The Tucker Carlson Show - Tucker on the Propaganda Pawns, Bibi’s Threat to Trump, and the Great American Betrayal

Episode Date: March 12, 2026

No two countries have the same priorities. That’s why it should be illegal to yoke our military to a foreign power in war. Bret Weinstein on how it happened. Bret Weinstein, PhD, is an evolutionary biologist, author, and co-host of “The DarkHorse Podcast” with his wife, biologist Heather Heying. They are the co-authors of “A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century: Evolution and the Challenges of Modern Life.” Paid partnerships: Good Ranchers: Use code TUCKER to get an additional $25 off your first order at https://go.goodranchers.com/tucker Brooklyn Bedding: Get 30% off sitewide with promo code TUCKER at https://brooklynbedding.com Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% off your entire order with code TUCKER at https://cowboycolostrum.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Uh, where are my gloves? Come on, heat. Any day now? Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm. Tap the banner to order your groceries online at voila.ca. Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in-store.

Many promotions are available both in-store and online, though some may vary. In just a minute, we're going to play you an interview. we just completed with our friend Brett Weinstein about the war in Iran, why it started, what it means, how it may end, and when. And we should say at the outset why we did this interview. Brett Weinstein is not an expert on military tactics or strategy. He's not a diplomat. He's not a Farsi speaker.

He is instead a biologist. He's a close observer of living things and of the systems they occupy and create. But why speak to Brett Weinstein? But really honestly, one reason, because he's honest. He's an honest man. He's a scientist, and the first requirement of science is, of course, honesty. Report what you know. But we know that he's honest because we've known him for almost 10 years now

and watched him evolve in some ways from a liberal college professor at Evergreen to a Trump voter and promoter during the last campaign of Donald Trump. And unlike a lot of people you see in the political sphere evolve, Brett Weinstein kept the rest of a surprise of his ever. as was in progress. He didn't pretend, I've always thought this. He told us that he had changed his mind and why. So on the deepest level, he is an honest man, honest about the things he sees around him, what he thinks are behind those things, and honest, most important and most telling of all about himself. So it's important to get an honest analysis of what's

happening now because the dishonesty is so overwhelming, it's hard to separate it from the true. So if you're following this, attempting to follow it in this incredibly censored moment we're living in online, you're seeing all kinds of things that seem true that aren't. You're seeing true things suppressed, the most basic things. How many people have been killed on all sides? How many have been injured? You keep reading that Israeli cabinet minister Ben Gavir died again and again, he's dead. Well, he was in Jerusalem a couple hours ago issuing decrees, so not dead, etc, etc., etc. Basic facts, like what's the physical damage to all of these countries sucked into this conflict?

You can't find because that information has been censored by those countries, countries in which it took place, and by American social media companies. So it's really hard to know what's true. Everybody involved in this conflict has a strong incentive to lie and to spin. But at some point, all of that lying becomes irrelevant. Rhetoric itself, propaganda itself, becomes irrelevant in the face of war because war changes physical things. Not just words and minds, but physical realities like borders and populations of countries and control over resources. Those decisions are settled by armed conflict a lot of the time.

they certainly will be in the case of this war. And so in the end, it kind of doesn't matter what you say. Somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose and the world's going to be very different. And the rest of us can assess those differences unencumbered or impeded by your lying, by your propaganda. And that may be why actually for a war, there's been relatively little propaganda around this. The current administration hasn't even really tried to explain why we're doing this. Not very hard anyway.

And in some ways, we should be grateful for that. It's a sign of respect, not to lie to people too aggressively. The President of the United States today said on camera, we're thinking about using nukes against Iran. He said we could eliminate Iran, make it uninhabitable forever in an hour. We have weapons that can do that. Well, those are nuclear weapons. The President of the United States is saying out loud, if this gets more intense, we could nuke them.

Now you can support that or disagree with that. However you feel about that, you know, it's not often that people are that blunt about what could happen. And again, there's been very little attempt to convince you that we did this in America's national interest. The Secretary of State just came out and said, we did it because Israel forced our hand. So they've been pretty direct, actually, about what is going on here and what the stakes potentially are. President of the United States threatening nuclear weapons. Okay. Well, lots on the table. The propagandists for the war, the people who really more than anyone else in this country, pushed us to where we are now, are...

weirdly, unaccountably, even angrier than ever. You got what you wanted, but you're madder than ever. That's been true since the very first hours. The second, the first barrage was unleashed against Iran and then the counterattacks from Iran against the Gulf and American interest there. These people have been enraged. Very interesting.

A licensed psychiatrist should study that someday. Why are they so mad since they got what they wanted? But the nature of their propaganda hasn't really changed. There's been no effort to convince you as an American. citizen or the citizens of any country that it's good for you, only that we must do this, and if you're opposed to it in any way, you are a bad person, not incorrect, not wrong in your calculations, not dumb, but evil. And you kind of got to wonder what this is, other than an obvious attempt to divide American society into neocons and non-neocons. Why would you want

to do that? Neocons are a tiny percentage of the American population, but clearly they're trying. but it's interesting to watch it. We haven't played a lot of this, don't plan to, but there's one clip from Ben Shapiro, recent clip that kind of sums up the arguments in favor of this work. Here's Ben Shapiro. Sadly, younger Republicans have become similarly prone to conspiratorial thinking. According to Manhattan Institute,

54% of young Republicans men under 50, believe the Holocaust didn't happen as historians describe. 53% of Republicans under 50 believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories, 51% believe the moon landing was faked. These people, too, have bought into a grievance-based distrust of the system. And it's showing in their embrace of psychotic figures and disconnected politics. America is a force for good in the world. Radical Islamists are evil.

American allies who demonstrate strength are an asset for us. Terrorists are bad. Members of the grievance party are losing their mind over this. And now they've been relegated to basically rooting for Iran to win. So members of the grievance party, meaning Democrats and members of that horseshoe right, have decided that after paying lip service to the horrors of the mullahs, the true horror is American interventionism and destruction. America must be undermined. So if you have questions about this war, whether it's in your interest, your country's interests

or not, and it's never a question that's occurred to Ben Shapiro, is this good for America? That's really not under consideration. But if it's under your consideration, if you've raised that question, you are tantamount to a Holocaust denier. You're insane. You're crazy person. You probably think the moon landing was fake. And 9-11 was. fake. By the way, there's a pretty easy way to settle any debate about 9-11, which is by declassifying the millions of pages of classified documents that might explain what 9-11 was, but that's never under consideration. We could end this debate right now. We won't, of course. But you're a bad person, and above all, you are a disloyal person, disloyal to the United States. You are, quote,

rooting for Iran to win. You're part of the grievance party. How dare you complain? How dare you have grievances? It's pretty weak. coming for a guy who literally knows nothing about the rest of the world at all. So, you know, you can get annoyed by it at some point, especially if Iran wins, people like that will double their calls to arrest anyone on the other side. They're already calling for it. These people should be investigated. Anyone who's against this should be investigated on a ferret charge. They should go to jail. Their ideological opponents should go to jail. Who's the totalitarian here?

you'll hear a lot more of that. But you will not see people pay a ton of attention to yelping, childish yelping like that, totally uninformed screaming like that ever again, because again, this conflict has entered what the military refers to, euphemistically, is the kinetic stage. People are actually firing munitions at each other. So it kind of doesn't matter what people on the sidelines say at this point. This is a hot war, and it will be decided by force. One of the reasons you don't want to get into a hot war. In other words, we've exited the part of the exchange where it's two guys in the parking lot, would you say, I'll mess you up? And we've gotten to the part where one guy has punches the other guy in the face and keeps going unless he stopped.

So that's exactly where we are. So it doesn't kind of matter what you said before the punching started. Not that Ben Shapiro has any experience of that, but it's just true that once people start hurting each other, words matter less, and the dominant party will emerge victorious. That's exactly where we are. So who is going to win this? And what does it mean to win? Well, the most obvious and often repeated observation about this conflict is totally true. Iran's threshold for victory is very low. It just needs to survive. The regime has to remain intact. Now, in order to change the regime, everyone pretty much agrees you would need ground forces. You'd need troops, boots on the ground, American boots on the ground, in order to do that. And there is zero appetite for that in

this administration, much less in the country. Israel would like us to commit ground troops, obviously, but it would take a lot to get us to do that. It would take some sort of terror attack in the United States, probably, like 9-11 in order for us to do that. But that hasn't happened yet. We pray it never happens. So at this point, we're not going to commit ground troops, which does sort of put the whole exercise in perspective. If Iran's burgeoning nuclear program was really a threat to our core national security interests, then of course we would commit ground troops because any threat to our national security interests merits committing ground troops. But this one didn't. And the people who decided this were told or believed somehow that we could affect regime change from the air

because Iran was in a pre-revolutionary stage and all we needed to do was like topple the head figure like dominoes cascading. That would set off a chain reaction that installed a pro-Western government in Tehran. That was the argument. These arguments always seem ludicrous in retrospect. laugh at them. Really? Did you really think that? Well, apparently we really did. But almost two weeks in that has not happened. By the way, that would be a great outcome because it would end the war immediately. We said like a pro-American government in Tehran. Like, why is that so hard? Well, it is hard. And the U.S. has never really been able to do it despite trying a lot with these so-called regime change wars. So if we don't succeed in doing that, if in the end the United States decides what we can't

do this. What happens then? That is the question. In other words, what does an Iranian victory look like? An Iranian victory does not look like Iranian forces invading the Gulf and controlling Dubai or something or setting up a new satellite capital in Jerusalem. That's not going to happen, probably. Hope doesn't. What an Iranian victory looks like is really simple. It's control the Straits of Hermuz. It's exactly what it looks like, which if you hadn't looked at a map recently, is only about 20 miles wide, and it's the choke point through which 20% of the world's energy flows, 20% of oil and liquefied natural gas, on which many countries, including American allies, are totally dependent.

Europe, South Korea, Japan, not to mention India, and China. They need it. They need energy. As conservatives are often fond of pointing out, energy creates civilization. Without it, things ground to a halt. That's just true. And renewables cannot take up the energy. the slack, sorry. So if that straight, that choke point, and again, if you haven't looked at it on a map,

it's on the eastern end of the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf, whatever you want to call it, that body of water through which energy flows by ship, whoever controls that has a lot of power. Now, as of today, or as of two weeks ago anyway, the United States effectively controlled it. That was the other reason we had all those military bases in the Persian Gulf. Another was to protect Israel. our only real ally in the Gulf. But a competing reason, maybe the primary reason, hard to know, certainly a big reason, was to protect the flow of energy through the Straits of Armoos. And now the U.S. has been, unfortunately, tragically unable to guarantee the passage of energy through that straight. Now, let's hope that changes. But if the Iranian regime is not toppled

in this conflict, there's a pretty good chance that they will have. control. Who else would? American bases have been degraded, in some cases destroyed. This war is so expensive even now, less than two weeks in, it's hard to see how we could afford to expand our presence there. And then on a political level, how much will is there for that? We've got to send more troops to the Persian Gulf. So as noted, right after this broke out, one of the whole purposes, one of the goals of this exercise from the perspective of Israel was to get the United States out of the Middle East. So Israel could be the dominant regional power, the hegeman. So it could expand its territory without getting hassled by the U.S. State Department without

asking permission from the U.S. president. And so Israel could control it because Israel sees itself and is actually, just factually, an emerging power. It's a nuclear armed power. And from their perspective, like, why wouldn't we control the region? And so that's their goal. But one impediment to that is Iran, which is opposed to Israel's existence and has been funding proxies to fight against Israel, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, but also Hamas.

the Houthis in Yemen, et cetera, et cetera. So you've got to get rid of the Iranian leadership. Probably just turn the country into chaotic civil war, because that suits Israel's purposes. And you've got to get the U.S. out. So they've already done a lot to achieve the second goal. Get the U.S. out. It's hard to see how the United States can guarantee safe passage of shipping

through the Straits of Hormuz after this. We can't now. And if the Iranian regime remains, they're the ones the rest of the world is going to have to negotiate with. So just to be totally clear, Japan, South Korea, China, India, the European nations, 40% of the heat in British homes comes from LNG from Qatar, moved by boat. So big countries, some of them allies, some of them rivals have a structural interest in this region, and it's not going away.

So in the end, it seems possible, if not likely, that a resolution to the core economic question here, which is shipping, will be resolved by those countries, directly talking to Iran. So China, India, come in and they negotiate with Iran to open the streets. Think about that for a second. Does that diminish or enhance Iran's power? Well, you're negotiating directly with. with China, India, South Korea, Japan, Europe, you're more powerful than you were when this started. And that's a huge embarrassment to the United States. It's a huge reduction in American power. We were not able to force our will on this critical part of the world. We couldn't keep the peace.

In fact, we shattered the peace. And we weren't able to restore order once we did. And guess who did? Oh, our other global rival. That seems very likely. But from a regional perspective, this is a huge deal to the Gulf states, which have just been bombed for 12 days and really damaged in some cases by Iran. But the biggest problem this poses is for Israel, because Iran is a sincere opponent of Israel. At this point, more so than ever, it has been for a long time. They say it openly. They're one of the few countries in the world that opposes Israel's so-called right-to-old. to exist. Israel is every reason to regard Iran as an enemy. Iran is an enemy of Israel. And again,

now more than ever. So if Iran emerges with its leadership intact, with a leadership that might be even more anti-Israel than it was three weeks ago, why wouldn't it be? We just killed their leader, their 86-year-old religious leader and his family. How does Israel live with that? And if Israel doesn't live with that, what are its options? If you start to think about this for about, two minutes, it gets, it gets bracing. It gets a little scary. It's hard to know exactly how much damage the IRGC, the Iranians have done to Israel because there's so much censorship. But we know we can conclude fairly confidently from available information that the port of Haifa, which is the most important port in Israel, controlled by the Chinese, I think, actually, interesting.

And Tel Aviv, the second biggest city in Israel, have been hammered, hammered. and there has been widespread infrastructure destruction, and there's been loss of life of some kind. We don't know, but the video that seems real, they're hurting. And the Israelis have been dealing with this kind of stuff for a long time. It's not the first time their cities have been shelled. They've been shelled a lot over the years. And so their tolerance for this kind of stuff is much higher than it would be in the United States.

If you sheld Chicago, you know, people here have no experience of that and understandably to be, you know, completely freaked out by it. Israel, they've got a little stronger immune system, this kind of stuff, because they're already fighting a seven-front war. On the other hand, there's only so much that any country can take, particularly a small country, that is driven by all kinds of internal divisions. Israel is not a united country at all. And his leader, while he's very popular with Ben Shapiro, is not universally loved in Israel at all. So Israel is not entirely stable internally, and it's absorbing a lot of punishment for a small country. but let's say that punishment accelerates.

Let's say the Iranians decide we're going to really hurt Israel. And we're not going to limit it to Haifa and Tel Aviv. We're going to hit Jerusalem where the holy sites are. Now, they're not apparently doing that right now, at least that we know of. And again, it's hard to know exactly what's going because of the censorship. But it doesn't seem like they're pounding Jerusalem. But they could. And at that point, what?

What happens? What if Israel and its main protector in the United, the world, the United States, starts running low on advanced munitions and critically on missile defense. Well, that's entirely possible. There have been widespread reports that the United States, as the backstopped Israel, its main protector, is running low on those munitions. Now, why is that? Well, because we expended a lot of them, both advanced munitions and missile defense in the last conflict that we backstopped Israel in in June. And we were already low then because we sent a lot of munitions to Ukraine. Now, why'd we do that? What was our critical interest in Ukraine? Well, at the time

they told us, we have to do this because it is totally immoral and a violation of our sacred norms when a larger country just grabs the territory of a smaller country. Post-Venezuela, it's kind of harder to make that case with a straight face. So looking back, you've got to expect a lot of the cheerleaders for the war against Russia might feel a little bit silly. It might feel like the moral case they were standing on was kicked out from underneath them because it was. But whatever, excuse me, whatever you think about why we were there and the wisdom of it, the truth is at the demand of the very same people who told us we had to get into this Iran war, those very same people demanded, you may recall four years ago, that we get into the war

against Russia and that we expend billions and billions and billions hundreds of billions of dollars and critical munitions we could use to defend ourselves in the fight against Vladimir Putin because he was Hitler. Again, things look very different right now. But at the time, everybody in D.C. in both parties bought that story. The Democrats were all for it. The Republicans were all for it. This isn't the first bipartisan regime change war we've tried to fight. It's one of many. And in the course of that war, we expended a lot of critical munitions that we might be able to guarantee Israel's safety with now. But it looks like, from all available reports, are running low. In fact, we're getting some apparently anti-drone technology from Ukraine.

Save it that irony for a moment, if you would. So whatever the cause, and there'll be one hopes time enough for finger pointing and blame and reverse engineering and attempt to understand what we just went through, the fact remains, it seems unlikely that, that the United States will be able to guarantee the safety of Israel. We can't guarantee it now, despite a real effort to. So what does that mean? Well, it means that at some stage, it is possible that Israel will feel it has no choice. You hope they feel they have no choice, not doing it for fun,

but in any case, they might have to resort to a nuclear strike on Iran, which would be a tragedy for the people of Iran, most of whom have nothing to do with any of this, who would get vaporized, it would be a tragedy for the region, which would be poisoned by radioactive fallout, and it would be a tragedy for the world because the last taboo would be shattered. Truly the last taboo. You can literally castrate yourself and call yourself a woman and you get applauded. There are very few taboos left. Using nuclear weapons is the last remaining big taboo. And once that is gone, we know from the elimination

of other taboos that things change really fast. Oh, it already happened. I think I'll try it. And you can very easily see either quickly or over time, you know, a series of nuclear exchanges that kill most people on Earth. So that would be a huge deal for the first time in 80 years a nuclear weapon would be used. And it's, by the way, not an attack on Israel to note this, though they have been very eager to threaten it in the past. Their threshold is much lower than most people's, but still, you can kind of understand it. If Israel gets targeted for destruction by Iran and the United States isn't there to reliably protect Israeli cities, they could use nukes. And then we could see truly the destruction of a lot of the world. So you don't want that to happen. In fact, you

have to stop that from happening. You have to decelerate. But how do you do that? And again, without too much gloating, because this is no time to gloat or say I told you so, this is actually one of the reasons that some people argued against this conflict in the first place, because like all wars much easier to get in than to get out. So there are reports today, which again, could be lies, probably. Again, everyone lies in war. Everyone has incentive to. But there are reports that don't seem totally crazy that envoys from the United States have suggested that our country might be open to some kind of ceasefire. Like, hey, let's settle down for a second. And the Iranians, whether they're telling the truth or not, but the fact that even go to the trouble of lying

about this tells you something have said, no, we're not doing that. Why would we, we, agreed to a ceasefire when your previous diplomatic efforts were clearly dishonest and didn't work in any case. We couldn't trust you. Is diplomacy itself the search for a peaceful revolution to violent conflict? Is that even a category

anymore? Who knows? But apparently the Iranians have said, no, we're not interested in ceasefire. And they're probably bluffing too. Of course. You know, everything's a bluff. This is the Middle East. But the fact that they're coming out and saying that does point to a fundamental problem that propaganda aside is totally real.

And that is the United States is not wholly in charge of what happens next. We can, of course, influence it, definitely. But if you're a middle-aged American, speaking for myself, and you've lived your entire life in a country that called the shots globally, a country that issued blue passports to you that were basically your amulet of protection, no one could really mess with you when you have an American passport because the United States set the terms for global trade, it had the greatest military, in the end, no one's really going to mess with America. And if we want to shut down a war or start a war, we can.

And there are no existential consequences to us. We're not going to get blown off the map for starting a war, especially with like small, primitive countries. So we did it a lot. But this is the first conflict of our lifetimes where the United States is not fully in charge of what happens next. And that's because there are not just one, but two other players in this calculation, as noted the first is Iran. And they fully understand that all they need to do is survive.

And by surviving, they become much more powerful than they were when this started. And they have all kinds of other reasons to want to continue. The most obvious being, you're not allowed to say this, but it's true, is that unconditional surrender leaves you open to who knows what. and most non-degraded people, most people with any self-respect of any religion in any part of the country, understand that you can never unconditionally surrender because in so doing, you've given up your humanity. You can't do that. Would you unconditionally surrender your family to someone else? No, of course you wouldn't. Who would do that? And if you would do that, then you don't deserve to have a family or be the head of household because you're degraded. You have no self-respect and you have

no real love for those you're in charge of. It's really that simple. This is not a, question of Islam versus Christianity, the West versus East. It's a question of the way people are. Unconditional surrender is a lot to ask of anybody. It took a nuclear bomb to get the Japanese to do it. It took complete destruction for the Germans to agree to it. So if we're asking for that, unconditional surrender, the Iranians understand perfectly well the stakes and they kind of can't give up. so that's the problem there but the other more unusual problem really without precedent is that we are fighting this war in partnership with another country Israel now to those who say we've done this before you know we had joint we had coalition ventures peacekeeping forces in Yugoslavia

and Afghanistan and Iraq yeah true but none of those coalition partners had anything approaching decision-making authority over the mission. It was the United States and its allies or satellite states or countries we have troops in, in a lot of cases, and they were tagging along in the same way the South Koreans did in Vietnam. A lot of South Korean troops in Vietnam. Most people don't remember that. Why did they do that? Because we protected them from invasion by the Chinese and the North Koreans in 1953.

So they were grateful, and they accompanied us to Vietnam for a brief period as a gesture of gratitude. but they were never in charge of the plans in Vietnam. Westmoreland was in charge. LBJ was in charge, Nixon was in charge. This country has not, at least since the Second World War, handed any measure of operational control in a wartime theater to a foreign power. And why is that? Not because we don't have allies or people we like or people we share common goals with.

We've got a lot of those. Or we had a lot of those. but because no two countries' interests are identical. Even identical twins, if you spend enough time around them, are different in ways you can perceive. No two anything are exactly the same. And nations, which are complicated, don't even have that many points of intersection in their interests. There's a lot that separates the national interests of two separate countries. So if you enter a war co-joined with another country, you're going to reach a point very soon where your interest diverge from those of your partner.

And in a war, the sticks are very, very high. So you would never do that, ever. If you cared about your country, why would you do that? And of all the things that historians will reveal in the aftermath of this war, the one that some of us should be paying the closest attention to is who made that decision? who decided it was okay for the United States to be yoked to a foreign nation in the middle of a war with a country of 92 million people. That is one of the craziest things this country's ever done, and the people who decided to do it should be exposed and they should be penalized. Because that single decision will cost, unfortunately, this is likely to be true, more American lives,

it may extend this far past a point where the American interest is served. And by the way, we are approaching the point at which we get no more. returns from being engaged in this war. If you know that you're going to negotiate your way out of something in the end, in other words, if you're not going to destroy each other with nuclear weapons, demand total abject surrender, but if you think there's even a possibility, you're going to have to negotiate your way out of something, you want to do it at the apogee of your power, at your most powerful point. You don't want to do it when your power is obviously decreasing. Like, say, when you start to run out of weapons because you sent them all to Ukraine because

Ben Shapiro demanded you do that. And why wouldn't you want to negotiate when your weakness is obvious? Because you'll get worse terms. The United States has a true national interest in controlling or having a say in the flow of energy out of the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Burmuse. If you could narrow down our interests to just one, we have many interests, but just one, it's that. It's very important for the United States to have some say in that. And if we negotiate our way out when we're weaker rather than stronger, we will have less say. And if we negotiate our way out in humiliation, God forbid that doesn't happen, we will have almost no say at all.

And so it is very important to begin those conversations. Now, if you think there's a possibility, we could negotiate our way out if we don't have to go to nukes. And let's hope that we do believe that. So what stands in the way? Well, again, as noted, the Iranians, they've got to be reasonable and willing to bend a little bit. and that's not easy because they're not that reasonable and they're inflamed right now. But it's not just the Iranians, it's Israel too.

And from the very first day, Israeli priorities have taken precedent over American priorities, American national interest, has been pushed down and in its place has been elevated Israeli national interest. And what specifically are we talking about here?

Think about the target list. So the first big strike of the war killed, eliminated the Ayatollah, who was 86 years old and not simply the head of state technically, but the head of a religion, Shia Islam, apparently had prostate cancer and was totally willing to be murdered. So that alone should tell you, wait a second, why would we kill that guy? He may be bad. He may be the most evil person in the world. Mark Levine tells us he's Hitler. Great. Or bad. We're against that. We're against Hitler. But killing him will have what a effect, 60 seconds, predict. Oh, maybe it will unite the country on religious grounds and make the opposition to

the United States and Israel stronger. Maybe it's also a kind of point of no return after which you can't really negotiate your way out. You killed our religious leader. What was last time America killed a religious leader? It's not a defense of the Ayatollah. Sorry, Ben Shapiro. It's not a defense of Shia Islam. It's a defense of American national interests. And if you're having trouble remembering the last time we killed a religious leader, it's because we haven't killed any religious leaders, at least not openly, because we don't want to start religious wars, because they're hard to fight and very hard to resolve. And how was that good for us? How was that good for our access to LNG and oil from the Gulf? Tell me, Ben Shapiro, can you find the

Gulf on a map? No. So why did we do that? Now, we don't know exactly why we did that. Maybe there are American military planners who thought sincerely, hey, I've got an idea, let's kill the Ayatollah. Then all the liberal elements in the country will rise up. They won't actually discover their latent Shia Islam and rally around an 86-year-old man who was killed along with his family. Maybe there are actually American military planners who thought that, but more likely, there were Israeli strategists who realized that once the United States kills the Ayatollah, kind of can't get out. We're all in. And you also got to suspect that Israeli priorities may have informed our tragic decision to bomb, and it was revealed today, it was, in fact, tragically the U.S. military, by mistake, bombing a girl's school attached to an Iranian naval base where the daughters of naval officers went to school and over 100 of them were killed.

Well, that's just terrible. Okay. America doesn't do stuff like that. And actually doesn't. And the times that we have done it, we've apologized and prosecuted the people who did. it. When civilians are killed in large numbers and it becomes public, the United States military, going back hundreds of years, has felt a moral obligation being a Western, not an Eastern country, to apologize for the death of innocence and punish the people responsible. It's happened

a lot because we don't do things like that. Israel does do things like that. Israel sets off pagers in the pockets of people they can't identify. They're just out there. They're going to go off and they'll kill some terrorists and maybe some others, which they did. And that's the price they're willing to pay. That's not a price we're willing to pay because we're not Israel. So you have to wonder, like, how did this happen? So the U.S. government is saying this was a tragedy. It was a mistake. Totally believable.

It was a case of bad targeting. Where did the targeting come from? That's the question. Where do we get those targeting numbers? Oh. We don't know, of course. But it's worth asking. Where do we get those numbers?

And by the way, where do we get the intel upon which we made our assumptions that we should go into Iran and that there was a, huge and anxious group of liberal-minded Iranians who wanted to throw off the shackles of theocracy and that just a few choice bombs would unleash the desire for freedom within and they would do the work for us and affect regime change themselves and that from among them would arise a pro-Western leader. Why did we think that was true? It turned out not to be true, unfortunately. well, it may not surprise you to learn that almost all of our signals information, our sigant, out of Iran, is translated by our ally and partner in this war, Israel.

Now, that's not to suggest that the Israelis who have a lot of Farsi speakers among them, because there are a lot of Iranians who moved to Israel, Persian Jews who moved to Israel, it's not to suggest that the Israeli government would, in any way, be tainting or withholding or mistranslating or skewing this electronic intelligence to get us into a war that doesn't serve our interests. I mean, really? Who would do that? But it raises the question of incentives.

So just to be clear, Israel has an incentive for the United States to stay in this conflict and make sure that Iran doesn't win because if Iran wins, that's an actual existential threat to Israel. For real. Ben Spurs are running away existential threat to Israel. Okay. Its nuclear program was not an existential threat to Israel. an Iran that emerges intact after this conflict is an existential threat to Israel.

That is true. That's not an overstatement. So they have every incentive to keep us in and to tell us lies about the nature of the threat in Iran, about what they think is going to happen next, about chatter they pick up on the ground in Iran. They have every incentive to skew the SIG-int in their favor. Now, it's not even an attack on Israel, by the way. the second you join in an enterprise like this with a foreign country, you are certain to get problems like this. And by the way, to be fair, trying to be fair, the Israelis apparently are a little bit frustrated too

because they look over, they've got a whole set of priorities that are very important to them, and we don't share them all. Ground troops would be a perfect example. They would like ground troops. Flat out, they would like ground troops. Why wouldn't they? Our ground troops, not theirs. They're busy invading southern Lebanon

and cleansing Lebanon, including Christian villages in Lebanon, killing a priest. Now, why would Israel be invading Lebanon right now? And they've lost people doing it, by the way. It's been a slog for them. Well, strictly speaking, it's because Iran activated Hezbollah, which is a proxy for Iran, in southern Lebanon. They started attacking northern Israel. Okay.

Who could have seen that coming? Just because they killed the leader of Hezbollah and Israel a year ago doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. Of course, it does. But the effect of this is not attacking anybody, just noting it, is the United States is all in trying to defeat Iran, push back these attacks on all of our allies in the Gulf and on Israel. And Israel is taking this opportunity to grab more land in southern Lebanon. So we're fighting Iran while they're taking over contiguous land from one of their neighbors and cleansing it of Arabs. Huh.

How is that in our interest? Why would we want to take credit for that? would be in favor of that. That's a problem for Israel to deal with. But that's what they're doing. And of course, that's always what they were going to do, because Israel is acting in what it claims is its own interest. Or would Benjamin Netanyahu believes in his, is in his own interest, because we don't have the same interests. And that was very obvious in the first hours after this. when the prime minister of Israel in his, I think, first remarks on the new war with Iran said two things. One, I've been waiting for this for 40 years.

This is part of a preexisting plan totally disconnected from Iran's modern nuclear program, which was not in the same condition 40 years ago. If you've been thinking about something for 40 years, you're probably not describing an imminent threat. It's hard to be imminent for 40 years. this is an effort to expand the territory and the influence of Israel in the Middle East. Of course. Again, non-attack on Israel, just a fact. That's the first thing he said, revealing his motive, just saying it out loud.

One of wonderful thing about Israelis is, unlike Americans, they're less circumspect, just kind of say it. And the second thing he said, and I'm paraphrasing, but it's about right. He said, in today's Torah portion, we read about the Amalekites, about Amalek. and that would be a direct reference to one Samuel 15, in which God commands the Israelites to kill the Amalekites, all of them, every single one of them, to commit genocide against Amalek, the men, the women, the children, the infants is almost verbatim, quote,

and the animals, the camels and the sheep. All of them, kill them all, wipe them off the face to the earth. In fact, God punishes the Israelites for not following his instructions and sparing some. So whatever you think of that, whether it's your theology or not, your religion or not, it almost doesn't matter. In a geopolitical context, no one has talked that way in 80 years. No national leader has stood on camera and said, our goal is genocide.

And not like semi-modern Nerf genocide where you kill a lot of people, make the rest of them leave, but actual genocide where you kill everybody and their children, quote, and their infants and their animals. You erase any evidence that ever existed, period. It's one Samuel 15 in case you're interested in reading it. And it is interesting. And it, you know, it's, of course, part of Judaism. It's part of Christianity. It's the Old Testament. So there's not an attack on the verse, but to invoke that verse in the middle of a hot war and respond to it by saying, this is what we're doing today, Amalek is Iran, is to call for genocide against her opponent. Now, without even judging that, it's worth noting that is not in the interest of the United

States, despite what the president said today about eliminating the country with nuclear weapons. That is not in the interest of the United States. It's not the desire of the American people to commit genocide against the Iranians without even considering what the downstream effects of that might be profound without even considering that ask yourself is that why we're in this war because we think the iranians are amalek they seem kind of awful and scary and they're like bad islamic people or whatever but are we really going to try to eliminate every one of them the men the women the children the infants the camels and the sheep nah that's not in our purview because it's not in our interest because first of all

we don't do things like that and never should and second how does that make us stronger and richer and more secure. I don't think it does. Israel is a different view. And so that's the point. This can never work in America's national interest as long as it is tethered to another country's national interest. And if that doesn't work, if it doesn't work in the middle of a war, it probably doesn't work in peacetime either. It probably doesn't work to have a permanent Israeli detachment at, say, the Pentagon, where our wars are planned, or at CIA, where information is collated and analyzed. It probably doesn't work to have people in all branches of government who are dual citizens

with Israel and other countries. What? Because you're always going to wind up where we are now, which is tethered to another country, which may be a good country or a bad country. We can debate that. But it's not America. And the purpose of the American government is to serve the American people, not in some abstract way in their war against radical Islam, but in a concrete way.

like nicer airports and no crime and decent schools, the things that any citizen should expect from his government. And if you're totally ignoring all of those on behalf of another country, it's just not acceptable and it's also not sustainable. And so no matter where this goes, and again, we pray it is resolved peacefully and soon, our country needs to think through how this happened, find out in specific terms, not bury it like 9-11 and every other. traumatic event over the last 50 years or 63 years.

It's like, oh, we're not really sure. We need to be sure. How did this happen? How can we prevent it from happening again? A sober assessment of what went wrong. That's what all functional institutions do. They used to be called after action reports. And they were mandatory, so it didn't happen again.

That's what the NTSB does with plane crashes. How did this happen? We're not going to guess. We're not going to blame radical Islam. We're going to find out whether the Pito tubes worked. We're going to find out the specific. that led to this tragedy because we don't want more tragedies. And if we'd done that after the Iraq war, we probably wouldn't be here.

Because the Iraq war was started, which everyone knows went on for 20 years at great cost trillions of dollars. And the deaths of hundreds of thousands, millions of people, all in, was started under very similar circumstances. Pressure from Israel, bad intelligence, in part, not exclusively, but in part from Israel. from Israel, a massive lobbying campaign by Israel-aligned pundits and think tank people, politicians. And if it had gone well, okay. But it didn't. And no one was ever punished for it. And more critically, no one ever explained precisely what happened. And 23 years later, that was 23 years ago this month, we're still debating why it happened. And there are increasingly few people who were

there and remember, I'm one of them. Let's not let that happen this time. We can't afford more wars like this. Literally can't afford it. And we shouldn't have to because the purpose of the U.S. government is to serve Americans, period. Ranchers built America feeding our country for over 250 years through droughts and wars and recessions and pandemics and anything else that happened didn't matter to them because they had to come through and they did. That legacy is the one that our partners that Good Ranchers continue and represent. Good Ranchers is a meat company. It's 100% committed to this country. Not just in words, but in practice, every cut they offer is raised on United States farms and ranches. Their entire packaging and fulfillment operations

are right here in the U.S. Same with customer support. Imagine Americans on the other end of the line. Plus, Good Ranchers donates a portion of all profits go to veteran organizations. We use Good Ranchers ourselves. We love it. The subscriber experience is super easy. Order to require just a few clicks, simple, flexible, and built around your schedule. So you can support a company that sells an amazing product that honors Americans, past, present, and future. Visit good ranchers.com today. When you start your plan, you'll get to pick a free meat that'll be included in every order

for life or you get $25 off your first order by using the code Tucker. Tucker is the code for 25 bucks off. Good Ranchers.com American Meat delivered. The game begins in three. Two, one. Ready or not two, here I come. Only in theaters, March 20th. After surviving one deadly game,

Grace and her sister, Faith, must now face off against four rival families in a fresh round of blood and games, filled with more action, scares, laughs, and combustions. Starring Samara Weaving, Catherine Newton, Sarah Michelle Geller, and Elijah Wood. Ready or Not Two, here I come, only in theaters March 20th.

Get tickets now. In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over $24.50 an hour. Employees also have the opportunity to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields, like software development and information technology. Learn more at aboutamazon.ca. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, an honest man, Dr. Brett Weinstein.

Brett, thank you for doing this. I'm always grateful to see you improve. person. Glad to be here. This is one of those moments. It's hard to understand what's happening, but here's what I believe to be true. The president had deep reservations about doing this. He promised repeatedly as he campaigned for this job that he wouldn't do this, this war with Iran. He made fun of people who suggested he do it. I don't think many of his actual employed advisors were eager to do this. That's my impression based on the reporting. And the only people who wanted to do it were a group of informal advisors on the outside were calling in,

you've got to do it. Mark Tieson of the Washington Post and other people whose opinions hard to imagine taking seriously. But whatever, they wanted it. And Benjamin Netanyahu wanted it. The country did not want it at all, as expressed in polling. But we did it anyway. And it's turned out to be, I think it will turn out to be, unfortunately, kind of a pivot in our history. Why do we do this? What was the point? Do you have any sense?

Well, I've spent a lot of time thinking about that question. And I will say, I find Trump himself a fascinating and mysterious character. He's highly unusual and therefore it's a little hard to understand. Do you find him more mysterious now than you did 10 years ago when you first started watching when we all first started watching? Well, I understand him a lot better than I did because, of course, I now have so much. much evidence of how he behaves under different circumstances for both better and worse. But in thinking about this move, it seems like such an obvious mistake, both from the point of view of the nation and the danger of a quagmire, which I think is substantial, and the danger of a terrible outcome, which I think will likely be avoided, but I do worry about the role that

nuclear weapons could play here. But the thing that really causes me to think there's something I can't see is that the mistake that Trump has made here is a political mistake. If you picked one realm where I would expect Trump not to make an obvious. mistake. It would be the political. I literally think we are dealing with a political genius, right? If nothing else, this person has understood the way he is viewed the American electorate such that he could be relied upon not to make a blunder of this scale, especially as his presidency hangs in the balance, which it clearly does, because if the Democrats take the Senate in addition to the House, then not only will he be impeached, which I think is highly likely with the House

alone, but he will be convicted, and that will be the end of his presidency. It will also be his legacy. So why would a man who understands politics better than any of us, a guy who did what I would have told you was impossible? He beat the duopoly, both sides of it, took over the Republican Party, defeated the Democratic Party soundly. That is a person with insight, making a move that seems like a childish blunder. And it leaves me with a very unsettling hypothesis. I don't have high confidence in it. But my concern is that this is evidence that he is not in control. he is not in control as commander-in-chief of his own armed forces and that he is in fact having to rationalize decisions that he would not have made and promised not to make on the campaign trail and i don't quite know what to do with that it's a very unsettling thought but i don't i don't see I don't see the win here, and I don't see a win in a short enough time period that this could put him ahead in the midterms.

It's very hard for me to imagine that. Well, I think that's the least bad outcome from the perspective of the Trump administration. If Republicans get stomped in the midterms but then somehow recover a workable majority of voters, I think they'll be thrilled. but I think the potential consequences unless the party is to find a leader who represents its voters because it's really that simple over time. Are you addressing the concerns of your voters?

If so, you probably get elected and if you're not, you probably won't. I mean, I think it's like, you know, Gavin Newsom's going to be president if this continues on its current course. So the question is, how do you... Like, what do you need to restore, actually? I mean, leaving aside,

how do you get out of the war, which I think is very complicated. But like, how do you restore confidence in the government after the government just admitted they got Americans killed on behalf of another country, which is what they've admitted and what they did? Well, I mean, I will tell you. I don't think I was naive going into the last election. I have long viewed the duopoly as unbeatable and Trump is capable of a political feat in that realm that others weren't. But in terms of how compromised our governmental structures are by corruption, there was always the question as to whether or not we, there was enough power left in American elections to actually change our trajectory as a country. And in the aftermath of the attack on Iran, I'm shaken. I don't know.

I think the answer I just got is it didn't matter who you voted for. the neocons had moved over to the Democratic Party. I think Iran, we know it was on their agenda for decades. I think an attack on Iran was coming, and I tweeted before this happened, we're going to attack Iran and we're not going to be given a choice about it, and that feels like what has occurred. But I do want to say the hypothesis that the president is not in control is one or two. The alternative hypothesis, as far as I can see it, is that he is being shown a very compelling false rendition of the world that has led him to act in a way that would be politically advantageous and would be in the interest of the nation if what he was seeing was true, but that it isn't. Now, that's also a very unsettling possibility that he is surrounded by people who are wittingly or not showing him a picture that is unrealistic so that he would, in fact, put our military in harm's way and destabilize Iran, not understanding what the likely consequences were.

I don't think there's any question about that. And the people who are calling to influence him, you know, are unwise but also ignorant and have a track record of, bad calls and but, you know, possess maximum aggression. So there's no question that his fact picture was totally distorted. And it still is. I mean, the overwhelming majority of Iranian signal information, signal intelligence that we receive has been translated by Israel. So, okay, it's been filtered.

And maybe honestly, maybe not. But, yeah, he's not seeing the whole picture. Of course, no president does. But he's also, as you just suggested at the outset, which is the most interesting thing, He overrode his own instincts. He's amazing political instincts. People zig, he zags. He turns out to be right.

He attacked the Iraq War when that was totally verboten in the Republican Party in the primaries in 2016. And it turned out to be the most resonant thing. Yes, finally, someone's saying it. Only he knew that. Only he understood that. So his instincts are like at the highest level. And he ignored them. So why?

You obviously want to sleep well and fashionably. Brooklyn betting can help. Here, TCN, we talk. take sleep time seriously, try to get eight hours. And a lot of the people here cannot help rave about their Brooklyn bedding mattress. The first thing you'll notice about your mattress is how stable they feel. That's because they're built to last for decades, not just years. It's American durability.

By the way, when we bring it on a new advertiser, we have them send stuff to the whole staff and people test it. And they love this. Brooklyn Bedding's founder built the company here in the United States from the ground up. craftsmanship, grit, no college degree, their factories in Arizona, the prices are low despite the fact they're American made. High-end comfort without the high-end price. What makes these mattresses so great? Brooklyn Bedding uses copper-infused foams and thermoregulation-coated foams to help keep you cool and comfortable all night. Plus, they offer a 120-night sleep trial. That's plenty of time to make sure you love it and more confident you will. Visit Brooklyn Bedding.com. Use the promo code.

or at checkout to get 30% off sitewide. It's not available anywhere else only on this show. So take advantage while you can. Visit brooklynbetting.com promo code. One plus one equals more of the greatest stories. Hulu on Disney Plus. Stories about survivors. The most dangerous planet.

Family. Retribution. Murder. Prophecy. Beer and propane. Molly Miller. Blake Pantha. The ultimate soldier.

Chicago. All right. Best of the best stories now with even more from Hulu. Amazing. Have it all with 3-1 Disney Plus. So most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to feel horrible, exhausted, foggy, disconnected from themselves. But it does happen and it happens slowly. You're working hard, you're showing up, and then your energy disappears by midday.

Your focus is dull. Your weight won't move. A lot of people are told, that's just getting old. That's what it is. But that's not actually true. for many men and women, these are not personal failures. They are signals tied to your metabolism, your hormones, and nutrient imbalances that go undetected for years.

You don't even know you're deficient. And that's why we're happy to partner with Joy in Bloaks, a company that was built for people who were done guessing and ready to figure out what exactly is going on. And that starts with comprehensive lab work and a one-on-one consultation with a licensed clinician. An actual human being explains what's happening inside you and builds a personalized plan, which includes hormone optimization,

peptide therapy, targeted supplements. So don't settle. Go to joy and blokes.com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker for 50% off your lab work and 20% off all supplements. That's joy and blokes. com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker. 50% off labs, 20% off supplements.

Joy and blokes. Get your edge back, Tucker. Well, I think we need to know the answer to that question. And I think we Americans have to have a conversation with ourselves about not only how broken our system is and what it is resulting in us doing, but how does it actually work? What is it that is actually driving us to do what we do? And, you know, we can see parts of it. We can see lobbying, for example. It's the loophole in our system where the system is pay for play.

That is used day in and day out by corporations to get us to do things that are bad for our health, bad for our long-term financial well-being, bad in every regard. But obviously, our adversaries abroad will have noticed that we have a pay-for-play system. And if they aren't taking advantage of it, that would be surprising. I would like to know why they would have missed the opportunity, so presumably they are. And that also applies to our allies, unfortunately. That is to say, anytime somebody has an interest that is in conflict with the interest that we Americans actually have, they are in a position to nudge us in their direction, and we are undoubtedly being nudged.

on the other hand, I don't think that can be the sum total of it. And I will tell you, I don't like saying any of this. I don't want to be doing this. But tell me about it. The reason that the Epstein phenomenon, whatever it was, is so important, is that it suggests a hidden power structure that was there for leverage. It is unfortunate that in the edit that we have been shown, we don't have conclusive evidence of who, what they were after, or even how the leverage worked. All we can see is strong evidence that there was something. Logically, it is implied that it was connected to intelligence services, ours, likely, Israel's, who knows who else.

but when you see your government, your president, functioning in ways that do not add up, it's like watching a planet behave oddly because of the gravity of some object you haven't found yet, right? There's the implication that there's something with power in this system that is undeclared. As far as we know, it's unnamed. and the central question is what is it, how does it work, and how much effect is it having on what we do? And I tried in my own way to raise this issue publicly. I believe we are in the midst not only of a constitutional crisis, which arguably has been ongoing since 2001, maybe much longer, maybe 19, 1963. Around November 22nd in that range.

Of 1963? Yeah, exactly. Well, that's the question is, was that a lone gun nut or was that a coup? And if it was a coup, did the thing that took power ever relinquish it? I don't know the answer to that question. I'll just put this way. If the U.S. government ever goes bankrupt and disability payments stop, Social Security payments stop, all payments stop, medical research, the CIA will still be well funded. Well, the CIA, I used to say black budget, because obviously there are black budgets.

But then I realized I was using the wrong term. A black budget is a budget that is opaque to the outside world, but it still comes from somewhere. The real problem is the ability to fund your own agency. Of course. And if you have superior information about the world, you know what's going to happen because you're in part responsible. or you're listening into things that are responsible, then you are in a perfect position to create a budget that is under no one's control.

And I'm afraid we have rogue agencies that are independent of any structure that was imagined by our founders. They're their own countries. And there's no one who's not afraid of them. No one who's not afraid of them. So there's literally, I've never met anyone. The more knowledgeable someone is

about the workings of government, the more afraid of CIA. I'm not saying CIA is running on killing people, but they can, I mean, to something that they are, but I don't think they're like murdering thousands of Americans every year, but they'll trip you up hard if you mess with them. Right. Everyone knows that. They'll gaslight you into functional insanity.

They'll eliminate you. Leak your text to the New York Times, for sure. Yeah. These things can happen. So I guess my point is, not only are we in the ongoing constitutional crisis. It's just clear that we are what the start date is can be debated. We are also in the midst of an acute national security crisis. Yes.

Something has control within our governmental structures that does not have our interests at heart. And I don't know what we do about that, but I know that there... Now, why do you say whatever this control mechanism is, this force, doesn't have our interests hurt. Well, I think that's evident from what we do. Most of our activity is actually negative with respect to its impact on Americans. I mean, in fact, if we simply took the resources at our disposal and pointed them at the problems that people care about, we could be vastly better off. We wouldn't live in a country with huge numbers of fentanyl, zombies in every city. with, you know, onerous taxation and crudy services.

The point is we are simultaneously being drained on the one hand of our resources and, on the other hand, receiving the worst conceivable service for it. What we get, I would be perfectly comfortable paying high taxes if they were making society better. Oh, yes, definitely. But I'm not comfortable with paying high taxes that are used to punish me and surveil me and all of that. Of course, who would be? So all I'm saying is that if I look at the activity of government, it is hostile to the interests of the American people. That's right. Almost always.

Almost always. It's like point for point. You know, it's like during COVID, you know, if you looked at what the CDC asked you to do, every single thing. was the inverse of what you should have done, just to maintain your own health. It's like that. You are getting a program in which everything that you're being fed is poison rather than nutrition. So when your government behaves like that, it is about something. The fact that our founders understood the hazard of conflicts of interests was top of mind for them and that they wrote about it extensively and they tried to build a system that was immune to it by virtue of

the fact that as people detected that their government was not acting in their interest, they had the ability to replace it bloodlessly. And what I think has happened is something has overwhelmed the thinking of the founders. It's not surprising. They didn't understand what a world, you know, the internet or AI or any of these other. modern influences would allow. But somehow we exist under a form of government that has a kind of democratic theater to it, but that's not how it works. And I guarantee you it works some way, right? It's a functional system in a manner of speaking. The lights remain on, but it is not acting in our interest. It's basically catering to our interests exactly enough to

keep us from revolting. That's about what it is. We've got a new partner. It's a company called Cowboy Colostrum. It's a brand that is serious about actual health. And the product is designed to work with your body, not against your body. It is a pure and simple product.

All natural. Unlike other brands, Cowboy Colostrum is never diluted. It always comes directly from American grass-fed cows. There's no filler. There's no junk. It's all good. It tastes good, believe it or not. So before you reach for more pills for every problem that pills can't solve, we recommend you give this product,

Cowboy Clostrum, a try. It's got everything your body needs to heal and thrive. It's like the original superfood loaded with nutrients, antibodies, proteins, help build a strong immune system, stronger hair, skin, and nails. I threw my wig away and right back to my natural hair after using this product. You just take a scoop of it every morning in your beverage, coffee or a smoothie, and you will feel the difference every time. For a limited time, people will listen to to our show, get 25% off the entire order. So go to cowboy colostrum.com, use the code Tucker at checkout. 25% off when you use that code, Tucker at cowboyclostrum.com.

Remember, you mentioned, you heard it here first. By the way, you know, that's a very depressing scenario that you've just sketched out. However, it's better than Civil War. Yep. And people don't appreciate how difficult violence is to control and just how costly it is to people because they've never seen it because they don't know anything actually never been anywhere but um anyone who's been around that is like ooh don't want that however i think that the current system is going to be pretty hard to maintain with this level of transparency by which i mean

while a billion federal documents remain classified the deep architecture of power as you just said is now sort of visible it's kind of peeking beneath the surface in certain places and you're like well that clearly is what's running it. I have no control over that. That, whatever it is, clearly hates me and my children. It's tough when this much is disclosed all at once, and it makes society unstable, and it makes people, frankly, revolutionary and radical.

Well, or does it? No, it does, which is another thing that's been worrying me. So part of what I do is I think about game theory, which is a little understood quadrant of logic, but a very important one. And there's a difference between an iterated game where each round is played with the knowledge that you're going to have to play the next round and the last round of the game, where you know you don't have to play another round, so you're willing to do all sorts of things that you wouldn't if you knew you had to keep playing, right? You'll burn properties that you wouldn't have burned otherwise. And put it all in the last hand. Yeah.

So what I feel, I can't defend it as a matter of it being an obvious logical conclusion. But what I feel is that there has been a shift into an end game dynamic where something is going for broke. It's not expecting to preserve this system. It's not expecting to have to maintain it. And therefore, how much does it matter that we can. see a lot in the Epstein files but prove nothing, right? How much does that really matter if we know? In fact, maybe it's even a feature, not a bug.

It kind of makes us feel like we're making some kind of progress, like we've scored a big win, when in fact, is it going to change how we are able to govern ourselves? Did our power go up in knowing these things? Or was it just simply, you know, a kind of catharsis that was delivered fine? you can have it. What are you going to do about it? That's where I think we are.

I have that same sense, a strong sense. It doesn't matter. Shed the husk. Yep. We're moving on. And I see it in a lot of different ways, well, just the most obvious practical way, in our use of anti-missile defense,

like we burn through it. And so there's no sort of backup in case like, what if something else happened around the world with a peer power? we're in trouble. You wouldn't do that if you cared about the future. You wouldn't do any of this if you cared about the future. But I see it in the explicit efforts to stoke religious conflict inside our borders.

And I see it with this, all Muslims are bad. I never thought in my wildest nightmares that I would be the guy defending Muslims and so I'm not a Muslim. And I'm also on the record like attacking Muslims a million times over the years. Foolishly, probably. but I do know that American citizens have to be treated equally regardless of their religion, period. And that attacking people on the basis of the religion of my country is the recipe for like disaster. It's a recipe for a country that I want my grandkids to grow up in.

And I don't know why anyone would do that. And I'm not going to stand by for it, not because I'm like a devotee of Allah or whatever. I'm a Protestant Christian. well I do love a lot of Muslims but that's not why I don't want to live in a country with that why would someone try and stoke that what is the what's the game here well I mean I this is again this this is haunting sense that this is about somebody's interest that has not been publicly shared and that we are being steered as pawns on a on a chessboard how can a country this big and powerful get manipulated by anybody well unfortunately the answer to that is in game theory

also, which is that the personal incentives of those who are supposed to be doing our bidding in government are obviously wildly perverse. And so you can get a lot of people who are either too cowardly to know, to do what they know is right, or too corrupt to care about what's right. But I was on the beach in Clearwater a couple nights ago watching the sunset. very diverse crowd of mostly Americans there on the beach families playing in the surf people just enjoying the grandeur of the sun going down nobody thinking about politics except me but I was talking to people as I often do I love to just strike up a conversation it's amazing how decent most people are how they want the same things

things, how they're willing to, you know, bond with you, somebody they've never met just because you're standing on the same beach in a country in which you're more or less free. And, you know, I was thinking about how it used to be, you know, 60s, no, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. And the fact is, this was never a fair country, you know, people start out with disadvantages. But we knew that it was supposed to be. We knew that that was the better direction to go in. And frankly, people liked it. You know, there's a reason as dumb as, you know, the colors of Benetton or whatever it was.

There's a reason that that ad campaign resonated with people was that it is kind of cool to have friends from all sorts of different backgrounds and, you know, to feel like we've put those animosities aside for something better. And the better thing is the modern West. the alternative to unthinkably bad systems that have characterized all of history until the last couple hundred years. So I texted while I was on the beach to Heather a thought that she would understand because of every conversation we've had about our predicament, something to the effect of these people are very broken, but within, two generations, they could be pretty okay if we just stopped poisoning their bodies and their minds. We stopped lying to them and we started telling him, hey, here's how you can live so that

you'll be healthier and happier and all of those things. If we just simply confessed what we knew about how things actually work, these people aren't so far from being able to go back to not caring about what color your skin is or what book your family worships, right? We liked that. It was good and frankly, it was so good that for a brief period it was contagious. Anybody who saw how dynamic this country was

that people could be simultaneously free and wildly productive at the same time and innovative like no other country ever. Once you see that, the only answer is, well, how can I get in on it? Can I come to your country and participate in it? Can I reproduce that magic in my country?

People wanted it. And somebody upended it. Somebody decided that our freedom didn't matter. And they decided that they had plans. They had plans to corral us so that more of our wealth could end up in their pockets. And, you know, at first the corruption was mundane. But it has now, it's totalizing.

It has taken over the entire country. And it has left us with, what looks like the theater of democracy and liberty and some kind of cryptic but omnipresent tyranny. It's tragic. And most people don't realize how tragic it is because they don't know what the world looks like when you don't have the West functioning. They don't understand what it was like to live in a world where the question is, how are we going to exterminate those people so that they don't exterminate us? That's not a world you want to live in. And I'm afraid that we are being dragged back into that world, which is, frankly, so much more fundamental that if the West breaks down, that's where we naturally go, right? There's no other alternative.

Yeah. And the question is really at what scale will you see that? Is it going to be at the scale of your neighborhood or at the scale of nations? But either way, it is an intolerable loss compared to repairing what we have as broken as we find it. I mean, if you just measure the well-being of Americans, just by the obvious measures, including life expectancy, physical vigor and health, there's no question that the population, the actual population down to the individual has been degraded measurably. over the past 40 years. Visibly. Visibly.

And it's shocking. This is so banal. I'm not going to even repeat it. But yes, visibly. That is exactly right. And it's super sad. It's not an opportunity to heap scorn on people, the weakest among us.

Oh, you're fat or whatever. It's an invitation to empathy and uplift. It's an invitation for us to help and make this better. And also it's the question, how did it go so wrong? And it does seem like you couldn't get this condition without leaders who really wanted to hurt you doesn't seem accidental well i mean i will be one tick more generous i think people do not intuit what it would be like for someone to be

completely indifferent to your well-being right when we look at that's that's what you're right what pharma has done to us let me just say i'm sorry that i said that no because it doesn't require malintent it just requires indifference yes and i'm not saying there isn't a whole lot of no but you're You're absolutely right, and I shouldn't have said that. But we all have to understand this, and I think the way to do it is to find it in yourself first, right? The reality is if you tapped into the suffering that is taking place at this instant around the globe, you melt down, right? If you just had one instant of feeling it all, that'd be it. So you don't.

You're built not to. You're built to care about things in some kind of proximity to you, right? You care about your family. You might care about your neighbors. You might care about Charlie Kirk. You may never have met him, but you saw him. You liked the way he sounded. He felt like a kindred spirit.

So we pay attention in some way that is biological, right? That is built not to overwhelm us so that we have empathy where it has. as a utility. And then something breaks out in Sudan and you may know about it, but you don't feel it in the same way. You are functionally indifferent to it, right? You know something is going on and you go to Starbucks and you buy an expensive coffee anyway. Yeah. Right?

So we all have that capability. And it's not that we are bad people for it. It's that we are functional people because of it. but once you know that that exists, that you can be indifferent to somebody's profound suffering if it's far enough away from you, all you need to understand is there are people who seem close to you who feel that exact way about you. You might as well be an animal on a feedlot somewhere as far as they're concerned, right? You are a source of wealth or meat or whatever. And, you know, once you get that, once you just make eye contact with that thought,

it is not hard to understand how pharma works right totally right yeah so you know okay would somebody really withhold the cure to some disease that worries us all because if that cure comes out they're going to lose billions of dollars yeah there are people who would do that and you'll never guess where you'll find them right so you know i guess the point is look we need there aren't very many adults. Maybe there are none. Some of us are struggling to be adult in a world that misinforms us and misleads us and tries to infantilize us. But we are trapped in a system in which other people's, the slice of the pie that they have access to is their full-time preoccupation. They're trying to enlarge their slice of the pie. The way that's supposed to work,

If our system functioned really well, you would increase your slice of the pie by increasing the overall size of the pie. That's what it says effectively on the brochure of free market democracy. If you create wealth, you get rich. Nothing wrong with that. I want to live in that system. I want people who figure out how to make us all wealthier to live in really good places and enjoy the finer things in life.

That's something that makes us all better off. But there's this other way to do it. You can increase your slice of the pie by destroying wealth. And if you don't find a way to systematically rule that out, then that's what you're going to see because it's vastly easier to do that. It's vastly easier to get wealthy at the expense of everyone else than it is to figure out how to make the pie that we all enjoy bigger. So we are suffering because a lot of people are behaving in their narrow self-interest completely indifferent to our well-being. And that now extends deeply into the political. It's almost the banality of evil, you might say.

It is a decidedly economic version of the banality of evil. So I, you hate to say it because there's no sense that I can see in which the, current war benefits the United States. I just don't see it, but, you know, theories are welcome. No one's ever called me to tell me how. I hope so and will. But I see a ton of ways in which individuals are becoming enriched by this war. Every time.

I mean, it's ever present. It's hard to believe that's real, though. Well, you know, yes, it's hard to believe it's real because we depend. In order to just live your daily life and interact with the people that you actually meet, you have to take that mindset off the table. You can't work in your daily life with your co-workers and imagine that they're scheming behind your back. Oh, it's so true.

In this way. And in general, they're not. It's just that there are enough people who are capable of this. And the system selects for them. And it tends to utilize them that our overall system does not, it's not a scaled up version of your neighborhood. it's the inverse of your neighborhood. It's people behaving in exactly the opposite way that normal people do in regular interactions.

And it's something you have to learn it because your daily experience won't teach it to you. Okay. How is this resolved as a question? Let's take the military engagement off the table because that's hard to know. As noted earlier, it's difficult. politically, it's almost as difficult to see where this goes because I think there are so many people who voted for the current administration as a last resort. Someone please listen to me. Hear me. I've got problems. Pay attention. And we wound up with this. So, like, how is that fixed? Well, all right. Here's

where my naivete is going to come out. We need somebody who is in a position. of real power and influence, somebody who has better information than we on the outside do. To step up and take the risk, and it is a profound risk, of telling us exactly what they know. Now, I will say,

I'm very upset with President Trump at the moment. I feel personally burned as somebody who worked to get him elected. I did it for, for a reason and frankly if given the same choice today I would have to make the same vote because I think what the Democratic Party offered was anti-constitutional, right? We had a demented president who they pretended wasn't and then we had somebody who hadn't won a primary installed by the party.

This is not the consent of the governed. So I would have to vote for Trump again just because he's at least a quality. person who was the nominee of his party through a lawful process. But I'm angry at him because I voted for no new wars. And when I voted for no new wars, Iran was top of mind for me because I knew that it was on the agenda of the neocon. So I expected somebody to try to force this to happen. However, whatever the explanation is for what President Trump has done, one can imagine him coming to the podium and telling us what's really going on across the board,

what happened to our country, what happens when somebody who truly is independent of the system gets to that top job? Now, I assume there are reasons he can't do that, and I can come up with many reasons that it would not be his instinct to do that, but I think that we in the public need to consider whether the right thing to do is to say, what are our actual interests here? Our actual interests involve getting our country back and putting it on a track that functions, right, going back to being the West and ignoring race and religion and trying to prosper through innovation, right?

We are not going to get there if we continue to play the same, dumb, political game. President Trump, I believe, was a true renunciable. who broke through the system, even though it was built to prevent that at all costs. That is a major accomplishment. Having done so, he now knows how the system works, what it's built to do and how it functions. And I feel like the right deal to make is forgive him for whatever it is that he's participated in in exchange for giving us the information that we need to put the country back on track. Now, maybe that's naive.

I'd take that deal any day. I take that deal any day. I think saying the truth out loud has a supernatural effect. Well, it has an effect to whether it's supernatural or not in that it clarifies, but it also elevates. Like, you're arguing about the right things because you're arguing on the basis of truth rather than deception. And I think even if a leader, Trump or anyone else, offered no prescription for improving things, telling the truth about what's actually happening,

how things work, who's in charge, why do we do that? What's the truth about that? Let's just start with the Kennedy assassination. They won't even do that. So I think that would be a massive improvement. It would be, but the problem is we would have to live up to our side of that bargain. We would have to protect him and nobody can protect him fully. But the point is that would be a very risky thing to do because you're talking about forces powerful enough to have effectively captured our government and them facing an existential threat to their power. So everything's on the table with respect to what might be done to prevent someone like President Trump from telling us that. But don't you think a prerequisite for leadership of anything, the family included, is the willingness to die for the people you lead?

Yes. And in fact, that was one of the things that I think endeared President Trump to a lot of voters. They saw him stand up to an assassination attempt. So, and, you know, he's not a young man. And frankly, his entire legacy is at stake. I assume his fortune isn't. But his legacy is at stake here. And so if there was ever a moment, for a person to be looking at the sum total of what they've accomplished in life and to be saying this is the last chapter what is the right thing to do i think this would be it you know in his shoes i think it's what i would do but but it's a hard one to wrap your mind around and presumably you know if he were to entertain the thought then all those around him that he might consult

we'll have whatever reaction it is that prevents such things from ever unfolding. So, you know, it would be a hell of a moment in American history if we finally got an answer to what's been going on since 1963 and what it has to do with our entanglements abroad and our dysfunctional policy at home. But we're looking for, look, the thing about Trump was he was the surprising. element that you couldn't have predicted. Right. So the question is, maybe it's time for the surprising Trump to surprise us once more

and to give us the insight that we won't be able to gain through any other mechanism. And, you know, it would be the most worthy of accomplishments. So. It would be the greatest thing. It would be the greatest gift he could give the country. Because the truth does set you free, actually. No matter what your religious views, I think every religion, I hope, is based on the idea that there's an absolute truth. It's knowable, or at least it's approachable, and that telling it is liberation.

Yep. And that would be true for him, too. I would think. So you said you're gravely disappointed. You circulated in a world full of people like you. A lot of liberals who voted for Trump, who saw him as, like, a way to fix longstanding problems. How many of them feel disappointed now? Well, you know, the funny thing is I have now several times said unforgivable things out loud on a series of different topics since 2017.

So you have no friends left. No, I have the greatest crop of friends ever. But the way I came by them is an important piece of the puzzle. So each time that I have stood up and said the right thing, I lose a whole group of people. They turn on me, they go silent, all sorts of things happen. And then I meet another group of people that I didn't know existed who replaced them as my friends. And I call this the painful upgrade. I'm constantly losing people.

But the quality of my friend group goes up and up each time this happens. And I will tell you, I think our discussion today, this one and the one that we had on Dark Horse just before, which I hope people will go listen to because there's a lot in there that I don't think you're going to hear anywhere else. But our discussions today, I expect, are going to be very costly to me. I'm hoping that the painful upgrade works and that I discover new people who, you know, are capable. of replacing the ones who aren't up in what way i don't think i've been involved in both conversations i don't i don't think you've said a single uh radical irrational hateful thing yeah i haven't um but that's what causes the problem really being reasonable yeah not to put too fine a point on it um but let's put it this way if i'm frank about what the

pattern really is. There are lots of people who are perfectly decent and reasonable across the board to a point. And then you get to their issue and they will absolutely turn on you for doing the exact same thing that they loved you for the last time. And I don't know what to do about that. But at some level, you know, I'm going to keep doing this and I'm going to find the tiny number of people who don't have an issue like that. Yeah. Right? That's what I'm going to be left with.

I never knew anybody had issues like that up until COVID. Trump, really. Yeah. Trump and COVID both do it. But, you know, the woke stuff, you know, if you were, you know, embedded in the liberal world as I was, it functioned the same way. So what do you think you said in the course of our conversations that crosses some people's line? I have broken, I think that I am acting out of the very high quality moral training that I got inside a Jewish home. I think I'm doing the job that I am supposed to be doing.

But many who are aligned with the Israeli regime at this moment view what I am saying as traitorous. I've been accused of all kinds of vile things, including, ironically enough, trying to save my own hide by switching teams, which is preposterous because... Someone said that too out loud? People have said a lot of things. That's a very low blow. The lowest, and it came from very close quarters. Actually? Yes. So that's the world I'm living in, and I will tell you, maybe I'm nuts and the peril, the actual peril to my life that I feel for speaking my mind on this topic is not the result of an actual threat. But I feel a threat. I am speaking in spite of it because I think it's the right thing to do.

Really, you do feel a threat? Yes. You can feel threats. That's a real thing. Well, let me just flesh that out because I think to a lot of people, especially people who don't follow me or know me well. that may seem like, oh, come on, Brett, you think anybody's paying attention to you? You really think you're that important? I think it's not the size of my audience. I don't think the size of my audience is enough to create that problem. The size of your audience is, and here I am, so there's that. But it is the fact that I try very hard to be reasonable, that I am Jewish and therefore trying to be reasonable. coming out somewhere where most Jews are not at the moment is striking. In other words, maybe if I'm saying, hey, I don't think what we're doing is in the interest of the Israeli people.

I don't think it's in the interest of diaspora Jews. I think it is creating the conditions that do result in pogroms and genocides. Definitely. If I say all those things and I, you know, I'm not hot-headed, that kind of, counts and it potentially gets people's attention who are otherwise not going to pay attention to it. So I think that that will be perceived as very threatening to some people I don't trust at all. And who are they? Well, you know, whatever the forces are that just pushed us into a war, either strange timing or pushed us into a war outright, those people have interests of a scale. I can't even conceive of it. That's true. So what might they do to somebody who speaks out of turn? I don't know.

But it actually, I'm just going to say it. We don't have an FBI. We know that because things that need to be thoroughly investigated obviously aren't, whether that's the assassination attempt in Butler, whether it's the Zorro Ranch that never got searched that Epstein had, or the Charlie Kirk assassination. Yep. Now, all I know about the Charlie Kirk assassination,

is that I've been handed a story that doesn't add up. I don't know why it doesn't add up, but the fact that we didn't get to the bottom of it in some way that we got a compelling explanation to what happened worries me for the following reason. Now, I didn't know Charlie well. We were becoming friends and I feel confident that that would have continued and progressed rapidly, but I didn't know him all that well, but we were teamed up on a project to essentially compel the president of the danger of the MRNA shots. But that meant that I had contact with him and I knew something of what he thought. I know you knew him well. Even his public facing side was very clear about his concerns about an attack on Iran.

He was not only very clear about his concerns, but he was very knowledgeable about the hazards. He would have been a formidable voice at this moment. I don't know how we ended up in this conflict in Iran. It's a head scratcher to me. It seems, as I've said to you, like such a mind-blowing political error that is hard to imagine that President Trump would have made it. But if I try to rerun the tape of how we got here, and I imagine that not only did President Trump have you in his ear,

but he had Charlie in his ear, and you were both saying, hey, this doesn't make any sense, it's not a political win, it's terrible for the country, and here are a spectrum of downsides that could come from this that will have impacts for generations. I don't know what effect that would have had. But I do know, and I've been concerned about it and I've been vocal about it for a very long time, that we had a policy unfolding under our collective banner as Americans, where we were toppling regimes across the Middle East. And Iran has been on that list from the beginning.

We didn't get to Iran in the war on terror. Why? Why? Because the quagmire in Iraq caused an analog for what used to be called Vietnam Syndrome, right? Vietnam syndrome was the unwillingness of the American public to commit troops in foreign engagements after they were traumatized by the quagmire in Vietnam. George Bush Sr. famously proclaimed with glee that during the first Gulf War, which was a very easy war for us to win, that we had finally broken. Vietnam syndrome. I don't know if you remember that. Very well. So he said we had broken Vietnam syndrome and what that meant was we've got license to start

making war again. Okay, a very ominous chapter in American history. The war on terror resulted in ill-conceived adventures in the Middle East that ended badly. Iraq was so bad and so publicly so that the public again was traumatized by the idea of these engagements. And what that did is it put Iran on hold. The neocons didn't give it up, but it went on the back burner. I feel, and I cannot say for sure, but I feel that something was watching and it felt the

clock ticking and its opportunity to finally bring about this war, which I think Netanyahu said he's been dreaming of for 40 years. He did say that. So something wanted this war to happen and there was the perception that the opportunity the window was closing, so it had to be brought about quickly. Given how public Charlie was on this topic, I can't help but wonder. Now, obviously that will sound crazy to many people, that something would have even considered such a thing. But I will say that after Charlie was killed, Benjamin Netanyahu very quickly denied responsibility for it. I was shocked by this. It did not seem

natural. Now, I'm not saying that that means that anything in that quadrant was responsible for the murder. All I know is that we didn't get a decent investigation. But I did feel, and maybe, I hope you will tell me that I'm imagining this, I did feel that that denial by Netanyahu was effectively a Roar Shock test and maybe designed to be one, that I was supposed to feel, along armed by this and a normal person was supposed to think that is bat-shit crazy. He said they didn't do it. Obviously, they didn't do it. So anyway, I'm not telling you that I see the evidence that somebody did it, but what I am telling you is we've just found ourselves in a war that Charlie would have been opposed to.

We know that from his public and private statements and that he would have been a formidable force in opposition. So what am I to think? Why, at least we should have an investigation that tells us for sure that we know who committed the crime and that there wasn't something larger about it. But look, now I've said unforgivable things. It's done. I don't know why that's unforgivable.

I mean, this is an American citizen, someone you knew. And I don't, you're not accusing anyone of anything. And I do think leaving aside Charlie's murderer and, you know, the question of who did it, for a foreign leader to weigh in immediately and hog all the attention and make it all about himself and start issuing all these statements about how Charlie lived and died for Israel is totally unforgivable. I say this as his friend. I just think if someone did that to me after my death, I think my family would be outrage.

It's not about you. Right. B.B. So that was disgusting behavior from some of the track record of disgusting behavior. But at the very least, we could say that's just wrong. That's not how you behave in the wake of a young man's murder. and I'm never alleged to I don't even talk about this topic and I'm not going to now other than to say

I think everything you've said is entirely reasonable and it's not an insult to the living to want to know what happened to the dead. Yes, of course. And let's put it this way. If we had a healthy public discussion in which we could air crazy ideas, dismiss them because they don't stand up logically,

that would be fine. But we don't have that. And well, you've been on a lonely mission to convince the president not to engage in war in Iran and to get him to back out as quickly as possible declare victory and go home. It hasn't gone well. No, it's been an abject failure. What do you think Charlie would have been doing if he had lived?

I think he'd be doing the same. Of course, I, you know, if there's one topic I talked to him a lot about is this. And no, of course. And his motive was pure. I sincerely believe that. His only interest was in the United States. And he certainly wasn't opposed to Israel. He loved Israel.

He often said that. He didn't love Beebe. That's for sure. Sorry. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or doesn't know. But he did love Israel and both as a biblical concept and as a current reality, went there and liked it. but he was totally opposed to this work.

He said that many times. And, um, but it's, I, I do think, his murder and all that has happened subsequently, whether or not they're connected, I can't say, but they've had the cumulative effect of intimidating the hell out of everybody. No one wants to pipe up. And, um, I was already all in. I've been against a war in Iran for 10 years and doing in whatever in my limited power

to pursue. swayed decision makers not to do it because I don't think it's good for America. I'm not for Iran, okay? Like, stop. I just don't think it's good for the United States. And I said that many, many times. And this time I found that no one else wanted to say that in public because the cost seemed really high. And I'm not whining. I hope it don't come off of self-pitying, but that's just a fact. And so I don't know. I think we need to re-engineer this whole thing when it's over, hopefully soon, to see how it happened? Like, how was a country of 350 million people? hijacked by a determined minority of ideologues whose interest is not in that country.

Like, how did that happen? And I don't think it's a matter of like stoking conspiracy theories against the Jews or anything like that. In fact, I don't want that at all. In fact, one of the reasons I want full disclosure is so everyone can settle down and stop muttering darkly. I don't like dark mutterings at all. I like sunlight, to quote Justice Brandeis. And so I hope we can do that. And I hope that there's not more deception. and obfuscation and hiding of the facts because like that just makes people hate each other. Right.

That's it. I want to find out that my darkest concerns are wrong in an open enough public conversation that it becomes a parent of their right. Let's just get it over with. Like get it over with. Whatever it is. I mean, I went last week to an AA meeting.

I don't go to A. I don't drink, but I went with a really close friend of mine who does go a lot. And what if you've never been, I know you're not an alcoholic. You should play one for a weekend and go because the freedom that comes from admitting your deepest sins, your most profound weaknesses, the true liberation that comes from that is like, it's like nothing else. There's no liberation like that. And the freedom of that.

Yep, I did it. I did it. Well, that's it. We need, there's so much burden from what we can't discuss. Yes. And don't know that clearing the decks and getting it all in the open and, you know, some kind of reset would be a wise thing for us. Yes, this is like Christmas dinner at the Episcopalian House,

where it's just like a lot of silence and unspoken grudges and everyone's mad, but no one will say so. It's like, what? That's not healthy. I want to say one other thing about the, the unforgivable things that I've now said about Charlie Kirk and my concerns. I don't think it's logical to regard those. concerns as preposterous if you also regard the stakes in Iran as existential for Israel.

In other words, what will people do if they think their interests are all bound up in a policy that has to happen right now and that people are standing in the way and therefore putting them in jeopardy of elimination? them and their children and their children's children and their nation. I mean, put yourself in the position of other people. Try to see the world through their eyes just for a second and you can understand dynamics.

People risk their lives to rob liquor stores. Right. Right. And, you know, people will do anything to protect themselves and their children from a threat that they perceive. Of course. And my concern is that we are not allowed somehow as Americans, we have lost our right to challenge the policy on its merits.

You know, you speak logically about the likely outcome of war in Iran, and the response that comes back is about your morality, right? That's a non-sequitur. We are talking, we can talk about two different things. What are our moral obligations? And what is the logical context in which we are being asked to participate in this? those are both worthy conversations. But when you come back at me for my logical point about this military engagement with an accusation about my character, then something has gone awry.

That's not how we behave, right? We have a right to err our grievances. And, you know, the marketplace of ideas can sort out which ones are right. And frankly, there's only one metric that really matters in the end. That's predictive power. who is it who has deployed their model and said what they think is going to happen and has actually been insightful right in the end in science in politics that's the way you know who knows what's going on is somebody who says something that has some relationship to what actually occurs and

I think the opposite is also true people with a long track record of failure shouldn't be consulted as experts right if you've been married eight times I'm not going to marriage counseling with you. A hundred percent. If you have a record of failure, then we should ignore you. And it doesn't matter what degree you have or what office you hold, you're not a credible source. I guess I would also, I'm feeling a little defensive about this because. About the Charlie Kirk thing? Well, yeah, about all of it, really, about the fact that, you know, my character is in question by virtue of beliefs that I think I've arrived at honestly, but others will imagine something else. But I will also point out there's something. I'm obviously too much. I'm obviously too much. I'm obviously

too close to this. I should say we're the same age from the same part of the country. We grew up in the same world despite differences. Your family was Jewish and atheist. Mine was agnostic and Christian, but whatever. We grew up in the same world and so what you're saying to me is so self-evidently true and reasonable

and moderate and sensible and logical and impressive and like this is how we should think that I can't even conceive of how you could be attacked for saying anything you've said. And that's not flattery. I'm being sincere. I agree with every word you've said so. get it in a normal world it would be fine but we don't live in a normal world and in fact we live in a world in which you have been painted as a bigot in order that your opinion that what i just said

is normal doesn't register so that's what i'm concerned about but on the merits of it how could anything you just said i'm not even defending myself i'm defending you like how could that be construed as unreasonable, crazy, hateful? Like, I just don't see anyone who listened to the last hour could come away like, man, Brett Weinstein, that guy, nutcase, hater. Oh, well, if you think that's not coming back,

man, you're watching a different movie. Well, that's an indictment on the people who make those claims. It certainly should be in a fair fight. But let me also just point out, we're dealing with what appears to me, to be a holy war being waged by secularists, which is confusing. But there's an awful lot of symbolism, some of it utterly deliberate in the prosecution

of this war in the whole context, right? The symbolism is important. And there's another feature that doesn't have to do with Charlie that strikes me as in the same vein. The golden pager that was given to President Trump strikes me as another raw shock test, just like Bibi's statement after Charlie Kirk's murder. I mean, obviously, the pager operation is no joke. I understand the predicament that Israel is in, and I don't underrate the danger of being in the neighborhood that Israel is in the danger of the dynamics of the region being about lineage versus lineage violence and therefore I can have my you know high-minded

Western view of their predicament but I don't understand what it is like to live under threat from people who truly want to yeah his ball is you know determined to crush Israel it's fact so I get it and yep I'm you know I don't think I'm uh I think I'm an adult when it comes to understanding what one has to do to survive under such circumstances. On the other hand, what am I to make of the fact that you have these exploding pagers used to kill terrorists? Obviously, that's not the only people who were killed, but nonetheless, that was their purpose. And then one is delivered to Trump. You can read it into totally different ways, right? The normal way to read it is that this was maybe a tasteless celebration of a successful operation and yada, yada, yada.

On the other hand, it can obviously be read as a threat. And it's hard for me to imagine. I can imagine the meeting in which somebody says, hey, maybe we should send President Trump a golden pager after our successful operation. Somebody should immediately shoot that idea down and say, no, we can't do that because it could be read in another way, right? So anyway, as we are struggling to understand what is taking place in our country, why. I think it was received that way, too. You do? I do. Well, you're not making me feel better.

I mean, come on now. Come on. You know, yeah. What was that? I totally agree. I thought that at the time. And then to have Netanyahu, I broke my rule incidentally. I don't call him, Beebe, and I did earlier.

Sorry. Netanyahu then later delivers a speech in a totally separate context, of course, could mean nothing, where he's bragging that every cell phone of everybody in the room has Israeli technology in it. Whoa. that makes you think you know and mind you I'm not telling you that there's a threat there or technology to be carried out what I'm telling you is that feels like it is designed to divide us where some of us will hear that in one way and others will hear it in a different way and we would become ununderstandable to each other just let's just depoliticize it for a second and certainly deracialize it which you know that's like that's the that's the core sin is conflating global jury with the state of Israel or BB Nanyahu. It's like just insane. I will never accept that.

It's not true. Obviously, you're living proof. It's not true. But just take all of that away. Here you have a guy who brags about fighting a seven front war. I don't think it's ever happened in history. Is any country ever fought a seven front war, whatever that is? It's one of the most violent people in the world.

So any allusion to violence has to be taken seriously, including gifts of pagers. I don't know. It's like you need to experience the world on a literal level first before you start in terms. Like, what is that? Yeah. How about a basket of olives or some dates, which are some of the best in the world? Israel produces amazing dates, I can say, firsthand, and a lot of other things.

But why a pager? Yeah. Well, it reminds me of the, I don't know who said it first, but, you know, a gentleman is someone who is never rude by accident, right? This strikes me as messages. We are talking about sophisticated people who are sending ambiguous messages with a dark interpretation. And, you know, the more generous interpretation is that, okay, there's some leverage in people feeling uncertain and, you know, maybe that's what it was. But in a world where people are in their own minds fending off existential threats by, you know, shaping policy, I don't know that anything's off the table. We're talking about people who

day in and day out, whether we're talking about Netanyahu or the Mossad or the IDF, we're talking about people who think in terms of who needs to die for us to persist. And the only question is who's off the table for such considerations? That's what I want to know. Some of us should be. I'm an American, I don't know any allegiance to Benjamin and Netanyahu. He can think what he wants. He's perfectly free to say what he wants. But I have a right to speak my mind crazy or not as an American. That is actually my right. And I don't want to have to feel jeopardy overdoing it. And I do feel jeopardy because I think the world we live in is one where people are removed who cannot be silenced. I hope that when our generation dies, we're not the last generation to have the assumptions that you have, which are the most American of all assumptions.

And I hope that if you're attacked for doing this interview, you will not call me to defend you because that'll just make it worse. But I'm grateful you did it. Thank you. Brett, thank you very much. All right. Can I ask a favor before we go? Anything. Okay.

We did a discussion before this one for Dark Horse. I wouldn't ordinarily deliver a plug, but I actually think. I'm proud of that conversation. Yeah, I am too. And I think I'm hoping that even people, maybe especially people who disagree with us, will go listen to it with an open mind. I think it's a good quality conversation and you will at least get insight into how honest brokers arrive at a very different conclusion than maybe you have. I hope people inside of Israel will watch it. And anyway, I think it's also probably protective if you'll watch it and sign up for the channel.

It makes it It makes it harder to ignore. Amen. Thank you. I hope people will also. Thank you, Tucker. Good to see you. Good to see you.

Thanks for joining us tonight. We'll be back. Well, next Wednesday, live. See you then.