've watched these, is, does he fire at her before he's hit by the car? Even then, that wouldn't mean it wouldn't be dispositive that it's murder.

Play the video, please. All right. This is a different angle, and it's the angle that's the clearest. You can see, again, it's a little bit from a distance, but it's the clearest angle that shows, without a doubt, that the car hits her, or the car hits him, rather. Play it again. Again, there's no doubt.

There's some angles people have seen. You can't tell you. that the car hits him, this angle makes it clear. The car does hit him. All right, so let me, let me stop there also. I was going to say, when I saw that that, that, that, that I don't 100% agree with Mark here that I, that I thought the word hit was like doing a lot of work there. The car pushes him, makes contact, but it, it seems like, it, it seems like he could have kind of stood his ground. And, but however, just before the show, I saw some headlines that the guy was actually

admitted to the hospital with, quote, unquote, internal bleeding. Now, that can just be nothing. You know, it could be a bruise. I don't know what internal bleeding means, so, but I just, I can't pretend I didn't read that. But. But why not just move out of the way? Well, that's, that's, this is a very slow speed.

Okay, let's, we'll get to that. So, anyway, so, so, so, but the video that Mark, shows, it clearly does show the car making contact with him. And it appears from the audio and the video that again, he fires only after, only after he's hit. Okay? Play number six, please. Car backs up. This is in slow motion. Car backs up and then it goes forward. Very close there in terms of the timing, but it clears, it appears that he is hit by the car speeding towards him. Okay? Now. This is the last thing. This is his, this is his cell phone.

And boom. So you, from that angle to it's, it looks like it makes contact with him. The minute it makes contact with him, his, his camera goes up in the air and the, and the shots fire. So, okay. So is, is the implication then that it was, it like went off accidentally? I'm not... No, no, no, he shot her. I don't think he's claiming accidentally.

So, the questions are here, what is the frame of the conversation? There's a criminal standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a civil standard,

which means, you know, the preponderance of that 51% you think that he did something. And then there's just like, you know, you can shoot the shit standard.

beyond the law. Actually, before I give the definitive answer to this, and I will tell you all what the proper answers are, does anybody want to call in? We're going to bring Vincent in right now. We'll bring him in. I think you should play my theme song every time we have to have technical.

Yo. Hello, Vincent. What you want, gang? You know who I am? No, do I know who you are? I've been talking to you on Twitter, bro. Oh, I know who you are. Yeah, uh-oh.

Uh-oh. Okay. Where do you live? Where do you live? A great state of Florida. Oh, nice. Okay. But we're running behind already.

So go ahead. Get to, well, you know, I have a feeling nothing I was going to say I'm going to be able to tell you is going to make you keep it short. But keep it short. Tell me what you think about the shooting. Go ahead. Well, what I think about the shooting is that the officer put himself in jeopardy. That's actually a crime. There's actually a couple cases where an officer was injured and then got.

arrested because he put himself in jeopardy. If you look at, if you look at where that officer is situated, he's supposed to be six feet behind there. Every officer knows that he's oriented to the front of the vehicle, which puts him in the line of her travel. Secondly, after he shot her the first time. Before, before you, before you, go ahead, go ahead. Before we move past that, presuming that he didn't stand where he's supposed to stand

by his training, how does that bear on the legal issue? Well, that means that he placed himself in a situation that forced the lethal action. Yeah, but that would not, that would not, I mean, well, I mean, I can prove to you in a common sense way why that wouldn't matter. Let's say he was standing in the wrong spot and she pulled out. I'm telling you people, police officers have been arrested for these types of situations. No, no, I know that, but hear me out. If she does matter. No, it doesn't.

I'll tell you why. If she, if she pulled out a gun and aimed it at him or if she actually did, hit the accelerator to the floor and aim right at him, you would not tell me he had to get hit or shot. You would never say, well, you're not standing in the right spot, so you take what you get. Obviously, he's still, he still has. You're making an apples?

No, he always, he always maintains the right to defend himself. I don't want to argue about this. No, but it's not to argue about it. He always maintains the right to defend himself if he actually is threatened. Well, nobody ever has, nobody ever has. there have been officers who've been arrested. Yes, but those officers arrested. Vincent, those officers that were arrested

were not defending themselves. Nobody... What were the names of those officers? There is no such thing in the law. This is what you do, bro. There is Vincent. There is no such thing... Can I read something to you?

Sure. Okay. So you said no cop has been arrested after they were injured. No, I never said that. I never... Tell me exactly what you said. I said...

that no policeman ever gives up the right to defend himself from someone who's using deadly force against him because he's standing in the wrong place. Okay. Now, do you understand what that kind of crime is classified as? No, because I'll tell you why, because he could be guilty. He could be guilty of some crime that you're talking about, But that does not bear on whether he had the right to defend himself. Do you know these statutes or not is what I'm asking you?

No, but I know the law. I went to a law school. Well, if you don't know the statute, you don't know the law. Listen, these guys, it's called an officer in force fatality. And what happens is when the officer doesn't follow training, I'll give it to you. Ashton, here's a name. You can check it out yourself because I know you're a fat guy. Ashton Barnes, right?

officer jumped onto the running board of a moving car so he placed himself in that situation right and he shot the driver when he did not stop after he told him to stop the court allowed for a broader look at the pre-shooting conduct this set the stage for 2026 and he was charged and convicted okay so you're charged convicted of what well negligent homicide and manslaughter because they The prosecution argued that it was an officer in force fatality because he did not follow proper procedure, which is exactly the case with this individual. Right. But this, okay. I will have to disagree.

So that's, I just saying that's the case the state is going to make. Were you familiar with the Ashton Barnes case? No, but Vincent, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you that if the officer is not standing in the right spot, even presuming that in that, you know, chaos, he's supposed to stand six feet away. Vincent, please. Vincent, please. All right, we're going to move on. Vincent, you call next week. Who else? Who else, Liz? Matthew is going to join us right now? Real quick. Why does it take long to connect them? They have joined. The delay? Okay, Matthew, make it quick. Then I'm going to tell everybody all the answers. Go ahead. Oh, great. Well, thank you very much. I called in literally just to hear you guru like for the rest of the show. So that works to me.

But listen, I appreciate the perspective you guys to bring in here on this ICE enforcement thing. I do think that these protesters were directly positioning themselves in the middle of a nice action, which I think is a little bit different than the example that was just given by your previous caller. Because there you're talking about direct enforcement action against a suspect. But I think maybe here you're talking about people who are deliberately positioning themselves in the middle of an active crime scene using their vehicle. to do so. Let me just say, Matthew, it doesn't matter because once one part, as, you know, you can be in many situations, including a pushing matcher or a fight.

As soon as one person introduces deadly force into the mix, the other person has the right to defend themselves. This is kind of what we, this is how, what was his name who got offered, George Zimmerman? you know, he claimed that Trayvon Martin was trying to kill him and that he had to kill Trayvon Martin and he and he won. Now, we all probably thought, what the hell is this guy getting into, you know, bothering this guy,

Trevon Martin for and, you know, while you go out there looking for trouble, there were a million things that we all thought, uh, about this guy, but at the point where he's, at the point where you're actually threatened with your life. Let me perforate this. Let me perforate this for a second if I can.

So I just think that like grand, granularly, like you may have a point, like if we're going to put a microscope on this, like, specific instance in which the guy was defending his own life, even if you, okay, fine. But like, I don't think that really does credit to the argument, no one, because like it doesn't do credit to the real debate that we're having because what are we really talking about? We're talking about the largest shift of funding in law enforcement priority in the history of the country to a relatively like new organization, ice, right? And we're talking about a training period, which is like less than barbers get in California, which is less than like, you know, so like there is, there

There is definitely a larger systemic problem that I think you need to speak to here outside of like this very granular question of whether or not this officer had a right to defend himself in like a moment of poor judgment. I agree. I mean, I don't know about that. Not to my credit, but I don't know about it. I can't speak to it except to tell you that it sounds right to me what you're saying. I mean, yes, if these people are out there essentially engaging in the same activities with the same

risks with the same deadly weapons that the NYPD does, then you'd imagine they should have the NYPD level training, right? It seems pretty elementary to me. I mean, that sounds like a pretty sort of like objective rendering. Do you have any real feelings about like that was it good enough? I agree with you. Okay. I guess so. I guess so. No, so you know, you know what? Let me say. I want to feel a little bit. I want to feel, I want to hear you spit a little bit when you say it. I'm just not getting it. In that case, you have to talk about Israel and Gaza. I'm kidding.

You know, let me tell you what my opinion is about the whole thing. And then, because actually I probably agree with you more than you think. So, I think that the, the, the, uh, watching all the videos and rewinding them and watching it from a different angle and rewinding it again and then making a list of all the details and all that stuff. Peril, can you sit down? Just leave it. My God.

Yenta. And really, please, watching all the videos and compiling this list of details, you see a new detail each time you see the video, this angle, the tires, this is all completely unfair to the defendant. Because the defendant had, you know, a quarter of a second to make that decision and the entire incident lasts a few seconds. And really, there's a part of me which says the only fair thing you could do in front of a jury is show the jury that one video that I showed at the end in full speed showed to them once and only once and say to the jury, okay, that's what he saw. You tell me whether he was in danger or not. And if you can't know, therefore, he couldn't have known. And so I think, and then, you know, I just add to it that every year a certain number of policemen hesitate and are killed. because they waited just to, they wanted to wait just to be sure before they were, you know, reacted to what appeared to be a dangerous situation. And in all those incidents, or many of those incidents, if those policemen had reacted, many people would be calling them criminals. You didn't have to shoot that. And they'll never be able to prove, actually, no, I did. So from a criminal standpoint, beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see how you can convict a person like this.

And I'll add one more element to the criminal thing. This is a jury nullification-ish feeling that I have, which is that these people are hired to risk their lives. If they got bad training, that's not their fault. And they go into these deadly situations because they're ordered to. And apparently, would this guy actually have been dragged and some, you know, tens or hundreds? hundreds of feet at some point earlier. And there is something in me, which says, even though I already know that nobody should be convicted except beyond a reasonable doubt, it's very, very, very hard for me to prosecute a

law enforcement officer without clear signs of his malice. I feel like we say, oh, you know, welcome, you're the next contestant on get her. right or die or, you know, go to jail. And instantly, they're presented with something. And if they don't react properly in a quarter of a second, literally, even if they get it wrong, well, that's it. You're going to go to the jail for the rest of your life now. So I have a lot of it. I'm not finished. That's, that's, that's a criminal, the criminal case, I would say, I just don't see how anybody could say, no, no, we can put him in jail the rest of his life. And we know he deserves it. The civil case, I think I'm on your side. The civil case, my argument is this.

It's really not about the videos. The civil case is kind of, come on, dude, you know this type of woman, activist, protester. You know the kind of people who yell at the cops like that. She wasn't going to run you over. All you had to do was get out of the way. We've all been in situations where somebody irate or seen it, where somebody irate got behind the wheel of a car and drove away and somebody near them had to like jump out of it. The fuck's the matter of it. You could have hit me, you know. I don't, I really don't think that I mean, that's how I think clearly

it's 51% that he indulged his anger, I don't know what was going on with him, but It's almost impossible for me to believe she really wanted to run him over. And it's almost impossible for me to believe that he believed she really wanted to run him over. But yet, as I said, for a criminal thing in that quarter of a second, however he found himself in that situation, once the car made contact with him, he may have reacted and felt like, you know, this, you know, this may be the end. So criminal, I say no, civil, I say yes. And as far as the training, I say yes. What else you want for me?

Yeah, well, I would say, you know, this is going to be a referendum on the legitimacy of vice itself. This is a huge case. It's going to be referendum on the legitimacy, by the way, of protesting them as well. I don't share your optimism around the criminal conviction. I think it's very likely this is going to be a manslaughter case on the basis of your previous Collins' testimony, I think it's very likely that it will be found that way. But here, here's my own. You know, if you go to the, this is a problem, if you go to the Wikipedia page right now about

this case, it has this like two paragraphs in the middle of it there where it says, The Washington Post looked at the videos and said this. And New York Times looked at the videos and said this. Like even the, all like the mainstream media newspapers, they look at those videos and they can't decide what actually happened. That's by definition to me reasonable doubt. Like, if it's about what he's. saw. If the people seeing the videos rewind them over and over with all the modern technologies,

they can't quite agree. It's like, okay, this is what is. You know one of these football decisions where it goes up to the, whatever you call it, when they repeal it to the judges? And we watch the catch from every angle and we have to decide whether it was a touchdown or not. It's a margin call. Yeah. And that's what we have here. And those decisions, hold on, those decisions are never beyond a reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, quite often we think that they got it wrong. And one thing is for sure, as we're all watching them, we don't really know what the judges often are going to decide because we just can't tell. And when you have a situation where you just can't tell, I know how angry you are at ICE and all this stuff and I agree with all

this stuff, but that's the way our system is designed. Better to let 100 guilty men go free than have one innocent person in jail. The system is designed, as they say, It's a feature, not a bug, to let guilty people go free. That is the system we set up. This guy may be guilty. He may be 75% likely guilty. But the system is not designed to convict people 75% likely guilty. It's designed to convict people 99.9% guilty.

That's the system. I understand. I know that is certainly the principle, the large principle of the system. Do you believe in that system? Of course I do. But my point is like, We have to look a little bit beyond that because, you know, the system upon which that principle is based is also one in which immigrants have functional borders that they can go through. Well, Matthew, if you go before the jury and say to the jury, well, we should go beyond the system here.

The judge is going to the judge is going to say, I'm not talking to a judge right now. I'm talking. No, but it has to go to a courtroom. And what you're saying, I'm presuming you're making the argument to me. You're making the legal argument. Yeah, but we can't make. I'm not making, I'm not a lawyer, though, you are. And then for some reason, now you're doing a podcast because I guess we all have to pivot it.

No, Matthew, what I'm saying is that, but I'm saying is that if we want to talk about the legal standard, we have to make, we have, I'm giving you the legal standard. And if you agree with that legal standard, then you should say, yeah, shit, you know, I, I think this motherfucker's guilty, but I understand. You know, I understand that. I'm attempting to introduce a larger conversation, which I can see as we're ending this one. Go ahead. You got two more minutes. Go ahead. Go ahead.

My conversation is like, if we're talking about a functioning legal system, that has to be a legal system. that includes a functional border. And if you're not disturbed by the fact that the border is entirely shut down, and that you now have a program with ICE that is essentially like generating very ill-trained people and lots of them, the largest law enforcement agency in under, it's the largest part of the largest umbrella

of the largest law enforcement agency in the country under Homeland Security. It is the largest funded office, okay? So, and that's all of a sudden out of nowhere. If you don't find that alarming, if you can't be like a little alarm, on that point and see and see this people populating like our streets, I don't think that's, I don't think that's an objective read on the greater politics here. Okay. And I think you're

shying away from that a little bit, if I'm being honest. And then finally, let me, let me respond. Let me respond. I hear what you're saying and I would have to ask you to breathe and understand that this particular officer has no say in everything that you're saying. As a matter of fact, he's a victim of it. Like I said earlier, it's not his fault. He doesn't have the right training. It's not his fault. ICE is a shit show.

It's not his fault that everything you're saying and more may be true. He's a hapless individual who needs a gig. He gets hired. They give him a gun. They tell him to go do this shit. And this is what happens to him. And, you know, dude, you have to separate. You might do the same.

You might make some criminal mistakes if you had 47 days worth of training before someone slapped the gun in your arm and stuff, like get out on these streets. Yes. Like, I think honestly, no, no, you could afford a little more alarmism. No, criminal means it, criminal as I'm using it means you have to have intention

to commit a crime. But all right, we got to go. Wait, wait, wait, wait, give me one last statement, okay? Real quick. I just want to say, okay, first of all, look, people said Seinfeld wasn't going to work because it was too Jewish, right? And every time I listen to Dan Anademan,

I'm reminded of how little I spoke to my parents because I don't feel that internalized Jewish self-loving. So I'm glad that he's gone, and I hope you guys do, like, move more towards... He's not gone. Okay, Matthew, we got to go. Bye. Bye.

The guest is here. Who? The guest is here. All right. We had five minutes before the guest. There was another thing I wanted to talk about. I guess that's it. Iran.

I've got to look to say about Iran. Not in four and a half minutes. I think what Matthew was asking, although I didn't like what he said about Dan, that's really rude. Dan's not self-loathing. I mean, he's not about it. It's not self-loathing because he's Jewish. First of all, I think it's really cowardly to talk shit about people

when they're not here to defend themselves, number one. Number two, I think what Matthew was asking is, and maybe you do feel this way, maybe you don't, but to speak a little bit about what a shit show ICE is. Listen, I have to be honest, everybody. This is not a good confession. I'm just not up on things like I used to be. There's certain things I assume,

and then I kind of don't even read about it anymore. I assume that ICE is a shit show. It certainly is. I assume that basically every government organization, NYPD is probably by far the best of them. As you get to smaller and smaller towns, organizations like ICE, which are on again, off again,

sometimes there's been years barely doing anything. They're marching orders changed. their political pawns, they're, you know, I understand in his mind I didn't show enough intensity about it, but I really do agree with him. I just assume it's true. Okay, fair enough. And then, you know, I felt this way about Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case, and everybody got very upset. You know, we did know that he had that knee on Floyd's back, neck, whatever want to call it,

because there was a picture in the manual that, taught them that hold. And I could just never get out of my mind that if those jackasses in charge of the Minnesota Police Department hadn't taught him that hold, he wouldn't be going to jail for the rest of his life. And I understand it at the height of all that BLM stuff, people got very upset if you said that. And they would want to infer from that, like, I'm soft on murder or black, you know, like racism, all this stuff, but it's not that at all. It's just that, you know, if you understand it's not a

coincidence that he held this guy down this way in exactly the same way, the manual shows them holding people down. And you imagine it's your son, Derek Chauvin, and you would say, listen, he only did that because you taught him that. You taught him that hold. And you can read in the manual, it talks about excited delirium and all the reasons, they're bullshit reasons, by the way, all the reasons why you should use that hold because they can have superhuman strength and all this stuff which we all know now is probably or mostly exaggerated bullshit but this is the stuff his superiors fed him this is the diet of his training then he went out there and he did what he was largely trained to do and then this guy who was on you know all these these these drugs may or may not have contributed to his dying. Then you have these contradictory medical examiner reports. The guy drops dead.

And now this guy's in jail the rest of his life. And that's not an easy case for me. As awful as it is what happened to him. I've always felt like, I don't know about that. You know, I think the state of Minnesota has an awful lot of blame for that. Anyway, okay. Hello, sir. You want to introduce our guest?

Sure. Hi, how are you? Hello. You told me you were going to be in a garden wearing a T-shirt. Yeah, there's snow is coming down again. It just arrived. It's on the way to New York, I think, but it's now reached a little west of Toronto. Well, your bookshelf is beautiful.

Okay. Welcome Professor Robert Jan Van Peltz, principal expert on Nazi gas chambers in the David Irving trial. And he has other... Yes. Am I allowed to do the extent... Yes, this is different in a tweet. Go ahead.

I guess it's an informal show, huh? Professor Van Peltz is one of the world's leading experts on Auschwitz, an architectural historian who has taught at MIT and the University of Waterloo. He is best known for proving through buildings and blueprints the reality of the gas chambers and crematoria. His work has made him a central figure in the fight against Holocaust denial. All right. Welcome, Professor Van Pelt.

My students call me Robert Young or RJ or whatever. I like RJ, RJ. So before we begin, I sensed from what was coming back to me through Periel, and I don't blame you, that you're very worried that you're walking into a trap, an ambush, you're getting to get caught up in some of these, you know, what's going on in the world today. And boy, are you right?

No, no. At least let the cheese be tasteful as I'm giddling it. No, you have nothing to fear. I actually really just want you on almost more than any other guest I've ever had for the dry information which you have in your head. I'll only set it up by saying, I'm sure you're aware, and I'll play a little video in your bald head, that obviously you might have thought that these issues were disposed,

of and put to bed, but they are arising again more than they ever have. And every day on Twitter, we're seeing one person or another, you know, cast doubt on whether the Holocaust happened. And in particular, whether or not the gas chambers were real. People died at Auschwitz. I'm on the mailing list of this guy, Carl Rattle, R-A-D-L, who is one of Darrell Cooper's most complimented sources, Darrell Cooper, you know, Tucker's favorite historian,

and one out of every five emails I get from this guy is some thing about how Auschwitz is a myth and all a bunch of BS. So, I'm just going to play a little video at top of like a few bits of what some people have said. And then I'll say exactly what I did.

I took the Colorado emails I got, and then I also asked ChatGPT for what are all the most common claims of like Holocaust deniers but I focused on the gas chambers and they suggested a bunch of topics to ask you

about and I'm just going to go through those greatest hits and ask you to just tell us, you know, what really happened because I think this is a vital importance. So go ahead, Steve. Play that video. It's like three minutes long. It starts with Nick Fentes. Max says if I take

one hour to cook a batch of cookies and Cookie Monster has 15 ovens working 24 hours a day every day for five years. How long does it take Cookie Monster to make six million batches of cookies? I don't know. That's a good question. But certainly wouldn't be five years, right? The math doesn't seem to add up there. The math doesn't quite seem to add up there. I don't think you'd result in six million, maybe 200 to 300,000 cookies.

And I think the Red Cookie Association said something like that, probably 200 to 300,000. thousand cookies baked probably and in addition you know in this hypothetical i imagine by the way i think that this whole cookies thing became a way of not getting tossed off youtube and stuff because you're not allowed to say not allowed to deny the holocaust on youtube so the euphemism is cookies but if you took aerial photographs over the kitchens you would need to see certain smokestacks to release the smoke from baking the cookies and the smoke stacks would project certain shadows but i guess they're not visible in the aerial photographs taken over the kitchens. Moreover, if you look at the soil texture, it's really not deep enough for mass cookie storage underground. And so there's a lot of things. You know, in the

cookie kitchen, they say that the ovens are wooden and they have windows on them and they're not totally secure. And the ovens that they use, they actually did sort of an ad hoc use of that particular kind of oven, even though they made a perfectly good design for ovens for a different purpose for de-lousing. I mean, you know, for something else. So, none of it really adds up. According to the evidence that I have seen, there was no gas chambers anywhere. Why did Hitler want to guess the Jews? He didn't. The gas chamber, they show you in Auschwitz is as genuine as the fairy castle in Orlando. Rather like Disneyland. That's David Irving, by the, and Auschwitz has become

the kingpin, the lynchpin of the Holocaust industry. Are Jewish grandmothers lying to their grandchildren when they talk about what happened in the camps? I think so. It's a great tendency when you've been somewhere, or you've been near somewhere, that you embellish slightly. I think the Jews have to ask themselves the question why is it,

that every time they've arrived as pitiful refugees in a country, after a few years, they have to move on. They don't seem to ask themselves that question. I know that I'm disliked as an historian, I know that I'm hated by some people, and I know the reason why, and I know what I could do to change it, instantly change my opinions, I'm not going to do it. They don't ask themselves what they

could do to change the way that they are disliked. You said more people died on the backseat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquittic than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. How is that not denying? Oh, that's Max Blumenthal of all people interviewing. Max Blumenthal is, you know. The right quotation, the actual quotation, more people died on the backseat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick, meaning the one woman at Mary Joopo Peckney than ever

died in that gas chamber at Auschwitz, meaning the one that's shown the tourists. And the polls now admit they put on the inscription outside. They admit that the building was built three years after World War II was over. It's a fake. Where's RJ? Are you good and angry now? No. I mean, I'm a little thick.

All right. Before we ask you, I didn't know if the Fuentes stop still. So that was new. But, I mean, I've had a lot of opportunity to go through the dirty underwear of David. Irving as a result of the trial I was involved in and of course I got a I got basically access to all of his correspondence as part of discovery of you know when the two parties basically have to exchange evidence so I mean I'm happy to talk about what he said and why it's complete nonsense or where it comes from you're you're in the interviewer's

seat so I'm ready for you but well I have certainly Nick Fuentes is all over the place, so he doesn't know the difference between a gas chamber and a crematorium oven, just to start with, or a mass grave for that matter. Well, I have bullet points of all these claims I want to ask you about, but I'm totally happy to let you just speak at first. What's at the top of your mind about all this stuff and respond in any way you want? Now, the first thing that's on my mind is that, you know, let's call that Holocaust denial has been around really. I mean, the kind of scientific version of Holocaust denial, that this Holocaust denial that invokes counter evidence that's based on the alleged cremation capacity of the ovens or the alleged gassing capacity of the gas chambers, where deniers produce alternative figures like Fuentes did with his argument about the amount of cookies you can bake and. certain cookie ovens over five years. That has been basically around since the 1970s, the late 1970s.

And that really became, there was kind of a two-pronged approach. There was a French kind of approach to that that centered around a academic cult Robert Farisand and an American one in which basically what they call a revisionist magazine that was in Holocaust, a Nyer magazine coming from California, were central in that. What happened in the early 1990s, and these were all amateurs, none of these people who were involved in those arguments were trained historians. They were amateurs, they were people who came, you know, one of them was actually an engineer from Northwestern University, Arthur Butts.

He was probably the most educated person of all of these. deniers, but most deniers were people who suddenly got interested in this topic made themselves into, you know, kind of overnight in some kind of, you know, they became kind of amateur Sherlock Holmeses. They believed that they could find a single piece of evidence that that contradicted the general story and then they started basically writing things or lecturing about this. And in some way, this was a very marginal phenomenon. What happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s was that there basically for the first time people who had some knowledge of history started actually to drift into this, let's call it, this cloud of nonsense. There was a professor at Princeton, Arnold Meyer, who in a book, Why Did the Heavens Didn't Darken, posited.

a really wrong-headed idea, but he posited that basically the Jews who were murdered in the Second World War were a kind of byproduct of the war against the Soviet Union. He was partly right, but because the Holocaust really was triggered. The final, the final kind of the murder of the six million was triggered by the invasion, the German invasion in the Soviet Union. But he completely dismissed the role of anti-Semitism, the role of a plan for a final solution of the so-called Jewish problem in Europe, and so on. By writing this book, I don't think it was a good book as far as the German or the Nazi hatred of communism was concerned, but he really in some way piggy-packed a vision of the Holocaust on top of that that wasn't really researched. But he had a certain

authority. He was a professor at Princeton. And so this book was very problematic. Then there was a German historian who also said that basically, you know, that Hitler was kind of imitating Stalin, that really the core of Nazism was anti-communism and also suggesting really that, you know, when Jews, if Jews were killed and he admitted that a lot of Jews were killed, that he This was really a kind of byproduct of the Nazi war against the USSR. So then David Irving comes in the picture. David Irving is not a trained historian, but he's a very popular writer of historical books. I mean, he had an enormous audience.

Many people loved his books. He was being published by major publishers, also in the United States, Lexington Martin's Press in New York. Can I just ask one question there about David, but he just, he speaks. German and he did go into the archives and apparently he did find documents that other people didn't find. Is it fair to say even though he wasn't trained? He was operating as a, with the skills of a historian, correctly? Correct. He had, yeah, he was, he was very, very energetic. He knew German very well. He had worked in Germany as a, as a laborer after, after high school, a private school in his case, but high school in a German steel factory. But he was basically, he loved Germany

and in some way he loved Hitler. He believed that he was going to be the historian who was going to in some way redeem the reputation of Hitler. Hitler himself had announced that, that ultimately there would be a British historian. And he had said it somewhere 44, even early 45, that he knew, of course, that he was hated all over the world, that there would be a British historian that would basically clear his name. And Irving, for reasons that I don't really want to go to understand, even believed. He was his historian. And so he wrote a number of books about all kinds of aspects of the Second World War,

not focusing on the Holocaust. We have to have to say that. He was talking about military operations. And then he wrote a great biography of Hitler as a, war leader in the late 1970s. And, but what he did in this biography, the first edition of it, is that he said that the Holocaust happened behind the back of Hitler, that Hitler didn't want it, that Hitler, as, and I'm quoting him, probably not that precisely, but Hitler was the best friend

the Jews had in the Third Reich. I think, I think somebody, I heard him say that Hitler was protective of the Jews. I think I heard him say that. He was protective of the Jews, yes. And that the bad apples in this one, the real anti-Semites, were most importantly Gubbles, the minister of propaganda, the ideologist. And then also Himmler. And that basically what happened was that the Holocaust, that is the murder of six million Jews, the genocide of six million Jews, started in the summer of 1941 and this occupied Soviet Union. And then basically it in some way went out of control,

yeah, because it started also to involve Jews in Poland and elsewhere. And that Hitler only discovered this in 1943. And that when Hitler discovered that he was very sad about what had happened. But of course, the Jews by now were largely dead. And so he forgave Goebbels and Himmler and in some way now Germany had this, in Hitler's view, this burden of all. of history to carry. This was originally Irving's view.

So the Holocaust did happen, but Hitler didn't know about it. And in some way, this was part of the attempt to rehabilitate Hitler for the future, that he would become again a kind of viable example of a great leader. And this was of course part of his self-imposed task to be that biographer who Hitler had announced in 1944,

who would ultimately redeem his reputation. So what happens then in the 10 year that follows between 79 and 1988 is that for the, you first of all have a number of historians who start to in some way reinterpret the role of the Holocaust in the Second World War and that talked about Meyer and Nolte in Germany. And second of all, there is a trial, a couple of trials in in Canada in which the government is prosecuting a Holocaust denier named Anzendal.

And then Zundal is a German national living in Canada and he is prosecuted under a very old law that the Canadian colonial government passed in the war of 1812 to basically deal with spies and rumors. And it is the law against spreading false news. The idea of course is that you Americans would cross border to make us, I don't know, it must have been the 14 state at the time, and that Canadians

who would basically a lie about what was happening in the American advance could be prosecuted basically for lying about a war. This law was still on the books. And so when at a certain moment in the mid-1980s, Holocaust denial became in Canada in a public issue, basically survivors urged the government to basically revive this law or to, nobody had ever been prosecuted under this law for 160 years and to use it against Ernstundel the denier. And the government had a first trial, it failed,

and then there was a second trial. And in this second trial, the defense team of Ernst Zundal had a brilliant idea to get expert, witness evidence on the gas chambers. Now, the question is who is an expert on gas chambers? I mean, on genocidal gas chambers. I mean, and they found an engineer in Boston or Molden, Massachusetts,

named Fred Lochter, who had created a company, a practice that basically had to certify the safety of execution equipment used in the state prisons in the U.S. that basically where the death sentence was applied to people sentenced to death. And so the idea is that this equipment, it can be a lethal injection machine, it can be a gallows, it can be a gas chamber,

in the case of Missouri and Nevada, that they are safe to operate, for the prison personnel and also that they will not torture the executee. And so he had created a practice around this basically to certify these execution machines. And so he was an expert. And so the defense team of Zundal, led by this French academic forison, who was a key Holocaust denier, decided that they would basically hire Loiter. the expert on, in this case also gassing, and sent him to Auschwitz for a few days and ask him to take some samples of the, as they call alleged gas chambers, and have them analyzed back in a forensic lab in the US, and that he would create an expert report in which he as an expert would be looking at the ruins of the gas chambers and crematoria in Auschwitz.

and then he would give his expert opinion if indeed these gas chambers and ovens would have worked. And that's exactly what happened. He went to Auschwitz, paid for by the defense team. He came back and basically, he was only a few days in Auschwitz. He didn't consult the archives. He doesn't know anything about the eyewitness testimonies. He never looked at the eyewitness testimonies. he only looked at the ruins and came back that and said in his best engineering opinion,

the gas chambers wouldn't have worked and the ovens wouldn't have incinerated the alleged number of corpses, which in some way is the argument that Fuentes was kind of referring to. And so what happened was that Irving was in that room. He was in the courtroom and saw this testimony because Irving had been also, asked to testify on Zundl's behalf because Zundal was a kind of, he was a producer, he was an entrepreneur and he was connected to all of the denial networks in North America and basically he organized trips for Irving and was very important for Irving at this time to sell his books. He would come with a car full of books. He would speak at those evenings. He would get something of a fee and he would

sell 100 to 150 of his books. And that's how he was making his living. So Irving was in the room. He sees the testimony by Lortchter and he thinks it's brilliant. He said, I never thought about this. You know, I'm a historian. I've worked in the archives. I like evidence.

I am, you know, this is my field. And Sutherl leader is his engineer. And he goes to Auschwitz and he says that, you know, with his engineers, he says, it's impossible. This was always the argument of deniers. They don't actually deal with any of the evidence that basically shows that what's alleged to have happened actually happened. But they say it is physically impossible. Hence the evidence, we shouldn't even look at the other evidence because it's physically impossible. Can I pause you there for one second?

This is fascinating. And I'm so happy to meet you and have you on the show. So I make one little aside here because it won't be appropriate to wait until you're finished. This reminds me very much of Dr. Michael Bodden. who is this pathologist for hire, medical examiner for hire, who has done many, many popular cases. And he was the guy who was hired by the OJ team.

And he concluded that it was physically impossible for OJ to have killed Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman because of the shape of the wounds and the amount of time it would have taken, whatever it is. And this was a huge thing. And he later concluded that Jeffrey Epstein, had killed himself. But it just, it's very analogous. You hire a guy and he goes in there. And I can see the merit in saying, don't listen to the eyewitness because you would tell the pathologists,

don't, don't look at the newspapers, just tell us what you see. But they get it obviously and completely wrong. And yet, this stays in the record and it festers and it becomes an argument for deniers to this day, people will say, OJ didn't do it, even though everybody knows OJ did it, right? Because of this one guy, Michael Bodden, who had credentials. So anyway, go ahead. That's what makes me think of. Yeah. So the, I mean, it is, of course, if you, if you have no, if you don't, I mean, first of all, it's very difficult to prove a negative. I mean, you can basically say that, you know, we, you know, and I would listen. And many SS people testified. after the war that there had been guessing.

I wasn't evolved. You know, but it happened. Even the commandant of Auschwitz gave an enormous amount of testimony about what happened there. But, you know, it's very difficult to prove a negative. I mean, you can have an eyewitness testimony who says, you know, I was 200 meters from a crematorium. I see a group of people arriving at the building and nobody ever leaves it again and then I see smoke.

I mean, I'm just, you know, but it's very difficult. to have an eyewitness who said, you know, I've been outside of that crematorium standing there for three years and I never saw any group of people arriving there. I mean, that's not how eyewitness testimony works. Eye witness testimony is good

in basically asserting the fact that something happened. It's very bad at actually asserting that something didn't happen because it might have happened behind the back of the witness or around the corner or whatever like that.

So already the deniers are in a kind of difficult epistemological position. I mean, a position of, you know, of making an argument because they tried to prove a negative, that something didn't happen. So then they are immediately kind of thrown into the position that they must say because they don't have eyewitnesses. I mean, they really can't exist that something didn't happen. They have to say it's impossible. It couldn't have happened. And so what happened with Irving, which is really very interesting, is not only was he very impressed by this testimony,

but then he decides to become the publisher of the Lojte report. He is a publishing house, and he becomes the publisher of it. And then he basically starts organizing tours in which he and Fred Lojte are talking amongst the Nyer circles, extreme right wing circles in Europe. So he now starts to basically the Lojester report becomes part of his business plan. He's making money with that. And now it's exactly the same time

he writes a second edition. He revises his biography of Hitler as a war leader called Hitler's War. And in the second edition that appears in 1991, which is now a year after he basically became the publisher of the Lojta report, all references to the Holocaust, all references to the final solution of the Jewish problem, to the murder of six million Jews, have disappeared. It's not anymore that it says that it had happened behind Hitler's back, but it says it didn't happen.

I mean, it disappears. So, and this is, this is in the historiography of Holocaust denial, a very important point. Because until that moment, all the people who had made these arguments that the Holocaust didn't happen had been amateurs. There'd be people with no standing at all amongst, let's call it the educated public who knows something about the Second World War. People who buy books about the Second World War who want to read about it, who want to keep informed. But Irving's, let's call it now conversion, if we call it, you know, the conversion to hardcore Holocaust denial, not anymore the Holocaust happened but Hitler didn't know about it so let's call it still maybe a little bit of you know quote-unquote collateral damage or it was a private thing by Goebbels and Himmler but the Holocaust now you know the Holocaust and it was of course a genocide because it was tightly connected to Hitler to Berlin to decisions of the Nazi government now the Holocaust completely disappears it has now in some way it has been sanctioned. I mean, because now in the second edition of his biography piece, it has now

been sanctioned by a person who has a reputation, maybe not amongst fellow historians, because they already knew that he was very sloppy and that he was very biased, you know, that he didn't get fair representations of complex historical situations. But the person who had great impact on what what the general public knows about the Second World War. Is it also, is it also fair to add to this story that you're laying out that each successive generation more and more removed from the Holocaust, because more impressionable and more and more persuadable about these things, because it's not within their own memory.

Like you could convince me of a lot of things about the Civil War, that you could never put past somebody who lived around the time of the Civil War, right? It's like, I'm just, what do I know? And I believe it's sure they got it wrong. So he benefits from the fact that there's younger and younger people around, I would imagine. Yeah, I don't really believe that. You don't believe that. That distance in time makes that much of a different.

Yeah, it has a big difference when we try to understand the texture of things. But when we talk about, you know, the big questions, I mean, you know, the big question did, was Caesar murdered on the Iads of March, on the 15th of March and whatever? you know, 33 BC, you know, it happened over 2,000 years ago, but we pretty well, pretty well know that that happened that day. Okay. You know, there are certain periods in history of which we have a great, great amount of detailed knowledge, because also we want to have that, you know, because we consciously preserve that knowledge. But just to, I mean, I don't want to, you know, be on my own little hobby horse here, but... No, I think I speak for the world. This is very fascinating. Please continue. Okay. So, so I want to...

to go back to this moment that Irving as a as a person with a reputation to lose joins this bandwagon and suddenly gives it credibility and that's the moment that in some way Holocaust denial really becomes a problem a public a problem in the public domain because it has moved out of the margins of you know crackpots basically having all of these little little theories and now it has moved into the into the public sphere and so it is at that moment that in some way people get really concerned about it because it seems to be also because of these other historians who already are you know a little bit giving you know alternative and explanations about why the Nazis killed Jews and I talk about Meyer there's now a sense that basically everything that that that right now the public is ready

for a kind of an alternative and a completely wrongheaded and false reading of history to accept that. This then basically creates the book by Deborah Lipstadt until recently the ambassador in the fight against anti-Semitism under the Biden administration professor at Emory University. She writes about Holocaust denial. originally she was not going to include Irving, but Irving goes public, so to speak, he comes out as a Holocaust denier as she's writing the book, and she correctly identifies his conversion as a real problem because he has a reputation. And so what happens is that she writes her book, St. Martin's Press and other publishers drop his, drop basically contracts.

they cancel contracts with him. He started to lose income and now he has actually a case, basically a case against Penguin Books and Lipstadt, Penguin Books being the publisher of Lipstadt in England to bring an action against for libel in which he can claim also damages because he's lost income. And he does that in England because in England the libel laws are different from the US. in England, when you get, basically, when you get a case for libel against you, you're the defendant. You have to prove that you did not libel the plaintiff. You have to make clear to the court that basically you told the truth.

And so the burden of proof in the U.S. is on the plaintiff in England. It's on the defendant. Defendant. And this is how I got involved. and I can go kind of, you know, I mean, fast forward five years. We can go deeper into the case. But what happens is this becomes a very public case because Irving is a very public person. He is the plaintiff and he loses the case.

The defense team of Lipstadt, of which I was a part as an expert witness, basically is able to prove that indeed he's a Holocaust denier. He's a falsifier of history. They're overlapping kind of practices, but they're not completely. identical and that he is basically a neo-Nazi and that he is a anti-Semite in which the anti-Semitism peace is in some way the connection between the other things because when you want to say why would anyone want to deny the Holocaust mostly the motivation is an anti-Semitic one that is you know that Jews are you know part of a big conspiracy

and part of this conspiracy is to convince the non-Jews that the Holocaust happened, which is a lie, and then the question is why would Jews the Jewish conspiracy want to do that? That's why I included at the end of that video montage, Irving, talking about the Jews. I felt that was necessary a part of the story. Yeah, yeah. So they did so, and so basically what, and then I will stop about the case. We come back about this conspiracy thing. What happened was that Irving was shown in this case.

It was basically both the main trial and the appeal, main trial in 2000 and the appeal in 2001. He was completely discredited. And this was the last time that a historian or a person who has a standing in the world of historians, some standing, who, you know, has basically published a couple of bookshelves full of books about, the Second World War, this is the last time that the person with that reputation, basically, and who had, who basically, who basically was defeated in a court in which all of the evidence was basically presented. Yeah.

And he tried to basically always question the evidence. He was not successful. And so he came out with his reputation as a historian in Tatters. And since then, that's now 24 years, no other professional historian has ever joined basically this blogosphere of Holocaust deniers. I mean, I don't know really what Nick Fuentes is about, but we know he's not a professional historian. So what the Irving case did is that it stopped the drift of, I would say, a few of a few, of a few. Amateur historians who had no expertise in the Holocaust itself, they had other expertise but not in the Holocaust, who had started to say, maybe we should reinterpret

the origins or the causes or whatever like that. That hasn't happened anymore. So when you are talking about whatever comes to you every day, you know, in your email, you know, for me, the key question would be, yeah, is there any kind of, you know, professional historian who's sending you that kind of stuff? The related problem, of course, is that we live now in age in which experts don't count anymore. I mean, this is, you know, I mean, who cares about historians today? Yeah, when you talk about the past, who cares about any expert? Who cares about any expert about vaccines or for that matter?

Right. You know, we live in a historical moment in which the idea that the conversion of one expert to a completely untenable scientist, or historical or scholarly position would actually matter, you know, in some way, who cares? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, given, given, given who's running your right now health policy in the U.S. You know, so in some way I'm talking when I say, yeah, great that no historian has embraced Holocaust denial anymore after Irving, you know, but in some way, does it still matter or not?

I mean, you know, probably not. That's really the purpose here. I want to go, this is a, this is amazing, I don't know why I haven't seen you on interviews, on television, maybe that's just because I'm not watching,

but you should be out there at this particular point in time and, and educating people. But I want to go through the list of, let's say they also want to add to that. I want to go to the list, I want to go to the list of the claims

and you can give us, you know, the answer, kind of like a hit list so that, people can be armed with the information that they need. As you say, people don't trust experts anymore. There are examples of experts not doing themselves justice, but in the end, it can't be a free-for-all. And anyway, so the first claim that we hear all the time is many deniers argue that Auschwitz gas chambers were merely de-lousing rooms. What's the answer to that

charge. Thank you, Prime Minister Netanyahu on that one. No, I mean, this is a six-jocomime. So, yes. So why? So let's just take two steps back. Yeah. What is the, what was the killing agent in the gas chambers in Auschwitz?

It was a product called Cyclone B. Cyclone, it means cyclone in English. Cyclone B, which was a delousing agent. Cyclone B is a delousing agent that was commercially available. You needed a kind of permission for it, but it was developed in the First World War for delousing, the clothing and textiles and mattresses of soldiers, but also for the killing of pests in silos and grain silos. And the idea was that it was a cyanide product. It's liquid cyanide that basically is, that basically is.

is poured into some kind of gypsum-like kind of substance. You can put it in a tin. It has a shelf life. It closed. It sealed it. It has a shelf life of six months. And then when you need to de-lauze something, you basically pack a room, you know, anywhere where you are, especially when you're in on the front, in the field, with the army.

You know, you basically try to find a room that's reasonably gas-tight. But it doesn't need to be absolutely gas-tight. You put all of the stuff that is full of lice and other kind of vermin in that room, especially soldiers' uniforms. Then you basically bring the tin in, you open the tin, you leave and you close the door and you seal the door and you come back 24 hours later. And the cyanide has degassed over that period. And not only all the insects are dead, but also the nits, the eggs, are destroyed. And that's very important in this thing. That's why you need a 24-hour kind of period for this gas to work.

That's why Zyclon B was in Auschwitz, like it was in many other camps, like it was also in civilian operations. It was a normal product that was produced in factories. You needed to have a license to use it. Not everyone could just go to a shop to buy it. But a similar product is produced by DuPont. I mean, DuPont had here, whatever, in Delaware, had, you know, the U.S. license for a same product. So because Auschwitz was a big camp, it had a lot of delousing happening, and there were indeed de-lausing chambers, and they were called gas camas. Gas chambers.

And so, the buildings were designed for delousing purposes with an unclean site on one side, and you can see them in Auschwitz at this time, and there's a clean site on the other side, and in between is a gas chamber. And you basically, the people who work in that building will take the clothing of prisoners or arriving deportees, put it in the gas chamber, put Cyclone B and wait for 24 hours, and then it's moved into the clean site, and it can be reused, recycled, whatever like that. So this is the standard application of Cyclone B. However, in September 1941, two months after the beginning of the campaign against Russia, Operation Barbara Rasa. Basically, the headquarters of the SS concentration camps in Oranienburg,

which is outside of Berlin, next to the Saxenhausen concentration camp, calls a meeting of the commandants of various concentration camps, Saxenhausen, Dachau, Bochengwald, but also Auschwitz and said, we are going to get involved in basically mass executions, mostly of Russian prisoners of war. Of course, they were considered to be communists. They were not protected by the Geneva Convention. And we need to have some new methods. We need to have some methods of mass execution.

And so basically, the head of the concentration camp system gives the commandants a license to experiment. In Auschwitz, it happens to be that there is all of this quantity of Cyclone B, and the deputy commandant decides to do an experiment with this lethal gas by basically locking a number of sick prisoners into a basement, have someone come in with a gas mask, and then basically open this tin in there, I mean, the prisoners are behind basically a barred gate. They cannot interfere with the Zechlon B.

They opened it in. He goes out and he closes the door and they come back 24 hours later to see what happened and everyone is dead. So they have now, basically what they're going to do is to say, okay, we have this way of killing many people at the same time. There were some 500 people were murdered in that single event. and it's actually very cheap. We already have the material because this is used for the housing purposes, and we're basically taking some of that product and are going to apply it for mass killing purposes. This is why Zyclon B becomes the preferred tool of murder in Auschwitz.

It doesn't happen anywhere else. Now, let me just question you a little more closer. What is the evidence of this? Are the documents? Like how do you know that what you've said is what happened? Now, it's a combination of things. First of all, I've written testimony. So the testimony of the man who ordered,

the people who did the gassing, so the commandant of Auschwitz, he testified after the war and he said, this is what I did. We have testimony of other SS people who gave testimony immediately after war. we have testimony of prisoners. Then we have the,

the kind of the permissions. When you need to get Cyclone B, you need to basically go to a factory and pick it up. So you need to get a truck from the carpool of the camp. The truck basically needs to be released because it's wartime. Everything needs a permission. The car needs to get a release to go to the factory.

and then it drives back and there needs to be a reason why this why this cyclone is released why it is picked up you know a few tons of zyclone so there's receipts and such of much more cyclone going back and forth than

it would have needed for it says yeah and then it the text on top of it and that was in Auschwitz a month ago in the archive for to make a movie and I went through these these documents all stack of them

And it says, you know, RE, the reason for this is the Uden Omsinblum. This means a resettlement of Jews. Now, resettling where? Now, Jews were arriving in Auschwitz, but they never left. Right. Yeah, there are a few left. We have a million point one million Jews, one point one point one million Jews arriving, and we have, you know, whatever, 100,000 leaving.

So where are the other million people there? So that is the resettlement, quote, unquote. And we have, we have these, we have these documents. that talk about the purchases of cyclone B for resettlement. Now, you could argue against that, that of course the Jews came there and that all their clothing needed, clothing needed to be, you know, deloused and so on.

And the problem, if you really want to go very deeply forensic into this problem, is that you guess, in some way, the amount of cyclone that was used to murder Jews in Auschwitz, and of course also Roma-Sinthi people was only a small percentage of the total amount of cyclone that was used for delousing purposes.

You know, it doesn't take much cyclone to kill a human being. It takes a lot of cyclone to basically kill insects. This is why, you know, lice will inherit the Earth and after we have gone. But, and so it's difficult to put, you know, a statistical, really a statistical kind of final proof on this. But then we have, for example, and now we come into really interesting territory,

because now deniers are going to say, okay, and this gets a little complex here. So when we come into a delouncing gas chamber in Auschwitz, then you see that the walls have blue stains on them. And the blue stains, we've always known that the blue stains basically are the result of the impact of cyanide on iron. There is iron in the wall, the element iron, and that when cyanide basically binds with iron and creates a pigment, and the pigment is called Prussian blue. It's a dark blue pigment. And so then you get the argument, okay, we are, we see these delousing chambers and they have walls with blue stains. But now we go and then they say the alleged homicidal gas chambers and we don't see the blue pigment.

Now, first of all, most of these alleged these gas chambers were destroyed by the SS in late 1944. there's only one that remains, and that is in that gas chamber that Irving referred to when he talked about more people died on the backseat of Senator Robert Kennedy's car in Chappaquiddick than in that gas chamber. In fact, he misquotes himself there. But if you come into that gas chamber, first, he says that it was built after the war, which is not true. It's a very complex history in which there is a crematorium that had a gas chamber that operated from 1941 up to 1940, late 42. But that gas chamber was then reused as a air raid shelter in 1944 that was rebuilt and then it was reconstructed in 1947 in the state it had been in 1941. but they made a mistake. So, yes, it's kind of a reconstruction of an original state.

It's a little messy because originally the Polish, the Auschwitz Museum didn't say that, yes, we're in the right position, but there was a use separating the gas chamber use in 1941, 42 from the museum kind of display in 1947, which was, not gas chamber related. But if you come in that room, there's no blue stains. And so then they say there's no blue stains. There could never have been any cyclone in that room because the signature of cyclone in a gas chamber is the formation of blue stains and there are no blue stains. So then the question is, so, okay, why, you know, what is an explanation for that? So they said, impossible.

There are no blue stains. Now, first of all, you can say that the wall could have been repainted. You know, the buildings, the gas chambers elsewhere in Birkenau, basically they were destroyed. You know, there's only some bricks there. You don't even know if these are the original bricks because of 45, 46, the Polish population around Auschwitz was recycling bricks for their own houses. You know, because they came back and nothing was left of their houses. But an important experiment was done. by a forensic lab in Krakow in the 1990s,

when Holocaust deniers really started to embrace this argument, no blue stain, no cyclone at all, where they basically did an experiment where they started to, in the lab, add a lot of carbon dioxide in the mix. So we have cyanide plus carbon. dioxide and then basically to apply it to iron. Just to put it to a wall to a coat of coat of drywall, whatever like that with iron in it.

And the blue stains don't appear. Why not? Because the high concentration of carbon dioxide prevented the formation of ferroferiore ferrocyonite, which is the blue pigment. Now, I wasn't there. I wasn't in that lab. But this is a very reputable lab that basically said, and they created a report, an official report, that when the level of carbon dioxide in a room reaches a certain level,

let's say, whatever, 18% or something like that, the pigment will not form. And this, of course, is exactly the difference between the lousing gas chamber, where we have clothing with all kinds of insects and the cyclone, the cyanide is applied to that, there is the normal level of carbon dioxide in this room. But when you pack in a gas chamber, let's say, of 200 square meters, which was the size in, sorry, 2,000 square feet, if you pack 2,000 people there,

I mean, people were packed in the gas chambers at a density of around 10 people, one person per square foot, which is basically a New York bus during rush hour, or should at least be that density if public transport is used decently, then basically people are packed, they're panicking,

they are, you know, they start breathing very heavily, the carbon dioxide will rise very quickly. And that exactly creates the conditions in which the blue stain will not. Did they bring, did they put in that experiment, the amount of CO2 that would be expected in a room of that size with that number of people in it.

That was the... But basically, again, to try to argue with me, we're always trying to deal with, you know, in some way, prove an absence. You know, why is it that there would be no blue stains there? So this was a way, this was also an argument that I presented in my report. You know, I did not, I wasn't, I'm not a chemist, but as a historian, I was, you know, I basically, said, as a historian, I'm looking at all kinds of historical evidence, and I'm looking at this too. This was actually appealed. My role in this whole trial, I was the expert on Auschwitz.

It was important because Auschwitz was the center of the case, because Irving had converted to Holocaust denial on the basis of a forensic report on Auschwitz by Mr. Leuchter, because it was the pivot in his history as a denier. In some way, the Auschwitz part became a pivot. in the defense for Lipstadt and Penguin Books. And so I used all kinds of arguments that I had picked up as a historian, inclusive these chemical arguments. And so then after Irving had lost his case, he basically said that I, Robert Young van Pelt,

should never have testified on this because I'm not a licensed. I'm not a licensed chemist. And I'm not. I never claimed that. I'm also not an architect. I'm a professor of architecture, but I'm not an architect. I'm a historian by training.

Before, I want to write a time, and I want to get to the architecture. No holes in the roof, no flus. I don't know what the argument is. What's the argument made about the fact that there's no upward ventilation at Auschwitz? That meant there must have been no gas.

What's that about? Okay. How many more minutes do we have? Well, we can go over. We're not, I don't want to keep you longer than we make that. Okay. So let me try to explain what this is about. So, crematory, there are four crematorium.

It's two and three, four and five, four or five are above ground. Basically, you can, they have above ground gas chambers. You can just, you know, there are little portholes in the walls of the gas chambers. Asseman goes on a little ladder, opens a porthole, you know, basically empties a tin of Cyclone B into the room, closes it, and then let the cyclone do its work. Cramatory 2 and 3 were not designed, the design was not made with the idea there would be gas chambers in there. They had underground morgues. It makes sense to have an underground morgue because they're cooler. And the large underground morgues, they were designed really for, you know, in epidemics.

When you get suddenly a typhous epidemic, you get many corpses are being produced by this disease in a short period of time. You need to store the corpses because the ovens cannot deal with it. all, you know, in the next 24, 48 hours. So they had very large morgues. And so one of the morgues was converted into a gas chamber and the other one in an undressing room, both in Krammatorium 2 and 3, as they were being completed,

as the buildings were completed in early 43. Now, the problem with, there's a number of problems when you have an underground gas chamber. The first one is how do you ventilate it after the gassing has taken place? You need to get a sophisticated ventilation system to take out the cyanide out of the room before you can reenter it to take the corpses out. So that's one problem. But there was another problem with these gregatoria.

The crematoria had these were very powerful crematoria. They had around 1,450 corpses per day capacity, each of them, number two and number three, together around 3,000. And you already ask, you know, why do you need that many of it? Why do you need that cremation capacity when you can do a compare and contrast exercise to other concentration camps where you can see that there is, you know, typically per 10,000 inmates, you will have a capacity of maybe one or two or five corpses per day. But in Auschwitz, you know, it was orders of magnitude larger. So the question first of all is why do you need that capacity, which means that something different is happening there, that that corpses are produced in a different frequency. There's a different capacity of corpse production, if we may call it like that, in Auschwitz. That means murder. But the big problem that they had in Auschwitz was that the cyclone product was a design. was developed in the First World War for de-lausing. De-lousing needs a 24-hour application of cyanide

to the vermin that's going to be killed. That's part of the patent, that there will be a very slow degassing of the cyanide from the cyclone material, from the gypsum material. So that was being produced for the camps. However, human beings, When you want to kill them with cyanide, you know, you don't need much of it.

And it goes very quickly. So you don't need a 24 hour period to basically, to have that material degassing the cyanide. It was in 15 minutes if you have a, you know, a certain dose or maybe in a gas chamber, in which 2,000 people are, have been locked in. You can probably use two, you know, two tins, two kilo tins of cyanide, so that's to four pounds of Cyclone B,

and you introduce it and everyone will be dead in 15 minutes. So the problem that the SS in Auschwitz faced was that they had now a killing agent, which they had taken off the shelf, which wasn't designed to murder human beings, but basically which was designed to kill lice and vermin, and which had this 24-hour period of degassing. And when you have transports arriving every 24 hours in the camp, this means that you have only 24 hours between the arrival of a transport, selection, taking the people who are selected to be murdered to the undressing room,

having them undress, then kill them, and then incinerate their bodies, before the next transport arrives within 24 hours. You cannot afford to have that lack of 23 hours and, you know, whatever, 23 and a half hours. That extra time that basically the killing agent demands because it degasses so slowly. You need to be able to remove the cyclone from the room immediately after everyone has died, which means immediately 15 minutes after the cyclone was introduced, you have to remove the cyclone. So how did they do that?

How do they do that? They created columns that went from the roof into the floor of this basement, in every basement four of those columns. And the columns were made of wire mesh. They were basically two cages, two cages, a big cage and a small cage, inside there. They were made of wire mesh, very strong wire mesh. strong wire mesh, with heavy corners.

And inside the second column of wire mesh, there was basically a little basket almost. And that basket could be pulled out of the second, the inner column through a hole in the ceiling of the gas chamber. And there was something to close it on top. And the SS could stand on top of the roof. open the little kind of hatch and then lower inside that second wire mesh column, a basket with degassing cycle.

Now what's the evidence that this existed? Is there receipts of inventory? How do we know that these existed? We have inventory of it. We don't have the original blueprints because these were modifications made after the blueprints were made. But we have inventory in which they are mentioned. That means after the completion, we have. basically testimony

of the man who made these things. He was a prisoner in the camp workshop. And we have eyewitness testimony of both Germans and also of Zonda commander. That means to the slave. This is interesting because

tell me if I'm wrong. You have testimony of a prisoner who said he made these wire mesh shafts or whatever they are. But he would... Michael Kula. Yes. I'm sorry? And his name is Michael Kula. He wouldn't have have, I presume, the expertise to know he should make something up like a wire mesh shaft in order to explain this problem, right?

It's not just, it's not just eyewitness testimony, but his testimony, which would make no sense unless he had scientific expertise to have. He was a blacksmith. He was a blacksmith. There were many workshops in the camp, and there were Polish. There were Polish, you know, tradesmen. at work in these things and these were made in the camp yeah so we we have we have his we have his testimony we have drawings so we have drawings by a man called david olere who was a zondar a slave worker true slave worker in uh in cramatorium number three he was a trained artist worked in paris before the war we created posters and so on and he immediately upon the return to paris he survived

the Holocaust. Upon the return to Paris, he started to draw what he had seen. And he draws very detailed drawings of, for example, a section of the crematorium number three, inclusive to the basement, and he draws those columns, and he indicates them as basically the columns through which the gas arrives. He didn't really know why they used the Golan, because the Golan wasn't the introduction device for the gas. Yes, they were introduced there, but the most important function of them was to basically allow the SS to pull out to still degassing cyclone after 15 minutes without the victims having interfered with it because otherwise it would be spilled over the bodies and over the floor

and they had to wait another 23 hours before the degassing stopped. The last, there's many, but the last claim I hear the most often, I think you're already alluded to it right at the very top of your presentation, is about the doors being wooden and therefore not airtight or sealed enough to gas people to death. At the beginning you said

it actually doesn't have to be that tight but I'll let you answer. No, I mean, they were dead were tight there were seals in it. I mean, a door like that is in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. You know, gas doors are basically normal. I mean, they were in these

the loung rooms also. They have gas-tied doors. Now, this idea is, you know, in some way, and we can go back to DuPont, you know, DuPont has used this cyclone material in an American version of it. And one of the thing that you need to start to consult when you try to understand how this works is to go into the safety instructions of the commercial product, you know, because, of course, it comes with a lot of safety instructions. And what is very clear is that this particular cyanide product actually is, you know, it's not that you just have, you know, you breathe it in for one second when something escapes you, you drop dead.

You know, it needs to actually reach a certain relatively high threshold before it really becomes dangerous. So it's certainly not that people were on the other side of the door standing there, you know, with their face, you know, basically. on top of the seal. Some cyanide probably might have leaked through some of these doors at some of the time, but that would not have created a situation that was particularly dangerous. And in any way, they were prisoners. It would not have created a situation that was dangerous on that side of the door, nor would it have prevented people on the other side of the door from dying.

Yeah, yeah. So the door argument is silly. Now, there are, of course, when we come into really, you know, we can go into all of the arguments about the doors where the deniers say, you know, these should have been metal doors because, you know, you have gas-tied metal doors, which are used for air-age shelters and so on. I mean, you know, every, whatever the evidence is that this happened, which is a convergence of eyewitness testimony, material evidence, documentary evidence, etc., etc., etc.

They always try to find something that might just be that tiny little piece of dust on Dr. Watson's shoe that allows basically Sherlock Holmes to reconstruct that he was in Pakistan or in British India as an army doctor. I mean, they always believe that he can find that tiny little bit of evidence that basically throws the whole, all of the historical evidence into disarray. That's their method. They don't produce, and I just want to weigh one. If I can just have another 10 seconds. Yes, please, please. As a historian, I mean, as a lawyer, you need to have a theory of the case. You need to basically, as a historian, when you look at evidence, at a certain moment you need to create a narrative that explains all of the evidence that you're looking at.

You try to create a story out of it, yeah? A story that is an credible story on the basis of the evidence that you're. you have using also your, you know, your reason and whatever and allowing for contingency and so on. The big problem with deniers is that while they're continuously shooting little darts at the, let's call it, the official narrative, as they call it, they've never been able to actually produce an alternative, an alternative story, an alternative narrative, a alternative narrative that actually explains everything that's there. You know, you cannot, as a historian, you have a task, you know, both to say, you know,

this didn't happen and that might not have happened. I'm looking at evidence and I'm able to say, I'm able to reconstruct a series of events that makes sense that basically allow me to understand this particular period in history and this particular kind of historical, these events as they basically interrelate with each other, that's what the historian does. They have never done that. Yeah, well, there's never been able to create an alternative reading for the, for the evidence that actually makes any sense.

As I understand it, one of the, and it's the most simple one, but one of the facts that's really stumped them. And I even read some Holocaust denier who, you know, changed the, changed his ways because of this particular fact, nobody can explain, okay, where'd all the Jews go? This is literally, and I think Irving said, well, some of them took on aliases and went to Israel or whatever, but that, of course, it's always the Soviet Union is basically used as, you know, if you want to explain, you know, Irving, I mean, when we talk about numbers, the other than six million, and Hilberg, a very credible historian said it was 5.1 million. But, you know, what deniers

tried to do is basically reduce the number of Jews victims to, let's say, under two million, and then say they are really just victims of the war. Like civilians were victims of the war. And also to increase the casualties of Dresden as a way of kind of... Exactly, yeah. You go from 37,000 casualties to 370 or 500,000. Right. But it's always, I mean, Jews were able...

Jews fled to the... occupied, the Soviet occupied part of Poland in late 39, early 40s, many of these Jews and the top in the Gulag. And that's actually where they survived, strangely enough. And then in 1942, when the Soviet Union was now a ally of Poland, as part of the allies of the Polish government in exile, they were released and survived in the Soviet Union and then came back in 1945 and then mostly went to. to the American zone in Germany.

But one of the things that deniers will do, they say that if you want to understand where those over 2 million, I mean 2.8 million Polish Jews went, you know, they all say, oh, they all went to the Soviet Union and they died in the Gulag. So it doesn't mean then that they didn't die,

but at least the Germans are not to blame for that. Yeah, this is how they can't really explain that. All right, sir, you know, in my opinion we're living in a kind of worldwide David Irving trial time everything we're talking about now is being questioned by a whole generation of kids who don't know anything and to the extent that you could put up a website

or do short videos of course we're also living in the world where you know TLDR you know TLDR means you don't know too long didn't read like nobody wants to read anything more than a couple of lines but it's some sort of bite-sized videos or a web page to respond to these arguments. I think you'd be doing a real service because there really isn't much information out there and you truly are an expert. Before you go, and by the way, if I have any resources that I could help, I mean, you have a university there, but any resource that I could help you technically,

financially, anything to make that happen, I'd be happy to do that. I have one thing, and it's actually in storage right now, but I created an exhibition called the Evidence Room with two of my colleagues. And it's actually, there's the Evidence Room Foundation. It's based in New York. I mean, everything is based in Delaware, of course. But, I mean, in Rungit, it's in New York. And the evidence room is actually deals with this. It actually is a reconstruction of this gas column in it.

We created it. And so check it out, and it might be of interest. Yes, send Perry all the link afterwards. so we can make sure to include it with the show notes as well. But you said one thing there. You alluded to something that Prime Minister Netanyahu would put his foot in his mouth. It was something, but I can't help it. I haven't been able to think about anything else since you let it slip.

So tell it before you go. I think I meant to do that. So what happened was that in 2008 or something like that, I was asked to authenticate a set of around 80 blueprints. They were found somewhere in Berlin. They had been bought by a German newspaper in Berlin, and they were included also blueprints about buildings in Auschwitz, inclusive crematorium two, and a delousing building

that basically has in the plan, the word gas chamber sitting in a delousing gas chamber. And so I authenticated them, went to Berlin, authenticated them, and they asked me where they should go, I said there are only really two places where they can be at home. It can be either the Auschwitz, Birkenau, State Museum or Yadfashem in Jerusalem. So they went to Yadfashem. And so then Netanyahu, who at that time was also prime minister,

he picked up at some weird public event. He picked up the plan of the delousing building, not of the cramatorium where the gas things had taken place, because the room in the cramatorium that became the gas chamber was not labeled as a gas chamber. It wasn't labeled with anything, no word there. But he took the de-lousing building and then basically held it up, so to speak, and he said, you know, there's the word gas chamber. This is where our people was murdered.

And of course, that was total nonsense. But it continues because I was just at the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg and Great Museum and things like that. but they have a facsimile of their drawing, and they made the same mistake. Oh, okay. Life is a little too short for me to try to, you know, track them all down. I mean, I need a successor. Find me a young, a young, I have one young man in Ireland who wants to do all of this,

so I think maybe we should, you know, get him to create a website. All right, so I'm very, very happy to meet you and have met you. I don't know if anybody else here has any quick questions. I'm not going to, you know, we have, this is live and we have some, I'm not going to expose you to any phone calls, even if you had time to stay, because I don't trust what's out there. But after we, after we let you go, I will allow a few people to call and, you know, make some comments. And Liz, you know, we might have to disconnect people. I don't know who's watching. Maybe it'll be fine.

But anyway. I will, I think that this time for a drink is my wife. Yes, please, please. RJ, I can call you RJ. Yeah, yeah, you can. It's very nice to meet you. I don't know if you ever get to New York. We will have to wait a little, I fear,

but when it's safe for Canadians to come back. Oh, yeah, they're mowing them down in the streets here. No, it's safe to come to New York. But when you do get to New York, we'd love to host you and your wife and your family, whoever it is at the Comedy Seller. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Get that man a drink. All right. All right. I don't know. Is anybody still there to want to call in, Liz?

Yeah, Luke is here. We're asking Luke to unmute now. He's been around for the whole show. Okay, okay. All right. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Luke. Hi, Luke.

Hi. So I initially called in about the first topic, and because I like hearing my voice on the air, I stayed for the second one, so you can choose which you want to hear my thoughts on. Give us the bullet point headline of each comment, and I'll tell you which one sounds more interesting. Love it.

I think what's happening with ICE that I haven't heard talked about much is that they, in the videos I see, they tend to vacillate between we follow rules and we want you to abide by the rules. Okay, that's a good, that's a good bullet point. What's the next one? Next one is the tech, the study of conspiracy theory and how it relates to the David Irving stuff. I'm going to let Liz choose. I'm going to let the chat choose and the chat really has been talking about the ICE incident. So let's talk about that.

Okay, Luke, go ahead. Okay. So you see... Wait, wait, but just before, I'm sorry, Luke. Just hold. You know what, forget about Luke. No, I'm kidding. But Liz, just in the chat, are there any like Holocaust deniers there or...

No, everyone was really quiet and listening. Yeah. Okay, go ahead, Luke. I'm honored. So we see these videos, and there was one that came out the other day where an ICE officer goes up to a guy at a gas station who's protesting, kind of shoves him. And then when the guy bats his hand away, boom, they pile on, they arrest him. There seems to be this desire on their part. And frankly, I've seen this in regular cops as well, but it feels much more impactful because these guys are federal and they're flooding cities where they've.

don't live, that there, sometimes they act like dudes on the street who are getting into spats with people. And then when stuff gets hot enough, they become, we are very official law enforcement officers. And that feels exactly like what happened in the shooting where there didn't, there seemed to be a lot of kind of shit talk with this lady. And he's filming her with his phone. and he explicitly breaks a rule. I listened to an interview with the chief of police in Minneapolis who said it is absolutely against the rules to stand in front of a car.

That might be something you were doing in a road rage incident, but you don't do it when you're enforcing the law. And then as soon as things turn, now he's a highly trained official who has split second to make a decision, but where was that highly trained, I am a representative of the federal government attitude when he was just standing in front of the car kind of just getting into shit with this lady.

So I feel like we can't just start the conversation at the moment everything goes catastrophically wrong. We have to look at the attitudes of the ICE agents and the way they are behaving in almost normal interaction with people where they... Yeah, the problem is that you can't, you can't. can't bring the overall to bear on a criminal defendant, right? Agreed. Can I just clarify one thing real quick?

Yeah. I'm actually not even talking about. I have no idea whether he's going to be convicted of anything. I find the conversation of people who are not witness to a trial deciding what's going to happen with a trial very silly. I read you. I'm just making, I think one in the same blade length. As far as, and I, you know, I don't, again, I should know more.

than I do, but they're just, you know, a common sense basis. The cops walk around looking to stop trouble and crimes that are obvious. The ICE agents, like if you're an illegal immigrant walking down the street, you know, there's no probable cause there. You're just a dude walking down the street, right? So something about their mission is to try to ferret out normal everyday law-biting people who they, who are not here legally. And this is a mission, which is obviously going to lead to much more difficult interactions and look much worse.

Because it's one thing when you see the cops descend on some guy who is causing trouble or, you know, in a fight or refusing to pay or pass, whatever it is. But it's another thing when you see, it's just very painful to see. You know, like we're not good. It's like the site of blood. For whatever reason, the blood is being shed, even if it's to save somebody's life, it's difficult to look at. To see an innocent person, minding his own business,

besieged by the cops and then hauled off, it's very, very difficult to look at. And I don't envy these ICE agents, their mission, the things that they're ordered to do. Even if they did it with 100% professionalism, Even if they did that, I'm sure it would lead to all sorts of difficult interactions and things that we just have trouble approving of because we oppose, if we do oppose illegal immigration, we oppose it in an objective way. We all understand. We can't just have everybody who wants to be in America come to America.

We all kind of understand that. And yet, on an individual basis, we know these people. They work in our restaurants. There are our nannies. There are neighbors, you know. And immediately once you know them, it's impossible to view them as threats to society. It's just not humanly possible. Even among the fucking ICE agents, I'm sure they have illegal immigrant friends, right?

So this is, it's a conundrum. Yeah. So what other crimes would we, uh, you said something, this impossible situation that the ICE agents are in, where they're trying to ferret out who's legal and who's illegal. But we wouldn't allow that to happen for any other crime, no matter how severe. We wouldn't say, hey, we're so interested in getting murderers off the street

that we're going to send people out to look around and see who looks like they might be a murderer and then talk to them and interrogate them and ask them to prove that they're not a murderer, or we dragged them away. There was no other crime where we would accept that behavior from law enforcement.

Well, I don't know the answer to this, but I'm sure it's been adjudicated in some way. The question is whether an illegal immigrant has, does he have 100% of the same constitutional rights that would apply if they're murderers as well? No, no, no. No, an American citizen, you have to have a probable cause. You can't.

If I may. Yeah. You are saying that because the crime that they might be, that they are being suspected of, might put them outside of the requirement for due process, we no longer have to give the assumption of due process, which you could just as easily say, we don't know that this guy we suspect of murder is an American citizen. So we don't have to give him the presumption of the process. I don't want to, I don't want to commit to anything here because I don't really know.

I don't really know the facts. I'm sure there are regulations and I'm sure they've been adjudicated and they pass constitutional muster. I don't know that they're able to just go up to anybody walking down the street and arrest them and question them. I don't know if they can do that.

They probably have to have some reasonable suspicion that somebody is illegal. Is accent enough? Because there was a video that just came out today of a Somali. No, they probably, They probably break the rules like all cops do. But, but, but, but, but, you know, listen, I think I'm speaking from a humane point of view,

but nevertheless, one always, to be credible, in my opinion, one always has to have an answer to the practical question. In other words, whatever you want to say about it, it's much more convincing if you can say, and by the way, we could actually. solve this problem this way and we'd never have to break any rules and we'd never have to do these things and here it is. The problem is if you can't give that solution, then, you know, then I'm a little paralyzed by it because we do recognize in some way we have to be able to, we cannot have a rule which says anyone who gets here can stay. Come here as a tourist and once you

you leave the gate, that's it. You know, like, so it's a tough, it's a very tough problem, you know. You can't think of a better way to approach it than the way we're approaching it. No, no, I'm sure I could think of it. I think of improvements. I don't know that I could solve the problem. Maybe I could. I don't think I could.

You're making perfect the enemy of the good. No, I'm not. I'm saying that in the end, I just, I hedge because it's, As much as I agree with all the criticisms, I'm just always uncomfortable unless I also know the alternative. That's just, that's, that's just all I'm saying. Like, I don't, what, I don't know how ICE works properly and effectively. Or, listen, you can say, Luke, I don't think they should, you know, I think that,

you know, we're better off just letting people stay. Which is not my stance at all. Yeah, yeah, but I'm saying like, and some people do say that. Sure. And, you know. Not me. And obviously, we. do need the immigrants. Like this is a, this is a big lie. I mean, I, Liz and I are doing construction

now and, you know, everybody doing these jobs are immigrants. I presume they're legal. I have a contractor, but whether they're legal or they're illegal, and sometimes illegal immigrants give their employers documents that look legal. I've had that happen to me a number of times. And years later, we find out, and they have to pay withholding tax. and all that. Years later, we find out they weren't actually legal. But legal or illegal, the notion that we wouldn't grind to a halt as a nation, if these people just like, poof, and went back to where they came from, it's absurd. It's fucking absurd. No one is going to do, no one's qualified to do these jobs. No one wants to do them. We don't have enough people.

We saw during COVID when there was a labor shortage. We kind of ground to a halt then, and wages went through the roof. So, you know, both sides. And that's my argument to the other side along the same lines. Like, okay, dude, I get you, I get you, get you. But what's your alternative to immigrants? You follow? Like, okay.

Now you're going to have your way and all the immigrants are gone. And now what? So I'm an equal opportunity dish or outer of this argument because the practical must always, the practical is the most important. Our biggest moral duty is to the practical. Otherwise, it's just jerking off, excuse me. It has to be practical. It has to be practical.

The chief of police in Minneapolis, another thing that he said was that ICE has a habit of pulling people out of their cars and then just leaving the cars in the street, sometimes in drive without an emergency break on. They leave dogs in the cars. And that's just one little example of, you talk about the practical, Is this

practically improving anything? No, no, of course not. Is it getting better because of this? This whole ice outfit sounds to me like they've just been like, you know, the firemen just sit around. Now, you know, there's so much, so many fireproof materials and sprinklers that like the firemen barely fight fires anymore. I just imagine a bunch of firemen having fought a fire in two years and all of a sudden, come on, you got to go fight. And they have no fucking idea what they're doing anymore. They've all gotten fat.

I feel like ice has just gone from the Biden administration where they did nothing for years. and years and years and years. And now they're, you know, they're put into the big game. And everything everybody says about them is true. They're untrained. They're, they're, you know, they're, you can make the list. They're not ready for prime time.

They're just not. And, yeah, and, you know, Trump is not the type of guy to sweat details, right? All right. Luke, thank you very much for calling. Anybody else, Liz? We have a couple more. The next guest, I don't have a number. name. Should we take them? Yeah, let's take this other guy, this other person they've been here for

for a long time as well. Okay. Okay. Alex texted, I think he was late. Yeah, he was late. All right, okay. Let's check his papers. He was on the train with Daniel. Is he legal? Who is, who are we waiting for? We were waiting for this caller on his Motorola, MotoG, stylus, 5G from 2023 to unmute himself. Come on. Hello. Hello. Yeah, I didn't hear her tell me to mute me. Sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to thank you for doing this whole interview. I actually wrote up to you yesterday about this week's crazy theory about a Zionist land grab in Argentina. I don't know if we saw that. I saw that, yeah. And Iran. Candice Olen says we want to grab land in Iran too. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah, I can't keep up with it. Sorry. So anyway, I think it's very important for you to keep doing interviews like this. I know you had that discussion on Natterman was it last week about what to do with the show.

And I just have to tell you, like I've been waiting for somebody. I don't really agree with you on probably over half of the things you say. But I think there's definitely needs to be a show that, is about going back to empirical proof. I'm writing a book now about 9-11 truth myths and especially the dancing Israelis. And I've been trying to find people that I agree with this approach. And I think the nature of this show

where you bring on people like Dr. Van Pelt is exactly what we need. So I just wanted to tell you to keep it going. Thank you very much. There is that one guy, an Israeli guy who went on a talk show in Israel and he said something, but then it was mistranslated actually in the way it goes around. And then it's impossible to find the actual show. I have relatives. I have relatives in Israel and friends, and I've tried to get the undubbed version of it.

And nobody, you know, it belongs to Channel 1, which is a state authority. And apparently getting anything from them is like pulling Keith because they just, I think they're very, they're very insecure about selling the rights to anything. I'm not exactly sure why it's so hard to get any archive footage. But I can tell you. Track the guy down. Can you track that guy down? What did he say exactly? Do you remember?

Oh, you're talking about when he says that our purpose was to document the event. Oh, yeah. That's why it was documenting. I'm recording it. Like they made it sound like documenting like for higher ups or something. Well, so listen. So I think about the same week that he was interviewed by Yer Lepid, which is that interview. Oh, right, right.

He was also, he was interviewed by a newspaper, a local newspaper in Jerusalem called McCorriehown. And he also used the same phrase, but the full phrase that he used with them was we were there to document it just like anyone else on that day. And so when you think about it that way, on 9-11, everybody took out any camera that they had and took a memento. In fact, they had a film camera, so it wouldn't have had any intelligence value. I know you've dug into a little bit of the Ryan Dawson nonsense regarding Daryl Cooper so he's had this hilarious theory that they actually tampered with the film

while they were getting arrested which if you're old enough to have used film cameras it's so absurd that it's clear that he knows his audience is too ignorant to... This is the problem with the problem with all these guys is that they're all so fucking crazy that you know the the notion that that one might put any stock in anything they say like candis owens just went on

his whole riff about her dreams and behind a door and charlie told her and she's telling her audience as if like this is something serious you know and and the same thing with this 9-11 it's implausible to me that this is rarely guy it's implausible it's implausible, but think about it. No, no, it's implausible to me that he would on a talk show in a casual way to say, you know, just drop, you know, the whole mission like, yeah, we were there to document. Like, it had nothing to do with the conversation.

Nobody reacted. Like, nobody said, what? You know, so nobody, obviously nobody who listened to him took it that way. And when you twist things for social media and when you clip stuff, the, and take it out of context, That's the phrase everybody uses. Yeah. So for people who didn't live through 9-11 and people who don't know anything about, you know, reading missed reports about Building 7 and how all the other buildings besides Building 7 that were in the vicinity fell.

Yeah. You know, they don't really go below the surface because it is really something that they pick up off of meets. Well, yeah. Last thing. So when this R.J., Professor Van Pelt, I made this point, the matter of you heard of that, you know,

as each succeeding generation, it's easier and easier for them to just not believe something. He didn't, he didn't agree with me. And he said, well, yeah, but we know that Caesar

was killed on the eyes of March. And I'm thinking, you could totally tell me that that never happened. And I would not spend a lot of times thinking, what are you talking about? Of course,

but if I lived, you know, at that time, of course I would know in a different way with a different amount of assurance what you're talking about of course everybody knows Caesar was killed on the odds of March right

so that I disagree with him on that I think absolutely anybody who I don't think he's looking at it he's looking at it as an academic and I think he has to realize that you know like you said the whole TLDR thing people are I know people who are they don't believe

in these conspiracy theories but they believe in the chem trails they believe in the other things and they're always sending me stuff and it's just a matter of people desire to fill in the gaps of what doesn't make sense to them in life. And, you know, you have that discipline. Luke, Luke, I'm your father. Look, I have to go. Yeah.

I don't know if we got one other person or not, but we've got to wrap it up. All right. Liz, thank you, Lou. Call again. Is that it, Liz? We have one more caller. Okay. I hope it's Kevin Brennan.

I think so. It's Matt. Oh, Matthew. That's joining us now. Matthew, yeah. Right? It might be a different Matthew. Different Matthew?

Okay. If I said this before, I was like 35 years old before I actually realized that Matthew was with two T's. It just always assumed M-A-T-H-E-W-A-M-A-T-H-E-W-A-M-M-A-M-H-E-W. Anyway, hello, I'm a huge fan. Hi, Matthew. I'm a huge fan. This is so cool. Oh, what's up?

I'm nervous. Don't be nervous. Periel and Dan, too. Yeah, they're all great. They're both gone. Peri-L left, because she had. something better to do and Dan didn't even come. Okay, well, it's just me and you.

This is intimate, nice. And the rest of you too. So I have three things that I'd like to bounce off you really quickly. I don't want to take too much of your time. In case we can't get through all three. Go ahead. Fair enough. Fair enough.

So I wasn't here for the first part about Iran or ICE, but I watched the second thing with the Holocaust expert. Yeah. I'm a Jewish kid from Toronto. So that's my relation to that. I guess maybe I'm not unbiased, but I thought he came off really good until he said it was unsafe for him

to visit the United States. I thought he was like, he was very credible until then. Anyway, I think he just meant whatever, go ahead. Yeah, he was just being facetious. Go ahead. Yeah, I think you're right. I want to, I think agree with what your take

on the ice thing was, initially, which is I'm not sure what the alternative is if you have federal law enforcement officers who are lawful and are, you know, trying to operate in their jurisdiction, I'm not sure what the alternative is for there to be some possibility other than for there to be some possibility that you're met with force when you try to intervene in their operation. Because I'm not sure who's to decide what law enforcement. operation is, you know, morally just. No, no question.

It's illegal to interfere with their enforcement, and they can be met with reasonable force, but you can only be shot if you're, the officer can only shoot if he's doing it to save his own life. I think the assault with a motor vehicle is hard to dispute from the second video where the guy is clearly in front of it. The first video, it is, but the problem is. but the problem is we all, don't we all kind of feel like, dude, why don't you just take a step to your right?

Like what, like, why, like, did you really think this woman was going to run you over? I think it's to, to shoot someone, the lady who I guess was her girlfriend. Wife, I think. Wife, yeah. At the beginning of the video says, we don't change our plates, you have our plates. And so the idea that you're shooting someone as they're fleeing when you do have their plates, I think that was what really sad. That's very smart.

I didn't even think. That's right. She was almost telegraphing, like obviously, We're just, we're leaving. You can come get us tomorrow. That just, yeah, it sat very, it didn't sit well with me. I'm still so nervous, by the way. Don't be nervous.

Don't be nervous. There's nobody listening. Go ahead. Okay, good. Well, no, you're listening. That's the, who cares about the hundred, the mass? So. That's number one, number two, because we got to get through it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, no, but just on that, I think I dissent when you, you said that, like, what happens if the, it said the economy, if all of the immigrants just drop out and disappear magically. And first of all, I would say, I don't think all the immigrants, that's not the intention of anyone. It's the illegal immigrants. And I think that even the illegal immigrants would be a small subset of those employed through, you know, small businesses. Like, I think it's a lot easier to employ someone who's, no.

Illegal immigrants are a huge part of the workforce here, I believe. Illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants, you know, like, you can't. I'm not, I don't run a business. You do. And so I'm going to defer to you. I'm not giving away my business. I'm just saying, like, if you look around at all the i mean at all the people who are immigrants obviously

it's very difficult to imagine they all applied and and got here through through visas like like there's no there's no process for this number of people to get actual visas no i understand to work in i've i've thought about and i've tried to immigrate and it's very difficult yeah um and my background on this would be that like you know my my grandfather brought the libertarian party to Ontario. Like, I'm a very libertarian. I don't. I'm not a strong borders guy. But I do think that something that I've failed to see anyone really articulate is that right now there's a clear constriction of enterprise through regulation and taxation and regulatory captured by larger businesses. And so what you're doing essentially by making it as easy as possible for labor to come in

from anywhere, but not make use of that labor in novel and innovative productive ways, is you're just devaluing any labor that exists at the lowest end. Yes. So I just, I don't think that the argument wouldn't be necessarily to say that, well, we need these immigrants. The argument would be, because we don't actually need the immigrants right now. Most people, the labor force participation rate is like nothing. Most people don't work. It's sad.

Yeah, but most of the immigrants work. Exactly. Most of the immigrants work. What we would need is like a productive economy that makes everyone competitive. because right now I do think there is something. Let me turn over to my general manager a second. Liz, how would you rate? Like, let's say we had no more immigrants who wanted to work for us.

Oh. And you had to hire like, like the everyday Joe off the street, some kid, the college age, whatever it is. How much work do you think they would do? We would close the next day. It is so hard to find, listen, you know, I can speak out of both sides of my mouth on this issue all day long. But it is important

for everybody to understand. These immigrants work wonderfully. And we are no longer raising children in America who are want to work that way. When I was a kid, yeah,

you saw white dudes being short-order cooks and old dudes were driving taxi cabs, whatever it is. I can't even get my kids to clean their room and take out the garbage.

It's just, it's, we need these people. They are fantastic. They are fucking fantastic. Okay. Well, then this I can definitely speak to because like I've tried to get a job, these kind of menial minimum wage jobs that you're describing. And I've applied to hundreds. I would never hire you.

You know why? I would assume. Because I'm unshaven and I'm uncapped out of. No. And it's not even because it's not even because I think you'd be crappy, which you would because the first time you had to go shovel vomit for somebody that you'd be like, I'm out of dude, I'm out of here. But this is the thing.

The reason I would never hire you, I would just assume. assume you're an ex-con because I would say, what the fuck is this nice-looking young white man wanted a job in my kitchen for? He has to have a criminal record. I swear to God, that's what happened with me at Liz one time. Remember? And I was right. Can I run my last thing by you? Yeah, yeah. I don't want to waste too much time. So this is about Israel. Can I ask you something about Israel? As long as this pro-Israel, you go. Yeah, no, it is. So I have an interesting relationship. I've always been in the abstract, very pro-Israel. And then I went on the March of the Living.

And I came away. I don't know what that is, the Marshal Loom. It's an organized trip for kids to go through Poland for a week and go to all the concentration camps and learn about the history of Nazi Germany. And then they subsequently go to Israel. So it's a nice change up. And you get both sides of it. Anyway, I found the, I found the.

I, you know, I, I wasn't, like, diminished in my appreciation for Israel or anything, but I was just like, you know, people are very abrupt. It's a very specific way of living. You can't own land. There's, it's maybe not, it's all land lease. You can't have property. In Israel? Anyway, that's not people on their apartments and stuff. My, my, my, I inherited my grandmother's apartment. I mean, we sold a book. I inherited my grandmother's apartment. I'm pretty sure the, it's not freehold property, the underlying property that the, the, I'm apartment is on is leased from the government. I don't know what the, there may be some residual socialist structure under there. Yeah, exactly. Listen, that's exactly what I'm alluded for. But it's, but it's not, but it has no practical consequence. I mean, the, the, the, the apartment that my family inherited, nobody, nobody even ever mentioned that fact to us in the entire proceeding,

if it existed. And we were a weirdo, yeah, yeah, yeah, that, that sense to me of there being an ingrained socialist fabric or constitution to Israel, I think is something enough. It's off-putting to me enough where I'm not necessarily, I'm not going to go live there unless I have to. Well, that's a little nutty. But go ahead. Forgive me. Go ahead.

It's not nutty. It's just, I, listen. If it has no practical consequence, it shouldn't matter to you. I'm sure, you know, this. But anyway, go ahead. So you're right. That's a good point. That's a very good point.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is, or initially I was very pro Israel's. actions with Hamas in Gaza and the longer it's gone on and there's an interesting nexus between people like Tucker Carlson who attack Israel around the same time also started coming up vocally against what happened in Hiroshima Nagasaki yeah uh in a similar kind of utilitarian calculus but at the end of the day the reason I'm starting to rethink this and I'm not I haven't changed positions or anything. I'm just at my attitude towards it. Keep it tight.

We're on television. Come on. Sorry. Sorry. There's a lot of people that have died, and I'm not sure there's any material change in the circumstance of Israel, right? They've destroyed. I just had this conversation with somebody. The people are all still there, and we haven't managed to get them out.

And you've destroyed all of their buildings. I'm going to explain it to. Then the last thing I would say is, The last thing I would say is something that the anti-Semites, like on Twitter and stuff, people who are really skeptical of Jews will continually say is that the Jews don't want Iran to actually be overthrown. They want Iran to be in as crippled a state as possible so that they have a credible ally to, or let's say, enemy to orient against and assimilate Sunni allies into the Abraham, of course. Leave Iran for sense.

Enough with Iran. Okay, but Iran is on the brink, and Israel isn't assassinating. any other guys. So I just, I don't understand. It seems a little weird to me. Like, it seems like if any time was now, if there was any ever a time to intervene and it ran, it would be now. Well, we don't know what they are or not doing or what the effects could be.

That's way, oh, that's way above our pay grade. But I want to, believe me, if Israel thinks that they'll can do something in their own interest, they will do it as long as the American president agrees to it. But I want to go, because I had precisely, and this is really the end. But this is very good. I had precisely this conversation today. And I told somebody, a journalist, I said, you know, all through the war, the pro-Israel side kept saying to the other side, well, what would you have Israel do? What would you have Israel do after they were attacked? You've heard that Constantine Kitsin said it to Basimus, things like this.

and the other side really never had an argument, I mean, an answer to it. And yet I don't think it was an effective argument because really what it was saying is, well, all our people were killed. Obviously, you don't expect to just take it. We have to allow for a tit for tat. And people do understand to some extent,

well, yeah, you have to do something. But in the end, you just put your finger on. in the end, if you just finish this in the same situation, but you've killed 40, 50, 60,000 people, then I don't know how to defend you on that, but this is where this is wrong. That's not the argument. The argument is the following.

Prior to October 7th, Israel knew there was threats all around them, and the assumption was, like mutual sure destruction, the assumption was, they will never do that because they know what we would do to them. And Israel assumed that its state of deterrence was in operation and was enough to rely upon.

Then after October 7th, Israel realized, oh, no, they will happily do it. Even if they know we might kill 100,000 of them, they will still do it. So immediately, Israel realized, holy motherfucking shit. There are 160,000 rockets in the north. Who knows how many rockets Iran has, plus what's going on in Gaza. If they had all coordinated, I don't know if they would have wiped us off the map, Israelis will say. But it would have been catastrophic. We think October 7th was bad.

They could have simultaneously launched an attack and killed 10 times, 20 times, 50, destroyed all of Tel Aviv. So what Israel woke up to understanding was, oh my God, we just dodged that bullet. We can never allow ourselves to be at the mercy of them again. We can never, we were so stupid, we didn't even realize the threat that we were under. Such that is part of my proof of it. If you read the papers, the first thing Gallant wanted to do after October 7th was attack Hezbollah, not Hamas. Why? Because of what I just said.

they had the most success ultimately. No, because it was, it was his way, it was his recognition that this is not just about 1,200 people that died on October 7th. This is about, we have to end our situation. We are in big fucking trouble and we didn't even know it. We could have lost everything and we never even knew it. They have to go. They have to go.

They have to go. So now you say, what's changed? Hezbollah is no longer a threat. Iran is no longer a threat. Hamas is, you know, whatever Hamas is, but the fact is, if there was no Hezbollah and there were no Iran, and then there was October 7th, yeah, Israel would have gone back in and it would have been a tit for tat. And then they would have said about making sure that it could never happen again. They would not have killed, I don't believe. They would not have gone through

to the operation they went through, if not for the fact it was part of an overall picture of a threat. And they have been successful, whether you like it or not in terms of the morality of it, they have been successful successful in vanquishing that threat. It was an existential threat. There is no more existential threat to Israel for the time being. That is what they've accomplished. And it's huge. It's huge.

If you lived in Israel, you would know it's huge. Now, can they keep it? Will they reconstitute? Nobody fucking knows. But that's what they accomplished. It's a tremendous accomplishment. And that's not to say that they had to kill as many people as they did in Gaza. I don't know.

You don't know. Nobody knows. The people who claim they don't know. That's my answer. Okay, can I say one thing in response? Can I say one thing? Yeah. Okay, quickly.

I think that the material threat against Israel is similar to what exists with the Soviet Union. disillusion where you have a nuclear state and as subsidiaries, a number of Islamic republics. When Russia goes, those Islamic republics will all gain splinter cell nuclear capacity. That problem is paralleled. It's identical with Iran. Should Iran become nuclear? Hezbollah, Hamas, all of these proxy groups will immediately be a threat to launch nuclear weapons. Then the annihilation of Israel that you're describing is credible. Yeah, they should right now. They need to get rid of Iran, but they're trying.

Right now, they have the most success in dismantling Hezbollah because it was a technical army that had been amassing for the better part of two decades. It was an Iranian army. Hamas. Yeah, it was an Iranian-funded army, but it was an Arab army that was, it didn't start and end in Lebanon. It moved. It was literally a war.

It was like, anyway. Dude, of course, the reason that there wasn't the same, sorry, the reason that there wasn't the same success with Hamas, I think is because there isn't the clear delineation between the population of the West Bank and Gaza and the people of Lebanon as there. And Hezbollah as there is with Hamas and those people. So in that case, it's actually more about whether you think execentially a group of radicalized Islamists can coexist on the border with Israel.

And I don't know if that's Paul. I don't think that's possible. I don't know. It's an adage, no, in war, no plan survives contact with the war. the enemy to pretend that Israel should have had a drawing board plan of how they were going to conduct this war and that if any thing didn't come out the way they expected it to, this is a knock on Israel. It's just stupid to me.

They made their best guess. There were unknowns. But can you just contend with that direct thing that the population is still there and they're more, they're even more hostile with more world support than before? No, but we haven't. But they're less threatening. They're less threatening because they don't have Hezbollah and the North and they don't have Iran anymore to fund them. Yeah.

Machines can come and go easily, but ideas are hard to get out of people. Weapons are, that balance can change quickly. It's more about having that population on your border that's intense on construction. But they couldn't just leave it in place. They can't have rockets coming from the east from Iran and rockets coming from the north from Hasbana. and from the south and Gaza, it's not going to happen. No, I think they absolutely did the right thing with Lebanon. But all I'm just suggesting to you is maybe they're,

that population is still there and they still have the same intentions towards Israel. So I'm not sure how in 20 years you can still say there's been. That was never an option. I guess you're right, maybe. That was never an option. I mean, maybe something. But you know what? It would not shock me.

I know we got to go. Everybody wants to go. It would not shock me if. if Iran were to fall, which by the way, I think it's not going to fall. My guess is that they're just going to suppress this. But if it were to fall and it was no longer run by, they don't have to love Israel, but it was no longer run by, you know, Muslim jihadist fanatics,

but just like regular, normal everyday Muslim people who don't like Israel but don't want to end the world, then I think at that point, Hamas without its benefactor, we're much more likely to say, you know what? I think it's time we put an end to this permanent fight. You know, when they have Iran at their back, they feel emboldened.

All right, I'm punchy and groggy. I can't even speak anymore. I don't know how people broadcasts. How does Joe Rogan do two, three hours? I mean, he couldn't take any pills or anything, does he? Smokes a lot of weed. All right, I think I need, like, riddle in or something next time we do this. Oh, he hung up? Okay. Bye. Good night, everybody.

Oh, hit the theme song. Oh, you don't have to.