NWJ816- The Weekly Wolfson: The Dehumanization of Semites

subscribe button hit that bell for notifications. That way you can see when we're dropping new videos when I'm going live as well. This is a paywalld show, by the way, gets dropped a few days later. So if you do want to support the show, QR code top left end corner. And if you do want to keep track, every every week we usually check in and want to whatever piece Matt has written in the past week or so.

Israel and its cohorts essentially. You know, sometimes they may may try to give the impression that they're dialing back somewhere, but they're going to up it somewhere else, and sometimes that plays out when the world of journalism, that's what enables them to do such a thing. You've had a little bit of an inside view of this coming from some of the Zionist media networks. You were, you know, kind of a tailing around, so you have a little bit of an inside scoop here. So I'm looking forward

to going over all this with you. So, Matt, what kind of got your head of turning to cover this recently, because I mean that I do think it's a pretty oppression theme to touch on in these in these current days.

He was for a period of time chief foreign correspondent for the Middle East for ABC News. This was in the eighties and nineties when it was you know, actually you know, the big three networks were really the big three ABC, CBS and NBC. And so, you know, he's a veteran, and he he writes for the l occasionally. And I saw that he had this piece Beroot then and now, and I thought, well, this is going to be very interesting. It's a veteran talking about his experiences,

putting in a perspective. And Glass is in beir Root right now. He's not writing full time. He's teaching at the American University there. And I started reading this, and I kept reading this, and I kept reading this, and by the end I was just shocked because he didn't mention a single Lebanese. I mean, this is a veteran correspondent. This is somebody who shaped the news for a full decade of one of the major you know, American informational channels.

He before that was writing for Time. I mean, after that, he's written a number of really well regarded books. He has decent friends on sort of what used to be the right wing. I mean PJ. O'Rourke wrote an introduction to one of his books. I mean, you know, he he knows people, he's been an influential guy. And he didn't mention a single Lebanese by name. He talked a lot about, you know, drinking in Beirut. He talked a lot about the various correspondents he's known over the years.

He talked a lot about how the Lebanese, in various senses, the Christians and the Muslims engaged in savagery or else we're victims who were starving. But I mean, none of them except Barman at one of the hotels, made it into the piece by name, and that was pretty surprising to me. And on one hand, I mean this piece, he wasn't reporting on the war. He was reporting on his experiences for fifty years in Beru as a correspondent

and now someone who lives there. But what struck me so much about it it is at a kind of higher register he was articulating, and by that I mean more explicitly because he was writing casually. He was articulating a lot of the assumptions that I see when I read the New York Times, the New Yorker, and the Washington Post, you know, and listen to CNND to the extent I do, and those assumptions are very much that.

You know, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, you know, all of these places are essentially, though they don't use this word, hell holes where a bunch of different groups are fighting each other, you know, in a couple, you know, when the Israel is generally doing not very

smart things. But overall, no effort is made in these pieces to give what I take to be a clear read of the situation, which is that for forty years Israel has been primarily responsible and now with players like the UAE and the United States for destabilizing these places, and that a lot of the resistance that's sprung up, you know, has blahamas, you know, various groups in the Civil Wars and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan have done this in response. Now, you don't have

to agree with these groups. I mean, there are Quakers who are completely against Israel, who think violence is wrong in every circumstance. I have every respect for them, but you do need to be able to make a judgment, and most American readers aren't able to do that simply

because of the distortions and these pieces. And the distortion isn't just that they don't talk about, you know, the obvious and I think pretty much factually obvious bad actor here, which is Israel and Israel's networks in the West, and Israel's allies like the UAE. It's also that they make really no attempt to morally or factually distinguish between groups.

I mean, there's the Christian militias in Lebanon and the and the Schiai militias and Lebanon, and there's the Sunnis in Palestine, and then there's Amas and Fatah, and you know, they're all just there and it's this hell hole and it's savagery, and it's one group of savages against the other. And you know, to me, that's very troubling because it's not, for lack of a better wording, afterpeological, nobody in America is getting to hear the actual perspectives unmediated of these

different groups. On the ground. It just looks like a hell hole with no context and no actual testimonies in any real, non highly curated way that matches this basic view. Well, there's disorder, and it's terrible and their savagery, you know. And what it alides is the fact that the United States is behind a lot of this via Israel. And one of the reasons it allies it is that most of the networks that these people work for and have

for eighty years. I mean Glass started in the seventies, but I mean he was one of a succession of journalists who've done this kind of thing since at least the forties. One of the reasons they don't do this is because all of their bosses, all of their editors, all of the people their editors talk to in government and have dinner with, all of them are in some ways committed to American you know, a more beneficent version via you know, USAID or a more hardline version via bombing,

but either way, they're committed to American empire. And in the last forty years, a lot of those editors are Zionists, so they're very very A lot of those editors and politicians those editors talk to, and owners I mean not just Larry Ellison, a lot of people for a long time are Zionists, you know, and so there's a reason we're not getting the reality on the ground, because these correspondents are shaping, knowingly or not their reports in a

way that will be palatable to their editors and get published. You know. The other reason that I reading this piece and then sort of connecting it to what I was reading, really motivated me to write this piece is that I have some, you know, as you said, firsthand experience with this. You know, I lived for almost a decade in New

York before twenty twenty one. I lived there for eight years, and I worked with Jewish Zionists, but I also knew a lot of people sort of separately from that, just as someone who went to different events and met people, and you know, it was a writer in my own name for a period. You know, I knew a lot of journalists. I knew a lot of people who worked for the New Yorker and the Economists and the New

York Times, some of them fairly well. And you know, you talk about your time in the military sometimes and you know, watching certain people play to the higher ups and choosing not to do that, And in a way I had a similar experience by the end of my time in New York, I realized that the sacrifices these people were making about being truthful or in my view, truthful about what was going on were far too great

for me to want to follow their lead. I mean, many of the people I knew were slightly older or older than me, liked me, a lot would to help me, and you know, to their credit in some cases we're trying to but the limits they put on themselves to appeal to the people who were in power, the editors, the owners of these publications, the funders were just not

constraints I was willing to live under. And so when I was connecting all of this, I was also thinking of individual people and thinking of examples from my own life that i'd sort of seen then and that it made more sense to me after that. A lot of people who I initially thought were truly objective journalists were

not objective journalists. They were shaping stories in a way that would maximally help their careers, which again is dependent on the editors, the funders of the magazines and newspapers, and the sources and government that those people talk to and have dinner with. So this was sort of a fun piece for me, and that it was kind of personal to sort of delve into a lot of the distortions were seeing every day right now.

you know, essentially deferring to the status glow. We call it balance, but really all that means is it's somewhere smack dab in the middle of the overton window, and you know the window has usually been shifted one way or the other. So if if you don't mind, I just kind of like to get your thoughts on where

that kind of originated from. That that this sentimentality, this deferring with this almost faux faue appeal to objectivity, as if this is like if you're one saying things along the lines of, like, I don't know, maybe.

think this? Uh, this this came from? I mean, is this just a kind of a moving of the guard into certain areas and media or is this a I mean, there might even be a larger, larger, you know, discussion to be had because this kind of is a not specifically the Zionist thing, but this a general establishment deferment is just kind of common in a lot of a lot of places, especially jobs that are infiltrated by the establishment to some degree or an other.

they use as sources. You know, they are owned by the same people who know and depend on all of the people in Washington, d c. And this has been the case since you know, nineteen forty five, at least actually the late thirties, and I mean a lot of journalists as Washington became more central and World War two and the Cold War moved to Washington. They you know, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and they came from the la times.

They came from different places. I mean, the Chicago Tribune at the time was very isolationist, but all of their writers and editors were very deferential to the CIA, to Alan and John Foster Dolls, the Secretary of State, to Eisenhower, to Kennedy, not reporting everything that they knew about stuff like the Bay of Pigs, not supporting everything they knew

about our involvements abroad in different ways. And they were doing this because, you know, they'd have off the record conversations with people, and those people would say, well, we're telling you this, but if you tell this to the public, you will hurt our national security and give the communists more grist, etc. And so and then more and more.

They were doing this because the people who own them, you know, were originally sort of wasps who were well connected, you know, Northeastern Protestants who were well connected, and then Zionists who are well connected, you know, And so if they would have reported on anything, and some of them tried, you know, they would be fired or backbenched or or you know, their stories would be relegated to the back pages. They wouldn't have you know, advancement. I mean, during the

Iraq war. Somebody who's who was in the lead up, somebody who's writing very critical pieces for the New York Times, which is owned by the Salzburgers, who were formerly non Zionist and now are much more Zionist. But somebody who was writing very critical pieces. He was essentially backbenched. I mean all of his pieces saying you know, they might not have WMD were put on the back pages. And he later said, and I thought this was a stunning comment.

It's like any corporate culture. You know, what you're expected to write and not to write. They don't even need to have to tell you. And I was writing what they didn't want me to write. And that's been the case for a long time. And what they don't want you to write is anything that goes against what's essentially

a colonialist angle on things. And by colonialist angle, I mean since the British Empire in the eighteenth century, you know, and their major newspapers were calling Americans who wanted to revolt. I mean they would say, where some of the earth were lower than low, we're not the same breed as the Englishman. Anybody who opposes what the empire wants, what concentrated capital and administration in the military once is deemed by the press and by politicians some version of savages.

I mean, whether they're the people storming the capital, some of them on January sixth, which I reported on a year ago, and a lot of the language that they use about the major establishment newspapers use about those people is similar in type to what they use about people in Lebanon, you know, and in Palestine. There's this notion of well, either their savagery is completely First of all,

they're savage, they're out of control, and they're irrational. And even if they're not irrational, and they have some right to be angry because of what they've done, they're so angry that if we let them do anything, they will kill us because their anger has turned them into barbarians. Well, I mean, if you look at the stuff we're doing, or rather Israel is doing. I mean, I won't give examples because I think your readers are well aware and they can your listeners and they can read any of

my things, but on it. But they're doing they are doing barbarism at the hands of modern technology that outstrips, in my view, anything we're so. On the other end, I mean, so that's first of all. But secondly, if all you're doing is saying, oh, these other people are savages, then you're not actually explaining what's going on. I mean,

I don't think. I mean there may be listeners or viewers or readers who disagree with my read of hesblon Hamas, which is essentially that they're defending I mean, you can agree or disagree with them, but they're defending sovereignty. I mean, they're defending the sovereignty of Lebanon and Palestine because they're leaders, the alternative leaders of the Lebanese government. You know, the Palestinian authority has been bought off by Israel and Washington

operators in many cases very obviously so. And a lot of honest journalists, I mean leilahtomb who used to work for Newsweek in dow Jones and now is in Lebanon. She's Lebanese. Know they'll talk about this very very clearly, and they'll give you the facts. But you don't have to agree with what Hesblone Commas are doing. And some Lebanese, you know, have mixed feelings. But what most Lebanese do think that I read and I think many Lebanese think

this is that they're in Palestinians. Is that whether you agree with specific actions or not, these people are filling a vacuum where nobody is actually standing up for the Lebanese people. Because in the Palestinian people, because of what Israel is doing and what Washington is doing, and whether or not you agree with what they're doing, Americans need to have that perspective in front of us to make

an honest assessment. I mean, if somebody says, at the end of all this, oh, these are terrorists, gum, I'm going to disagree with them, but at least they saw the full story. We're not getting the full story, you know. And it's because these networks are committed to the basic view of empire, which, as you say, I mean the extreme people you know on the freepest press or CBS. Now,

these are savage terrorists. The moderate people in the New York Times, in the New Yorker, well, hurt people, hurt people. In the great phrase, they do savage things because they were acted savagely upon. But in the end they are savages, you know, when in reality, I mean, whatever you think of Yah Sineoar or Nazraala, the former heads before they were killed by Israel of Hamas and Hesbla. They were very rational. I mean, the things they were doing were rational.

Most Palestinians, I mean David Remnick, the Jewish Zionist editor of The New Yorker, who I talk about in the piece he went to interview Palestinians, and the Palestinians he talked to in Washington d C I mean former Palestinian authority advisors. You know, the Palatine authority was heavily you know, connected to Israel. They all said what Remnick thought, which you know, Yaha Sinwaar is a Barbarian, He's a savage. He exposed his people to these bombings. He should never

have done this. He doesn't care about them. Why would you attack Israel? Noah was knowing what was coming. But even Remnick was forced to admit in the peace and then he sort of offset it by saying, basically, while these people are really angry, so you don't have to listen to what they say. But even Remnick admitted in the piece, most Palestinians I talked to, whether they like cinemoare or not, thought that the October seventh attacks put the Palestinian cause back on the table and that they

were worth it. Now, that's the kind of perspective Americans aren't hearing what we're hearing from our government, whether it's you know, the Democrats or the Republicans, whether it's Chuck Schumer and Alyssa Slopkin or Pete Hegzeth and Donald Trump. You're hearing terrorists, terrorists, barbarian, lack of tolerance, savage religious fundamentalist, you know. And that is a failure of establishment media. And it's a failure of establishment media that's been going

on for eighty years. I mean, I'm writing this last thing I'll say, but I'm writing another piece right now about the use of terrorism and the misuse of the word. And I draw heavily on what we did in El Salvador in the nineteen eighties and the logic there was we supported a right wing government to combat communism, and you know, in nineteen eighty five, and whether or not there was actually communism there and how much it was there and how much of it was left wing is

per usual a highly debated point. I mean, most people on the ground don't think there was. The threat was what we thought it was, and that even if it was we should have acted on it. But that was the logic from Washington. A bunch of people were there, are a bunch of American advisors, We trained their military, We backed the right wing government. That right wing government to keep control was killing up to eight thousand Salvadorans

per year. I mean, one massacre of seven hundred and eighty seven people in a small village in nineteen eighty one, killed a majority women and children. The children, the majority were under the age of thirteen. But all you heard in America in any serious way from Washington was, oh, these Marxist groups killed five people, including Americans. Well, yeah, and that's a terrible thing. But why did they do that?

What's the context? And then what you got from publications like the New York Times that was reporting on this was well, it's a terrible thing. Hurt people, hurt people.

about it. Apparently in a recent article of THEIRS, they mentioned modern terrorism, which I'm assuming there's some sort of qualifier to the modern there or something to make this make sense that they're saying this literally started with the Palestinians in the nineteen seventies, with some sort of alliance with the Western Marxists, where I think me and you both know pretty goddamn well that if you really wanted to pick a substantive point to begin, I know, the

early versions of modern terrorism, you'd probably pick the Zionists in.

bring his own, you know a little bit more. I guess you could say nuanced or I'd say maybe even ironically actually the objective take at some points with how Hamas seats itself over there. But anyways, just if you could, I guess, fill in a little bit of blanks. Let us know, out Ismail Ibrahim, any other thoughts you have on all this that I may have sparked up?

while they're sitting in the bathroom, you know. And that's I think a little bit of the stretch. But I think most people who read The New Yorker, many people are often sort of moderately brual Clinton Obama voters, kind of people who work at a major law firm as an associate or something. I mean that's kind of their client. Tele urban makes a good income, thinks of yourself as sophisticated,

or wants to by reading this thing. And if he likes to think of oneself as broad minded, you know, And if you're reading this and you're one of these people, well they did have a reason for doing this, these Palestinians. That makes sense, but in the end it was terrorism, and terrorism started with them. So you can delude yourself

based on the article that you're being broad minded. You're seeing both sides when in actuality, terrorism is being reconfigured, as you say, to have begun in the seventies, and it's being reconfigured at a magazine that it's edited by a liberal Jewish scientist, David Remnick. You know that's owned by the new House family of Conde Nast, which is Zionist.

You know that has many many Jewish Zionists on their staff and his writers, and so there is very much of a kind of ethos over there where you can criticize Israel, but the critique should come from a Jewish person, from a person who doesn't sympathize with Hamas, from a Muslim person who's talking about how peace is good and violence on all sides are bad. And look, that's a

view you can take. It's a very liberal view. But they don't even put in representatives or comments from the other group, which is the majority of Palistinians who think that a mass was justified. And when Ismael Ibrahim, who was the one Arab on staff, he's Egyptian, tried to he was a fact checker, he would try to put in suggestions like, well, don't call them mos terrorists, call

them militants, because most Palestinians see them as militants. Well, when you talk about Israel's independence in nineteen forty eight, please add that most Palestinians see this through the lens of dispossession and genocide. Remnic wouldn't do that. And if you look in establishment media, Remnic, who is one of the most powerful editors in America, is seen by everyone. Oh, he's a liberal guy, he's a kind guy. Well, sure, but he's not. His very act of seeming tolerant of

abhorring violence on all sides isn't factual. It's not taking into account the points of views of a lot of the people he's writing about, and it's obscuring those points of views from the public. And it's obscuring logical causes and effects, which is that what the Palestinians have done, what Hamas has done, is a direct response to what

Israel has done, particularly since nineteen ninety three. I mean, the Oslo Accords turned into an excuse for Israel, for liberal Zionists Ehud Barack, Shimon Perez to quietly, you know, buy trifurgate the Palestinian territories, you know, to tighten their grip on Palestinians, to buy off the Palestinian authority. I mean a lot of people have written about this. Raschi Khaldi has written about this. Norman Finkelstein has written about this.

You will not see it in the New Yorker. You will not see it in the New York Times, and in those rare places, you know, slightly more intellectual publications like the New York Review of Books. When you do see it, even a hint of it, it comes from Jewish writers. So Palestinians and Arabs and Muslim voices are essentially being deplatformed, and nobody's talking about it.

I mean, it's a it's funny. Pallanteer recently put out a thing wanting you know, advocating for you know, you know, civil or everyone doing some sort of military service short period of time. Well that is the case in Israel. If you live in Israel, that is something you have to do. You have to I don't know exactly how long. I think it's like a couple of years or something. You have to do a military service. And even then I think you're like in the reserves after that or something.

So it's kind of a war nation. So you got to count and take that into account, like obviously any you know, children, any any non combatants.

I mean. And even on top of that, what I mean, you may know the figure better off top of your head than I do, but it's an insane amount of these people are dual citizens, and they they're not even like they don't. They don't even like from it. So to some extent, it's also like you chose to be in this area. You you're also to some degree there's

a limited amount of a buying and understanding. A lot of these people come in through these programs knowing they're going to be taking a Palestinian's you know, house or land or something like that. So it's kind of murky even to some degree on the moral side of things. So I'm just saying it's not say I was just gonna say, it's not quite as simple as everyone wants to make it out to be. It's funny, I uh Hassan Piker has been getting some crap recently.

move like this. Now you can say, you know, well, twelve hundred Israelis died and now seventy thousand Palestinians died, and this is at Sinewar speed. I mean you can say that, but he isn't. It wasn't in a rational move. This was a strategic move that he made for specific reasons. So that's number one. Number two, if you look at the numbers killed, I mean twelve hundred Israelis were killed in this attack. At least this is a conservative estimate.

Seventy thousand Palestinians have been killed, sixty to seventy to eighty percent women and children. So make whatever moral calculus you want to, but do it with all the facts. And what we're seeing is that you're not being given all of the facts. Nobody in the West is given is being given all of the facts. And if if like Hassan Piker or you know different, you know, candidates this cycle who are Muslim, you know, are taking a different line, they are sure to be attacked from places

like the New Yorker or places like the Atlantic. You know whose editor is a Jewish scientist who has an IDF guard during the Second Intivada, you know, Jeffrey Goldberg. I mean they are being attacked as unrealistic, you know, blaming the victims, et cetera, et cetera. I mean I read the New York Times most days, which is to say, I skim it the number the amount of coverage that has been given to Jewish feelings, Jewish suffering, Jewish et cetera.

Because of October seventh, Whether a book by a hostage, a mother of one of the hostages, that's excerpt in the Wall Street Journal and then reviewed in the New York Times, or a piece in New York Magazine about how will Jews write after Gaza? How will this affect Jewish writers or Jews are living in fear in America?

I mean, it's constant. And the problem with that is, you know, by all means show different people's perspectives, Palestinians perspectives, Muslims, Americans perspectives Muslim writers are not being shown, and so

you're getting and that's not a coincidence. I mean, the power networks, these these they are owned by people who either do business with Israel, are in fact Jewish Scionists, are sympathetic to Israel, and so they're silencing one part of these of this factual framework, of this factual makeup by only or by disproportionally featuring Israel Jewish people and writers, and even when they write about the Palestinians. I mean, the London Review of Books did what I think was

a very I mean, actually I didn't read it. People I trust think it's a good book. The piece on the devastation in Gaza. He's Jewish. I mean, is that the only person you could find right, Like, I don't think that you need to. I mean I'm not I'm not somebody who thinks that, Oh, the only person who can write about a situation is somebody who's experiencing it. I mean that's a denial of the notion of I don't want to say truth, but it's a denial of the notion that truth is accessible to more than one

group of people. I mean that becomes you know, only one person as control of the narrative. But that's not the situation we're in. We're in the opposite situation where the only people in control of the narrative are people with ties to Israel or to a Jewish community. The majority of who's the lead and upper middle class are deeply for Israel. So, I mean, this is just a completely unbalanced situation that denies Americans the information they need to make their own judgment.

up in this greater Israel project. But I think it's particularly in particularly interesting, as we've kind of mentioned, you know, more honing in on a moss but generally speaking as well, but the dehumanization of these groups, you know, Hezebela, particularly Hesbela, gets you know, constantly framed as a terrorist group. And

i'd be interested in your thoughts. I mean maybe if you you think that's an apt apt description of it, but I mean it's my understanding that Hesbelah, I don't remember it was from the forty from the Nakba, the late forties, or it was the mid sixties. I think it was the mid sixties if I recall correctly, but I believe Hesbla was formed, you know, you know, just much like a moss as literally a response to to uh, you know, Israeli hostility is all the same, and you

know it's it's funny. I mean, with is Iran war, one common thing that gets pointed to as a reasoning for why we're in it is the nineteen eighty three attack that gets associated with them as a kind of this most common uh, you know, notch on the belt when it comes to propaganda for why we need to be at war with Iran because Hesbela did something or something.

with Iran because Iran somehow controls Hesbela. And while I wish none of those marines were killed in the bear in those barracks, I mean it's it's kind of you know, kind of you know, as we were talking about with October seven stuff, this one's obviously way more clear and obvious. I mean, these are combatants and you are engaged in you you were in a foreign territory that you really have no business being. I mean, I don't really remember

enough about that that that that whole ordeal. But that's my understanding of it. But I also I just find it interesting that the way about which Hesbela has gone about being created and how it's been kind of perceived. I mean, it's my understanding HESBLO is actually pretty damn ubiquitous in Lebanon to where it's almost more, even even more than just like a simple militia. I mean, that's

my understanding. If they're essentially the way I typically kind of look at it is basically Lebanon's military, although I think they kind of have their own if but so but has blood, it has its own military.

she's a practicing journalist. She's incredible at what she does. Highly factual. I've never heard somebody who can who.

actual work on this. The Lebanese state, much as the Palestinian authority was, has been systematically bought off by Israel for the last forty years.

the wool over the eyes of the Lebanese. They talk about Lebanese parent you know, well, the Lebanese aren't paranoid. They don't have the bull pulled over their eyes. There's nobody offering a defense of their own. There's no sovereignty, you know, and so obviously they see HEZBLA is a very viable alternative, you know. And that's the kind of thing that you don't see. I mean, not to mention

the nineteen eighty three bombing. I mean, if you read James Bouvart's piece, which is linked in my piece in the Libertarian Institute, I'm so glad you brought that up, because you know, it's pretty clear if you read the facts, and he uses people like Colon Powell, for Christ's sakes, you know, and and Casper Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense, it's pretty clear that the Reagan administration put Marines in harm's way by shelling Muslims relentlessly, and then Muslims responded

by attacking the troops, and people knew this could happen. The fault here, I mean, the fault here was the Reagan administrations in Israel. The people behind the deaths of American soldiers that caused it in terms of by putting them in this position was Israel by invading Lebanon in eighty two and the United States by backing them up. And so that's the story that beat Hegxeth isn't saying. That's the story that largely the New York Times isn't saying.

Or else, Well, these people have done bad things, but also these people and violence is always wrong. Blah blah blah blah blah. You know or you know, Oh, state sponsored violence is okay. But violence by a group like HEZBLA outside of the state, well okay. But what happens when the state, like Lebanon and like the Palestinian authority, has sacrificed all of its legitimacy by selling out? I mean, if the state is no longer protecting the people but

still calling itself the state. I mean, you get into a situation like the American colonists with the British. Did we owe loyalty to the British when they were impounding our goods and attacking us? I mean, you don't have to take that point of view, by the way, but

you do at least have to understand. I mean, what I'll cite here is a guy I really like that I'm using for the piece I'm currently writing on terrorism, a guy named Richard English who wrote a great book or a well regarded book about the IRA in Ireland, and English himself condemns the IRA's violence. He thinks none of it is justified. Other people disagree with him, but English's big point is, no matter what you think, there

is an explicable dynamic. There are reasons people did this, and there are reasons people supported them, and it wasn't irrational, and it can lead to laying fault with people like the British State that we wouldn't think of it as at fault. But looking at these explicable dynamics is the

only only way to explain what's going on. And again that's where the media is falling so short, the establishment media, you know, because they won't give those facts that could lead people to have an explicable dynamic for this, no matter what their opinions might be.

happen in a vacuum. These are people who are being treated nicely by Israelis and this magical hypothetical, and we even furthermore buy into the Iran connection that somehow they perfectly orchestrate hesbelah and therefore they are you know, direct proxies. Except all of these things we're still looking at, you know, something like over seventy thousand people dead in Gaza since

October seventh, multiple cease fires. I believe we were over eight hundred people that have been killed after the current iteration of this ceasefire. In Lebanon, I think we're on the second cease fires since October seventh.

the current iteration the ceasefire. Also, it adds to the ludicrous nature at all that one of the person that was working but you know, arranging the you know, essentially the third party representing the United States. The ambassador over there was Tom Barrock, which is actually one of Epstein's homies. He was frequently featured. I believe he was in the

birthday book. He was in multiple Epstein files. There was one where he was asking h I can't remember was Epstein asking him or him asking Epstein asking him, I believe, for a picture of a kid. You know, obviously it doesn't give us any specifics, but I mean there's loads

of connections there. So we have Epstein's buddy setting this all up and you know, supposed to be the third party, despite them never and even then and throughout all of this, it's always framed both you know, it's Israel that the other party hamas Lebanon, and they're the ones that you know, are being unreasonable they're not working with us. Meanwhile, every single time they create some sort of convoluted multi phase plan, and they never get past the first phase.

irrational actor in all of this is the Israelites. And I think there really is something too the dehumanization of both sides occurring here. I mean, this creates an improper incentive structure for the Israeli Israelites, and unfortunately, I think they themselves are losing their humanity just as they are trying to create the perception that these people lack humanity.

So I don't know if any thoughts and all of that, I just felt like that kind of brings it full circle, laying out the ludicrous nature of it all, and that's what out even going into the history of all of it, that's just starting October seventh with the painting with the most positive brushes you possibly could to Israel. So I mean, it's it's just an absolute absurd situation we find ourselves in.

neutral view of what's going on. I would urge everybody to look at the language that has been used about January six ers, about Trump voters, about American blacks, you know, about rural whites, about small government, you know, people who gather in groups that are then called militias. Because the same dehumanizing language that's being used about the Lebanese and the Palestinians have been used about these other groups, often

in very recent years. I Mean, one of the things I find mind boggling is that the same conservatives who were called savages by the New York Times and Watch and the New Yorker are now willing to call to believe the New York Times, the New York and Trump, the Lebanese and Palestinians are savages, right. I mean, it's you don't have to. I mean, I think that Hamas and Hezbla were are explicable. I mean, there's an explicable dynamic to why they exist. They are filling a need.

But even if you have a different view, I think that your suspicion should be raised that everybody the government doesn't like at one point or another, everybody are a sprawling imperial apple status of administration and corporations and universities and media doesn't like. They're called terrorists. I mean, they're called savages. I mean the language. I'm finishing a piece on this, so I'm kind of passionate about it. The language is the same. I mean in the nineties and

the two thousands and the twenty tens. I mean, if you look at the way they talked about the people at Waco and the people they talked about blacks in the inner cities, and how they talked about Trump supporters. It's just the way they're talking about Lebanese and Palestinian

resistors today. So whatever you think of that, I really urge people to take a close look at the fact that all of the language in every situation is the same and maybe ask why, you know, can we really trust people who are putting the same language to every situation and reducing specific causes and effects to the this broadbrush narrative of savage versus civilized? You know, I don't think we can. Whatever your view is on the situation, I don't think we can trust the people telling us

about the situation. And what I think that means is we need to look for information elsewhere. I mean, I love I I of course write for them, but you can learn more accurate information that's balanced looking at alme Dean and the Libertarian Institute that you can from the New York Times, the New York or Fox News or CNN. You know, So I would, you know, I would really urge people to keep that in mind.

at Oppo Underscore Underscore Research on Twitter. And one benefit of following me on Twitter is you you can't look at some of the people I repost, and some of them are really extraordinary journalists in the Middle East who are who are giving information that is not in our mainstream or even some of our non mainstream media. So thank you.

We also got a qrco in the top left hand corner if you'd rather use that brings you to the same exact.

Also at Brigade D's at zo your Ck at Underscore in zeal tim Title at Jolly Cleebow Big Famous Show Tour May at Wayne Tech is Wonner Goverkius No Free Launch, Jack Mark Vestpul and Jacob Windergrad the Biblican Arante podcast. With that, guys, well we'll see you on the next one. Pop in for this next one. Probably it'll be on a Wednesday, as these usually are, to keep with the proper alliteration, uh and uh. If you're not a patron, we'll probably drop.