The David Pakman Show - 10/24/23: A framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace, Trump heckled badly

Episode Date: October 24, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Neil Howe, acclaimed historian, economist, demographer, and the New York Times bestselling author of "The Fourth Turning is Here" joins David to discuss Strauss-Howe generational theory. Get the book: https://amzn.to/493VbNU -- An updated framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace -- Republicans seem to have forgotten that they were going to impeach President Joe Biden -- Candace Owens appears on Bill Maher's podcast, and both say many things that make absolutely no sense -- Failed former President Donald Trump speakers in Derry, New Hampshire, declares himself Nelson Mandel, says that the Hungarian Prime Minister is actually the Turkish leader and much more -- Donald Trump is heckled outside his event in Derry, New Hampshire, and then claims he was not actually indicted -- Vegan voicemail caller wants to debate David about veganism and "eating animal flesh" -- On the Bonus Show: White House says Iran "actively facilitating" attacks on US military bases, Alex Jones must pay $1.1 billion of Sandy Hook damages despite bankruptcy, Apple cancels Jon Stewart's show, much more... 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman 🤢 Reliefband: Use code PAKMAN for 20% OFF + free shipping at https://reliefband.com 👕 Laundry Sauce: Get 15% off with code PAKMAN at https://laundrysauce.com/pakman 💸 Qube Money: Try it for 2 months totally FREE at https://davidpakman.com/money 🛡️ MonoDefense keeps you safe online! Get 30% off at https://monodefense.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

. How might peace be achieved in the Israeli Palestinian conflict? I've done this before. It's been requested again. I think it's worth doing every couple of years. Usually this satisfies no one. It generates a ton of hate mail. It receives very little interest. So I don't know why I do it to myself, but in all seriousness, let's do it anyway. And my suggestion would be listen to the entire segment before commenting or writing in.

That's my only request with peace and love. Now, I am going to give you some advance notice as I lay out what I believe to be the most likely framework to even make the possibility of Israeli Palestinian peace plausible. I am not going to be taking outrageous one sided black and white views. So if your perspective is the West Bank and Gaza such should simply be taken by Israel, then this is not going to be a good segment for you. If your perspective is Israel shouldn't even really exist. It's not a legitimate country and it should be done away with. This is not going to be a good segment for you if your view is some extreme perspective that's completely divorced from reality. Just don't even bother. I don't want to hear from you. This segment will not satisfy you.

There's probably other shows better suited for that type of perspective. There are people who will be furious because this is not a bash this side or that side segment. It's what do I think is the most likely scenario to even maybe lead to a solution? And it's for people who want to think seriously about what that scenario would look like. So let's establish some foundational principles here. And the way I would suggest you listen to this is listen up until you get to a point of disagreement and then really focus in on the specifics of what I'm saying that you disagree with. Foundational principle number one, both Israelis and Palestinians deserve a state where they can live in peace. That's a pretty basic foundational principle. If we start by denying the right of

existence to either Israel or a Palestinian state, we're getting nowhere. And so that gets me to principle number one. If there will be a solution, it will be a two state solution. Those who believe that a one state solution is the way forward. There are lots of ideological reasons why people may feel that on both sides, that Palestinians don't deserve a state or that Israel doesn't deserve to be a state, whatever that means. I do not believe that there is even the remote chance of coming to the table for reasonable discussions unless we think about this as a two state solution.

Now, who will lead these two states or even as a precursor to that, who will even lead negotiations? Well, a peaceful resolution is going to require leadership on both sides committed to two things actually committed to peace and committed to compromise in Israel. That is not going to be Benjamin Netanyahu. Likud, as evidenced by now, year after year after year of seeing that it is clearly not the primary interest of Netanyahu and Likud to have peace on the Palestinian side. Hamas, which currently controls Gaza, Gaza, is not going to be a reasonable arbiter to

peace. Their charter makes it clear that that's not going to be something they are going to be able to facilitate. So somehow Hamas Hamas needs to no longer control Gaza, maybe cede power to the Palestinian authority. It's not perfect. There have been a number of conflicts, but the Palestinian Authority might demonstrate a willingness to really pursue peace as the number one goal and to compromise.

So leadership in Israel, something other than Netanyahu and Likud on the Palestinian side, it's not going to be Hamas. Just being realistic how we get there. I don't know. Now, what about the right of return? This is a major point of contention when it comes to what will be the legal status of individuals seeking to go to Israel or a Palestinian state. There are two sides to this. On the one hand, the Jewish law of return, which means Jews can go to

Israel and live in Israel and have a path to citizenship that's going to have to be maintained. Oh, but I don't like it. We're talking pragmatically here. OK, the whole point of Israel is a safe haven for Jews globally. And so the the law of return there is going to have to be maintained on the Palestinian side. A Palestinian right of return must be established. Now I know there's lots of

controversy over, you know, this term I have Palestinian origins. It's vague. How do you prove it? All these different things. I don't think we need to concern ourselves with that. That will that will be for the Palestinian leaders of the future Palestinian state to figure out. I don't really get why there are people who have no direct stake saying, what does it even mean to be? They can figure out, you know, if your family, if it's been one generation, two generations, Lebanon, whatever, the Palestinian state can figure that out. We don't need to concern ourselves with that element, but there needs to be a Palestinian right of return established. There is some practical level within which it may be unrealistic for

millions and millions to return to the future Palestinian state. That's going to be for the Palestinian state to figure out. And we have seen a number of different ideas in terms of those who who cannot or would not be allowed to return. Maybe there's some kind of reparation. There have been proposals put forward by figures like Ehud Barak. These are details that would be established. But some form of of law of return would have to apply both to Israel and the future Palestinian state. Then we get to the borders in the territory.

What would this look like now? Whenever you mention things like, you know, the 1947 48 proposal was close to 50 50. It was more like 55 45 in favor of Israel. But a bunch of that 55 was useless desert. So in practical terms, it was relatively even. You get people who go furiously after the concept of why should Israel have gotten any land? It was all Palestinian land. We're not going to delve into the history, which includes it was actually British land. And it just doesn't even make sense to do that. Where are we today and what is most likely to get us to an agreement?

It's going to be, as I mentioned, a two state solution that would largely reflect the Clinton proposed borders or some of the recent peace proposal borders. These are widely available. And so what that means is Palestinian territories would include the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem would be the Palestinian state's capital. The Jewish quarter would remain under Israeli sovereignty. There are practical and historical reasons and cultural significance.

Just just the Jewish quarter. There are also lots of examples of when it was not under Israeli sovereignty, desecration and vandalism, etc. Now I know for a lot of people, this will be the hang up. David, is this element or that element realistic or do we know that anything is realistic? We're trying to get an approximation of what it would look like. We're talking West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, with the exception of the Jewish quarter. What about settlements?

I have been saying for decades Israel should cease illegal settlement activities. Well, David, in Israel, they don't consider them illegal by international law. We are talking about illegal settlement activities. Existing settlements either should be dismantled. I'm also not unrealistic in realizing that they will not all be dismantled in the case of settlements that are not dismantled as part of an of an agreement. There should be land swaps for equivalent land areas.

It can't be here's 10 square miles of great land, agriculturally and whatever. And we're going to swap where there's a settlement and we're going to swap it for some useless land. And if you look at the model for this, Yasser Arafat, the former chairman of the PLO, engaged in a bunch of negotiations and discussions where the idea of meaningful and equivalent land swaps were a possibility so that that almost certainly will be a part of it. What about security protocols? Well, this is where it the the devil is not

in these details, but this is really the crux of a lot of this. Palestinian factions, mostly Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, must stop rocket attacks and tunnel constructions and tunnels are going to have to be destroyed. It's just what it's going to have to be. On the other side, Gaza and the border to Gaza from Israel has to be demilitarized. The blockade has to be released. Now, both sides will likely say if you do that, there are huge risks to everybody if the other side doesn't cooperate. Well, that's absolutely right. And so when we say that the agreement includes all I'm talking zero rockets, no rockets. And if that's violated, there's consequences. The blockade is lifted. If that's violated by Israel, there are consequences.

But also, if the lifting of the blockade is used to commit acts of terror, there are also consequences. This all only works right. What's the whole point? How can we say there's already consequences? What do we mean? How is it part of an agreement? The critical element of this is that both sides need to make a binding commitment. This is critical, a binding commitment in which they renounce all future claims. You can't go a year and then either Israel puts the blockade back on or Gazan start from Hamas or whoever starts using tunnels once again, or there's a rocket because all claims have been renounced and it's been agreed that we are committing that this is the deal.

Any future violations have to have consequences. And what those consequences are, I don't know. They would almost certainly be a return to the status quo from right now. My guess is that if in the future any side violated their side of the agreement, the other side would just go back to the status quo we have now, which is a disaster. That's the critical part. And that's what would hopefully get both sides to actually commit to it if it is considered a binding agreement.

That's the framework. OK. And it's evolved a little bit over the years. But the big picture remains what it has been for some time. It won't please everybody. Everyone will bring their preconceived notions of fairness to it. But I believe that that is the closest scenario that will give us the best shot at peace. Let me know your thoughts.

Let me know your reactions. If you're just going to write me with with just horrible attacks or whatever, just don't even bother. I don't even see it. The team is triaging the emails. You're wasting your time. Hopefully this is useful. You may be wondering or you may not be wondering whatever happened to that Joe Biden impeachment. And it is actually hilarious that we all knew this entire impeachment story was going to be a dud when Republicans announced

we are launching an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. We said, for what? It wasn't clear. What evidence do you have? Well, we have conjecture and innuendo and people claiming to have evidence, but we can't ever really seem to find it. The witnesses are missing and the tape has been eaten by a dog or it's lost in the mail. Who knows? They seem to have forgotten that they were going to impeach Joe Biden. HuffPost has an interesting article from yesterday. Another GOP bombshell about Joe Biden turns out to be a dud. Republicans impeachment inquiry continues to limp along in the background of their speaker drama. We'll link to this article by Arthur Delaney, and it outlines how yet again the latest thing was

copies of a check marked as a loan repayment involving Biden and his family. It's all completely evaporated. And as it says here, HuffPost obtained obtained check images and a spreadsheet reflecting wire transfer records that corroborate Jamie Raskin's claim about this two hundred thousand dollar transaction from twenty eighteen. The document suggests an account connected to Joe Biden sent James Biden forty thousand dollars in July twenty seventeen two hundred thousand dollars in January twenty eighteen and James Biden paid it back without interest. The wire transfer records don't say the payments were loans. So the big new scandal was there were $240,000 moved between

Bidens. The bank records now show that $240,000 moved one way between family members and then it moved back. It's not much of a smoking gun. It doesn't involve China. It doesn't involve corruption. It doesn't involve Burisma. And it is the latest aspect of this where they seem convinced that they're going to find the smoking gun of a lifetime of corruption about a guy who's been involved in public life for decades. What is it, 40, 50 years? And he's just so competent while also being senile and an invalid. Right. That's part of the story. He's so competently carrying out this fraud and bribery that he's perfectly covered up

all evidence of it. And where we find ourselves today is that so many people fell for it. So many Republicans fell for it and they thought this guy really is corrupt. We're going to get him impeachment inquiry onto impeachment. It was never going anywhere. And now in the middle of the speakership fiasco, wherein Steve Scalise failed to become speaker, actually backed out. Jim Jordan lost three votes to become speaker. There's now nine people running. We're beyond three weeks without a speaker of the House when Republicans control the House and the impeachment inquiry seems all but completely dead. Now, I don't doubt that if they finally get a speaker of the House and they at some point will

and if they get beyond the government shutdown that's potentially looming, that they will go back to talking about the Biden impeachment inquiry. But it seems abundantly clear at this point that it lacks the most important aspect of what you need, which is any evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. Tell me, did you forget about the fact that they were about to do this whole thing to Biden because of all the chaos that's been going on? I almost forgot about it. And then I was reminded it is another one of these failures. We'll take a quick break.

Much more coming up. No matter your genetics or lifestyle choices as humans, we all share some basic foundational nutritional needs and properly replenishing your nutrients daily is important for gut health, stress management, immune system. And that's where our sponsor AG1 comes in. AG1 is a foundational nutrition supplement. It supports your body's universal needs with something that you can easily absorb and utilize. So instead of a multivitamin or fumbling around with 10 different vitamin bottles, I've just replaced all of it with one scoop of AG one. I get the vitamins, the minerals, the prebiotics, the probiotics, all the stuff I'm looking

for. It's delicious. It goes great in a smoothie. You can drink it straight with water like I do in the morning before my famous cappuccino. I've been doing it for years. You're just covering your nutritional basis for the whole day. It's simple. You don't have to buy a bunch of different vitamins. My audience knows I don't advertise miracle solutions and cures, and there's no miracle cure or solution here. It's just a simple product that works that

replaces the clumsiness and the cost of a ton of different vitamins. Go to drink AG one dot com slash Pacman. You'll get five free travel packs of AG one and a free year supply of vitamin D, which, as I've said, I take in the winter when there's a lot less sun out that drink. A is an atom. G is in green. The number one dot com slash Pacman to get five free travel packs of AG one and a free year supply of vitamin D. The link is in the podcast notes. If you're someone who ever suffers from nausea, I know a number of people who do check out our sponsor relief band. This is the number one anti nausea wristband that can quickly relieve and effectively prevent

nausea. Many people use relief band for nausea from anxiety or from migraines, car sickness, planes, boats. Former producer Lewis can tell you a little bit about car and planes. Relief band is super simple, fast acting. It'll last as long as you need it to last. It's 100 percent drug free, no side effects. And this was originally developed to be used in hospitals.

Relief bands patented technology can turn off the feeling of nausea. It's a type of therapy called transdermal neuromodulation, acustimulation. In simple terms, it's just a small band you wear on your wrist, sends a gentle pulse to the part of your nervous system that regulates nausea. There's good research showing relief band can help with nausea from motion sickness, pregnancy from certain medications. And a bunch of studies suggest that relief band can help with nausea after surgery in combination with medication. Relief band has an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, over 100000 satisfied customers online.

See if relief band can help you kick nausea. Go to relief band dot com. Use the code Pacman at checkout for 20 percent off plus free shipping. The info is in the podcast notes. Many of you said that it is an absolutely must watch episode of Bill Maher's Club Random podcast because right wing grifter Candace Owens appeared on his program. I checked it out and indeed there is a lot to glean and much to learn from this appearance. We let's just jump right in. Candace Owens is the right wing darling who, by all accounts, has sort of constructed this

right wing character and now appears in lots of places making really bad right wing arguments about stuff. What's really interesting about this appearance is that on the one hand, on some issues, Bill Maher makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, Bill Maher also contributes to the disinformation. I've talked about Bill Maher right often and wrong often. So let's get right into it. The first subject they tackle is climate change. Take a listen to this. But don't you not believe like in the moon landing? So I'm supposed to believe you about climate. I think it's so funny how people take. Well, first off,

I know what I'm talking about with the climate stuff, so I'm just going to go ahead and promote you. Not the only one. Yeah, well, I mean, I think you should probably really can't. By the way, Candace does this weird thing where she doesn't even look at Bill. She's just looking into the middle distance. It's a really strange personality trait. And I'm not you know, it can be connected to a lot of different things, which I won't diagnose here. It would be inappropriate.

But it's really weird how she's just staring into the middle distance. She's not looking at Bill Maher like that. There is in the same way that there are narratives. I think you're now more awake to the climate hoax is one that funds trillions of dollars and we are not running out of space. You could fit the entire world if you stacked it like New York City in Dallas. So I just said, but at the point notice that she's now talking about overpopulation, which is a different issue than climate change. This is that the hurricanes are down the whole idea that every time it rains,

it's because something bad is happening. It's like, it's okay. What I will agree with you on is this. The environmentalists do often lie because they have this idea, this issue is so important, and by the way, it is so important, that it's okay if we shade the truth to get people on our side. And I don't agree with that. I'm always... You bite every time. Well, not every time.

What was your climate disaster growing up? Mine was global warming. They don't even say it anymore. They don't say global warming anymore? No, they don't. No, they say climate change. They went from global cooling... Maybe not in your bubble, but in the world they do.

No, they don't. They went from global cooling to global warming. They never were in global... No one was ever talking. It was one. That's such a stupid talking point that you keep repeating. It's a zombie lie. It was one article in one magazine in one day, one week in Newsweek or something. No. OK, so Bill Maher here is generally right. It is true that as we have learned more about climate change, we know that there can be an overall warming, but that in localized areas it can actually mean lower lows and higher highs, more extreme weather events, record warm temperatures, record cool temperatures.

It's much more complicated. And what they consider the smoking gun, which is you used to only call it global warming and now it's climate change. That's a way to hide the fact that you were wrong. It's it's actually that there was even much more to it. Then we get to another conspiracy theory, I guess, of Candace's, which is not her own. It's that we never really went to the moon. But just to be be clear, people did land on the moon. I don't know. Okay, there we go.

I don't know. I do know. I just want to know why we didn't go back. We did go back. Did we go back? To the moon? Were people on the moon? Okay.

I'm asking a serious question. When did we go back to people walking on the moon? 69, okay. July 20th, 1969. Yeah. We went back like 10 more times. Who went back? Who walked on the moon. 69. Okay. July 20th, 1969. Yeah. We went back like 10 more times. Who went back? Who walked on the moon? America. You know, but like what were the astronauts names? Educate me. Why are you remembers what the astronauts names were? That's a big, it's a pretty big deal to walk on the moon. The first guy. And then after that, yes. Who else walked on it?

All right. So this is, this is, there's a lot here. This is very dumb. There were a number of Apollo missions which involved astronauts landing on the moon. And you can just look it up. They just don't really seem to know. But this is the sort of endless cynical skepticism in which if you weren't there yourself, you can just doubt whether it happened. We know, of course, that various third parties, including the space agencies of other countries, which they were able to track and confirm the Apollo missions, the Soviet Union, if this were fake, there would be so many countries with the motivation to expose it as fake. And this is the way they so doubt about other things. It's not consequential. Like if you don't believe we went to the moon, it's kind of dumb,

but it's not consequential. But the fact that anything can be doubted becomes consequential when you're talking about actionable things like climate change or whatever the case may be. Now, then we get to Bill Maher and Bill Maher also often says when it comes to medical stuff, Bill Maher says weird things. The topic of vaccines comes up. Here we go for parents and kind of giving them a guy. No, I'm with you there. I wasn't sure about that. And, you know, I do. I produce an entire separate series talking about vaccines and sort of the increase. And well, I don't know. I was a I... I don't think vaccines are a hoax or anything, right? Not a hoax.

Okay. But, you know, do your kids need from 1982... No, they don't. ...6 to 75, you know? I mean, my view, just to be clear, vaccines are a tool in the medical kit, just like antibiotics. Right.

And just like antibiotics, I wouldn't want to be told, everyone's taking them, so you have to too. Yeah, one size fits all. If I decide I need one for a certain pathogen and I'm at a place in my life where I think that playing the odds, which is what medicine always is, that would be the smart thing, okay. But forcing it, and in children who never needed it for this, the least likely. And they're so sick. The kids have never been sicker.

Right, never been sicker. Right. Never been sicker. And I start my series by asking, these kids have never been more vaxxed. We're the most vaxxed country in the entire world. You know, we have these high infant mortality rates when weighed against third world countries. And you're being told that this is because we're super healthy. You got kids 75 vaccines. When I was a kid, it was 12, you know.

And there's been an explosion. People don't even know anything about the diseases. It's just these constant fear campaigns. And then on top of that, in states like L.A., you can't opt out. You know, so these are things that parents have to think about now where you're literally raising your kids. Could you go to prison for saying that I don't want my child referred to as a different gender? All right. And then we're going to get to that. So, you know, this whole thing about high infant mortality, it's a mishmash of issues. Let's deal with it one by one. They love to mishmash issues since the introduction of vaccines.

Many life threatening diseases, polio, measles, whooping cough, dramatic reductions in prevalence. These disease used to cause significant morbidity and mortality in children. So this idea that we're sicker than ever because of vaccines, it's not borne out by the science. Now, are there other issues? Like, for example, at one point it was thought that if you keep kids away from food allergens, they'll be less likely to develop food allergies. Wrong. That makes them more likely. So now we're looking more at like the Israeli model of introducing peanuts early and this sort of thing. it comes to the the infant mortality. When you look at infant and maternal mortality,

on average in the US, it is worse than in so many other countries. And it's worse because so many people, thanks to right wing health care policy, don't have access or can't afford, don't have access to or can't afford good health care. And in fact, if you divide the country up into the wealthier part and the less wealthy part, the driver of the high infant and maternal mortality is in the poorer areas that are under resourced thanks to Republican policy. The numbers in the wealthy areas are as good as any of those European countries. And so it's thanks to the policies of people that Candace Owens supports that that's the case. Bill Maher then says on trans issues that Candace is saying a lot of really interesting things. When I did my editorial about trans, which, you know, I feel like, again,

a great demarcation between what liberal is, old school liberal and woke. Liberal believes trans is, of course, a real thing, and they should be protected and respected. Woke is like, well, before they can, like, tie their shoe, we tell them they very likely might be in the wrong body. I ran your segment on my podcast, actually, because it was brilliant. Oh, great. Yeah, on Real Time, you did the segment talking about, okay, if this is a real thing, sort of show this geography.

Why is it regional? Brilliant point. That's what I was saying. Why is it so regional? Is it the water here in California? It might be. I've been to dinner parties, more than one, where there's 12 people and they're all talking

about their trans kid. They're all scary. It's almost like that's the norm. Yeah. So the idea here is that there's a social contagion that trans is a fad. There's a legitimate conversation to be had here. It's important to know many ancient cultures understood gender that went beyond the male female binary. The He's right. People in South Asia, two spirit people in many North

American indigenous cultures. Fafinae, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly in Samoa and Katoy in Thailand. This stuff goes back a long way. What has changed is, number one, the medical understanding, the language we use to describe trans experiences. The terminology has changed. Medical and psychological professionals have been aware of people whose gender identity doesn't align with the sex assigned at birth. That's not new. We know that strong societal pressure and stigma can keep trans people from saying, hey, I'm experiencing this. And so it makes sense that in areas where the perceived consequences of saying I feel X would be higher. Right. If you feel there's more risk to saying that you'd be less likely to be

willing to publicly say this is how I identify. And then also it's important to consider that the percentage of trans and non-binary people who are availing themselves, for example, of surgical interventions is no higher now than it used to be. And so, sure, there's like a conversation, I guess, to be had here. But the truth and the reality of it is that it's a conversation most of these folks aren't having in good faith. All right. Last topic that they dealt with is a January 6th. And it actually got kind of contentious on this candidate.

Definitely show me about, you know, trying to overthrow the government of the United States. You're just not, like, you're not a weak enough person to really, like, I don't buy this. This, I think you,

I think you dance this way because you think you have to placate. Okay, first of all, No chance, no chance. First of all, just to educate you. You think that we almost

lost America on January 6th. I just don't buy that you're that soft. Yeah, I do. And just to educate you a little on this, I was saying this for five years when everyone was laughing at me for saying this, that Trump would never conceive the election

and he would never go away. I was all alone on a raft. But I mean, you saw BLM riots, right? Yeah. The summer leading up to this, right? Where like you, I lived in DC at this time where you couldn't go outside, cars were flipped.

Things were burned. People were boarding up their windows. But you thought the end of democracy, you can say this meaningfully, happened when people above the age of 65 stormed the Capitol. You thought that was the worst thing you've ever seen in American politics. Well, I mean, what was the worst thing? That was a small part of a bigger picture. The worst thing was that finally we had a president after all this history that we've had, nobody ever did insane, decided that no matter what happens, I won this election. There's only two things that could possibly happen. I win the election, or if I don't win the election, there must have been some cheating. Department, including the Director of National Intelligence, including every court, federal and

state, including his own lawyers, his daughter, Bill Barr. Everybody told him, you lost this election. They looked at this over and over again. Even the Republican vote counters, like the one he called who said, fine me 11,000 more votes. Even those people told him. So plainly, he did not accept losing the election, and then he tried to put in a bun. This is why he's on trial. It's not for lying. I believe that that day, as the media presenter, I'm talking about media hoaxes.

I give you my answer. It's not just that day, although that was part of the scheme. I mean, it's not like coincidence that they showed up on the very day that they were certifying the vote at the very place they were doing it to stop that from happening. So you get the picture. Candace just doesn't want to accept that there's no real risk. It wasn't really a threat.

A lot of the rioters were old. By the way, if you look at the hundreds and hundreds that were indicted, it does not skew 65 plus. So that's also a lie. They seem unwilling. They're essentially saying, fine, they may have wanted to do an insurrection, but it was too incompetent and carried out by people, I guess, too old and weak is what she's saying to really do it. Even if true, the idea that that makes it less dangerous is, of course, ridiculous. So Candace Owens saying some

ridiculous things, Bill Maher saying a few ridiculous things. But at the end of the day, it is free speech, right? That's that's what they chat and they talk. And then we try to figure out whether we can make heads or tails out of it. Let me know what you think. Curious to hear from you. rose. They've stripped away all the unnecessary ingredients and the artificial dyes, and they maximize the hardworking stain fighters and enzymes to ensure your favorite clothes really look brand new. I love laundry sauce because they smell so much better than the stuff you get from the grocery store. You know, the usual suspects you get at the store. There's a weird, cheap, chemically type of smell. All of the different scents from laundry sauce have a luxurious, smooth, natural scent, not too strong. You can especially tell when your clothes are coming right out of the dryer.

It just smells great. And it is not just pods because laundry sauce makes scent boosters, dryer sheets, dryer balls, fabric softeners. If you aren't happy, send back laundry sauce for a full refund. No questions asked. Head to laundry sauce dot com slash Pacman. Use the promo code Pacman at checkout for 15 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. One of our sponsors today is Cube. Cube is a budgeting and banking app combined. No more guessing if you have money for the things you need and want. No more having to categorize each transaction to keep up with your budget. It works like this. You split your money into budget categories called cubes, groceries, car, etc. Let's say you've budgeted a thousand dollars a month for groceries.

You're at the grocery store. Your bill comes to two hundred and fifty dollars. You select your grocery cube in the app that'll make your grocery budget available on your debit card, make the purchase. And as soon as you run the card, what's left for your grocery budget goes back into the grocery cube. And that is it. The cube card has zero available balance unless the cube is open, which prevents theft. Every purchase is logged by category automatically in the app. You can share it between family members. Cube offers cards for kids so you can Thank you, David Pakman dot com slash money.

The link is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome back to the program today. Neil Howe, the acclaimed historian, economist, demographer and also New York Times bestselling author of The Fourth Turning is here, as well as over a dozen books on demographic and social change. You know, Neil, last time we spoke, it was 2017. And we talked to you a little bit about where you saw the country and the globe in terms of stage and and positioning with regard to these cycles and frameworks of societal change that you've written so much about. I'm curious, how would you assess where the last six years since you and I spoke have changed or moved us within this framework?

Well, it's been, yeah, six years since then, 2017 to 2023. And look, I mean, clearly we're further into the fourth turning that Bill and I wrote about, you know, I don't know, 25 years ago. And closer to what we call the ectopirosis, you know, the consolidation and climax of this period, which we expect to end in the early 2030s. It's back then, the geopolitical tensions have risen considerably. I think it's fair to say we have a major land war in Europe. We have a threat of war in the Western Pacific. We now have new threats of war in the Mideast. And I think most worrisomely, and this is where we see the parallel to the 1930s, is this sort of the superpower alignment, right? A realignment of major powers where you can see everyone sort of siding up on one side or the other, pro-Western, anti-Western, if you want to call it that. The other thing we saw back then in 2017, although maybe hints of it were seen in the

2016 election, Clinton against Trump, is the growing specter of partisan conflict within the United States, the growing polarization of red zone and blue zone. Back then, the question of civil war in America was not even on the radar screen. We didn't even ask questions about it. Today it's routinely asked. And, you know, Americans say, about half of them say, you know, we're likely to see something big happening in that regard in the next few years. And also the pessimism of the country with regard to its long-term future has usually increased, right? People are very pessimistic about where America is heading.

And of course, that furthers their taste for confrontation, maybe in a way that will make it better. You know, maybe one side needs to win, or maybe we need to put democracy aside for a while. One thing that I've certainly noted is around the world, not just in the United States, but the declining faith that the rising generation has in sort of a liberal democracy in due process. There's a growing impatience with that. And you see that in the rise of so many of these charismatic, populist, and somewhat authoritarian, and sometimes ethnocentric leaders all over the world. You see it in India, China, the Philippines. You see it in Southern Europe. You see it in Latin America. It's not just here. It's around world. And a big point of our book, actually, is that these generational changes have become global. The Great Depression and World War II were global events.

And the awakening that we saw by younger generations challenging the strong institutions of their war-winning elders back in the late 60s and 1970s. It was also global. It was not just in Berkeley University in Columbia, but it was in Paris. It was in Prague. It was in Berlin. It was in Rome. It was in Beijing.

It was the Red Guard, the Cultural Revolution against their parents. It was around the world. So we think these patterns, these turnings patterns are are global. They're they're increasingly global. What sort of role or importance did what happened about halfway between your your last conversation with me and today, January 6th, 2021, what sort of a role or importance does that have in your analysis? And if it if it doesn't, then that's fine, too. A role role of what? Exactly. In terms of your assessment of where we are in this cycle, you've talked about the combustibility sort of that that can take place when there is a lack of a unifying experience within a country? One might argue that January 6th was was the exact opposite. It was

a fracturing experience in that or any other sense. Well, you know, a fracturing experience to one side can be unifying for the other. And let's not forget that among the fourth turnings we've experienced in American history, it's sort of Anglo-American history, really going back centuries, is both external conflict and internal conflict. And very often we fight both at the same time. The 1930s, I think, was thought of as an extraordinarily partisan, bitterly divided time for America with the New Deal. I mean, half of America thought of it as the book, the nation was able to unite around World War II and conquering half the world in a fight against global fascism.

That was an extraordinary end that no one would have predicted as late as the very late 1930s. So it's it remains on a razor edge. Right. Which way America goes. But that's certainly one big question that I often get asked when there are predictions, as there have been for, I don't know, 10, 15 years that along the lines of foreign policy, you know, you had a group of people that in 2015 started saying if Hillary Clinton is elected, she'll start three wars in the in the lead up to the election of President Joe Biden in 2020. You had a contingent of folks saying if Joe Biden is elected, he's going to get us into World War Three. Analogously, there have been folks predicting a major economic recession or depression from about the same time or even 2014, 2013. It seems as though if you're always predicting these things, eventually it will

happen. And that does not necessarily mean that the predictions at the time that they were made were particularly insightful or interesting. Can you talk a little bit about those who were always predicting the same thing all the time? And then it eventually happens because it's a feature or a part of the way the country is organized or the world is organized. What are we to glean from those sorts of predictions? Are they useful? Are they in?

Well, I, I, I can't vouch for other people's predictions. I can only talk about my own track record. And when we wrote about this in 1997, it was sort of late in the Clinton presidency. And we said, look, we have another seven or eight or nine years to go in what we call the third turning, which is going to be a time of great individualism, market boom. Things were going to be fine. And then we're going to hit this fourth turning, which was going to be a generation long, and it was going to extend through the 2020s. So we didn't always predict there was going to be bad news. We sort of said when it was going to occur and over what time period it would ramp up,

it would climax. So I really haven't changed. What we did predict would be a catalytic event sometime in the first decade of the 20th century. We suggested 2005. It turned out to be 2008. I mean, it was the GFC. And that was really kind of a huge divide in trends, right? I mean, suddenly global trade was expanding as a share of global product. It's been shrinking ever since. Democracy was expanding around the world. It's been shrinking ever since 2008, right? Technology was supposed to overthrow dictators up until 2008.

Ever since then, dictators have embraced technology, the internet, social media. You can whip crowds into a frenzy with it, and you can also surveil your own population perfectly. These are all huge changes in the use of technology and in the social mood and the increasing impatience of younger generations for a world that is kind of gridlocked and seems sclerotic, particularly the liberal democracies seeming unable to respond to this, both unable to respond to the changing world and also unable to respond to the aspirations of their own younger citizens or to retool their institutions and make them work properly.

Again, for parallels, we see these early fourth turning decades, the most recent of which was, we all know, was the 2030, although not none of us remember them. And of course, that's part of the whole problem of the generational cycle, which takes a lifetime, is that we're always moving into an era that no one alive remembers. Right. What what what role does something like a pandemic, including the covid-19 pandemic that took place since you and I last spoke and now pandemics in general and or covid specifically, how does that interact or intersect with the 80 year cycle that you talk about? Well, we know something about pandemics. A lot of research has been done on them,

even minor ones. I'm not talking about the Black Death or anything like that, or even the Spanish Influenza. But we all know they generally tend to be bad for the economy. They tend to raise populist reform. In other words, they tend to radicalize and polarize the public in response to adjusted to changes that occur in its wake. So they are destabilizing for the economy and society. I think we can safely say no matter what the era, is one of the reasons why World War I was so badly remembered by America, because as soon as they came home, we had this horrible influenza and we had back to back recessions. And I think this this one was was particularly unique because of the extraordinary response of public policy.

Right. We had this huge stimulus response, which I think in retrospect seems a little bit all out of proportion to the hit to GDP. I mean, most households had huge growth in disposable income that they never would have had in a normal period, absent the pandemic. And as a result, again, I think it's been destabilizing, but mainly due to just the increase in debt. I think increasing indebtedness is one of these huge challenges that the national government faces in the United States. We're up to, you know, over 100 percent of GDP in net, you know, publicly held federal debt, both at home and around the world. And there may be other reasons in the not too distant future we need to run more debt. And if that's the case, we'll either need to find huge remains of getting revenue or be cutting some of the expenditures we currently have.

And right now, you know, looking at the House and just looking at government, we don't seem to be able to respond very well. So a lot of danger signals right going on right now. Last thing I want to ask you about, and then I'll let you go at the individual level. Are there particular things that individuals can or should be doing in your mind to prepare for this coming part of the cycle? Yeah. Look, protect your portfolio. Inflation is always a huge problem in fourth turnings, particularly the way in which governments get out from under their debt. That's been true of every fourth turning going back centuries. That is a familiar technique that sovereigns use to get out from under. It was certainly part of World War II and its aftermath. And I think it will be necessarily again. So that's certain.

Maybe people should have taken my advice three months ago before bond yields started going up. They would have saved themselves some pain. But my point is that that's characteristic. I think it changes how you want to invest in the S&P in terms of equities, probably looking a little bit more on things like defense and manufacturing and materials in a world in which we're kind of rebuilding the outer world and maybe not focusing so much on experiences. And most of all, I think it's a time for people to renew their ties from their family. Look, we've seen a huge renaissance of multi-generational living during this fourth turning. I mean, everyone's living

with their parents and their grandparents. And I think that is in a almost semi-conscious prepping, you know, for a time at which a lot of the guarantees that governments and, you know, both federal and local have provided to people may not be there, right? We may have to depend upon each other more. And look, millennials generally get along well with their parents. I think the personally generations get along well. And I think this this will be a strength moving forward. And if people are wondering in an era of sort of government chaos and maybe a cutting back of generosity because we have other public agendas to attend to, where am I going to turn to for long term care? Where am I going to turn to for a lot of these things? The lesson of fourth turnings is these are eras when we turn to for a lot of these things. The lesson of fourth turnings is these are errors when we turn

to our families. We've been speaking with historian, economist and demographer Neil Howe. We will link to his bestselling book. Neil, really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much for having me. Online threats are constantly growing and evolving, and our sponsor, Mono Defense, makes it so easy to just be protected. It's a one stop shop to staying safe and unleashing your online freedom, because with your Mono Defense account, you can get a whole suite of easy to use tools for every device you own. It comes with Passwarden, which is their highly acclaimed password manager. You can create unique passwords for all accounts and you don't have to worry about remembering

them. Comes with DNS firewall, which will proactively block suspicious traffic from malicious websites and services to protect you from malware, phishing, other online dangers. And you'll also get smart DNS. Smart DNS lets you change your geographic location so you can access websites and content not normally available where you live. You'll also get authenticator, which is their powerful two factor authentication tool. And it makes sure it is really you logging in. Even if your password is compromised, you get it all with just a single mono defense subscription, all of the robust, simple to use security tools on five devices. And mono defense is a Ukrainian

company, which I think is important to support right now. Go to mono defense dot com slash Pacman. Get 30 percent off. That's M.O.N.O. D.E.F.E.N.S.E. dot com slash Pacman to get 30 percent off. That's M.O.N.O. D.E.F.E.N.S.E. Dotcom slash Pacman to get 30 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. Failed former President Donald Trump was in the important early primary state of New Hampshire yesterday. He gave a soaking wet speech, as he often does in Derry, New Hampshire. And this was truly one of the most embarrassing and worst we've seen. The cognitive decline continues. Let's get right into it. Trump, in the midst of an acute delusional episode, considers himself apparently Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela. Trump now considers himself. Listen to this.

Those people have no problem. If you want to challenge the result of an election, they hound you. Look what happened this weekend with two good people. They hound them and they scare them and they've, but we don't get scared. We don't get scared. I'll tell you what, I don't mind being Nelson Mandela because I'm doing it for a reason. I'm doing it for a reason. Nelson Mandela fought an apartheid regime and then was a big enough man of character to reconcile with those who went after him. As our friend Ron Philip Kowski said on Twitter. Trump is doing everything for himself. It's all self-centered. It's all egotistical mania and all about himself. Trump then goes on a completely unintelligible rant about how the

abbreviation for United States is U.S. U.S. is also the word us. And that's something about how Trump is doing things for us or something like that. Imagine if Biden did something like this is on our businesses. Why are you doing that? He said, Macron, nice guy. You know, look, he's for friends. I'm for I'm for us. Come for us. You know, you spell us, right?

You spell us, US. You spell us, U.S. I just picked that up. Has anyone ever thought of that? I just picked that up. A couple of days I'm reading and it said us. And I said, you know, if you think about it, us equals U.S., isn't it? Now, if we say something genius, they'll never say it. Pretty innovative stuff.

You know, we get 25, 30, 40, 50, 80 thousand, 100000 people to speeches. They've never said Trump's a great speaker. Never said I've never heard it. I said to my people, do you think they'll ever acknowledge I must be doing OK? Except I'm a very handsome person. So I guess a lot of you want to say they want to sit and look at me. If Biden did this stuff, it would be a month of dementia segments and it actually gets even worse. Here is Donald Trump. This is a real classic. Trump is getting his authoritarian

dictator wannabes mixed up. He talks about Hungarian leader Viktor Orban and says he's actually the leader of Turkey. Again, imagine if Joe Biden did that. A lot of the horrible things the world is exploding. If you take a look, I mean, the whole world is exploding. You know, I was very honored as a man. Viktor Orban. Did anyone ever hear of him?

He's probably like one of the strongest leaders anywhere in the world. He is the leader of right. He's the leader of Turkey, France or in both Russia. Victor Orban is not the leader of Turkey. And of course, when Trump does this, it's no big deal. But if Biden did it, it would be 25th Amendment right away. Trump then suggesting more illegal actions if he were to become president of the United States, saying that if people don't like our religion, they would be banned from immigrating to the United States, which happens to violate the First Amendment to the United States.

I don't think a lot of good things are going to happen. And I will implement strong ideological screening of all immigrants. If you hate America, if you want to abolish Israel, if you don't like our religion, which a lot of them don't, if you sympathize with the jihadists, then we don't want you in our country and you are not getting in. Wow. It seems to be against the law to say that you're not allowed in if you aren't Christian or have certain opinions about Christianity.

Seemingly that is not a constitutional way to operate the country, but Trump is promising to do it. Trump then insisted that his classified documents were completely secure. I haven't I did nothing wrong at all. In fact, my boxes, it was secure. It was everything was good. Now Trump says the boxes were secure. Here is a picture of Trump's boxes of classified documents surrounding his toilet underneath

a gaudy chandelier next to a window that looks quite weak as I look at it. And then lastly, Trump continues to just rant aimlessly talks about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and says that he sat down because of the situation. Now, of course, FDR had polio and that's why he was in a wheelchair. Trump seems confused by what's going on. You know, FDR was a great speaker, right? He was a great speaker. He he said he said because of a seizure, but he was an elegant, beautiful, eloquent, elegant and eloquent that he was a great speaker. And yeah, he sat because of the situ.

But he was very elegant, extraordinarily elegant. The rantings of a madman and almost as humiliating as the speech itself was what happened to Donald Trump outside this event. Let's talk about that next. This does not typically happen to Donald Trump. But when he arrived yesterday at his rally in New Hampshire, protesters were chanting, lock him up. And Trump's team hurried him inside. This is video from Right Side Broadcasting Network compiled by Midas Touch. This is not usually the welcome that Trump gets, at least not this close to him All right. So they hurry him inside amid hostile chance of lock him up. And then on the way out, not much better, including someone chanting lock him up and someone on a megaphone. You have to listen for it at the end of this clip. Someone on a megaphone saying Donald Trump is going to jail,

which is the optics and the the ambiance here really are unequal. Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 I'm not sure where our press was at. There we go. OK. OK, let's go ahead and toss to a commercial. We'll be live as we're here in New Hampshire. Donald Trump is going to jail now.

I don't know that that's true, but hearing that as Trump walks around and talks to people is pretty funny. Also surrounding the speech that Trump gave, Trump claimed that he wasn't indicted, which comes as a surprise to four different criminal jurisdictions which indicted Trump. But here is Trump asked about his attorney, Sidney Powell, pleading guilty. And Trump says he wasn't indicted. Confusing, right? To hear that. I thought he was. Mr. President, you said Sidney Powell wasn't your attorney.

Are you concerned that you won't be covered by attorney Klein? No, not at all. We did nothing wrong. We did nothing. This is all Biden indictments and impeachments. And this is all about Biden. You can't do anything right. The only thing they know how to do is cheat on elections and election fraud.

This is all by yourself. All of these indictments that you see, I was never indicted, practically never heard the word. It wasn't a word that registered. He wasn't indicted. And this is, again, the fact that reality doesn't matter when you are a cult leader and you have cult followers. You can say whatever.

I wasn't indicted. Well, but sir, as they love to say to him, here's the documents that show you were indicted. No, no, no, no. I wasn't actually indicted. And then lastly, here is Donald Trump saying the only person that really can make Speaker of the House happen at this point would be Jesus Christ himself. Something's going to happen. It'll be positive. I'll end up working well. I'm staying above it. I have to right now. But I've spoken to just about all the candidates, and quite a few of them, and they're terrific people.

You know, that four threshold is very tough. It's a very tough thing, no matter who it is. I said, there's only one person that can do it all the way. You know who that is? Jesus Christ. Jesus came down and said, I want to be speaker. He would do it. Other than that, I haven't seen I haven't seen anybody that can guarantee it. But at some point, I think we're going to have somebody pretty soon. Well, yeah, at some point there will be a speaker of the House. I doubt that it will be Jesus.

So another humiliating day on the campaign trail, the pressure clearly getting to Trump today, quite literally as we speak, Trump expected in court in New York City to face his own former lawyer and friend of the show, Michael Cohen, who is expected to testify against Trump. We will see if that happens. We will have coverage tomorrow. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Now, here is a caller suggesting a debate. OK, you tell me whether this is a debate you want me to do. Speaker 5 Hi, David. I have a cave on and I thought I watched the show, but I know you're not vegan and I know that you don't care about the rights of the animals

that you eat, which at least to the extent of their life and their care about their life. The ones you eat. Anyway, I was wondering if you would debate me to talk about it. I think I tried calling you a long time ago or something and you wouldn't talk to me. He thinks he thinks he tried calling me or something and I wouldn't talk to him. Yeah. I'm wondering, wondering your thoughts on being progressive and wanting to kill animals and eat their flesh.

Right. And but saying that you're you're you're. OK, thanks so much. OK, if that's a debate people want me to have with this guy, let me know. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We are indeed going to talk about the White House saying that Iran is actively facilitating attacks on U.S. military bases. out.